^* In honour of Prof. Dr. Eduard Lohse, Landesbischof i.R., on the occasion of his 75^th birthday, with gratitude.

Paper read at the 15th International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Université de Lausanne, Switzerland, July 1997. A German version of this paper was read at the "Neutestamentliche Sozietät" of Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz, Germany, January 1998. I am grateful for all the critical remarks and questions, especially for the helpful remarks of Prof. Dr. J. Beutler, Rome, Prof. Dr. J. Painter, Melbourne, Prof. Dr. U. Schnelle, Halle, and Dr. I. Dunderberg, Helsinki. I would also like to thank Prof. Dr. J.C. O’Neill, Edinburgh, for being so kind as to correct the English of my article and for making some further suggestions.

¹ For the analysis of the miracle tradition from a form-historical point of view cf. M. LABAHN, Jesus als Lebensspender (BZNW 98; Berlin – New York 1999) passim.

² Cf. also J. ZUMSTEIN, "Das Johannesevangelium: Eine Strategie des Glaubens", Theologische Beiträge 28 (1997) 350-363, esp. 352. Zumstein understands the conflict between belief and unbelief as the core of the Johannine narrative.

³ On the increasingly intensified conflict arising from the performance of the miracles cf. also W.J. BITTNER, Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium (WUNT II/26; Tübingen 1987) 120; D.M. SMITH, The Theology of the Gospel of John (New Testament Theology; Cambridge 1995) 110.

⁴ Cf., e.g., L. SCHENKE, "Das johanneische Schisma und die ‘Zwölf’ (Johannes 6,60-71)", NTS 38 (1992) 105-121; Eng. trans.: "The Johannine Schism and the ‘Twelve’ (John 6:60-71)", Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. R.A. CULPEPPER) (Biblical Interpretation Series 22; Leiden – New York – Köln 1997) 205-219.

⁵ Cf. LABAHN, Jesus, 302.

⁶ J. WAGNER, Auferstehung und Leben (BU 19; Regensburg 1988) 12, 410. Cf. D.A. LEE, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSS 95; Sheffield 1995) 189: "It (the story of the raising of Lazarus) is the central, pivotal scene of the gospel, holding together narrative structure and theological meaning". See also B. WITHERINGTON, III, John’s Wisdom (Louisville 1995) 198. For G. MLAKUZHYIL, The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel (AnBib 117; Rome 1987) 181-183, 239 (Outline of the Fourth Gospel) John 11,1–12,50 forms a "bridge-section".

⁷ But cf. John 2,13-22 and 2,23-25; see below I.2.B.

⁸ Cf. the reference to the bindings and especially the cloth to wipe away the perspiration (souda/rion, a Latin loan-word which, apart from John 11,44 and 20,7, appears in the NT only in the Lukan writings: Luke 19,20; Acts 19,12); cf. LEE, Symbolic Narratives, 214-215; M. LANG, ‘Mein Herr und mein Gott’ (Joh 20,28) (Diss. masch. Halle/Saale; 1997) 233; F.J. MOLONEY, Glory Not Dishonor. Reading John 13–21 (Minneapolis 1998) 161.

⁹ On the role of Thomas in the Gospel of John cf. now I. DUNDERBERG, "John and Thomas in Conflict?", The Nag Hammadi Library After Fifty Years (ed. J.D. TURNER – A. MCGUIRE) (NHMS 44; Leiden – New York – Köln 1997) 361-380.

¹⁰ Cf. also O. SCHWANKL, Licht und Finsternis (HBS 5; Freiburg – Basel – Wien – Barcelona – Rom – New York 1995) 236; F.J. MOLONEY, Signs and Shadows. Reading John 5–12 (Minneapolis 1996) 172.

¹¹ For this basic insight I am indebted to the classical investigation of J.L. MARTYN, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York – Evanston ²1979). However, some questions need to be raised concerning his reconstruction of the conflict between Synagoge and Johannine Christians; cf. M. LABAHN, "Eine Spurensuche anhand von Joh 5.1–18", NTS 44 (1998) 159-179, esp. 174-176.

