Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:56:50.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Quest for the Johannine School: The Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The subject presents one of those questions in New Testament criticism in which mental bent, apart from the bias of prejudgment, is chiefly influential in deter-mining the conclusions reached.

This statement with which I. T. Beckwith introduced in 1919 his discussion of the authorship of the Apocalypse (Apoc) still proves to be true today. It can be equally applied to the question whether the Apoc should be assigned to the same school or circle that was responsible for the Fourth Gospel (4G) and the Johannine Epistles. The judgement moreover also pertains to the historical and theological interpretation of either the Apoc or the 4G. Mental bent and systematic presuppositions determine the various reconstructions of the history of the Johannine community as well as the theological interpretations of its literary works.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , July 1977 , pp. 402 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Beckwith, I. T., The Apocalypse of John (repr. of 1919 ed.; Michigan: Ann Arbor, 1967), p. 354.Google Scholar

2 For a summary of the problems and literature cf. Kysar, R., The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel.An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publ. House, 1975).Google Scholar

3 Feuillet, A., L'Apocalypse. État de la question (Studia Neotestamentica 111: Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1962)Google Scholar; Kraft, H., ‘Zur Offenarung des Johannes’, Theologische Rundschau NF XXXVIII (1973), 81–98Google Scholar; Böcher, O., Die Johannesapokalypse (Erträge der Forschung, 41; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975).Google Scholar

4 The Tübingen school (Baur, Köstler, Schwegler, B. Weiss, Hausrath, et al.) maintained that the Apoc is a Judaistic counterpart to the universalism of Paul. The source-critical analyses of Vischer, * Seminar papers read at the 31st Meeting of S.N.T.S., August 1976.Google Scholar Weyland, Holtzmann, Sabbatier, and J. Weiss have claimed that Revelation is a compilation from one or more Jewish sources. Ford, J. M., The Revelation of John (Anchor Bible 38; New York: Double-day, 1975)Google Scholar claims that the book comes from the school of John the Baptist.

1 Cf. Koch, K., The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic. A polemical work on a neglected area of biblical studies and its damaging effects on theology and philosophy (Naperville: Allenson, 1970).Google Scholar

2 Kiddle, M., The Revelation of St. John (Moffatt; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1940), p. xxxiii.Google Scholar

3 Justin, , Dial. c. Trypho 81.Google Scholar 4 (c. 160; conversion at Ephesus c. 135) claims that the Apoc stems from the Apostle John, but does not say anything about the author of the 4G. Irenaeus, , Adv. Haer. 2.Google Scholar 22, 5; 4. 21, 11; 5. 26, I claims that both Apoc and 4G have as author John, the Apostle.

1 Cf. Eusebius, , E.H.Google Scholar 7.25.

2 Eusebius, , E.H. 3.25, 4Google Scholar; 3.39.

3 Cf. the review of the literature on the authorship problem in Feuillet, Kysar, and Böcher, the Introduction of Feine-Behm-Kümmel or Wikenhauser, the introduction to the commentaries of, for example, Bousset, Swete, Charles, Beckwith (Apoc) or Barrett, Brown, Schnackenburg (4G) and articles by, for example, Heitmüller, W., ‘Zur Johannes-Tradition’, Z.N.W. XV (1914), 189–209Google Scholar; Munck, J., ‘Presbyters and Disciples of the Lord’, H.T.R. LII (1959), 223–43Google Scholar; Schwartz, E., ‘Johannes and Kerinthos’, Z.N.W. XV (1914), 210–19Google Scholar; Bacon, B. W., ‘The Authoress of Revelation – A Conjecture’, H.T.R. XXIII (1930), 235–50Google Scholar; Parker, P., ‘John the Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel’, J.B.L. LXXXL (1962), 35–43Google Scholar; Sanders, J. N., ‘St. John on Patmos’, N.T.S. IX (1962/1963), 75–85.Google Scholar This listing of articles is neither complete nor representative but documents the possibilities of a constructive scholarly phantasy.

