For many Christians St. John is the favourite Gospel. And with good
reason. John fascinates us by his solemn prose and intriguing images. John is
by far the most outspoken evangelist; yet his words carry subtle implications
that baffle us. We cannot read John without feeling challenged: to either share
his belief in Christ or deny it. In liturgical symbolism John is often compared
to an eagle, difficult to follow as he ascends to mystical heights. He could
equally well be portrayed as a face looking us straight into the eyes. We
cannot escape the power of what he asserts.
The purpose of this book is to help you understand John so that you can respond to his appeal. John wrote his text to make you believe that Jesus is the full and final revelation of God, and that through that belief you may live your life in all its spiritual and human potential (Jn 20,31). This is my aim too. I hope and pray that this book may bring you closer to God and may enhance the quality of your Christian life. I will try to explain to you what being a Christian meant for John. I will try to show you that the Johannine experience of Christ is very meaningful for us today: that it helps us judge the world in which we live; that it gives us more confidence and security in God; that it makes us happier and bolder in leadership and service.
Explaining John's Gospel is not easy. For the process through which the Gospel came to be written is extremely complex. The scholarship devoted to unravel John's complexities, adds a complexity of its own: in the last ten years alone more than six hundred worthwhile books and scientific articles were published on John! Trying to make sense of John we may find ourselves instead trapped in a sterile academic jungle. Or - what is equally bad - by failing to listen to the pundits we may end up with little certainty and a cheapened message. Penetrating John requires great spiritual openness. As Origen put it: "No one can perceive the meaning of this Gospel who has not leaned on Jesus' breast, who has not received Mary from him as his own mother''.(1) It also requires the mental toughness to study the hard facts from which the spiritual message can be harvested as a fruit. The more solid our foundation the surer our house will stand.
My own studies on John have convinced me that the major questions of authorship have been resolved. A rough outline of how the Gospel arose can be sketched in bold characters and with confidence. Specific points will need to be worked out further but the outcome of such future research will not, in my view, seriously alter the interpretation of John. So I have decided not to weary you with a description of past and present controversies, but to present one coherent and consistent view.(2) Nor will I produce the arguments for it here. They will become clear as we discuss various aspects of the Gospel in later chapters. I will now concentrate on painting the backdrop scene.
Jesus spoke Aramaic and preached to Palestinian Jews. John's Gospel, however, was written for Hellenists. "Hellen" means "Greek" and "Hellenists" are people belonging to the commonwealth of Greek culture. A little history is necessary to understand what this means. Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia, first tightened his grip on the rest of Greece, then conquered the whole Middle East. His armies overran and occupied Asia Minor (present day Turkey), the Persian Empire (Iran, Irak, Syria), Palestine and Egypt. When he died in 333 BC the Empire split into two kingdoms: Egypt ruled by the Ptolemaids with their capital at Alexandria, and Syria ruled by the Seleucids who resided at Antioch. Greek military power dominated for centuries until it was defeated by the Roman war machine. Syria fell in 64 BC; Egypt in 30 BC. The Middle East had undergone 300 years of Greek rule.
Greek supremacy however brought with it an entirely new culture. With Greek having become the language of politics and trade, it soon became the carrier of common literature and philosophy. All major cities were "hellenised": provided with theatres where Greek dramas could be staged, with gymnasiums where the Greek sports of disk throwing and wrestling could be practiced, and stadiums to hold Greek-style races in. Sculpture, architecture, painting and music underwent Greek influence. In other words, Greek became the lingua franca (the Koine, common language, as they called it themselves) and Greek culture the universal culture of educated people.
