[1] Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Johannis (Berlin, 1908), pp. 55–8Google Scholar, Bernard, J. H., Gospel according to St John, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1953 ⁴), p. 445Google Scholar, Macgregor, G. H. C., The Gospel of John (New York/London, 1928), pp. 268–70Google Scholar, Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen, 1957 ⁶), pp. 315–31Google Scholar, Noack, B., Zur Johanneischen Tradition (Copenhagen, 1954), p. 141.Google Scholar As we shall see below, the present writer regards 11. 55–57 as an introduction to chapter 12. For the same view, see Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St John (London, 1978 ²), pp. 408 f.Google Scholar, Bultmann, R., op. cit., p. 315Google Scholar, Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 368–9Google Scholar, Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (Oliphants, 1972), pp. 410–11Google Scholar, Sanders, J. N., The Gospel according to St John (New York, 1968), pp. 281 f.Google Scholar, Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannes-evangelium, II. 2. Aufl. (Freiburg/Basel, 1977), p. 456Google Scholar, Wikenhauser, A., Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Regensburg, 1961), p. 225Google Scholar, Hoskyns, E. C., The Fourth Gospel (London, 1947), pp. 408–17. Therefore I would like to deal with 11. 55 to 12. 43 in this paper.Google Scholar

[2] Cf. e.g. Spitta, F., Das Johannes-Evangelium als Quells der Geschichte Jesu (Göttingen, 1910), pp. 260–72Google Scholar, Becker, H., Die Reden des Johannesevangeliums (Göttingen, 1956), p. 132.Google Scholar

[3] Cf. Smith, D. M., The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel (New Haven/London, 1965), pp. 167–8Google Scholar, Schnackenburg, R., op. cit., pp. 454 ff.Google Scholar, Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John i–xii (Garden City, 1966), pp. 445 ff.Google Scholar, Moloney, J., The Johannine Son of Man (Rome, 1976), pp. 165–71.Google Scholar

[4] In this paper it is assumed that the Evangelist composed the greater part of the Gospel of John except for chapter 21 and a few other passages which seem to be additional words/pericopae from the post-Johannine age.

[5] Cf. Barrett, C. K., op. cit., p. 409Google Scholar, Schulz, S., Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Göttingen, 1963), p. 163Google Scholar, Fortna, R. T., op. cit., p. 152.Google Scholar

[6] Schnackenburg, R., op. cit., p. 454Google Scholar, Brown, R. E., op. cit., p. 446Google Scholar, Barrett, C. K., op. cit., p. 410.Google Scholar

[7] The combination, ‘ο⋯ ⋯ρχιερεῑς κα⋯ ο⋯ Φαρισαῑοί’, is found only in Matthew (21. 45, 27. 62). Most of the combinations are portrayed by the members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. Cf. Martyn, J. L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel: Revised and Enlarged (Nashville, 1979), p. 84, n. 118Google Scholar, Wengst, K., Bedrängte Gemeinde und verherrlicher Christus: Der historische Ort des Johannesevangeliums als Schlüssel zu seiner Interpretation (Neukirchen-Vluyn), p. 41.Google Scholar

[8] Martyn, J. L., op. cit., pp. 84–5.Google Scholar

[9] Martyn, J. L., op. cit., pp. 50–62, esp. p. 61.Google Scholar

[10] Cf. Brown, R. E., op. cit., p. 446Google Scholar, Barrett, C. K., op. cit., p. 410Google Scholar, Schulz, S., op. cit., p. 163.Google Scholar

[11] Cf. Mk. 14. 3–9, Mt. 26. 6–13, Lk. 7. 36–50.

[12] Cf. Fortna, R. T., The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 149–52.Google Scholar

[13] Cf. Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 162–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[14] Cf. Haenchen, E., ‘Johanneische Probleme’, ZTK 56 (1956), pp. 19–54, esp. p. 51, n. 3Google Scholar; now in Gott und Mensch (Tübingen, 1965), pp. 78–113, esp. p. 109, n. 3.Google Scholar See further Haenchen, , Johannes Evangelium (Tübingen, 1980), p. 432.Google Scholar

[15] Schnackenburg, , op. cit., pp. 457–67, esp. pp. 465–6Google Scholar, Brown, R. E., op. cit., pp. 449–54Google Scholar, Schulz, S., op. cit., p. 163Google Scholar, Moloney, , op. cit., p. 166.Google ScholarMorris, L., Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Michigan, 1969), pp. 31–4.Google Scholar

[16] See further Legault, A., ‘An Application of the Form-Critique Method to the Anointings in Galilee (Lk. 7,36–50) and Bethany (Mt. 26,6–13;Mk. 14:3–9; Jn. 12,1–8’, CBQ 16 (1954), pp. 131–45Google Scholar, Lindars, B., op. cit., p. 413Google Scholar, Noack, B., op. cit., pp. 109–13Google Scholar, Sanders, J. N., op. cit., pp. 285–6.Google Scholar