¹² R. BULTMANN, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (UTB 630; Tübingen ⁹1984) 409. J. PAINTER, "Inclined to God: The Quest for Eternal Life – Bultmannian Hermeneutics and the Theology of the Fourth Gospels", Exploring the Gospel of John. In Honor of D. Moody Smith (ed. by R.A. CULPEPPER — C.C. BLACK) (Louisville 1996) 346-368, esp. 347, 348-350, counters the view that Bultmann’s interpretation of the Johannine signs is predominantly negative; for such an interpretation of Bultmann’s analysis cf., e.g., E. KÄSEMANN, Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17 (Tübingen ³1971) 51. For the discussion between Bultmann and Käsemann in this regard cf. M.J.J. MENKEN, "The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: A Survey of Recent Research", From Jesus to John. Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (ed. by M.C. DE BOER) (JSNTSS 84; Sheffield 1993) 292-320, esp. 314-315, 319-320.

¹³ Cf. also, e.g., H.-C. KAMMLER, "Die ‘Zeichen’ des Auferstandenen", O. HOFIUS – H.-C. KAMMLER, Johannesstudien (WUNT 88; Tübingen 1996) 191-211. Based on the interpretation of miracles as shmei=on by the Fourth Evangelist ZUMSTEIN, Johannesevangelium, 360, assumes that the real meaning of the miracles cannot be found in themselves but belongs to a deeper dimension of the miracles, which is that the miracle worker is the Son of God. The discourses in John 5; 6; 9 and 11 certainly direct attention to this deeper meaning and, therefore, I think, interpret the literary significance of the signs as part of the narration. Nevertheless, I wonder whether it is possible to distinguish between the signs in John and a deeper meaning that is separated from their narration. The miracle itself is open to both meanings: to be interpreted as a pure miracle and to be understood as a sign that is performed by the Son of God who is himself God’s gift of life. This openness of the miracle stories will take the reader into a decision between both possible interpretations of the miracles. The implied reader should understand the deeper christological meaning and decide to believe.
For a positive interpretation of the role of miracle narratives for believing in Christ cf., e.g., U. SCHNELLE, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John (Minneapolis 1992).

¹⁴ J. BECKER, "Wunder und Christologie", NTS 16 (1969/70) 130-148, esp. 144. See also N. WALTER, "Die Auslegung überlieferter Wunder-erzählungen im Johannes-Evangelium", Theologische Versuche 2 (1970) 93-107, esp. 94.

¹⁵ BECKER, Wunder und Christologie, 144-145; see also 147.

¹⁶ Concerning the relation between miracle and speech in John 21 cf., e.g., C.K. BARRETT, The Gospel According to St. John (London ²1978) 583. However, L. HARTMAN, "An Attempt at a Text-Centered Exegesis of John 21", StTh 38 (1984) 35-36, notes the much looser relationship between the miraculous draught of fish and the following dialogue. Hartman points out some "isotopies" in John 21 (Attempt 33) but they do not form such a close semantic connection as the one that we find in John 6.

¹⁷ A somehow similar structure is found in other Johannine passages, cf., e.g., Y. IBUKI, "Gedankenaufbau und Hintergrund des 3. Kapitels des Johannesevangeliums", BSU 14 (1978) 9-33, esp. 11. Ibuki distinguishes two passages in John 2,23–3,36, which are divided into three parts: an exposition (2,23-25 – 3,22-24) is followed by a dialogue (3,1-12 – 3,25-30) and finally by a monologue (3,13-21 – 3,31-36).

¹⁸ R.A. CULPEPPER, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia 1983) 73.

¹⁹ CULPEPPER, Anatomy, 73. Already for H. WINDISCH, "John’s Narrative Style", The Gospel of John as Literature (Selected and Introduced by M.W.G. STIBBE) (NTTS 17; Leiden – New York – Köln 1993) 27, only two of the Johannine miracle stories, the healing of the man born blind and the raising of Lazarus, belong to "the broadly elaborated, dramatically presented narratives".

