^{page 421 note 1} Henceforth and without prejudice ‘John’ is used both of the evangelist and his Gospel.

^{page 421 note 2} See 3. 22; 5. 1, 14; 6. 1; 7. 1; 13. 7; 19. 38; 21. 1, in all eight times. The slightly more specific μετά τοûτο to is used four times in 2. 12; 11. 7, 11; 19. 28.

^{page 421 note 3} The dialogical pattern can be seen in the quotation formulae.

1 In the feeding story (6. 1–15) there is dialogue between Jesus and his disciples. Three sayings of Jesus to the disciples are introduced (6. 5, 10, 12) and two sayings of the disciples to Jesus (6. 7, 8). Those (οί ἃνθρωποι) who saw the sign also make a confession about Jesus.

2 In the narrative of the sea-crossing (6. 16–21) only one saying of Jesus is introduced though the story is told from the perspective of the disciples.

3 In the dialogues between Jesus and the crowd (6. 22–35) there are four sayings of the crowd to Jesus (6. 25, 28, 30, 34) and four responses of Jesus to the crowd (6. 26, 29, 32, 35). This makes clear the initiative of the crowd and the responsive nature of Jesus' sayings.

4 Neither the Jews (6. 41–59) nor the mass of disciples (6. 60–66) speak to Jesus though Jesus does react in two stages (6. 43, 53 and 6. 61, 65) to what he knows they are saying about him.

5 In the dialogue between Jesus and the twelve two sayings of Jesus are introduced (6. 67, 70) and one by Peter speaking for the twelve (6. 68). That neither the Jews nor the mass of disciples speak to Jesus and the character of ultimatum in the pronouncements of Jesus to them bring out the lack of genuine dialogue between Jesus and these groups.

^{page 422 note 1} This proposal has the general support of Brown, R. E. in his commentary as well as being outlined in a number of my articles in NTS 27 (1981) 525–43Google Scholar; NTS 30 (1984) 460–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; JSNT 28 (1986) 31–46.Google Scholar

^{page 423 note 1} See Barrett, C. K, The Gospel According to St. John (London: SPCK, 1978) 43Google Scholar for ‘a list, which is certainly not complete, of corresponding passages which occur in the same order in both Mark and John’. Barrett notes in particular that the sequence of the feeding and the walking on the lake ‘is not readily explicable except on the hypothesis of literary relationships’. One may ask, however, whether the dependence is direct or indirect, because Mark could have taken over the sequence from his tradition.

^{page 423 note 2} See Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John 1 (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966) 238.Google Scholar

Multiplication for 5000

John 6. 1–15

Mark 6.30–44

Walking on the Sea

6. 16–24

6.45–54

Request for a sign

6.25–34

8. 11–13

Remarks on bread

6. 35–59

8.14–21

Faith of Peter

6. 60–69

8.27–30

Passion theme: betrayal

6. 70–71

8.31–33

^{page 423 note 3} Thus Barrett, C. K, St. John, 45.Google Scholar ‘Anyone who after an interval of nineteen centuries feels himself in a position to distinguish nicely betwen “Mark” and “something much like Mark” is at liberty to do so.’

^{page 423 note 4} John 6. 9 (Matt 14. 17; Mark 6. 38; Luke 9. 13) though exactly as Matt πέντε ἃρτους. While the Synoptics use ίχθύες John uses òψάρια which is probably due to Johannine editing, see John 21. 13. Though chapter 21 is an appendix it probably adds Johannine tradition from the Johannine school. John 6. 13 (Matt 14. 20; Mark 6. 43; Luke 9. 17) though exactly as Matt, δώδεκα κοϕίνους. John 6. 30 σημεîον and Matt 16. 1; Mark 8. 11; Luke 11. 16.