[17] Cf. 11. 51, 12. 37, etc. Cf. Fortna, R. T., op. cit., p. 151Google Scholar, Barrett, C. K., op. cit., p. 413. As far as their conclusions are concerned, they are right.Google Scholar

[18] We find almost word-for-word parallels in Mk. 14.7a and 7c except for the differences of the word order of the first four words. The Marcan version has ‘κα⋯ ὅταν θέλητε δύνασθε αὺτοῑς εὐ ποι⋯σαι’ (14. 7b).

[19] Cf. Schnackenburg, R., op. cit., pp. 463–4.Google Scholar

[20] See infra.

[21] Haenchen, E., Johannes Evangelium, p. 440.Google Scholar

[22] E. Haenchen, loc. cit.

[23] It is, therefore, possible that ‘ό ὅχλος’ in 12.8 means both the people found in 12.9 and 17 and the people in 12.12 and 11.55.

[24] Martyn, J. L., op. cit., pp. 32–3, esp. p. 32, n. 34.Google Scholar

[25 ] It is right, therefore, for Schnackenburg, , op. cit., p. 464, to argue that the detail in vv. 10–11 is not part of a historical narrative, but of the dramatic scene.Google Scholar

[26] Cf. Mk. 11.1–11, Mt. 21.1–11, Lk. 19. 28–40.

[27] Cf. Schweizer, E., EGO EMI …: Die religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft und theologische Bedeutung der johanneischen Bildreden, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage des vierten Evangeliums (Göttingen, 1939), pp. 99–111.Google Scholar

[28] Cf. Fortna, R. T., op. cit., pp. 152–5.Google Scholar Concerning the view that the Evangelist used a source independent of the Synoptics, see further, Schulz, S., op. cit., p. 164Google Scholar, Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 152–6Google Scholar, Spitta, F., op. cit., pp. 268–72Google Scholar, Meeks, W. A., The Prophet-King: Moses Tradition and the Johannine Christology (Leiden, 1967), pp. 85–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Smith, D. M., ‘John 12,12 ff. and the question of John's use of the Synoptics’, JBL 82 (1963), pp. 58–64Google Scholar, Bultmann, R., op. cit., p. 319Google Scholar, Sanders, J. N., op. cit., p. 287.Google Scholar

[29] Schnackenburg, R., op. cit., pp. 468, 476.Google Scholar

[30] Concerning the loose combination of the two Old Testament passages, see Fortna, R. T., op. cit., p. 154.Google Scholar

[31] Cf. Schnackenburg, R., op. cit., p. 471.Google Scholar

[32] Cf. Brown, R. E., op. cit., pp. 461–3Google Scholar, Schnackenburg, R., op. cit., pp. 472–3.Google Scholar

[33] In this paper I would like only to suggest this point because of the limitation of space. I would like to discuss the problem on another occasion.

[34] Cf. Martyn, J. L., ‘Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community’, in: L'Évangile de Jean, Sources, rédaction, théologie, ed. by de Jonge, M. (BETL XLIV, Leuven, 1977), pp. 149–75, esp. pp. 166–74Google Scholar, now in; The Gospel of John in Christian History (New York, 1979), pp. 90–121, esp. pp. 109–20.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as ‘Glimpses’. He aptly points out the three groups, the Jews, the Christian Jews who remain within the synagogue and the Jewish Christians who consist of the Johannine community.

[35] It is possible to say that a hypothesis has a high probability if it enables more facts to be seen in a coherent way.

[36] Cf. 2. 22, etc. See further Schulz, S., op. cit., p. 164Google Scholar, Fortna, R. T., op. cit., p. 154.Google Scholar

[37] Martyn, J. L., ‘Glimpses’, p. 118.Google Scholar

[38] Cf. Brown, R. E., op. cit., p. 463Google Scholar, Schulz, S., op. cit., p. 164Google Scholar, Fortna, R. T., op. cit., p. 154Google Scholar, Schnackenburg, S., op. cit., p. 474.Google Scholar

[39] Concerning the parable in v. 23, see Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 366–9Google Scholar, Brown, R. E., op. cit., pp. 471–3Google Scholar, Schnackenburg, S., op. cit., pp. 480–1.Google Scholar

[40] The form of the opening phrase of vv. 20 ff., is very similar to 3.1, etc., which are the evangelist's redaction.

