[1] See most recently Hauser, H. J., Strukturen der Abschlusserzählung der Apostelgeschichte (AB 86, Rome, 1979).Google Scholar

[2] So Hoffmann, P., Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NTA nf 8, 2e. Münster, 1975), pp. 285 f.Google Scholar, taking Matt. 10.40 as the original form of the Q-saying; and Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (6e. Berlin, 1971), p. 211.Google ScholarSchulz, S., Q. Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich, 1972), p. 457Google Scholar, sees that Matthew's δέχεται derives from Mk. 9. 37: the passage is a good instance of the familial Q phenomenon that both evangelists have edited the original saying. A more satisfying solution is that Schulz is right in descrying the original in Mark, and Hoffmann is right in deriving the Lucan from the Matthaean form; but this involves dropping the Q hypothesis – see further my Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London, 1974), pp. 351Google ScholarMarshall, f. I. H., The Gospel of Luke (Exeter, 1978), pp. 426 f.Google Scholar, follows Dodd in suggesting that the saying circulated orally in various forms; but he does not weigh Hoffmann's arguments, or consider that John might have read Luke; and the position of the saying at the end of the missionary discourse in both Matthew and Luke seems to require a literary explanation.

[3] ‘The Use of Tradition in John 12. 44–50’, NTS26. 1 (10. 1979), p. 28.Google Scholar

[4] Hoskyns, E. and Davey, F. N., The Fourth Gospel (London, 1940), p. 423Google Scholar, cite Cyril of Alexandria, ‘Seeing that the Gentiles are hastening in eager desire to see him …’; Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John: A Commentary (ET Oxford, 1971), pp. 423 f.Google Scholar, ‘the Revealer, in order to be perfected as Revealer, must take his departure from the earth’; Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John I–XII (Garden City, 1966), p. 470Google Scholar, ‘Jesus had said that he would lay down his life, and that other sheep would join his flock’; Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St John, 1I (1971, ET London, 1980), p. 382Google Scholar, ‘12. 23 is a direct refusal of (the Greeks') request, but only because Jesus must first undergo death’; Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (London, 1972), p. 426Google Scholar, ‘Their presence inspires Jesus to give a parable, the seed which dies …’; Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St John (2e. London, 1978), ‘it is only after the crucifixion that the Gospel compasses both Jew and Gentile’.Google Scholar

[5] Bultmann, , p. 426Google Scholar, ‘One can treat of Jesus and of those who belong to him only together’; Brown, , p. 474Google Scholar, ‘vs. 25 explains the way in which the new grain produced by the seed of vs. 24 gains a life of its own’; Schnackenburg, , p. 384Google Scholar, ‘the discourse is to the disciples who will one day be missionaries to the Greeks’; Lindars, , p. 429, ‘the principle … is now applied to the personal behaviour of the Kingdom’Google Scholar; Barrett, , p. 423, ‘V. 24 forms a suitable transition to these sayings about discipleship because … it is stated in general terms and is of universal scope.’Google Scholar

[6] Bultmann, , p. 427, ‘V. 27 makes a fresh start … the ῶρα is more exactly defined’Google Scholar; Brown, , pp. 470 f., ‘It is not unlikely that at one time 23, 27–8 were a unit … The Johannine picture where (Gethsemane-type) sayings and prayers are scattered may actually be closer to the original situation than the more organised Synoptic scene’Google Scholar; Lindars, , p. 430, ‘The appointed moment has arrived (or almost arrived). And it is a moment of horror. So John makes use of the Gethsemane tradition’Google Scholar; Barrett, , p. 424, ‘The “Agony” is taken at this point not because John feared that such human anxiety would spoil the effect of ch. 17 but because in the present chapter he was summing up the ministry of Jesus in terms of service and death.’Google Scholar

[7] Bultmann, , p. 431, ‘The significance of the hour of decision is thus described in the cosmological terminology of the Gnostic myth’Google Scholar; Brown, , p. 477, ‘the atmosphere of dualistic division returns once again’Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , p. 390, ‘Without any transition …’Google Scholar; Lindars, , p. 433, ‘The turning-point from the present world-order … as already been reached-or at least is anticipated in this decisive moment’Google Scholar; Barrett, , p. 426, ‘(John) interprets (the crucifixion) by setting beside it here a mythological struggle between Jesus and the prince of this world.’Google Scholar

