Footnotes
Footnotes
1.At several points this chapter has used, with permission, material from D. A. Carson,
The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990)—sometimes verbatim,
more frequently in condensed form.
2.R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 196670), pp. cxxxviii-cxxxix.
3.C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), p. 289.
4.Egil A. Wyller, "In Solomon’s Porch: A Henological Analysis of the Architectonic of the Fourth Gospel,” ST 42 (1988): 151-67.
5.Jeffrey Lloyd Staley, The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel, SBLDS 82 (Atlanta: SP, 1985).
6.George Mlakushyil, The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel, AnBib 117 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1987).
7.F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Basingstoke: Pickering & Inglis, 1983), p. 1.
8.The translation is from the Loeb edition of Eusebius, except for this clause, where the Loeb edition clearly errs.
9.In this connection, however, it is rather remarkable that 1 John should be mentioned, since it was universally accepted. Perhaps, as some have suggested, it is because it belongs to the so-called General, or Catholic, Epistles, which constituted a rather exceptional group of writings.
10.In the imperfect tense, απέγραφον (apegraphon, from γραψω, G1211) means either "I wrote down” or "they wrote down”; in the aorist tense, there is normally a formal distinction: "I wrote down” is απέγραψα (apegrapsa), while "they wrote down” is απέγραψαν (apegrapsan). But even this distinction could be blurred; see J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled “Supernatural Religion” (London: 1889), p.
214.
11.B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1908), 1:lix.
12.C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), p. 12; cf. J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John (London: SCM, 1985), pp. 99-104.
13.In this instance we have followed the translation of H. J. Lawlor and J. E. L. Oulton, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine, 2 vols. (1927; reprint, London: SPCK, 1954), 1:89, since it observes distinctions in the Greek text overlooked by the more popular Loeb edition.
14.See J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1893), pp. 58ff.
15.So C. S. Petrie, "The Authorship of ‘The Gospel According to Matthew’: A Reconstruction of the External Evidence,” NTS 14 (1967-68): 21.
16.Cf. G. M. Lee, SE 6:311-20.
17.Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (ET Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989).
18.Ibid., p. 130.
19.Ibid., pp. 131-32.
20.Ibid., p. 132.
21.Ibid., p. 21.
22.Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), pp. 218ff.
23.Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 20-21.
24.Margaret Pamment, "The Fourth Gospel’s Beloved Disciple,” ExpTim 94 (1983): 367.
25.R. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979), pp. 33-34.
26.E.g., Pierson Parker, "John the Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 81 (1962): 35-43; see also Domingo Leon ("^Es el apostol Juan el discipulo amado?” EstBib 45 [1987]: 403-92), who raises the objections in order to rebut them.
27.Robinson, Priority, p. 117.
28.On the difference between Semitisms and Semitic enhancements, see n. 14 in chap. 2 above. John’s gospel undoubtedly betrays both Aramaic and Hebraic enhancements; whether it betrays any Aramaisms or Hebraisms is disputed.
29.G. D. Kilpatrick, "The Religious Background of the Fourth Gospel,” in Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ed. F. L. Cross (London: Mowbray, 1957), p. 43.
30.C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John (London: SPCK, 1978), pp. 118-19, 587-88.
31.R. N. Longenecker, "On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), pp. 101-14.
32.O. Cullmann, The Johannine Circle (London: SCM, 1976), pp. 74-85.
33.J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), p. 310.
34.Barrett, St John, p. 132.
35.Ibid., p. 132 n. 2.
36.Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (London: Oliphants, 1972).
37.R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (ET London: Blackwell, 1971).
38.R. T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs, SNTSMS 11 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).
39.For a useful survey of the application of source criticism to the fourth gospel, see D. Moody Smith, Johannine Christianity: Essays on Its Setting, Sources, and Theology (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1984), pp. 39-93.
40.E.g., E. Schweizer, Ego Eimi: Die religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung der johanneischen Bildreden, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage des vierten Evangeliums (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939); E. Ruckstuhl, Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums (Freiburg: Paulus, 1951; slightly enlarged ed., Freiburg: Universitatsverlag, 1987); idem, "Johannine Language and Style,” in L’evangile de Jean: Sources, redaction, theologie, ed. M. de Jonge (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1977), pp. 125-47. G. van Belle, De semeia-bron in het vierde evangilie: Ontstaan en groei van een hypothese (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1975); D. A. Carson, "Current Source Criticism of the Fourth
Gospel: Some Methodological Questions,” JBL 97 (1978): 411-29. Hans-Peter Heekerens, Die Zeichen-Quelle der johanneischen Redaktion (Stuttgart: KBW, 1984).
41.On the former, see Jeff Staley, "The Structure of John’s Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel’s Narrative Structure,” CBQ 48 (1986): 241-63; on the latter, see Paul
S. Minear, "The Original Functions of John 21,” JBL 102 (1983): 85-98.
42.It is therefore all the more surprising that in his more recent work, Robert T. Fortna simply assumes the validity of his postulated source, not even interacting with the numerous criticisms that have been raised against it (see his Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988]).
43.Cf. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs.