Among the Jews the attitude to Hellenism varied greatly. Some were bitterly opposed to it. especially since the attempt of Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria to forcibly impose religious customs on the Jews in 167 BC.3 The orthodox rabbis and pharisees adhered to this tradition, as well as the village populations of Judaea and Galilee to which Jesus also belonged. Other Jews were more broadminded and sought to live their Jewish faith as full citizens of a Hellenistic world. The community at Alexandria, for instance, translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek (the so-called Septuagint translation), and produced Hellenist books such as Wisdom and Sirach. Philo of Alexandria (15 BC - 45 AD) explained the books of Moses with the help of Greek philosophy. Many Jews outside Palestine (who lived in the so-called Diaspora, "Dispersal") followed this example. But also in the Holy Land itself Hellenism was present. Herod the Great and his sons were Hellenistic rulers. The Sadducees had leanings towards Hellenism. The country was dotted with Hellenistic cities, such as Antipatris, Sebaste, Skythopolis, Sephphoris (seven miles from Nazareth!) and Tiberias, cities which Jesus, true to his own tradition, would carefully avoid. The situation was even more confusing by the existence of other nonconformist Jewish groups, such as the Samaritans, a mixed race with an Old Testament religion of its own; the Essenes, monastic communities preparing themselves for "the Last Day"; the disciples of John the Baptist who turned into a Messianic sect; and proto-Gnostic circles with an overwhelming mystic interest.(3)
Jesus addressed his message mainly, though not exclusively as we shall see, to orthodox Jews. The early Church at Jerusalem had a strong component of Hebrew Christians. But very soon we find Hellenists among them (Acts 6,1-7) with prominent leaders such as Stephen, Philip and Barnabas. The new Christian community at Antioch is entirely Hellenist (Acts 11,19-26). A breakthrough was taking place. The Gospel was effectively penetrating the Hellenistic world, a development which soon led to the establishment of flourishing Christian groups in all major cities of Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece and Italy. What Christ had taught in Aramaic to orthodox Jews was now being preached to educated Hellenists throughout the then known world ln their own cultural language! It is here that we have to place the origin of John's Gospel.
The Gospel of John was definitely written for Hellenists. The terminology it uses, its religious imagery, its concern and interest presuppose a Hellenistic audience. The Gospel also shows strong links with Jewish tradition: it refers to Old Testament figures; it betrays a familiarity with rabbinical jargon and rabbinical theology; it reflects conflict and controversy with orthodox Jews. But this affirms its Jewish origin, not its Jewish audience. The Gospel addresses itself to Hellenists, whether Jews or non-Jews.
At first sight this would seem to agree well with 2nd century tradition according to which the Gospel was written at Ephesus by "John the Disciple of the Lord".(4) Especially so since it was later
assumed that this person was no other than John the Apostle who ministered in Asia Minor towards the end of the first century. In him, one would think, all elements could be combined: direct access to the original sources, deep Jewish roots and intensive missionary involvement. But studies show that this picture is too simple. At least three distinct persons were involved in producing the Gospel: the actual writer whom we will call "the Evangelist"; an "authority figure" from whom he derived his information and who may well have been John the Apostle; a "Redactor" who looked after the final presentation.
Let us begin with the "authority figure". The passion and resurrection narratives make frequent mention of a mysterious disciple whom they call "the disciple Jesus loved". At the Last Supper he reclined against Jesus' chest (Jn 13,23-26). He stood under Jesus' cross and was entrusted by Jesus with the care of his mother (Jn 19,25-27). With Peter he was the first disciple to see the empty tomb after Jesus' resurrection (Jn 20,2-10). He recognised Jesus first when Jesus appeared in Galilee (Jn 21,7). Jesus is reported to have said about him that he might live until the last day (Jn 21,20-23). The writer or writers of the Gospel clearly tell us that this person was the source of their information. "This is the disciple who bears witness to the foregoing and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true" (Jn 21,24). "The man who told us about it is an eye witness. His testimony is true and his witness carries conviction" (Jn 19,35). His name is never mentioned, but his position matches exactly that of John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. Peter, James and John were the three apostles closest to Christ and the inner council of the Jerusalem Church.(5) Since James was the leader and patron of the Hebrew Christians who ministered and died in Jerusalem. he can hardly have been the patron of a thoroughly Hellenist gospel tradition. Why is John not mentioned by name? Probably for a theological purpose. (6)The whole Gospel de-emphasises authority status. John wanted to be rememberd as a disciple, not an apostle; as someone "loved by Jesus" as each one of us is loved. (7)
The actual writer of the Gospel must have been one of John's disciples. From his work we can see he was a creative thinker and skilful author, a Jew who was deeply steeped in Hellenistic culture and fluent in Koine Greek. We may well imagine that he could have been John's companion and public relations man, as Mark was for Peter and Luke for Paul. John may well have been active in the mission to Hellenists even while he was at Jerusalem. His visit to Samaria may well confirm this. In this ministry he may have found the ideal helper, a Jew from the Diaspora who had the talents needed to present Jesus' message convincingly to Hellenist seekers.