^{page 423 note 5} John 6. 5 though John has θεασάμενος ὂτι πολἔς ὂχλος while Matt 14. 14 and Mark 6. 34 have εδεν πολỦν χλον. John 6. 5 (Matt 15. 33; Mark 8. 4, second feeding) πόθεν. John 6. 5 άγοράσωμεν and Matt 14. 15; Mk 6. 36 άγοράσωσιν. John 6. 10 χόρτος Matt 14. 18 (χορτοû) Mk 6. 39 (χόρτῷ). John 6. 10 άνεπεσɛîν as in Mark 6. 40 but see second feeding Matt 15. 35 and Mark 8. 6. John 6. 10 ἅνδρες πεντακισχίλιοι as in Matt 14. 21; Mark 6. 44. John 6. 11 εύχαριστήσας and the second feeding Matt 15. 36; Mark 8. 6 but εύλόγησεν is used by Matt 14. 19; Mark 6. 41; Luke 9. 16 in the first feeding. John 6. 15 είς τò ὂρος Matt 14. 23; Mark 6. 46. While John adds αύτòς μόνος Matthew has κατ' ίδίαν and both Matt and Mk add προσεύξασθαı. John 6. 17 μβάντες είς πλοîον … πέραν. Compare Matt 14. 22; Mark 6. 45. John 6. 19 θɛωροσιν τòν Ίησον περιπατοντα έπû τς θαλάσσης and see Matt 14. 26//Mark 6. 49. John 6. 20 έγώ είμιὠ μ ϕοβεἱσθε and see Matt 14. 27//Mk 6. 50 both of which add θαρσεîτε. Mark like John introduces the saying λέγει αύτοἱς. John 6. 21 είς τòν πλοûον as Matt 14. 32//Mk 6. 51. John 6. 24 ένέβησαν see Matt 14. 22 and Mk 6.45.

^{page 424 note 1} John 6. 1 άπλθεν and Mark 6. 32 άπλθον and see John 6. 27. John 6. 2 πολύς and Mark 6. 33 πολλοί John 6. 5 and Mark 6. 36 ϕάγωςιν. John 6. 7 δίακοσίων δηναρίων ἃρτοι and Mark 6. 37 δηναρίων διακοσίων ἃρτους. John 6. 10 and Mark 6. 40 άνέπεσαν and see Mark 8. 6 and Matt 15. 35. John 6. 20 and Mark 6. 50 λέγει αύτοîς.

^{page 424 note 2} John 6. 10 οί ἃνδρες τòν άριθμòν ώς πεντακισχίλιοι and Matt 14. 21 ἃνδρες ώσεἱ πεντακισχίλιοι. John 6. 13 and Matt 14. 20 δώδεκα κοϕίνους. John 6. 19 and Matt 14. 24 σταδίους. John 6. 19 έϕοβήθησαν and Matt τοû ϕοβοû, and later of Peter, ϕοβήθη, Matt 14. 30. John 6. 68 and Matt 16. 16 Σίμων Πέτρος. See also the references to John 6. 9, 13 in note 4, p. 423 above.

^{page 424 note 3} See John 6. 2 (ήκολούθει δ αύτû χλος πολύς) and compare Matt 14. 13; Luke 9. 11 which introduce the theme of the crowds following Jesus οί[δ] ὂχλοι ήκολούθησαν αύτ whereas Mark mentions πολλοί and does not refer to following, though this might be implied. It could be argued that John's ὂχλος πολύς is a combination of Mark's πολλοί and Matthew's and Luke's ὂχλοι. Alternatively it might derive from a variant tradition. See also John 6. 69 ό ὂγιος τοû θεοἱ and Matt 16. 16 ο χριστòς ό υίòς τοû θεοû and Luke 9. 20 τòν χριστòν τοû θεοû and Mark 8. 29 has simply ό χριστός.

^{page 424 note 4} John 6. 1. Neither John nor Luke mentions a boat at this point. While Luke does not recount the return sea-crossing John does and has to introduce the boat at that point, suggesting that the two stories were once separate but had become joined in the tradition used by John yet without introducing the first sea-crossing as do Mark and Matthew. John 6. 5 έπάρας οỦν τοỦς όϕθαλμοỦς is a Lukanism, see Luke 6. 20; 16. 23; 18. 13. This however might be a sign of Johannine editing rather than Lukan dependence, see John 4. 35; 17. 1. John 6. 42 ούχ οỦτός έστιν ΊησοỦς ό υίòς Ίωσήϕ …; and Luke 4. 22 ούχι υίός έστιΊωσỦϕ οỦτος;

^{page 424 note 5} This judgement need not be based on the two document hypothesis though that is the assumption of this paper.