1 Lohmeyer, E., Die ffenbarung des johannes (HNT 16; 2nd ednTubingen: Mohr, 1953), p. 195.Google Scholar

1 For a review of research see Culpepper, R. Alan, The.Johannine School (SBL Diss. Ser. 26; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

2 Der johanneische Kreis. Zum Ursprung des Johannesevangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1975).Google Scholar

3 OP. Cit. pp. 57–60.Google Scholar

4 Smith, D. Moody Jr, ‘Johannine Christianity: Some Reflections on its Character and De lineations’, N.T.S. XXI (222–48).Google Scholar

1 Idem, John (Proclamation Commentary Ser.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), p. 69.Google Scholar

2 The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924), p. 459.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Culpepper, , The Johannine School, p. 259.Google Scholar

4 Stendahl, K., The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (2nd ednPhiladelphia: Fortress, 1968), p. 163.Google Scholar

5 Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St. John (repr. 1960; London: S.P.C.K. 1955)Google Scholar, pp. 113 f., cf. p. 52. Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (Anchor Bible 29; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), p. ciiGoogle Scholar, agrees with Barrett's assumption ‘that Revelation is the work that is most directly John's’. Cf. also Smith, D. M., John, p. 85Google Scholar, but with different arguments.

1 Weiss, J., Die Offenbarung Johannes (FRLANT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904), PP. 146–64.Google Scholar

1 Brown, R. E., op. cit. 1Google Scholar, cvii f.

2 Cf. the reviews of the commentaries on the Apoc, e.g. Swete, H. B., The Apocalypse of St. John (London, 1908; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), pp. clxxiv–clxxxviGoogle Scholar; Charles, R. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC; New York: Scribner, 1920), pp. xxix–xliv.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Allo, E. B., ‘L'Auteur de l' Apocalypse’, R.B. XIV (1917), 321–75, esp. p. 335.Google Scholar

1 Cf. Brown, R. E., op. cit. I, 499–518Google Scholar, appendix 1: ‘Johannine Vocabulary’, but with different conclusions.

2 Cf. Baumbach, G., ‘Gemeinde and Welt im Johannesevangelium’, Kairos XIV (1972), 121–36, esp. p. 122.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Ch. Brütsch, , Die Offenbarung des Johannes, III (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 21970), 303–41Google Scholar, esp. pp. 339 f.; based on Morgenthaler, R., Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes (Zürich: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1958).Google Scholar

4 Swete, H. B., op. cit. p. cxxix.Google Scholar

1 Cf. the discussion of the title by Holtz, T., Die Christologie der Apokalse des Johannes (TU 85; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962), pp. 39–47Google Scholar and the literature-review by Böcher, O., op. cit. pp. 42–7.Google Scholar

2 Against Comblin, J., Le Christ dans l' Apocalypse (Theol. Bibl. III, 6; Paris; Desclée, 1965), pp. 22–6.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1968), pp. 230–8Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., ‘The Lamb of God’, N.T.S. 1 (1954/1955), 210–18.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Jeremias, J., ‘Das Lamm, das aus der Jungfrau hervorging (Test. Jos. 19: 8)’, Z.N.W. LVII (1966), 216–19Google Scholar; Burchard, C., ‘Das Lamm in der Waagschale’, Z.N.W. LVII (1966), 219–28.Google ScholarMurmelstein, B., –Das Lamm in Test. Jos. 19: 8’, Z.N.W. (1967), 273–9Google Scholar defends the authenticity of the Armenian version of Test. Jos, . xix. 8.Google Scholar

5 The interpretation of the metaphor in Apoc vii. 14 is difficult, since the agent is not the Lamb, but those who have come out of the great tribulation.

1 Cf. Holtz, T., Die ChristologieGoogle Scholar, pp. 212 f.; Rissi, M., ‘The Kerygma of the Revelation to John’, Interpretation XXII (1968), 3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. pp. 7 f.

