1. Richard E. Burnett, “Historical Criticism,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 290–93 (291).
2. Burnett, “Historical Criticism,” 291.
3. See Van A. Harvey, The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Christian Belief, rev. ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996).
4. John Barton, The Nature of Biblical Criticism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 7.
5. Ibid., 23.
6. Ibid., 182.
7. Cf. Scott R. Swain, Trinity, Revelation, and Reading: A Theological Introduction to the Bible and Its Interpretation (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 7.
8. Cf. Harvey, Historian and the Believer, 42.
9. For a theological critique of Barton, see R. W. L. Moberly, “Biblical Criticism and Religious Belief,” JTI 2 (2008): 71–100.
10. The “flesh” is a subset of “the Word” from which (whom) it was created. Cf. R. Michael Allen, The Christ’s Faith: A Dogmatic Account, TTCSST 2 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 119.
11. Helpful here is Vern S. Poythress, “Dispensing with Merely Human Meaning: Gains and Losses from Focusing on the Human Author, Illustrated by Zephaniah 1:2–3,” JETS 57 (2014): 481–99.
12. John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, CIT 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 5.
13. Francis Watson, Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 227.
14. Edward W. Klink III and Darian R. Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory and Practice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 160.
15. Webster, Holy Scripture, 19.
16. J. Todd Billings, The Word of God for the People of God: An Entryway to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 71–104.
17. Murray A. Rae, History and Hermeneutics (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 2.
18. Rae, History and Hermeneutics, 19–20.
19. See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. T. F. Torrance and G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956–75), I/2:58 (hereafter CD).
20. Rae, History and Hermeneutics, 29. See also Webster, Holy Scripture, 6.
21. Rae, History and Hermeneutics, 51.
22. Cf. Augustine, Teaching Christianity, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill (Hyde Park: New City, 1996), 2.44.152.
23. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture, and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 129.
24. On speech act theory, see Jeannine K. Brown, Scripture as Communication: Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 32–35, 111–14, 270. Cf. Billings, The Word of God for the People of God, 206–10.
25. Vanhoozer, First Theology, 130.
26. Vanhoozer, First Theology, 131.
27. Webster, Holy Scripture, 13.
28. See John Webster, Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2011), 11–17.
29. See D. Moody Smith, “When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?” JBL 119 (2000): 3–20; Cf. Edward W. Klink III, The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John, SNTSMS 141 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 252–54.
30. Webster, Word and Church, 27.
31. Ibid., 35.
32. Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 2.
33. David S. Yeago, “The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis,” ProEccl 3 (1994): 152–64.
34. Ibid., 162.
35. Helpful here is Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012).
36. John Yocum, “Scripture, Clarity of,” in Vanhoozer, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, 727–30 (727).
37. Webster, Holy Scripture, 95.
38. See Craig L. Blomberg, “The Historical-Critical/Grammatical View,” in Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Beth M. Stovell (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 27–47.
39. Blomberg, “Historical-Critical/Grammatical View,” 28.
40. See Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns, 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 6–7.
41. For example, see Blomberg, “The Historical-Critical/Grammatical View,” 28: “I am convinced that all of the other approaches must build on the historical-critical/grammatical approach in order to function legitimately.”
42. See Daniel J. Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). Cf. Stephen Fowl, Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009).
43. For a critique, see D. A. Carson, “Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Yes, but . . . ,” in Theological Commentary: Evangelical Perspectives, ed. R. Michael Allen (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 187–207. For a defense, see Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Theological Commentary and ‘The Voice from Heaven’: Exegesis, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Interpretation,” in On the Writing of New Testament Commentaries: Festschrift for Grant R. Osborne on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Eckhard J. Schnabel; TENTS 8 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 269–98.
44. John Webster, “Biblical Reasoning,” AThR 90 (2008): 733–51.
45. Ibid., 740.
46. Ibid., 749.
47. See John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 16–22.
48. See Mark Alan Bowald, “Rendering Mute the Word: Overcoming the Deistic Tendencies in Modern Hermeneutics; Kevin Vanhoozer as a Test Case,” WTJ 69 (2007): 367–81.