^{page 425 note 1} Touches of the evangelist's hand are to be noted in the telling of the story itself: the time reference (μετά ταûτα); the note indicating that the Passover is the feast of the Jews; the dialogues with Philip and Andrew; the direct commands by Jesus and his distribution of the food. The account of the sea-crossing also has some differences from the Synoptics for which the evangelist might be responsible; the account is more compressed and instead of the stilling of the storm there is a miraculous arrival at the destination.

^{page 425 note 2} That Jesus should flee to a desert place at the execution of John the Baptist (see Mark 6. 14–29 and parallel) is reasonable enough. This does not explain why the crowd followed him.

^{page 425 note 3} Dodd, C. H., in his Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar argued, in case after case, that the traditions he had isolated were not derived from Matthew, Mark and Luke though they were Synoptic-like.

^{page 426 note 1} Smith, D. M., ‘Johannine Christianity’, NTS 21/2 (1975) 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 426 note 2} This is complicated by verses 22–24, which are not part of the tradition used by John and probably contain an interpolation. See Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St John 2 (New York: Seabury, 1980) 33.Google Scholar

^{page 426 note 3} This use of τά σημεîα ἃ έποίει πἱ τν άσθενούντων has the specialized sense of ‘miracles of healing’ which appears to be derived from the source. Fortna, R. T., ‘Source and Redaction in the Fourth Gospel's portrayal of Jesus' Signs’, JBL 89 (1970) 160Google Scholar, has argued that the source did not speak of ‘seeing’ signs. Such reference, he thinks, was introduced by the evangelist. It is uncertain whether the correct reading in 6. 2 is έώρων or θεώρουν. It is argued that the latter is an assimilation to 2. 23. If that is the case έθεώρουν is used in 2. 23; έώρων is used in 6. 2; and ίδόντες in 6. 14. According to Ed Freed, this variation of vocabulary is characteristic of the evangelist and not the tradition, see ‘Fortna's Signs-source in John’, JBL 94 (1975) 563–79.Google Scholar If that is correct the source may have indicated that the crowd followed Jesus ‘because of the signs he performed on the sick’.

^{page 427 note 1} See Josephus, , AJ 20, 168Google Scholar, 188, and especially BJ ii 259; vi.285.

^{page 427 note 2} The Jewish Sign Prophets', NTS 27/5 (1981) 679–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 427 note 3} AJ xix.162; xx.167–172,188; BJ ii.258–263; vi.282–286. In BJ vi.286 Josephus mentions a multitude of such prophets. That they were perceived to be prophets by the masses is clear from his reluctant naming them as such though he himself uses the term γόης of them.

^{page 428 note 1} See Barrett, C. K., St. John, 288 f.Google Scholar and Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St. John 2 (New York: Seabury, 1980) 449Google Scholar n. 110 for references.

^{page 428 note 2} At Qumran the expectation concerning the eschatological prophet was based on this text. See 4 Q test 5–8 and 1 QS 9.11.

^{page 428 note 3} Here John does not speak of the crowd but of the ἃνθρωποι. While the Synoptics have no equivalent to John 6. 14–15 both Matthew and Mark refer to the ἃνδρες who were fed, and in this they are followed by John 6. 10. Matthew adds χωρἱς γυναικν καἱ παιδίων.

^{page 428 note 4} See Martyn, J. L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (1968) 98–101.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 5} See Meeks, Wayne, The Prophet-King (Leiden: Brill, 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 428 note 6} The vast majority of mss read σημεîον, but p⁷⁵ B a boh read σημεîα, which is probably an assimilation to John 6. 2. Thus the singular should be read. It refers then specifically to the feeding and does not include the healings.

^{page 428 note 7} See 2. 13, 23; 6. 4; 11. 55; 12. 1. On each of the three occasions the Passover is described as a feast of the Jews.