[8] Bultmann, p. 430, ‘The Evangelist has again made clear, through his medium of the misunderstanding, how difficult such understanding is for man’; Brown, p. 477, ‘The purpose that Jesus allots to the heavenly voice is puzzling’; Schnackenburg, p. 389, ‘The crowd is introduced without regard to the situation’; Lindars, , p. 432, ‘As Barrett points out’ (1e., p. 355 = 2e., p. 426) ‘it is absurd to say that the ‘voice has come for’ the crowd if it can be confused with a thunder-clap – unless, that is, the noise of thunder is itself sufficient to indicate divine assurance. But this may well be what John means.’Google Scholar

[9] Bultmann, pp. 357, 452, puts the hiding and crying in different contexts; so Brown, p. 490, ‘The discourse … is clearly not in its original context’; Schnackenburg, , p. 421Google Scholar, attributes it to ‘editors’; Lindars, , p. 437Google Scholar, ‘if John has felt the need to explain the unbelief of the Jews in verses 37–43, it is at least appropriate to put the opposite point, the value and validity of belief, by contrast’; Barrett, , p. 433, ‘an independent piece which is not an appeal but a summary’.Google Scholar

[10] Schnackenburg, , p. 421Google Scholar, ‘This last revelatory discourse (κράζєιν) …’; Lindars, , p. 437, ‘a summary … John has used the verb ‘cried out’ (έκραξєν) in a similar way of the Baptist in 1. 15’.Google Scholar

[11] Lindars prefers to link the language with Mark 4, and notes that the Pauline use (‘a metaphysical argument’) is different; but the words are closer to 1 Cor. 15, and the use is not the point – both passages are about the Resurrection. 1 Cor. seems to have been very widely known by John's time.

[12] The verse is sometimes linked with Mk. 10. 45 par., but that is concerned with Jesus' ministering, not the disciple's; and James and John are not encouraged to think that they will be with Jesus, or be honoured.

[13] ‘Now is my soul troubled’, cf. Mk. 14. 34; ‘Father, save me from this hour’, cf. Mk. 14. 36; the voice from heaven/?angel, cf. Lk. 22. 43. John minimises Jesus' human weakness: he knows no tremor in the garden, and the reader feels that the trouble of soul of 12. 27 was over in a second, and before the voice came. So the evangelist has not suppressed the Synoptic humanity-tradition, but his Jesus remains the Word of God, effectively uncompromised.

[14] It must be confessed that the common mind is more impressive than the reasons offered. The best that can be said is: (i) Luke has two missions in the Gospel, one of ‘the Twelve’, ‘the apostles’ in Galilee (9. 1–6, 10 f.), one of Seventy (?–two) in 10. 1–16, 17–20 ‘on the way’. He also has two missions in the Great Supper (14. 16–24), one in ‘the streets and lanes of the town’, the other in ‘the highways and hedges’. In view of the stress in Acts on the double mission to Jews and Gentiles, it seems likely that the same symbolism is present in Lk. 10 and 14. (ii) A number of the details in Lk. 10 are echoed in the Gentile mission in Acts, e.g. staying in a single house, shaking the dust off one's feet, taking no harm from snakes, (iii) There is no other plausible explanation on offer.

[15] Cf. also 8. 20, Jesus' family stand without, ίδєι¯ν σє θέλοντєς; so Barrett.

[16] Lindars, , p. 437, suggests a weakened sense for єκραξє, on the grounds that the verb is used for a recapitulation of John's ‘witness’ at 1. 15. But the sense of an inspired utterance seems clear at 7. 28, 37, and very likely at 1. 15 too: John can now identify the Light as Jesus – ‘This was he of whom 1 said…’Google Scholar

[17] Cf. Hauser, pp. 69–75.

[18] 9. 55b is testified by Koine D Θ λ ø al lat syr^c.p boP^t, Marcion; D reading ποιου against the others' οιου and D Θ omitting υμєις. The same witnesses except for D read v. 56a. Both are lacking in p^45,75 N A B C E W al 1 syr^s sa boP^t, Hier. They are given a C rating in B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (UBS, 1971).

[19] Luke: A Creek–English Diglot for the Use of Translators (BFBS, London, 1962).Google ScholarRoss, J. M. has some helpful discussion in ‘The Rejected Words in Luke 9,54–56’, ET 84 (1972–1973), pp. 85–8.Google Scholar