²⁰ Cf., e.g., BARRETT, Gospel According to St. John, 368, who designates John 10,1-18. as a "comment upon ch 9"; B. KOWALSKI, Die Hirtenrede (Joh 10,1–18) im Kontext des Johannesevangeliums (SBB 31; Stuttgart 1996) 193-194. See also LEE, Symbolic Narratives, 163.

²¹ Cf. C.H. DODD, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge repr. 1955) 354ff.; see also KOWALSKI, Hirtenrede, 190-191; LABAHN, Jesus als Lebensspender, 374-377.

²² On the structure of John 6 cf., e.g., J. BEUTLER, "Zur Struktur von Johannes 6", Studien zu den johanneischen Schriften (ed. id.) (SBAB 25; Stuttgart 1998) 247-262. Eng. trans.: "The Structure of John 6", Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. R.A. CULPEPPER) 115-127.

²³ Cf. WINDISCH, John’s Narrative Style, 41. Therefore, M. THEOBALD, "Schriftzitate im ‘Lebensbrot’-Dialog Jesu (Joh 6)", The Scriptures in the Gospels (ed. C.M. TUCKETT) (BETL 131; Leuven 1997) 327-366, characterizes John 6,22-59 as a dialogue.

²⁴ M. THEOBALD, "Häresie von Anfang an?", Ekklesiologie des Neuen Testaments. Für Karl Kertelge (ed. R. KAMPLING – T. SÖDING) (Freiburg – Basel – Wien 1996) 212-246, esp. 222-223.

²⁵ On the same grounds I would oppose Christian Welck’s assumption that there was a special literary form for the Johannine miracle stories called "johanneische Wundergeschichten" (Ch. WELCK, Erzählte Zeichen [WUNT II/69; Tübingen 1994] 236-278).

²⁶ Sometimes it is assumed that "the author of the Fourth Gospel did not compose these discourses de novo, but utilized and expanded older existing discourses"; cf. H. KOESTER, Ancient Christian Gospels (London 1990) 257. Such older traditional dialogues can be found, e.g., in John 5,39-40.45-47 (Gospels, 259); see also id., "Gnostic Sayings and Controversy Traditions in John 8:12-59", Nag Hammadi Gnosticism and Early Christianity (ed. by C.W. HEDRICK – R. HODGSON) (Peabody 1986) 97-110. Another representative of those who presuppose a dialogue source used by the Fourth Evangelist is L. SCHENKE, "Der ‘Dialog Jesu mit den Juden’ im Johannesevangelium", NTS 34 (1988) 573-603; id., "Joh 7–10: Eine dramatische Szene", ZNW 80 (1989) 172-192.

²⁷ Cf. LABAHN, Jesus als Lebensspender, 243-256, 341-365.

²⁸ Cf. W. WILKENS, Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums (Zürich 1958) 40; cf., e.g., W. NICOL, The Semeia in the Fourth Gospel (NTS 32; Leiden 1972) 114; B. OLSSON, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel (CB.NT 6; Lund 1974) 67, stresses that a)rxh/ means both "initium and principum (sic!)".

²⁹ Cf. also P. MÜLLER, "‘Was ich geschrieben habe, das habe ich geschrieben’", Logos und Buchstabe (ed. by G. SELLIN – F. VOUGA. In collaboration with S. ALKIER – A. CORNILS – K. HEINEMANN) (TANZ 20; Tübingen – Basel 1997) 153-173.
A. VON HARNACK, Über den privaten Gebrauch der heiligen Schriften in der Alten Kirche (Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament V; Leipzig 1912) 33, argues for an early private use of the holy books in early Christianity; for early Christian libraries cf. now M. HENGEL, Die Evangelienüberschriften (SHAW.PH 1984,3; Heidelberg 1984) 37-39. ("Gemeindebibliotheken"). However, it is another and rather tricky question as to whether the Fourth Gospel was intentionally written for private use outside the Johannine school. Perhaps the final redaction of the Fourth Gospel aimed at a broader reading public; cf. HENGEL, Die Evangelienüberschriften, 32.