^{page 428 note 8} Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1974) 102–9.Google Scholar There he says, ‘I use “screen” and not “pattern” or “structure” or “motif” because of its dynamic character and its usefulness in the semantic structure of a text and postsemantic processes behind a text.’ (102 n. 29) ‘The Sinai screen explains the composition and many of the details … [and] confirms the total interpretation.’ ‘The narrator saw in his material an equivalent of the events that once took place at Sinai, …’ (109).

^{page 429 note 1} In 6. 15 the use of πάλιν indicates a further movement into the deserted mountainous region.

^{page 429 note 2} There are three Son of Man sayings, each in a different section of the chapter. The first (6. 27) is in the quest story (1–36); the second (6. 53) in the controversy with the Jews (6. 41–59); and the third (6. 62) in the controversy with the disciples (6. 60–66). The Son of Man sayings of chapter 6 have been worked into each major section to serve the evangelist's christological interpretation at the particular stage of the composition in view. It is also important to note how, in John, traditional third person Son of Man sayings and third person Father/Son sayings are reworked with characteristically Johannine ‘I’ sayings in the first person, or ‘my Father’ sayings. This reworking is a Johannine characteristic. See also 5. 19–30.

^{page 429 note 3} See Acts 2. 22–36; 3. 19–21.

^{page 429 note 4} Synoptic parallels show that reference to the crowd is traditional.

^{page 429 note 5} Clearly the crowd in the story and the story as a whole give expression to rival christologies. Thus political messiahship was already rejected in the tradition used by John.

^{page 430 note 1} See Psalm 107. 29–30. In the Psalm the stilling of the storm and the arrival at the desired destination occur together and perhaps this is also presupposed in John.

^{page 430 note 2} In both Mathew and Mark this saying is prefixed by θαρσεîτε.

^{page 430 note 3} See Gärtner, B., John 6 and the Jewish Passover (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1959) 17–18Google Scholar, 28 and Borgen, P., Bread from Heaven (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 180.Google Scholar

^{page 431 note 1} Thus Barrett, C. K., St John, 281.Google Scholar

^{page 431 note 2} Jesus also refers to the twelve in 6. 70.

^{page 431 note 3} See the reference to the Son of Man (in 6. 27) and the use of the future δώσει. This future tense is later taken up in an I saying by Jesus in 6. 51 γώ δώσω and see 4. 14. The future tenses in chapter 6 appear to point forward to a future event while in 4. 14 Jesus was referring to a present possibility, see 4. 10. There are traces of a continuing future eschatological dimension in John 6; see 6. 27, 39, 40, 44, 54.

^{page 432 note 1} For an analysis of the quest story genre see Tannehill, Robert C., Pronouncement Stories, Semeia 20 (1981) 9–10Google Scholar, 111–14. Studies in this volume do not take account of the Fourth Gospel.

^{page 432 note 2} Of the following list some stories more clearly fit the quest story genre than others. The full list draws attention to the significance of this (genre for John. 1) The quest of the (disciples, 1. 35–2. 11; 2) The quest of Mary (2. 1–10) which is taken up (in 19. 25–27; 3) Jesus' quest for true worshippers (2. 13–22) which is taken up in 4. 2–42, (especially 19–24; 4) The quest of Nicodemus (2. 23–3. 15) which is taken up (in 7. 45–52; 12. 42; 19. 38–42; 5) The quest of the Samaritans, (4. 2–42; 6) The miracle quest story of the nobleman, (4. 46–54; 7) The quest of the crowd, (6. 1–36; 8) The quest concerning Lazarus by his sisters, (11. 1–12. 11 and 12. 17; 9) The quest of the Greeks, (12. 20–36; 10) The quest of the soldiers, 18. 1–11.

^{page 433 note 1} ibid., 9.