44.Martin Hengel, "The Wine Miracle at Cana,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament, Fs. G. B. Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), p. 92.
45.Vern Poythress, "The Use of the Intersentence Conjunctions De, Oun, Kai, and Asyndeton in the Gospel of John,” NovT 26 (1984), pp. 312-40; idem, "Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions,” WTJ 46 (1984): 35069.
46.The commentaries by Brown and Lindars have already been mentioned; see E. Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2 vols. (ET Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
47.R. Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975), p.
53.
48.Cullmann, Johannine Circle ; Alan R. Culpepper, The Johannine School (Missoula, Mont.: SP, 1975).
49.Culpepper, Johannine School, p. 213.
50. Ibid.
51.Ibid., pp. 261-90.
52.Ibid., p. 279.
53.See discussion of this passage in Carson, John.
54.See D. A. Carson, "Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel,” TynB 33 (1982): 59-89.
55.H. R. Reynolds, The Gospel of St. John, 2 vols. (London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1906), pp. cxxiii-cxxv.
56.See J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology I: The Proclamation of Jesus (London: SCM, 1971), pp. 32-34; Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), esp. pp. 29-34; R. T. France, "The Church and the Kingdom of God: Some Hermeneutical Issues,” in Biblical Interpretation and the Church: Text and Context, ed. D. A. Carson (Exeter: Paternoster, 1984), pp. 30-44.
57.P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven, SuppNovT 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1965).
58.A. M. Hunter, According to John (London: SCM, 1968).
59.For useful coverage of these and other movements, see G. R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), pp. liiiff. One of the best assessments of Gnosticism in general and Mandaism in particular is still that of E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidence (London: Tyndale, 1973).
60.See D. A. Carson, "The Use of the Old Testament in John and the Johannine Epistles,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture,. Fs. Barnabas Lindars, ed. D. A.
Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 245-64.
61.Robert Kysar, "The Background of the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Critique of Historical Methods,” CJT 16 (1970): 250-55.
62.Samuel Sandmel, "Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 2-13.
63.See Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Leicester: IVP, 1987), pp. 156-57.
64.See esp. Morris, Studies, pp. 40-63; Robinson, John, chaps. 4-6; Carson, John, "Introduction,” III(3).
65.Dodd, Historical Tradition.
66.E.g., F. Neirynck in M. de Jonge, L’evangile de Jean, pp. 73-106; idem, in collaboration with Joel Delobel, Thierry Snoy, Gilbert Van Belle, and Frans Van Segbroeck, Jean et les synoptiques: Examen critique de l’exeg&aage;se de M.-E. Boismard (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1979); Mgr. de Solages, Jean et les synoptiques (Leiden: Brill, 1979); J. Blinzler, Johannes und die Synoptiker (Stuttgart: KBW, 1965); E. F. Seigman, "St. John’s Use of the Synoptic Material,” CbQ 30 (1968): 182-98; M. E. Glasswell, "The Relationship Between John and Mark,” JSNT 23 (1985): 99-115; Gerhard Maier, "Johannes und Matthaus—Zweispalt oder Viergestalt des Evangeliums?” in GP 2:267-91; Thomas M. Dowell, "Jews and Christians in Conflict: Why the Fourth Gospel Changed the Synoptic Tradition,” LouvStud 15 (1990): 19-37. For a summary of the literature, see Smith, Essays ; Blomberg, Historical Reliability, p. 159.
67.Barrett, John.
68.On the humanity of Jesus in John’s gospel, see D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), pp. 146-60; Marianne M. Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1986); Leon Morris, Jesus Is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), pp. 43-67; cf. E. Kasemann, The Testament of Jesus (ET London: SCM, 1968), who argues that the evidence for Jesus’ humanity in John is nothing more than the trappings necessary to secure a docetic Christology.
69.For a responsible treatment of this organic growth of Christology, see I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology (Leicester: IVP, 1976); C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); and many of the essays in H. H. Rowdon, ed., Christ the Lord, Fs. D. Guthrie (Leicester: IVP, 1982).
70.See Philip B. Harner, The “I Am” of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1970).
71.Most of the alleged parallels are from second- and third-century (or even later) Gnostic and Hermetic sources. Those closest in time to John, drawn from the first half of the first century, are claims of the mythical Egyptian goddess Isis, who was popular in the Greek-speaking world: "I am the one who discovered fruit for men”; "I am the one who is called the goddess among women” (see NewDocs 1.2). These are, however, remarkably un metaphorical and, in any case, do not bear the Old Testament resonances of the utterances in John.
72.For a useful defense of the authenticity of the "I am” sayings in John, see E.
Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (London: SCM, 1960), pp. 142-59.
73.J. Ramsey Michaels, John (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983), p. xxix.
74.Robinson, Redating, pp. 256-58.
75.On the very slight evidence that the apostle John was early martyred, almost universally dismissed, see Guthrie, pp. 272-75. Astonishingly, Hengel (Johannine Question) entertains the suggestion.
76.Robinson, Redating, p. 257.
77.Dominated by J. Louis Martyn, History and Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979).