³⁰ J.A. DU RAND, Johannine Perspectives I (Doornfontain 1991) 93-94. On the linguistic definition of cotexts cf. E.R. WENDLAND, "A Tale of Two Debtors: On the Interaction of Text, Cotext, and Context in a New Testament Dramatic Narrative (Luke 7:36–50)", Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation (ed. by D.A. BLACK – K. BARNWELL – S. LEVINSOHN; Nashville 1992) 101-143, esp. 115 ("The cotext of a given text, or oral/written speech event, is any discourse that is somehow associated with it in linguistic or literary terms. We might distinguish between two types of cotext; the intratextual, which refers to any passage that is related to another within the demarcated text itself; and intertextual, which then applies to any other relevant text").

³¹ Cf., e.g., U. SCHNELLE, "Die Tempelreinigung und die Christologie des Johannesevangeliums", NTS 42 (1996) 359-373.

³² Cf. F.J. MOLONEY, Belief in the Word. Reading John 1–4 (Minneapolis 1993) 12: "He (the author) is interested in the reader’s being called to decision in the light of what has been told in the prologue". On this fundamental reader-guiding function of the prologue see also J. ZUMSTEIN, "Der Prozeß der Relecture in der johanneischen Literatur", NTS 42 (1996) 394-411, esp. 403; U. SCHNELLE, "Johannes als Geisttheologe", NT 40 (1998) 17-31, esp. 18.

For the reference back to John 1,14 cf, e.g., P.P.A. KOTZÉ, "John and reader’s response", Neotest 19 (1985) 50-63, esp. 55; B. LINDARS, The Gospel of John (NCeB; reprinted paperback edition; Grand Rapids – London 1992) 132.

³³ For the different approaches to John 6 in the newer research cf. now R.A. CULPEPPER (ed.) John 6, passim.

³⁴ Cf. now, e.g., with different arguments P.N. ANDERSON, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (WUNT II/78; Tübingen 1996); BEUTLER, Struktur, passim; J. CROSSAN, "It is Written: A Structuralist Analysis of John 6", Semeia 26 (1983) 3-21; G. SEGALLA, "La complessa struttura letteraria di Giovanni 6", Teologia 15 (1990) 68-89, esp. 71ff.; M. GIRARD, "L’unité de composition de Jean 6, au regard de l’analyse structurelle", EeT(O) 13 (1982) 79-110.

³⁵ Cf., e.g., E. LOHSE, "Wort und Sakrament im Johannesevangelium", id., Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen ²1976) 193-208, esp. 199-203; cf. also the documentation by M. ROBERGE, "Le discours sur le pain de vie Jean 6,22-59", LTP 38 (1982) 265-299, esp. 279-284.

³⁶ For the sacramentalistic interpretation of John 6,51c-58 cf., e.g., SCHNELLE, Antidocetic Christology, 201-203; however, Schnelle disputes the secondary character of John 6,51c-58. Although he underscores the narrative change in the discourse, he opts for an original interpretation of the bread of life discourse by the Fourth Evangelist. Some authors dispute the sacramental interpretation of this passage: cf., e.g., J.D.G. DUNN, "John VI – A Eucharistic Discourse?", NTS 17 (1970/71) 328-338; M.J.J. MENKEN, "John 6,51c–58: Eucharist or Christology?", Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. R.A. CULPEPPER) 183-204; MOLONEY, Signs and Shadows, 53-57, points out that the emphasis is laid on the passion of Jesus; see also B. LINDARS, "Word and Sacrament in the Fourth Gospel", Essays on John (ed. C.M. TUCKETT) (SNTA 17; Leuven 1992) 51-65, esp. 62.

³⁷ For the term relecture cf. J. ZUMSTEIN, Der Prozeß der Relecture, passim; id., "Zur Geschichte des johanneischen Christentums", ThLZ 122 (1997) 417-428; A. DETTWILER, Die Gegenwart des Erhöhten. Eine exegetische Studie zu den johanneischen Abschiedsreden (Joh 13,31–16,33) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Relecture-Charakters (FRLANT 169; Göttingen 1995). See also K. SCHOLTISSEK, "Johannine Studies", CR:BS (1998) 227-259; id., "Relecture – zu einem neu entdeckten Programmwort der Schriftauslegung (mit Blick auf das Johannesevangelium)", BiLi 70 (1997) 309-315.