49. Bowald, “Rendering Mute the Word,” 17: “In such an approach the events lying behind the text of Scripture are read as a salvation history within which God makes known his will to humanity.”
50. Cf. Benjamin B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1927), 48.
51. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, especially 1–16.
52. Rae, History and Hermeneutics, 40.
53. See Hans W. Frei, The Identity of Jesus Christ: The Hermeneutical Basis of Dogmatic Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), for his constructive proposal.
54. Paul C. McGlasson, Invitation to Dogmatic Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006), 119–23: “Frei wrongly identified all distinction between sign and signified with natural theology; he simply failed to observe that such a distinction is in fact essential to classical theology” (121).
55. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 22.
56. Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 162.
57. Cf. Francis Watson, “Are There Still Four Gospels: A Study in Theological Hermeneutics,” in Reading Scripture With the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation, ed. A. K. M. Adam, Stephen E. Fowl, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Francis Watson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 95–116 (98).
58. Poythress, “Dispensing with Merely Human Meaning,” 493–94, describes what impressions, or what he calls “resonances,” might look like between Zephaniah 1 and other parts of Scripture.
59. Contra Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 94–95, who argue for a reading that is more chronological than canonical. For Gentry and Wellum, the canon is eclipsed by redemptive history into which the texts are embedded. That is, redemptive history is the larger and visible sequential development of God’s plan (e.g., “typology”) which serves as the frame of reference and interpretation for the text of Scripture. This is, unfortunately, to reverse the proper hermeneutical order regarding the text of Scripture and the history with which it relates.
60. Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 87–108. While Gentry and Wellum argue that typology uses both “historical and textual realities” (103), as we discussed above, the textual realities are really functioning only as a window to access the historical realities behind the text. Again, historical tenets and not a doctrine of Scripture have become the primary determiners of meaning, with the category of “redemptive history” replacing the role and control that had previously been provided by “canon”—so much so that typology in redemptive history is described as “God-given patterns” (94) and therefore assumed “textual.”
61. See C. Kavin Rowe, “The Doctrine of God Is a Hermeneutic: The Biblical Theology of Brevard S. Childs,” in The Bible as Christian Scripture: The Work of Brevard S. Childs, ed. Christopher R. Seitz and Kent Harold Richards, BSNA 25 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 155–69 (162).
62. F. Gerald Downing, “Ambiguity, Ancient Semantics, and Faith,” NTS 56 (2009): 139–62. For example, the prevalent use of dictionaries today finds its genesis not in the ancient world but in Europe in the eighteenth century.
63. Downing, “Ambiguity,” 146.
64. Ibid., 146.
65. Downing adds that this is all the more likely in narrative and gives the Fourth Gospel as an example of intentional and admissible ambiguity.
66. Cf. Peter J. Leithart, Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 75–108.
67. See Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998). We are not suggesting here that the church, as the reading and interpreting community, is the source and determiner of Scripture’s meaning. Quite the opposite: a biblical reader is submissive to Scripture as the Word of God that comes from the outside.
68. Webster, Word and Church, 76.
69. Ibid., 77.
70. Ibid., 79 (emphasis added).
71. Ibid., 83. Cf. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “The Spirit of Understanding: Special Revelation and General Hermeneutics,” in Disciplining Hermeneutics: Interpretation in Christian Perspective, ed. Roger Lundin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 131–65.
72. It is important to note that a Christian reading of Scripture is not a wax nose that is subject to any definition and a limitless range of meaning. Rather, it is based upon the subject matter and direction of Scripture itself, which was confirmed and established by the creeds of the historical Christian church. Some traditions within the Christian faith may adopt a narrower and more contextually defined confessional statement (e.g., the Westminster Confession of Faith), but a Christian reading of Scripture cannot deny the properly basic tenants of Christianity. Thus, a so-called Christian reading that denies the Trinity is not properly Christian since the doctrine of the Trinity is central to the subject matter of Scripture and the historic faith of the church. This standard does not assume an objective definition outside of Scripture itself, but it does assume by the providence of God and the guidance of the Spirit that the historic, universal Christian church and its creedal judgments serve as authorized fences inside which Christian readings must dwell.
73. See Thomas L. Brodie, The Gospel according to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 3–10.
74. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, 2nd ed., WBC 36 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), xxxii.
75. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 300.
76. The following is relying heavily on Martin Hengel, “The Titles of the Gospels and the Gospel of Mark,” in his Studies in the Gospel of Mark, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1985), 64–84.
77. With the exception of a short form in manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which merely have “According to. . . .”
78. Cf. Graham N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, SNTSMS 27 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 78–80.
79. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 304.
80. See Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 3–17.
81. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 5.
82. Ibid., 9.
83. Samuel Byrskog, Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History, WUNT 123 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 154.
84. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “The Hermeneutics of I-Witness Testimony: John 21:20–24 and the ‘Death’ of the ‘Author,’ ” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honor of George Wishart Anderson, ed. A. Graeme Auld, JSOTSup 152 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 366–87 (368).
85. Thomas: James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 414–21. Charlesworth also lists and evaluates twenty-two other identification proposals (127–224). Mary Magdalene: Joseph A. Grassi, The Secret Identity of the Beloved Disciple (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992); Esther A. de Boer, The Gospel of Mary: Beyond a Gnostic and a Biblical Mary Magdalene (New York: Continuum, 2005). Lazarus: Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done with Jesus? (San Francisco: Harper, 2006), 141–56. The Samaritan Woman: James P. Carse, The Gospel of the Beloved Disciple (San Francisco: Harper, 1997).
86. Cf. Stephen C. Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 359.
87. See Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Early Doubts of the Apostolic Authorship of the Fourth Gospel in the History of Modern Biblical Criticism,” in his Studies on John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship, StBibLit 38 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 17–47.
88. Hengel’s proposal is found in his The Johannine Question (London: SCM, 1989); Bauckham’s proposal is most comprehensively located in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
89. Richard Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Gospel of John,” in The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 33–72 (35). According to Bauckham, the external evidence—the tradition in Asia from Papias early in the second century to Polycrates at its end—claiming the author was John the Elder was unchallenged in Asia before the third century, but had transitioned to the son of Zebedee in Egyptian works around the middle of the second century (69–70).
90. See Andreas J. Köstenberger and Stephen O. Stout, “ ‘The Disciple Jesus Loved’: Witness, Author, Apostle—A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,” BBR 18 (2008): 209–31; see also Charles E. Hill, “What Papias Said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment,” JTS 49 (1998): 582–629.
91. See D. Moody Smith, Johannine Christianity: Essays on Its Setting, Sources, and Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984).
92. We will only overview here literary forms that occur frequently in the Gospel. A literary form that only occurs once in the Gospel, like the testamentary “farewell speech” in the farewell discourse (see comments before 13:1), will be defined for the purpose of interpretation when it occurs.
93. See Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, NAC 25A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 27–30.
94. See Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, SNTSMS 70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; repr., 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).
95. See Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:3–34.
96. Loveday Alexander, “What Is a Gospel?,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels, ed. Stephen Barton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 13–33 (27–28).
97. Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 31.
98. Collins, Mark, 42.
99. The following is adapted from Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely, 31–35.
100. Mark Allan Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 71.
101. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely, 34.
102. The standard edition is the translation of Stephen Halliwell in the Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).
103. Gustav Freytag, Die Technik des Dramas (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1863).
104. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely, 173.
105. Although we are dealing primarily with structure here, we could also have covered some of the literary tools common to narrative, especially literary tools utilized by the Fourth Gospel: irony, misunderstanding, and symbolism. For a good overview, see Borchert, John 1–11, 55–59.
106. By “experience,” we mean that stories are intended to engage the imagination. See Leland Ryken, Words of Life: A Literary Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 17, 23.
107. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 319.
108. Ibid., 321.
109. George L. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature, NovTSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 18.
110. P. E. Easterling, “From Repertoire to Canon,” in The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, ed. P. E. Easterling (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 226.
111. See Jo-Ann A. Brant, Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004).
112. Ibid., 75–76.
113. See Harold W. Attridge, “Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 121 (2002): 3–21; cf. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation, 1–11.