78.See R. Kimelman, "Birkat ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity,” in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2 of Aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period, ed. E. P. Sanders (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), pp. 226-44, 391-403; W. Horbury, "The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Controversy,” JTS 33 (1982): 19-61; Robinson, John, pp. 72ff.; Beasley-Murray, John, pp. lxxvi-lxxviii; H. Ridderbos, Het evangelie naar Johannes, 2 vols. (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1987--), 1:395-98; and discussion in Carson, John.
79.In one form, the theory is as old as Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.7).
In this century it was made famous by Hans Windisch, Johannes und die Synoptiker (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1926).
80.Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, SuppNovT 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1967).
81.Martyn, History and Theology.
82.F. Mussner, The Historical Jesus and the Gospel of St. John (ET London: Burns & Oates, 1967).
83.E. D. Freed, "Did John Write His Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts?” NovT
12 (1970): 241-56.
84.Bruce J. Malina et al., The Gospel of John in Sociolinguistic Perspective, ed.
Herman C. Waetjen, Protocol of the Forty-Eighth Colloquy (Claremont: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1984).
85.David Rensberger, Overcoming the World: Politics and Community in the Gospel of John (London: SPCK, 1988).
86.For a summary and critique of Rensberger, see the review in Themelios, forthcoming.
87Beasley-Murray, John, pp. lxxxvii-xc, comes close to this range.
88.See D. A. Carson, "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:30-31 Reconsidered,” JBL 108 (1987): 639-51.
89.E.g., W. Oehler, Das Johannesevangelium, eine Missionsschrift fur die Welt (GQtersloh: Bertelsmann, 1936); idem, Zum Missionscharackter des Johannesevangeliums (GQtersloh: Bertelsmann, 1941); Dodd, Interpretation, p. 9; Moule, pp. 136-37; Morris, John, pp. 855-57. See the discussion in Guthrie, pp. 283ff.
90.K. BornhaQser, Das Johannesevangelium: Eine Missionsschrift fur Israel (GQtersloh: Bertelsmann, 1928); W. C. van Unnik, "The Purpose of St. John’s Gospel,” in SE 1:382-411; J. A. T. Robinson, Twelve New Testament Studies (London: SCM, 1962), pp. 107-25; David D. C. Braine, "The Inner Jewishness of St. John’s Gospel as the Clue to the Inner Jewishness of Jesus,” SNTU 13 (1988): 101-55, esp. pp. 105-11; George J. Brooke, "Christ and the Law in John 7-10,” in Law and Religion: Essays in the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, ed. Barnabas Lindars (London: SPCK, 1988), pp. 102-12; Carson, John.
91.See esp. Teresa Okure, The Johannine Approach to Mission, WUNT 2.31 (TQbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988). Something similar could be said for Miguel Rodrigues Ruiz, Das Missionsgedanke des Johannesevangeliums: Ein Beitrag zur johanneischen Soteriologie und Ekklesiologie (WQrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1987). For a survey of recent studies of John along this vein, see R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 4 vols. (Freiburg: Herder, 1965-84), 4:58-72.
92.R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, 3 vols. (London: Burns & Oates, 1968-82), 1:173-91.
93.Zane Hodges, "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11),” BS 136 (1979): 318-72; 137 (1980): 41-53.
94.See Bart D. Ehrman, "Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 (1988): 24-44.
95.For surveys of recent literature on John, one might usefully consult R. Schnackenburg, "Entwicklung und Stand des johanneischen Forschung seit 1955,” in L’evangile, pp. 19-44; H. Thyen, "Aus der Literatur des Johannesevangeliums,” ThR
39 (1974): 1-69, 222-52, 289-330; 42 (1977): 211-70; 44 (1979): 97-134; JQrgen Becker, "Aus der Literatur des Johannesevangeliums,” ThR 47 (1982): 279-347; James McPolin, "Studies in the Fourth Gospel—Some Contemporary Trends,” IBS 2 (1980): 3-26; D. A. Carson, "Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel: Some Reflections,” Themelios 9 (1983): 8-18; 14 (1989): 57-64.
96.See the books by Johnston, Franck, and Burge in the Bibliography.
97.Here it must be said, with regret, that few recent scholars have interacted in any detail with such valuable and detailed earlier works as J. Armitage Robinson, The Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel (London: Longmans-Green, 1908); E. H. Askwith, The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910); H. Scott Holland, The Fourth Gospel (London: John Murray, 1923); or A. C. Headlam, The Fourth Gospel as History (Oxford: Blackwell, 1948).
98.B. Olsson, Structure and Meaning of the Fourth Gospel (Lund: Gleerup, 1974), on John 2-4; Hendrikus Boers, Neither on This Mountain nor in Jerusalem, SBLMS 35 (Atlanta: SP, 1988), on John 4.
99.G. van Belle, Les parenth&aage;ses dans l’evangile de Jean: Apergu historique et classification (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1985).
100.P. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985).
101.R. A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
102.Barrett, John, pp. 67-99; Schnackenburg, John, esp. in the many excursuses.
103.Contra J. T. Forestell, The Word of the Cross: Salvation as Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, AnBib (Rome: BIP, 1974).