³⁸ ZUMSTEIN, Der Prozeß der Relecture, 406.

³⁹ Cf. H. WEDER, "Die Menschwerdung Gottes", Einblicke ins Evangelium (ed. id.) (Göttingen 1992) 363-400; 373: "Wichtig ist ..., daß das Brotwunder nicht formalisiert wird, als ob in ihm bloß noch die Faktizität der Messianität bestätigt würde. Die Messianität hat vielmehr die Gestalt, daß er überraschend speist, Brot darreicht in Hülle und Fülle. Als Messias teilt er das elementare Lebensmittel ungefragt aus". See also E. RUCKSTUHL, "Wesen und Kraft der Eucharistie in der Sicht des Johannesevangeliums", Das Opfer der Kirche (ed. R. ERNI et al.) (Luzerner Theologische Studien 1; Luzern 1954) 47-90, esp. 50.

⁴⁰ Cf. his commentary on John: R. BULTMANN, Das Evangelium des Johannes (KEK 2, Göttingen ²⁰1985). Cf., e.g., the survey presented by G. VAN BELLE, The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel (BETL 116; Leuven 1994). Two other scholars belonging to the number of the famous followers of this hypothesis are Jürgen Becker and Robert T. Fortna. Both scholars develop the hypothesis of Bultmann by tracing back more material to the assumed source; cf. J. BECKER, Das Evangelium nach Johannes I (ÖTK 4/1; Gütersloh – Würzburg ³1991); R.T. FORTNA, The Gospel of Signs (SNTSMS 11; Cambridge 1970); id., The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor (Edinburgh 1989). Fortna elaborates this theory by assuming a ‘Gospel of Signs’ which contains the sign stories as well as a passion narrative.

⁴¹ Cf., e.g., SCHNELLE, Antidocetic Christology, passim; D. MARGUERAT, "La ‘Source des Signes’ existe-t-elle?", La communauté Johannique et son histoire (ed. by J.-D. KAESTLI – J.-M. POFFET – J. ZUMSTEIN) (Le monde de la bible; Genève 1990) 69-93, esp. 75-89; F. NEIRYNCK, "The Sign Source in the Fourth Gospel", Evangelica II (ed. F. VAN SEGBROECK) (BETL 99; Leuven 1991) 651-678; U. WILCKENS, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (NTD 4; Göttingen 1998) 9.

⁴² For this small signs source cf., e.g., BARRETT, Gospel According to St. John, 245-246; SCHNELLE, Antidocetic Christology, 84; see also G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY, John (WBC 36; Waco 1987) 34, 67, 71.

⁴³ For J. PAINTER, The Quest for the Messiah (Edinburgh ²1993) 196, John 2,12 "breaks the sequence begun in John 1:19", indicating that John 2,1-11 forms a "bridge passage belonging both to 1.19–2.11 and 2.1–4.54". However, John 2,1-11 does not form a sequence with John 1,19-51; cf. LABAHN, Jesus als Lebensspender, 124-126.

⁴⁴ Cf. F.J. MOLONEY, "From Cana to Cana (John 2:1–4:54) and the Fourth Evangelist’s Concept of Correct (and Incorrect) Faith", Studia Biblica 1978 II (ed. by E.A. LIVINGSTONE) (JSNTSS 2; Sheffield 1980) 185-213, esp. 202; id., "Mary in the Fourth Gospel: Woman and Mother", Sal 51 (1989) 421-440, 422-423; id., The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina 4; Collegeville 1998) 63-65. See also, e.g., M.W.G. STIBBE, John (Readings; Sheffield 1993) 42-43. Although P.F. ELLIS, The Genius of John (Collegeville 1984) 9-10, mentions the literary technique of the ring composition in his composition-critical commentary on John, he does not recognize the use of this technique in John 2,1–4,54. Accordingly he proposes a somewhat artificial structure of the whole gospel that destroys the narrative units (cf. also his structure of John 6,10-21).