^{page 433 note 2} On the Johannine symbolism see my ‘Johannine Symbols: A Case Study in Epistemology’, JTSA 27 (1979) 26–41Google Scholar; ‘John 9 and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel’, JSNT 28 (1986) 31–46Google Scholar; ‘The Purpose and Christology of the Fourth Gospel’, in Religions and Comparative Thought, ed. by Bilomoria, P. and Fenner, P. (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1988) 387–406.Google Scholar

^{page 433 note 3} See my paper, ‘Quest and Rejection Stories in John’, SBL, Sheffield, 1988 to appear in JSNT and note 1, p. 432 above.Google Scholar

^{page 433 note 4} See especially the motifs of ‘following’, ‘seeking’ and ‘finding’ in 1. 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 45; 6. 2, 24–26 and the connection of events by the use of τ έπαύριον, 1. 29, 35, 43; 6. 22.

^{page 433 note 5} Both of these verbs recur (along with εύρόντες) in the quest story of John 6 (6. 2, 24–26) making a concerted emphasis on ‘following, seeking, finding Jesus’. In this way the feeding story of the Synoptics has become a quest story in John. The verb ζητε‘ν is used thirty-four times in John, fourteen times in Matthew, ten times in Mark, twenty-five times in Luke, ten time in Acts and a total of one hundred and seventeen times in the New Testament. In John the majority of uses concern seeking Jesus, 1. 38; 6. 24, 26; 7. 11, 34, 36; 8. 21; 11. 56; 13. 33; 18. 4, 7, 8; 20. 15. Next are the references to the attempts (seeking) to kill Jesus, 5. 18; 7. 1, 19, 20, 25, 30; 8. 37, 40; 10. 39; 11. 8. In the Synoptics there is the seeking for a sign, Mark 8. 11–12; seeking to arrest or kill Jesus, Mark 11. 18; 12. 12; 14. 1, 11. Also important is the Q saying, ‘seek and you will find’ (Matt 7. 7–8; Luke 11. 9–10). The quest for the pearl of great price also uses the verb to seek, Matt 13. 45. Seeking and finding are prominent in John 6. 24–26. The theme of the quest is illustrated here and its prominence cannot be doubted in John.

^{page 434 note 1} By way of contrast, in 1. 46 two imperatives are used.

^{page 434 note 2} In fact it is a complex of quests bound together by τ παύριον in 1. 29, 35, 43 and τ ήμέρ τ τρίτ‘, 2. 1.

^{page 434 note 3} This is confirmed by the analysis of Olsson, Birger, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel (Lund: C. W. K Gleerup, 1974) 61 n. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 434 note 4} See Mark 2. 22.

^{page 434 note 5} I take the Synoptic call stories as a good indication of the form in which the tradition came to John. Here see Mark 1. 16–20; 2. 13–17 and parallels.

^{page 434 note 6} Thus Dibelius.

^{page 434 note 7} The mention of the disciples in 2. 2 was probably added by the evangelist along with 2. 11. The verb έκλήθη in 2. 2 is 3rd person singular, referring to Jesus. Either καἱ οί μαθηταἱ αύτοû is an ‘afterthought’ reference or actually was added with 2. 11 when the point of the story was made to be for their sake. The evangelist does use the 3rd person singular in similar constructions (1. 35; 2. 22). This means that the introduction of καἱ οί μαθηταἱ αύτοû would be quite straightforward and difficult to detect.

^{page 435 note 1} That John 1. 51 concerns the vision of the heavenly Son of Man is indicated by the opening ‘you will see the heavens opened’. The Son of Man and the angels converging on him will be seen in heaven. On this see my ‘Christ and the Church in John 1. 45–51’ in L'Evangile de Jean (Leuven: Leuven University, 1977) 359–62.Google Scholar

^{page 436 note 1} See 1. 29, 35, 43; 6. 22; 12. 12. The expression is used elsewhere in the NT only in Matt 27. 62; Mark 11. 12; and Acts 10. 9, 23, 24; 14. 20; 20. 7; 21. 8; 22. 30; 23. 32; 25. 6, 23. Its use appears to be characteristic of John and Acts. It is notably absent from Luke!