2 That the birth of the divine child is mentioned in ch. xii is due to the traditional material taken over by the author.

3 Cf. Schnackenburg, R., Die, Johannesbriefe (HThKNT XIII, 3; 2nd ednFreiburg: Herder, 1963)Google Scholarad loc.

4 Fortna, R., The Gospel of Signs: a Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (SNTS monograph XI; Cambridge: University Press, 1970), pp. 175, 182Google Scholar, 232 f.

5 Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel According to St. John, 1 (New York: Herder, 1968), 300.Google Scholar

1 Cf. Rom. iii. 24a–26 and I Cor. x. 16; xi. 25; cf. Lohse, E., Martyrer and Gottesknecht. Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Verkündigung vom Sühnetod Jesu Christi (FRLANT NF 46; 2nd ednGöttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), pp. 138–41.Google Scholar

2 Brown, R. E., op. cit. I, 62.Google Scholar This speaks against the interpretation of Holtz, T., op. cit. p. 47Google Scholar, who stresses the expiatory character of the Lamb because the ‘Passalämmer, die beim Auszug aus Ägypten geschlachtet wurden’ caused ‘Sühne für die Sünden des Volkes Israel…’. Brown, however, attempts to deduce the expiatory character of the paschal lamb.

3 Cf. my article ‘Redemption as Liberation: Apoc. t: 5 f. and 5: 9 f.’, C.B.Q. XXXVI (1974), 220–32.Google Scholar

4 Beckwith, , op. cit. p. 732.Google Scholar

5 Holtz, T., op. cit. p. 176.Google Scholar

6 Cf. for the review of literature Thyen, H., ‘Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium’, Th.R. NF XXXIX (1974), 1–69, 222–52.Google Scholar

1 It is interesting to note that the phrase unites the notions of the ‘word of God’ and the ‘witness of Jesus’. The phrase probably was used in the community as an expression for Christian faith in general (Apoc i. 9, vi. 9, xx. 4; cf. also xii. 17). Cf. Satake, A., Die Gemeindeordung, pp. 98–106.Google Scholar The author of the Apoc, however, uses this phrase to characterize the prophetic content of his book (i. 2, xix. 10). He stresses that the witness who guarantees the words of the Apoc is Jesus Christ (xxii. 20), whereas the 4G emphasizes the guarantee of human eyewitnesses (cf. John, iii. 11Google Scholar, xix. 35, xxi 24).

2 Cf. Michel, O., Der Brief an die Hebräer (Meyer, XIII: 6th ednGöttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), p. 197.Google Scholar

1 It is interesting to note that John, xxi. 16Google Scholar f. has in common with Apoc vii. 17 the expressions and . However, the fourth evangelist says βóσκε τά άρνία μον and ποίμαινε τά πρóβατά μου which indicates that he did not have in mind the Apoc-text but the conventional image ‘of the shepherd and sheep for pastoral responsibility’. Cf. Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (New Century Bible; London: Oliphants, 1972), p. 635.Google Scholar

2 Cf. Lohse, E., Die Offenbarung des Johannes (NTD II: 9th ednGöttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), p. 104Google Scholar; Kuhaupt, H., Der neue Himmel und die neue Erde (Münster: Aschendorf, 1947), p. 157Google Scholar; Rissi, M., Die Zukunft der Welt (Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1966), pp. 63–9.Google Scholar

3 If the assumption of Müller, U. B., Die Geschichte der Christologie in der Johanneischen Gemeinde (SBS 77; Stuttgart: Bibelwerk, 1975)Google Scholar were correct that John i. 14, 16 is an independent hymn of praise and thanksgiving for the epiphany of the miracle worker Jesus, then we could assume that the Apoc was familiar only with this tradition and not with the whole prologue. Apoc vii. 17 would then be another link to the semeia-source.