How did the Gospel come to be written? As far as we can make out, it was not originally intended to be a complete gospel. The Gospel is made up of characteristic units which may well at first have stood on their own. These so-called "Johannine patterns" usually comprise of a narrative and a discourse. The narrative usually is an event of Jesus' ministry, presented in highly dramatised form, with typical elements of irony, misunderstanding and unbelief which force the reader to consider his own faith in Jesus. The discourses present Jesus as talking in solemn, rhythmic style, proclaiming deep truths that are linked together by association of thought, jumping at opposites, the use of parallel expressions and the repetition of constant themes with slight variations. Usually a story and a discourse belong together. All units have a similar purpose: to focus attention on Jesus and his message.
The origin of these units can be best understood if we imagine that they were composed by John's disciple as material for common reflection. Perhaps, the Johannine Christians would come together from time to time for a special celebration, with a day of recollection and prayer in preparation of it. Instead of restricting themselves to the short traditional material as contained in the Synoptic Gospels 14 John and his disciple may well have preferred to work out one such tradition at length and in depth. The story of the multiplication of the bread was thus extended by Jesus' profound sermon on himself as the Bread of Life (Jn 6,1-59). The healing of the paralysed man at Bethzatha was joined to Jesus' discourse on his union with the Father (Jn 5,1-47). The cure of the man born blind provided an excellent setting for Jesus' discussion on his being the Light of the World (Jn 8,12 - 9,41). Such units all show the same features: highly symbolical narrative, profoundly religious speech, the limelight on Jesus as the full revelation of God. It would seem that John and his disciple composed a number of such units between 40 and 70 AD which became a collection regularly drawn from.
At a later date however (was it 90 AD?) the same disciple of John must have welded material from this collection into a harmonious gospel. I use the image of "welding" on purpose. For true to his creative and theological thinking, the disciple, now becoming a true evangelist, was not content to simply arrange the units one after the other. He gave a lot of thought to giving internal unity to the whole composition. We can see this, for instance, by the skilful way in which he hid the symbolic number seven, number of blessing and fulfilment, into the Gospel. Thus we find that his Gospel moves through seven weeks, contains seven main signs and treasures seven "I AM" statements by Jesus (see diagram 3). This cannot have been by chance. This was a deliberate device to bring inner unity to his work (8). The Evangelist also reworked and strengthened some of his theological themes in the light of new pastoral needs of the time. The decision of the scribes at Jabne to expel Christian Jews from the Synagogue provoked a more virulent apologetic protest. The delay of Jesus' second coming led to even more stress on realised eschatology. The Sect of John the Baptist's disciples need to be counteracted more forcefully. Probably there was also a greater evangelical need: of presenting Christ to prospective Hellenist converts. All these circumstances must have prompted the Evangelist to re-think and rearrange his material in such a way that a consistent and convincing proclamation of Christ was the result.
A close scrutiny of the Gospel reveals, however, that this was not the end of the story. Here and there the flow of thought has been obviously interrupted by editorial insertions. In some places it looks as if a second text, almost a parallel and alternative version,was deliberately added. This shows us that some final edition may have been undertaken (around 100 AD) by another person whom we may call "the Redactor". This person does not seem to have produced new text, but rather to have completed the already existing Gospel with other material from the existing collection of Johannine units of instruction. His main concern may have been the fear that such material might otherwise be lost. Sections attributed him are: Jn 3,31-36; 6,51-58; 12,44-50; 15 - 17. The Redactor is also credited with having added the prologue (Jn 1,1-18) to the beginning and Jesus' apparition in Galilee (Jn 21,1-25) to the end.
The so-called letters of John belong to the same extended Johannine tradition. Their themes and terminology are so similar to those found in the Gospel that for a long time it was simply taken for granted that "the Elder' (Jn 2 Jn 1,1) was John the Apostle himself. this, however, is very unlikely since internal analysis reveals that the letters were written well after the completion of the Gospel (100 AD?). The author must have been a rather authoritative disciple in the Johannine tradition whose main purpose was to solve internal problems that had arisen within the community.
This also determines the main difference between the contents of the Gospel and that of the Epistles. Both represent basically the same theology and spirituality. However, on account of wrong interpretations that had arisen which, probably, had even resulted in a split of the community, the author re-affirms the correct understanding of the tradition. The issues involved were the function of Jesus' humanity in salvation, the need of maintaining high moral standards, counteracting exaggerated views on the Last Day and the present work of the Holy Spirit.(9) Since the Epistles are, therefore, a natural continuation of what we find in the Gospel, we will use them as such in this book: not as teaching a different message, but as specifying and affirming what we already find in the Gospel.