^{page 436 note 2} It is not likely that the evangelist intended his readers to understand that there were two crowds, one which had seen the feeding miracle and the other which had not, though this is advocated by M. E. Boismard and adopted by Brown, R. E., John I 259.Google Scholar

^{page 436 note 3} ‘Jesus answered them and said’. The same formula is used with an amen-saying in 3. 3; 6. 26 and introducing other Jesus sayings in 1. 48, 50; 3. 10, 13; 6. 29, 43; 7. 16, 21; 8. 14. Other quotation formulae are used in another ten amen-sayings while the remaining thirteen amen-sayings are without quotation formulae as they do not commence a Jesus saying.

^{page 436 note 4} See 1. 51; 3. 3, 5, 10, 11; 5. 19, 24, 25; 6. 26, 32, 47, 53; 8. 34, 51, 58; 10. 1, 7; 12. 24; 13. 16, 20, 21, 38; 14. 12; 16. 20, 23; 21. 18. Nothing can be deduced concerning the authenticity of the sayings from the use of this formula. In John 6 two amen-sayings occur in the quest story and two in the story of conflict with the Jews.

^{page 436 note 5} For the use of χορτάσθητε see Mark 8. 8.

^{page 436 note 6} The term is used in 6. 27, 55, in the quest story and the story of Jewish rejection. In the latter it is used to introduce the idea of the true food and drink, the flesh and blood of Jesus, symbols of the giving of his life in death.

^{page 437 note 1} That 6. 27–30 is based on tradition is shown by Synoptic parallels and the linking of unrelated sayings by common words.

^{page 437 note 2} See also 6. 55.

^{page 437 note 3} ‘Work’ involves the expending of effort to produce an effect. In 5. 17 the question concerns the expending of such effort on the Sabbath. The specific work on the Sabbath to which reference was made in 5. 17 was indeed a σημεîον. But what was prohibited on the sabbath was the expending of effort to produce an effect whether or not a miracle was involved.

^{page 438 note 1} See further in 6. 49, 58 and 1 Cor 10. 1. In 6. 49 Jesus refers to ‘your fathers’ distinguishing himself from those for whom they are ‘our fathers’. In 6. 58 Jesus refers to ‘the fathers’ which is more neutral. In the rabbinic literature aboth (fathers) is used of the ancestors of the nation. The term is used by the Samaritan woman of the ancestors of the Samaritans in 4. 20 and specifically of the patriarch Jacob in 4. 12.

^{page 438 note 2} The quotation formula καθώς στιν γεγραμμένον occurs here and at 12. 14. It appears to be the Johannine variation of the very common καθὠς γέγραπται. John 6. 45 has the variation ἔστιν γεγραμμένον έν τοîς προϕήταις. See also 7. 38. On the quotation formulae see Freed, E. D., Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (Leiden: Brill, 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 438 note 3} See also 7. 38. E. D. Freed (Old Testament Quotations) thinks that the evangelist modified the quotations to suit his own purpose.

^{page 438 note 4} Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven, has argued that Exodus 16 provides the text upon which the discourse of John 6 is based. It is important to his case that the basic (first) text should be from the torah. But it is doubtful that Exodus provides the text of 6. 31. Perhaps more likely is the suggestion of Georg Richter that the quotation is not from the OT but from a Jewish manna tradition, Studien zum Johannesevangelium (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1977) 211–29.Google Scholar The quotation formula must cast some doubt on this suggestion. The difficulty of identifying the text with a specific citation from the torah must cast doubt on Borgen's hypothesis. It is also less than clear that 6. 31 is the basis of the discourse. Rather the evangelist has made the startling saying of Jesus in 6. 35 the basis of the following dialogues and discourses in chapter 6.

^{page 438 note 5} This assumes that the ‘he’ of ἔδωκεν was understood to be Moses. Natwally this is not clear.

^{page 439 note 1} Because ἔρτος is masculine it is unclear whether ό καταβαίνων should be translated as ‘he who’ or ‘that which’.