1 For a more extensive discussion cf. my article ‘Cultic Language in Qumran and in the New Testament’, C.B.Q. XXXVIII (1976), 159–77.Google Scholar

2 The determination of the traditional Vorlage and the interpretation of Apoc xi. 1–2 is debated. In the present form the text stresses the protection (cf. Ezek. xxix. 6) of those who worship God.

3 Cf. Goppelt, L., ‘ύδωρ’, TDNT 8.326; Bultmann, R., The Gospel of john (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971)Google Scholar, pp. 182 ff.

4 Cf. the commentaries, e.g. Lohmeyer, E., Die OffenbarungGoogle Scholar, pp. 181 f.; a. o. P. Prigent maintains such a liturgical context also for ch. xxi. Cf. ‘Une trace de liturgie Judéochrétienne dans le chapitre XXI de l' Apocalypse de Jean’, R.S.R. LX (1972), 165–72.Google Scholar

1 Norden, E., Agnostos neos. Untersuchungen zur Formgeschichte religiöser Rede (4th ednDarmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966)Google Scholar, pp. 186 f.; Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium 11 (HThKNT IV; Freiburg: Herder, 1971), 58.Google Scholar

2 Cf. Culpepper, R. A., op. cit.Google Scholar 272 f. and appendix n. Baumbach, G., ‘Gemeinde and Welt’, p. 135Google Scholar: ‘Es gibt deshalb im johanneischen Schrifttum nur einen “einzigen”, der υίòς θεοũ; genannt wird, die Gläubigen heissen hier nicht sondern τέκνα θεοũ.’

1 Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel, 1Google Scholar, 38 f.; review of Freed, E. D., Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (Leiden: Brill, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar in Kysar, R., The Fourth Evangelist, pp. 104–7Google Scholar; Reim, G., Studien zum Alttestamentlichen Hintergrund desJohannesevangeliums (Cambridge: University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

2 Against Comblin, J., Le ChristGoogle Scholar and Kraft, H., ‘Zur Offenbarung des Johannes’, p. 85Google Scholar: ‘Wenn man einmal weiΒ, daΒ die Johannesapokalypse nichts sein will als Auslegung des Alten Testaments, dann wird man auch jede Erklärung von Einzelfragen danach beurteilen ob sie dieser grundlegenden Beziehung hinreichend Rechnung trägt.’

3 Swete, H. B., The Apocalypse, p. cliv.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Gambier, J., ‘Les images de l' Ancien Testament dans l' Apocalypse de saint Jean’, N.R. Th. LXXVII (1955), 113–22Google Scholar, esp. pp. 116 f.; Harder, G., ‘Eschatologische Schemata in der Johannes Apokalypse’, Th.Viat. IX (1963), 70–87Google Scholar; Müller, H. P., ‘Die Plagen der Apokalypse’, Z.N.W. LI (1960), 268–79.Google Scholar

5 Stendahl, K., School of St. Matthew p. 159.Google Scholar

1 Cf. Schnackenburg, R., Das johannesevangelium III (Freiburg: Herder, 1975)Google Scholar, 343 if.

2 For a more detailed discussion see my book Priester für Gott. Studien zum Heuschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse (NTA 7; Münster: Aschendorff, 1972), pp. 185–92.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (London: SCM Press, 1961), pp. 122–7.Google Scholar

1 Cf. Vos, L. A., The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse (Kampen: J. H. Kek, 1965)Google Scholar, pp. 218 f. for an index of passages.

2 Cf. e.g. Wikenhauser, A., Der Sinn der Apokalypse des N. Johannes (Münster: Aschendorff, 1931), pp. 5–16Google Scholar and his commentary Die Offenbarung des Johannes (RNT 9: 3rd ednRegensburg: Pustet, 1959)Google Scholar for the following division: Mark, xiii. 7–13Google Scholar corresponds to Apoc v-xi (the beginning of the eschatological woes), Mark, xiii. 14–23Google Scholar corresponds to Apoc 10 (the great tribulation before the end) and Mark, 24–7Google Scholar corresponds to Apoc xix. 11 if. (the parousia). His division of the Apoc does not, however, reflect the compositional elements of the surface-structure, cf. my article ‘The Eschatology and Composition of the Apocalypse’, C.B.Q. XXX (1968), 537–69.Google Scholar In a forthcoming article (‘Composition and Structure of the Apocalypse’), I attempt to delineate the formal structure of the book.