If we accept the general outline of origin and composition which I have sketched so far - and we can be reasonably certain of its factuality - then a necessary question arises: to what extent do we still find in John's Gospel a reliable account of what Jesus said and did? Have the creative elaborations of the Evangelist not distorted the original facts? The question becomes all the more stringent when we learn that some scholars maintain that the Evangelist drew some of his main ideas from a non-Christian source, a gnostic compilation of mystical discoures.(10) For the narrative sections he is supposed to have depended heavily on a legendary "Book of Signs" of Hellenistic Jewish origin.(11) What confidence can we still have that the Gospel is actually preaching Jesus' own message and Jesus' actual reality, not a Hellenised version created by the Evangelist?
First of all, the alleged sources have not stood up to critical analysis. Scholars have shown that as many as fifty characteristics of Johannine style occur equally in the material attributed to the sources and that ascribed to the Evangelist.(12) Since we are talking here of very precise and distinctive features, the argument for one author is impressive. "I looks as though, if the author of the Fourth Gospel used documentary sources, he wrote them all himself". (13) The inability of those who posit the existence of sources to come to an agreed position points in the same direction. "That the Evangelist used sources has not been demonstrated. If these sources exist, they have not yet been isolated in a way that permits precise redaction criticism".(14) It confirms that the Evangelist did not use ready-made, outside literary documents, but his own material; as I explained above.
Secondly, the attempt to make John dependent on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke seem also to have failed. The relationships that can be demonstrated are most easily explained by access to common oral tradition, rather than availability of written texts. Depending as the Evangelist does on the early Church's proclamation of Jesus, he could not fail to show many similarities. On the other hand, the Evangelist preserved many original data and precise details not contained in the Synoptics. For example, the Fourth Gospel contains fifteen geographical references to places in Palestine that are extraordinarily accurate and which must have been anchored in original traditions.(15)
When we try to isolate these original traditions in the Gospel, we arrive at a very interesting picture. We find twelve parables;(16) seven miracle stories four of which are parallel to Synoptic accounts; many short statements and dialogues of Jesus which are either parallel to Synoptic passages or carry the same signature; a passion and resurrection narrative which is both original and consistent with Synoptic traditions.(17) In other words, the underlying picture that emerges is very much in agreement with what we know from the other three Gospels.
Yet the presentation of this traditional material in the Fourth Gospel is so much richer, fuller, deeper. The more we get to know John, the more we see that the proclamation in it is both extremely loyal to accepted tradition and boldly creative in a new theological presentation. We will see this in practically every chapter of this book. The Evangelist did not distort, but developed. His discourses are "inspired targums", that is: free interpretations of authentic words of Jesus.(18) The "grains of gold" contained in the old tradition were beaten out by him into fine ornaments.(19) Simple "points" of the memorised sayings of Jesus became "stars" in his perception of them.(20) The Evangelist could do this because like an Egyptian artist he could see more dimensions at the same time, thus presenting figures both full-face and in profile within the same picture.(21) The historica1 Jesus and the Jesus that lives in the Church are telescoped into one personality. Instead of focusing only on "what took place" - the bare historical facts, the Evangelist wanted to focus on "what was going on" - on the theological implications of the facts.(22) Understanding this particular feature of John's Gospel, this theological transformation of historical data, is at the same time the most difficult and the most exciting aspect of our study. For the Evangelist's concern to make Jesus' message relevant to his Hellenistic contemporaries points the way to how that same gospe1 can be made meaningful to us in our own time.
This brings us back, full circle, to the purpose of this book. In Scripture study a distinction is made between exegesis (establishing what the sacred author said) and hermeneutics (determining what it means for the reader). This book will be mainly hermeneutical. I will try to explain what we can learn from John today.
We may well ask whether such an approach is legitimate. Can we be sure there is a contemporary meaning in John? The only adequate answer to this question lies, I believe, in the nature of Sacred Scripture itself. We know that it was inspired not only for the original audiences, but also for us. When God inspired John the Apostle, the Evangelist and the Redactor to produce what is now the Fourth Gospel, he had us in mind. Through the message contained in the Gospel God is addressing us, saying something that touches our twentieth-century, secularised lives. God's Word is so direct, so powerful, so rich in implications that it will have specific meanings for each society, each particular group, yes each individual person. That is why John will have a different message in the context of dialogue with the ancient religions of India, in the South American struggle for liberation of the poor and in a retreat for Jesuit novices who are considering their religious commitment.