^{page 439 note 2} In 6. 33 ‘descending’ (καταβαίνων) and giving (διδοỦς) are present participles, see also 6. 50. The aorist participle (καταβάς) is used in 6. 41, 51, 58 and 3. 13. The aorist participles indicates the specific, historic nature of the descent while the present participles signify the characteristic action of the redeemer. With both the aorist and present participles Jesus speaks in the third person either of ‘he’ or ‘it’ (the bread). The perfect tense καταβέβηκα is used by Jesus in ‘I’ sayings in 6. 38, 42. The other side of the descent is the ascent of the Son of Man, 6. 62, see also the use of ‘ψωσεν in 3. 14 which is the equivalent of άναβέβηκεν in 3. 13. The Son of Man who descended from heaven is the only one to have ascended (‘to heaven’ is implied).

^{page 439 note 3} See Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 225Google Scholar n. 3. Bultmann argues that 6. 35 (as well as 6. 41, 48, 51) is an example of recognition formulae. This formula is also found in sacred language, sometimes in such a way that by the έγώ είμι something which men are looking at or already know is given a new interpretation’ … ‘It is used as a revelation formula proper (i.e. where the speaker, being present, reveals himself by the έγώ είμι as the one whom people were waiting for or looking for).’

^{page 440 note 1} In rabbinic statements the manna has become the symbol of the new age, Ecclesiastes R. 1. 128. See Barrett, , St. John, 288.Google Scholar

^{page 440 note 2} See Proverbs 9. 5; Genesis R. 70. 5; Str.B. II. 483 f.

^{page 440 note 3} The emphasis on the emissary is made through the use of άπέστειλεν 6. 29, 57; πέμψαντος, 6. 38; ό πατρ ό πέμψας με, 6. 44 and indirectly ό ών παρû τοỦ θεοû, 6. 46 and reference to the Son of Man as τοûτον γάρ ό πατρ έσϕράγισεν ό Θεός, 6. 27.

^{page 440 note 4} As it now stands 6. 36 marks the failure of the quest though the movement of the story suggests that the negative conclusion was not original. This is made probable by the transitional nature of verses 36–40 which appear to be a collection of traditional sayings.

^{page 440 note 5} It is characteristic of Jesus in John that he quotes his own earlier sayings, sometimes exactly, sometimes with less than clear reference. Thus 3. 7 refers to 3. 3; 3. 28 to 1. 20; 4. 53 to 4. 50; 5. 11 to 5. 8; 6. 36 possibly to 6. 26; 6. 41 to a combinatin of 6. 33 and 35; 6. 65 to 6. 37 etc.

^{page 440 note 6} 6. 36 should read ‘you have seen’, referring to the sign(s), not ‘you have seen me’ though the latter is supported by important early mss. The introduction of ‘me’ is more easily accounted for than its omission.

^{page 441 note 1} In both chapters 6 and 9 rejection is combined with commendation stories.

^{page 441 note 2} See Tannehill, p. 8.

^{page 442 note 1} Contrary to the thesis of Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven, that the discourse is based on the scripture quotation of 6. 31 using a pattern discernible in the exegetical method of Philo and the Palestinian midrashim. But the evangelist also develops discourses using as a text a solemn saying of Jesus. John 5. 17 is such a text with the discourse of 5. 19–30 based on it. On this see my ‘Text and Context in John 5’, ABR (1987) 28–34.Google Scholar

^{page 442 note 2} See 6. 37, 44, 45, 65. If we add to this the parallel theme of 6. 35, ‘believing’, the dependence of 6. 37–71 on 6. 35 becomes even more obvious. See 6. 40, 47, 64, 69. Then there is the reiteration of the basic affirmation of 6. 35 in 6. 48, and with slight variation in 6. 51. The themes of eating and drinking in 6. 50–58 also arise from the affirmation of 6. 35 which indicates the satisfaction of hunger and quenching of thirst.

^{page 442 note 3} Although με is well attested by the majority of mss including p⁶⁶ and probably p⁷⁵ as well as B D K L, it should probably be omitted along with ℵ A it ^{a, b, e, q} syr^{c, s}. The point is that they have seen the sign of the giving of the bread from heaven and yet have failed to believe in the one who is himself the bread of heaven.

^{page 442 note 4} The combination of first and third person language in Jesus' description of his relation to the Father is also characteristic of 6. 37–40.