Furthermore, we find the same usage ‘προσκυνεῑν’ as in the typical Johannine account in 4. 20–24. Cf. Schnackenburg, S., op. cit., p. 478.Google Scholar

[41] Verses 12. 20–22 are very similar in form and dramatis personae to 1. 35 ff., which seems to belong to the source. Cf. Fortna, R. T., op. cit., p. 200, n. 3.Google Scholar

[42] Concerning the use of the saying of Jesus in the pre-Johannine narrative material, see Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 69Google Scholar, Fortna, R. T., ‘Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Redaction-Critical Perspectives’, NTS 21 (1975), p. 482CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Becker, J., Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Kapitel 11–21 (Würzburg, 1981), pp. 386–8.Google Scholar

[43] Cf. Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 70Google Scholar, Schnackenburg, R., op. cit., pp. 484–5.Google Scholar

[44] 12. 30 was composed by the Evangelist in order to introduce the following discourse and to interpret the sayings in vv. 27–29.

[45 ] Cf. Schnackenburg, S., op. cit., p. 486.Google Scholar

[46] It is difficult to clarify the origin of the phrase ‘βροντ⋯ν ΥεΥονέναι’ in 12. 29 because the reference is shown in the Hellenistic texts and Hebrew texts. I agree with Schnackenburg's view that it is derived from the apocalyptic texts. See Schnackenburg, , op. cit., pp. 488–9.Google Scholar In freely using such material, the Evangelist created the theme of the misunderstanding by the people which is one of the typical Johannine themes. Concerning the Hellenistic texts, see Bauer, W., Das Johannesevangelium (Tübingen, 1925), p. 158Google Scholar, and Mandaean texts, see Bultmann, R., op. cit., pp. 322, n. 8, 328, n. 1,329, n. 4.Google Scholar

[47] Cf. 2. 21, 6. 6. These are typical Johannine phrases. See further 11. 51,12. 6, etc.

[48] Cf. 14. 30, 16.11, etc. Similar expressions, however, are common. Cf. Barrett, C. K., op. cit., pp. 426–7.Google Scholar

[49] As Brown, R. E., op. cit., p. 468Google Scholar, aptly suggests, the Evangelist's portrait of a struggle between the Prince of this world and Jesus is very close to the Qumran picture of the struggle between the angel of darkness and the prince of lights. Concerning the difference of the Qumran texts from John, see Schnackenburg, , op. cit., pp. 490–1.Google Scholar

[50] Cf. Barrett, C. K., op. cit., p. 214.Google Scholar

[51] Cf. Blank, J., Krisis; Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg, 1964), pp. 286–7.Google Scholar

[52] Cf. 3. 13–14, 8. 28, etc. Concerning the typical Johannine combination ‘⋯ υ⋯⋯ς τοῡ ⋯νθρώπου’ with ‘δεῑ’ and ‘ὺψοῡν’, see Tsuchido, K., ‘The Composition of the Nicodemus Episode, John 2. 23–3. 21’, Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute Vol. 1 (1975), pp. 91–103, esp. pp. 92–6.Google Scholar

[53] ‘ὺψωθ⋯ναι’ does not normally mean ‘to be crucified’. It, however, means not only ‘to be lifted up’ but also ‘to be crucified’ when it is used as a rendering of ‘izd^eqeph’. Cf. Barrett, C. K., op. cit., pp. 9, 214.Google ScholarBlack, M., An Aramaic approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1976 ³), pp. 141 ff.Google Scholar, Higgins, A. J. B., Jesus and the Son of Man (Philadelphia, 1964), p. 161.Google Scholar

[54] So correctly Schnackenburg, , op. cit., p. 489.Google Scholar

[55] Cf. Mk. 14. 41, Lk. 22. 53, etc.

[56] Cf. John 7. 30, 8. 20.

[57] Cf. John 17. 1, etc.

[58] It is not correct, therefore, for Thüsing, W., Die Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium (Münster, 1960), p. 12, to claim that the Johannine ‘ύψωθ⋯ναι’ means only the Crucifixion of Jesus.Google Scholar

[59] Cf. Schnackenburg, R., op. cit., p. 515.Google Scholar

[60] Concerning the view that these passages belonged to the primitive stock of testimonia, see Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 379–83.Google Scholar

[61] Cf. Faure, A., ‘Die alttestamentlichen Zitate im vierten Evangelium und die Quellenscheidungs-hypothese’, ZNW 21 (1922), pp. 99–121, esp. 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[62] Cf. Bultmann, R., op. cit., p. 346.Google Scholar

[63] Although the term, ‘ὅμως’ itself occurs only three times in the New Testament, the double expression ‘ὅμως μέντοι’ occurs only in 12. 42.

[64] Cf. Brown, R. E., op. cit., p. 487Google Scholar, Moloney, J., op. cit., p. 168.Google Scholar