Interpreting the text in our present-day, westernised world will be to some extent a subjective exercise. It will be an interpretation of meaning as I see it; and, with modifications due to your own experience, as you see it. There is nothing wrong in this. This is how it should be. "The text necessarily calls into play the consciousness of the interpreter which differs from that of any other interpreter because it is historically structured. Every valid interpretation can therefore be a unique actualisation of the text." (23)
Although I have taken pains in this chapter to distinguish between the functions of John the Apostle, the Evangelist and the final Redactor, I have decided not to press these distinctions throughout the rest of this book. Sometimes I may, for a special reason, refer to "the Evangelist" or "the Redactor" specifically. But normally I will call him the "writer of the Fourth Gospel", the Evangelist or even "John". I have decided to follow this way of speaking for a number of reasons. As far as the spiritual message of the Gospel is concerned, these three personalities were so much united in mind and purpose that they can rightly be considered one author. Moreover, trying to maintain a rigorous distinction of this kind would make the text unnecessarily cumbersome, if not unreadable. For me the central author of the Gospel is the Evangelist whom I call "John" for practical purposes. But I know fully well that he is being backed all the time by the authority of John the Apostle and assisted at times by his friend the Redactor.
After much thought I have decided to present different aspects of John's Gospel in three sections. The first will look at the world in which we live; its need of salvation; the causes of sin. The second and largest section will deal with our relationship to God; how Jesus' coming has opened entirely new dimensions. The third and last section will discuss certain exciting and liberating aspects of our Christian life. In order to keep the presentation light I have kept as much of the academic sub-structure as I could to the footnotes. These will be found at the end of the book. Although they make the text somewhat heavy, I will give references to St.John's Gospel at the end of sentences or paragraphs in simple numbers. The phrase Jn 20,3 simply means "Chapter Jn 20, verse 3 in John's Gospel". Such references will, I hope, not disturb the flow of reading for those who want to read the whole presentation first; and yet provide an opportunity for personal study and verification for those who want to do so.
In the various areas of Johannine theology we are going to discuss, I will take the trouble to show how a particular teaching of John can be derived from a "seed word" in Jesus' own teaching, or how Johannine symbolism is contained in "root images" of the original tradition. I decided I could not omit giving serious attention to this development of thought in John's Gospel, partly because the link between Jesus and John is often not sufficiently brought out in Johannine studies, partly because it is precisely this creative transformation that affords so much insight in Johannine teaching and Johannine spirituality. For those who may want to make a more personal scientific study of John, I recdmmend the publications of five eminent lecturers: C. H. Dodd (Cambridge in England), C. K. Barrett (Durham in England), R. E. Brown (New York), R. Kysar (Hemline in U.S.A.) and R. Schnackenburg (Wurtzburg in Germany).(24)
Last not least, at the end of each chapter I shall provide a short section entitled "for reflection". In this section I suggest a certain passage in John's Gospel which in my view could well be taken for meditation and prayer in the light of the foregoing chapter. I will also add some questions that may spark off a personal response. When I used the material contained in this book for guided retreats I found that such personal meditations were very helpful to make people come to terms with what John means for their own spiritual life. And that is, after all, the whole purpose of this book. To make you discover, renew or re-affirm your commitment to Christ in the light of John's Gospel.
There are many people who helped in writing this book. I want to thank all of them, especially Mary Willson, Leonora Palazzi - van Hovell tot Westervlier, Anne Miller and Jackie Clackson.
1. In Johannem I 6. Cf. J. N. SANDERS and B. A. MARTIN, The Gospel according to St. John, Adam & Charles Black, London 1968, pp.63-64.
2. My position agrees substantially with that of R. E. Brown and R. Schnackenburg (see notes 9 & 35 below). I have somewhat simplified the course of events to keep the text readable.
3. O. CULLMANN, Der johanneische Kreis, Mohr, Tubingen 1975, pp.34-39. The classical Gnostics were people who believed in a highly spiritualised dogma: based on a mixture of Jewish, Christian and pagan ideas (2nd to 4th cent. AD). Mystical circles that prepared the way are known as 'proto-Gnostic'.
4. IRENAEUS, Adv. Haer. III 1,1; The Muratorian Fragment; the Latin anti-Marcionite Prologue, Clement of Alexandria (ace. to Eusebius, Hist VI 14,7).