^{page 442 note 5} ‘Everything’ (πν) 6. 37, 39, becomes ‘everyone’ (πς) 6. 40, and see 6. 45.

^{page 442 note 6} See 6. 38 and 6. 33.

^{page 442 note 7} See 6. 39, 40, 44, 54.

^{page 443 note 1} The reference to murmuring is an echo of the murmuring of the fathers in the wilderness, Exodus 16. 2, 8 f. Such murmuring was regarded as unbelief, Psalm 105. 24–25 LXX. In John the murmuring of the Jews is mentioned in 6. 41, 43 and the murmuring of the disciples in 6. 61. We have here evidence of the Passover/Exodus screen through which this tradition has been interpreted.

^{page 443 note 2} Discussions of the evangelist's use of ‘the Jews’ tend to isolate 6. 41 and 6. 52 as a special case. The assumption is that the evangelist has used the term of the Galilean crowd, hence it cannot here mean the Judaeans as it does in 7. 1. See Wahlde, U. C. von, ‘The Johannine “Jews”: A Critical Survey’, NTS 28/1(1982) 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar While it has been suggested that ‘the Jews’, on the one hand, and the ‘Pharisees’, ‘chief priests’ and ‘rulers’ on the other, belong to two different strata (sources) (see Wahlde, U. C. von, ‘The Terms for Religious authorities in the Fourth Gospel: A Key to Literary-Strata?’, JBL 98/2 [1979] 231–53Google Scholar ) this has not been argued concerning the use of ‘the crowd’ in 6. 22, 24, which is presumably the audience as far as 6. 36(40), and ‘the Jews’ of 6. 41, 52 are presumably the audience until 6. 59. The evangelist indicates by this change that there are in fact two different audiences, times and places.

^{page 443 note 3} Barrett, C. K. (St. John, 300Google Scholar ) notes that ‘the discourse with its interruptions suggests a less formal occasion than a synagogue sermon’.

^{page 444 note 1} John 7. 12, 40–14 attest the σχίσμα in the crowd but there is no identification with the Jews who were feared by the crowd, 7. 13.

^{page 444 note 2} ò καταβαίνων, 6. 33, 50; ò καταβάς, 6. 41, 51a; καταβέβηκα, 6. 38, 42.

^{page 444 note 3} Compare ò ν παρû τοû θεο, 6. 46 with ό ν είς τòν κόλπον τοû πατρός, 1. 18.

^{page 444 note 4} See 6. 27.

^{page 444 note 5} See Origen, , Celsus, VI.27Google Scholar, GCS 3.97.

^{page 445 note 1} From this perspective it is unnecessary to propose a redactional addition in 6. 51c–58 following Bultmann and others.

^{page 445 note 2} Each basket represents one of the disciples collecting the fragments left over.

^{page 445 note 3} άκούσαντες refers to a specific conversation as does the σκληρός λόγος, 6. 60. The question of how this was overheard need not be raised because 6. 60–66 is a literary development on the basis of the previous story.

^{page 446 note 1} This is the force of the έκ τούτου which probably means both ‘from this time’ and ‘for this reason’.

^{page 446 note 2} See 1 John 2. 19 and Schnackenburg, R., John II, 3 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 3} This is especially clear in the rejection story of John 9 where the once blind man, cast out from the synagogue, was received by Jesus, 9. 34–38.

^{page 446 note 4} See Mark 8. 29 and parallels.

^{page 447 note 1} There is first the reinstatement of Peter, 21. 15–19 followed by the statement of the relative roles of Peter and the beloved disciple, 21. 20–23.

^{page 447 note 2} See Mark 8. 31 and parallels.

^{page 448 note 1} See CD VI.4. Jesus also is the spring/well from which issues the life-giving water, 7. 37–39. He is the giver of the life-giving water, 4. 10, 13–14.

^{page 448 note 2} See Str.B. II, 483 f. noting Proverbs 9. 5; Genesis R. 70.5.

^{page 450 note 1} See Fortna, R. T., ‘From Christology to Soteriology’, Interpretation 27 (1973) 31–47.Google Scholar We recognize at the same time that christological belief has soteriological consequences.