114. The following are adapted from Brant, Dialogue and Drama.
115. Cf. Jerome Neyrey, “The Trials (Forensic) and Tribulations (Honor Challenges) of Jesus: John 7 in Social-Science Perspective,” BTB 26 (1996): 107–24. While there is a legitimate distinction between social and legal dialogues, Brant helpfully explains that there is also a necessary overlap between them, since they are not different genres but different “patterns that fit into or weave into each other to form the conflict” (Dialogue and Drama, 142).
116. Brant, Dialogue and Drama, 140. See also Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 153, who suggests that this exchange “resembles a fencing match; thrust and parry, lunge and retreat.”
117. As Brant explains regarding the use of forensic motifs and features in the crafting of this scene, “The Gospel writer seems to have borrowed from the contents of the [formal debate] without making use of its entire form and blended it into the design of the larger contest” (Dialogue and Drama, 142). Cf. Stephen Motyer, Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to John and “the Jews” (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 144–45.
118. See Brant, Dialogue and Drama, 115–23.
119. Ibid., 116.
120. Ibid., 142.
121. Dodd, Historical Tradition, 315.
122. Ibid., 337.
123. Ibid., 343.
124. Ibid., 365, 388, 404. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, ed. R. W. N. Hoare and J. K. Riches, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 6–7.
125. Cf. Keener, John, 1:68–76.
126. See Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), who takes on what he calls “the myth of orthodox Johannophobia.” Cf. Ernst Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2 vols., ed. Robert W. Funk and Ulrich Busse, trans. Robert W. Funk, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1:2–39; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols., trans. Kevin Smyth, HTCNT (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968, 1980, 1982), 1:192–217.
127. Cf. D. Moody Smith, John, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 42.
128. See Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God, BTNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 82–83.
129. Sjef van Tilborg, Reading John in Ephesus, NovTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), has recently given support to the tradition regarding Ephesus by showing how the Gospel can be illuminated against the context of life in first-century Ephesus based upon inscriptions and other sources. Yet even he admits that this tradition is not without criticism, and that he is “not going to try and prove that the Johannine Gospel belongs in Ephesus” (3). Rather, Tilborg uses Ephesian texts and data from the first century and compares/contrasts them to John as “interference,” which he explains as “the mutual influence which two systems exercise on each other if they come together” (4). In this way Tilborg provides a concrete embedding of the text of John in the textually mediated history and life of the first-century city of Ephesus. While this cannot prove the Ephesian tradition, it offers a helpful reconstruction that is highly feasible.
130. Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. Francis Noel Davey, 2nd ed. (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 18–19.
131. The following is adapted from Klink, The Sheep of the Fold, 24–35.
132. James Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918), 389.
133. J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 3rd ed., NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003).
134. D. Moody Smith, “The Contribution of J. Louis Martyn to the Understanding of the Gospel of John,” in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John, ed. R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 275–94 (293). See also John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 107.
135. Martyn, History and Theology, 29 (emphasis original).
136. Ibid., 30–31.
137. Ibid., 30.
138. Ibid., 40.
139. See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, 2 vols., AB 29 and 29A (New York: Doubleday, 1966, 1970), 1:xxxiv–xl, xcviii–cii.
140. Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York: Paulist, 1979).
141. Wayne A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL 91 (1972): 44–72.
142. See Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 14–17, 88–91.
143. Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
144. For an overview of the contemporary-audience debate, see Edward W. Klink III, “Gospel Audience and Origin: The Current Debate,” in The Audience of the Gospels: Further Conversation about the Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity, ed. Edward W. Klink III, LNTS 353 (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 1–26.
145. A full evaluation and critique of the methods and assumptions of the reconstruction of a Johannine community was provided by Klink, The Sheep of the Fold. For a recent survey of the Johannine-audience debate, see Wally V. Cirafesi, “The Johannine Community Hypothesis (1968–Present): Past and Present Approaches and a New Way Forward,” CBR 12 (2014): 173–93.
146. For a more recent discussion of the issues from several perspectives regarding the audience debate, see the essays in Klink, The Audience of the Gospels.
147. The following is the thrust of the argument in Klink, The Sheep of the Fold.
148. Helpful here is Webster, Holy Scripture, 28–29.
149. Köstenberger, Theology of John, 167.
150. Bultmann, John, 6–7. It was more fully developed by Robert T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 87–98, 108.
151. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 289–91.
152. Cf. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 104.