5. Mk 9,2-13; 32-34; Gal2,9; Acts 4,1-2; 8,14. R.E. BROWN who defended the identification of the Beloved Disciple with John son of Zebedee in 1966 (Comentary, Vol1, pp. XCII-XCVII), had changed his mind by 1979. But he admits that "the relative silence in the Gospel about the sons of Zebedee remains a mystery" (Community, etc., pp. 33-34; see note 24).
6. Or could it be a typically Johannine literary device? The writer likes symmetrical pairs of words and avoids duplicates. "The disciple Jesus loved" may be the counterpart of John the Baptist. Both "bore witness" (1,6). Having mentioned the name of 'John' once, he may imply the same name for the parallel. Cf. C. HUDRY-CLERGEON, "Le quatrieme evangile indique-t-il le nom de son auteur?", Biblica 56 (1975) 545-549.
7. See chapter 16 on "Inherited Autonomy". Perhaps the expression was taken from Deut 33,12 where Benjamin is called "the beloved of the Lord". P. S. MINEAR, "The Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John. Some Clues and Conjectures", Novom Testamentum 19 (1977) 105-123.
8. M. E. BOISMARD, "L'Evangile a quatre dimensions", Lumiere et Vie 1 (1951) 94-114. Recently D. K. CLARK has conjectured the composition may reflect the pattern of midrashic re-reading of Exodus (Wis 11 - 19), namely seven signs with the seventh sign both fulfilling and surpassing the other ones. D. K. CLARK "Signs in-Wisdom and John", Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983) 201-209.
9. R. E. BROWN, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Chapman, London 1979, pp.93-144; The Epistles of John, Doubleday, New York 1982. See also J. L. HOULDEN, The Johannine Epistles, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1984.
10. R. BULTMANN, The Gospel of John. A Commentary, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1971. B. S. EASTON, "Bultmann's RQ Source", Journal for Biblical Literature 65 (1946) 143-156.
11. R. BULTMANN, ibid. W. NICOL, The Semeia in the Fourth Gospel. Tradition and Redaction, Brill, Leiden 1972.
12. E. RUCKSTUHL, Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums Paulus, Freiburg 1981.
13. P. PARKER, "Two Editions of John", Journal for Biblical Literature 75 (1956) 303-314; here p.304.
14. D. A. CARSON, "Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some methodological Questions", Journal for Biblical Literature 97 (1978) 411-429; here p.428.
15. B. SCHWANK, "Ortskenntnisse im Vierten Evangelium? Bericht Uber ein Seminar in Jerusalem," Erbe und Auftrag 57 (1981) 427-442.
16 The bridegroom and the best man (3,29); the wind (3,8); the harvest (4,35-38); the apprenticed son (5,19-20a); the slave and the son (8,35); the shepherd (10,1-5); the benighted traveller (12,35-36); the grain of wheat (12,24)i the woman in labour (16,21)i the Father's house (14,2-3); the true vine (15,1-2).
17. This is well worked out in A. M. HUNTER, According to John. A new look at the Fourth Gospel, Westminster Press, Philadelphia 1968, esp. pp. 90-96.
18. E. A. ABBOTT, The Son of Man, Macmillan, New York 1909, p.411.
19. J. WEISS, The History, of primitive Christianity, Macmillan, London 1937, Vol II, p.793.
20. A. M. HUNTER, ibid. (note 25), p.95.
21. O. CULLMAN, ibid. (note 4), p.14.
22. J MARSH, Saint John, Penguin, Harmondsworth 1968, p.49.
23. S. SCHNEIDERS, "The paschal Imagination: Objectivity and Subjectivity in New Testament interpretation", Theological Studies 43 (1982) 52-68; here p.59.
24. C. H. DODD, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press, London 1953 (1968); Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press, London 1963 (1976). C. K, BARRETT' TThe Gospel according to John, SPCK, London 1955 (updated edition 1978) The Gospel of John and Judaism, SPCK, London 1975; Essays on John, SPCK, London 1982. R. E BROWN, The Gospel according to John, 2 vole., Doubleday, New York 1966; The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Chapman, London 1979. R. KYSAR, The Fourth Evangelist and his Gospel: an Examination of Contemporary Scholarship, Augsburg Publishing, Minnesota 1975; John the Maverick Gospel, John Knox, Atlanta 1976. R. SCHNACKENBURG, The Gospel according to St. John, 3 vole., German edition 1965, 1971, 1975; English, Burns and Oates, London 1982