⁴⁵ Cf. I. BERG, Die Ringkomposition bei Herodot und ihre Bedeutung für die Beweistechnik (Spudasmata 25; Hildesheim – New York 1971) 4-26.

⁴⁶ Cf., e.g., BERG, Ringkomposition, 1-2.

⁴⁷ Cf., e.g., BECKER, Evangelium I, 224; A.H. MEAD, "The basiliko/j in John 4.46–53", JSNT 23 (1985) 69-72; MOLONEY, From Cana to Cana, 196; SCHNELLE, Antidocetic Christology, 83. Differently, e.g., I. DUNDERBERG, Johannes und die Synoptiker (AASF.DHL 69; Helsinki 1994) 96-97; LOHSE, "Miracles", 46-47.

⁴⁸ Cf., e.g., PAINTER, Quest, 198, who interprets the act of the burial of Jesus (John 19,38-42) as "an act of openness and faith" although it does not show "true comprehension of the significance of Jesus".

⁴⁹ Cf., e.g., C.R. KOESTER, "‘The Savior of the World’ (John 4:42)", JBL 109 (1990) 665-680, esp. 665.

⁵⁰ Some scholars try to establish a more original order. Methologically it is very difficult to adopt this theory because there is no evidence for a version of John with the hypothetical reconstructed order. For a thorough critique of changing the order of the gospel text cf. U. SCHNELLE, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 1830; Göttingen ²1996) 552-554.

⁵¹ Cf., e.g., G. SELLIN, " ‘Gattung’ und ‘Sitz im Leben’ auf dem Hintergrund der Problematik von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit synoptischer Erzählungen", EvT 50 (1990) 311-331; see also J. SCHRÖTER, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte (WMANT 76; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997) 40-65.

⁵² Cf. LABAHN, Jesus als Lebensspender, 94-95, 98-99.

⁵³ Cf. therefore, LABAHN, Jesus als Lebensspender, 120-465.

⁵⁴ Cf. G. GENETTE, Narrative Discourse (Ithaca 1980) 33-84; on these stylistic phenomena cf. E. LÄMMERT, Bauformen des Erzählens (Stuttgart 1955).

⁵⁵ This reference is emphasized by D. BURKETT, "Two Accounts of Lazarus’s Resurrection in John 11", NT 36 (1994) 209-232, esp. 228-229.

⁵⁶ Cf. MOLONEY, Signs and Shadows, 156. For a study of proleptic hints in John 6 cf. F.J. MOLONEY, "The Function of Prolepsis in the Interpretation of John 6", Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. R.A. CULPEPPER) 129-148, esp. 132-147.

⁵⁷ Cf., e.g., U. SCHNELLE, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (ThHK 4; Leipzig 1998) 115.

⁵⁸ Other scholars point to John 4,45: e.g. FORTNA, The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor, 85.

⁵⁹ W. ISER, "Indeterminacy and the Reader’s Response in Prose Fiction", Aspects of Narrative (ed. J.H. MILLER) (New York – London 1971) 1-45, 19. On the role of editorial comments in John see also R.A. CULPEPPER, Anatomy, 17-18; F.J. MOLONEY, "Who is ‘the Reader’ in/of the Fourth Gospel?" AusBR 40 (1992) 20-33, esp. 23-24.

⁶⁰ For a longer list of the literary techniques also used in composing the miracle stories by the evangelist cf., e.g., ELLIS, The Genius of John, 6-11.

⁶¹ J. FREY, "Der implizite Leser und die biblischen Texte", Theologische Beiträge 23 (1992) 266-290, esp. 281.

⁶² Cf. LABAHN, Jesus als Lebensspender, 178.

⁶³ Cf. MOLONEY, Reader, 23; F. SCHNIDER – W. STENGER, Johannes und die Synoptiker (Biblische Handbibliothek 9; München 1971) 82.

⁶⁴ B.W. HENAULT, "John 4:43-54 and the ambivalent narrator. A response to Culpepper’s Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel", SR 19 (1990) 287-304, esp. 298.