1 It would be interesting to explore the affinities between the Apocalypse and Matthew more fully in the context of the discussion of early Christian prophecy (cf. the various articles of E. Schweizer on the milieu of the Matthean community).

2 This avoidance of the Son of Man title in the Apoc would have to be studied more fully not only with respect to early Christian apocalyptic traditions but also in view of the function that the descent-ascent motif in connection with the Son of Man (cf. John, iii. 13Google Scholar) has for the understanding of the 4G and the Johannine group. Cf. Meeks, W. A., ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sec tarianism’, J.B.L. XCI (1972), 44–72.Google Scholar

1 Cf. Dibelius, M., ‘Wer Ohren hat zur hören, der höre’, Th.St. Kr. LXXXIII (1910), 461–71Google Scholar; Hahn, F., ‘Die Sendschreiben der Johannesapokalypse. Ein Beitrag zur Bestimmung prophetischer Redeformen’, in Tradition und Glaube, Festgabe för K. G. Kuhn (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), PP. 357–94, esp. PP. 377–81.Google Scholar

2 Cf. Vos, L. A., Synoptic Traditions, pp. 71–5.Google Scholar

3 Müller, U. B., Prophetie und Predigt im Neuen Testament. Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Prophetic (StNT 10; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975), p. 51.Google Scholar

4 Against Holtz, T., Die ChristologieGoogle Scholar, pp. 208 ff.; it is, however, interesting to note that in the Sendschreiben the word of the Spirit is identical with the word of the resurrected Lord. Similarly according to John, xiv. 26Google Scholar the function of the Paraclete is to teach the word of Jesus, but it is that which Jesus has spoken on earth. For the development of the Paraclete understanding cf. Müller, U. B., ‘Die Parakletvorstellung im Johannesevangelium’, Z.M.K. LXXI (1974), 31–77.Google Scholar At this point it becomes apparent that the definition of the relationship of apocalyptic and gnostic revelations or ‘gospels’ on the one hand and their interrelationship to the ‘canonical gospel’ on the other hand becomes of crucial importance for the discussion of the relationship of the Apoc and the 4G.

1 Käsemann, E., ‘Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament’, New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM, 1969), pp. 66–81.Google Scholar Cf. also Thompson, L., ‘Cult and Eschatology in the Apocalypse of John’, J.R. XLIX (1969), 330–50Google Scholar, esp. pp. 347 ff.; for an extensive discussion of the prophetic form and self-understanding in the Apoc and Paul cf. Müller, U. B., Prophetie and Predigt pp. 109–75.Google Scholar

2 Schnackenburg, R., DieJohannesbriefe, p. 254Google Scholar n. 3 points out that the Qumran community is also filled with the spirit of battle and the confidence of victory. According to him the difference between the Qumran and Johannine writings can be seen in the fact that at Qumran the eschatological victory is expected soon but is still to come, while according to the Johannine writings the victory is already achieved by Christ and is continuing in the community. Contrary to Schnackenburg this victory language does not achieve its full development in the Apoc. The Apoc has a middle position between Qumran and 1Jn: Christ has achieved the victory but the victory of Christians is still to come.