⁶⁵ C.H. GIBLIN, "Suggestion, Negative Response, and Positive Action in St John’s Portrayal of Jesus (John 2,1-11; 4,46-54; 7, 2-14; 11,1-11)", NTS 26 (1980) 197-211.

⁶⁶ GIBLIN, Suggestion, 197; MOLONEY, Mary, 423: ‘problem’, ‘request’, ‘rebuke’, ‘reaction’ und ‘consequence’. J. PAINTER, "Quest and Rejection stories in John", JSNT 36 (1989) 17-46, places these texts in the broader context of quest and rejection stories; cf. id., Quest, 163-165, 267-284, 367-381. Therefore, for Painter more Johannine texts belong to this scheme: e.g. John 6,1-40.

⁶⁷ This is obviously a public manifestation of the revealer and therefore a positive act that corresponds to the request of his brothers (fane/rwson seauto_n tw=| ko/smw|; 7,4).

⁶⁸ Cf. also J.L. STALEY, "Reading myself, Reading the Text", "What is John?" (ed. F.F. SEGOVIA) (SBL Symposium Series 3; Atlanta 1996) 59-104, esp. 80-81.

⁶⁹ Cf. the reconstruction in LABAHN, Jesus als Lebensspender, ad loc., with a discussion of the literature.

⁷⁰ Cf. also WELCK, Erzählte Zeichen, 238-239.

⁷¹ See also LEE, Symbolic Narratives, 99: "The ‘signs’ are miraculous events that relate to material and physical reality and, through the narrative, become symbols of eschatological life". Cf. J. BEUTLER, Habt keine Angst (SBS 116; Stuttgart 1984) 49; J.P. MEIER, A Marginal Jew. Vol. Two (ABRL; New York – London – Toronto – Sydney – Auckland 1994) 799; M.M. THOMPSON, "Signs and Faith in the Fourth Gospel", Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991) 89-108, esp. 97.

⁷² Cf. ZUMSTEIN, Geschichte, 424; id., Das Johannesevangelium, passim, esp. 350: "Das Evangelium nach Johannes bietet ein hervorragendes Beispiel eines solchen Unternehmens, insofern es einerseits, unter einem rhetorischen Gesichtspunkt, explizit Glauben zu erwecken sucht und andererseits, unter einem argumentativen Gesichtspunkt, eine gut erkennbare Strategie in Bewegung setzt, dieses Ziel zu erreichen".

⁷³ Cf., e.g., ZUMSTEIN, Johannesevangelium, 351.

⁷⁴ Cf. John 20,30-31: Polla_ me_n ou]n kai_ a!lla shmei=a e)poi/hsen o( 'Ihsou=j e)nw/pion tw=n maqhtw=n [au)tou=], a# ou)k e!stin gegramme/na e)n tw=| bibli/w| tou/tw|: tau=ta de_ ge/graptai i#na pisteu/[s]hte o#ti 'Ihsou=j e)stin o( Xristo_j o( ui(o_j tou= qeou=, kai_ i#na pisteu/ontej zwh_n e!xhte e)n tw=| o)no/mati au)tou=.

⁷⁵ Cf. also ZUMSTEIN, Johannesevangelium, 351: "Der Schluß des Evangeliums betrachtet das nun vollendete johanneische Werk als ein Medium, das Glauben zu schaffen vermag. Durch die Vermittlung einer Erzählung also, welche das christologische Ereignis in Szene setzt und überliefert, entsteht Glauben".

⁷⁶ This happens through the Paraclete (cf. 14,26). For this role of the Johannine Paraclete cf., e.g., SCHNELLE, The Human Condition (Edinburgh 1996) 136-137; id., "Johannes als Geisttheologe", 21; see also ZUMSTEIN, "Der Prozeß der Relecture", 410-411.

⁷⁷ MÜLLER, "Was ich geschrieben habe", 165; see also SCHNACKENBURG, Jesus Christus im Spiegel der vier Evangelien (Akzente; Freiburg – Basel – Wien 1998) 246.