3 Cf. Hahn, F., ‘Die Sendschreiben’, pp. 385 f.Google Scholar

4 Kraft, H., Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT 61 a: Tübingen: Mohn, 1974).Google Scholar

1 Cf. Satake, A., Die Gemeindeordnung pp. 47–86Google Scholar; Nikolainen, A. T., ‘Über die theologische Eigen-art der. Offenbarung des Johannes’ M.L.Z. XCIII (1968), 161–70Google Scholar; Hill, D., ‘Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St John’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971/1972), 401–18, esp. p. 413.Google Scholar This hypothesis that the Apoc is directed to a ‘school’ or ‘circle’ makes it comprehensible why the author could use such ‘coded’ language and imagery and still could hope to be understood. Cf. e.g. Clemen, C., ‘Die Stellung der Offenbarung Johannis im ältesten Christentum’, Z.N.W. XXVI (1927), 173–86Google Scholar for the ‘conventicle’ character of the book.

2 Both the 4 G and the Apoc employ the verb τηρείν which in early Christian writings was under-stood in the sense of keeping or guarding a tradition (cf. Mark, vii. 9Google Scholar; Matt, . xxiii. 3Google Scholar, xxviii, 20; Acts XV. 5, xxi. 25; I Tim. vi. 13 f.). The 4G uses the expression in the traditional sense in order to characterize the teachings of Jesus as a ‘holy tradition’ (λóλος) given by the Father through Jesus (xiv. 24) and received by the community (xvii. 8, 14, 17). Cf. Culpepper, R. A.The Johannine School, p. 275.Google Scholar The author of the Apoc might have been familiar with this technical vocabulary of tradition. He does not use it, however, to refer to early Christian traditions but to the words of his own book, which he thereby qualifies as the authoritative tradition of the resurrected Lord.

3 Berger, K., ‘Apostelbrief and apostolische Rede’, Z.N.W. LXV (1974), 190–271.Google Scholar

1 H. Köster, ‘GNOMAI DIAPHOROI. The origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity’, in: Robinson, /Köster, , Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), pp. 141–57, esp. pp. 143–57.Google Scholar

2 Cf. the similarity in wording in II John, IGoogle Scholar: καί τοίς τέκνοις αύτης (cf. also vv. 4 and 13). It would be tempting to draw a line from the ‘Johannine school’ to the ‘school of Jezebel’ and to identify the ‘opponents’ of the Apoc with a segment of the ‘Johannine’ school. For the possibility of such a hypothesis compare the following. Käsemann, E., The Testament of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1868), pp. 14Google Scholar if. links the theology of the 4G with the enthusiastic tendencies found in the pre-Pauline, Pauline and post-Pauline traditions; Culpepper, R. A., The Johannine SchoolGoogle Scholar, pp. 282 f. links the ‘false prophets’ of I John with the conventicle reconstructed by E. Käsemann. In an article on ‘Apocalyptic and Gnosis in Revelation’, J.B.L. XCII (1973), 565–81Google Scholar I have attempted to point out the connections of the ‘opponents’ in the Apoc with the enthusiasts mentioned in I Cor. and to compare the theology of the Apoc with the Pauline theological reaction.

3 Cf. also Satake, A., Die Gemeindeordunng, 66Google Scholar: ‘Der Verfasser bezeichnet diese Lehre in II. 24 als άλλο βάρος und setzt ihr dann die Überlieferung () seiner eigenen Lehre entgegen. Auch hier tritt wieder deutlich das Selbstbewusstsein des Verfassers hervor, mit dem er beansprucht, der Prophet der Gemeinde zu sein.’

4 ‘H Éσχάτη ήμερα ( John, vi. 39, 40Google Scholar, 44, 54; x1. 24; xii. 48) does not occur in the Apoc. If John, xi. 24Google Scholar has a polemical Spitze against the traditional early Christian eschatology, it is not directly formulated against the eschatology of the Apoc. For the eschatological perspective of the 4G cf. Schnackenburg, R., Johannesevangelium II, 530–44Google Scholar; Fischer, G., Die himmlischen Wohnungen. Untersuchungen zu Joh. 14, 2 f. (Eur. Hochschulschr. XXIII, 38; Bern: H. Lang, 1975)Google Scholar and the review of Kysar, R., The Fourth Evangelist, 207–14.Google Scholar