The Unity of the Farewell Discourse: The Literary Integrity of John 13:31-16:33 0567080765

Citation preview

The Unity of the Farewell Discourse The Literary Integrity of John 13.31-16.33

L. Scott Kellum

T &.. T CLARK lNTERNAnONAL ,~ \ \ A Continuum imprint •• LONDON. NEW YORK

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

256

Editor

Mark Goodacre

Editorial Board

John M.G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, Elizabeth A. Castelli, Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Robert L. Webb

Copyright © 2004 T&T Clark International A Continuum imprint Published by T&T Clark International an imprint of Continuum The Tower Building, II York Road, London SE I 7NX

15 East 26th Street, Suite 1703, New York, NY 10010

www.tandtclark.com All rights reserved. No part of this pUblication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0-567-08076-5 Typeset by Tradespools, Frome, Somerset Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by CPI Bath

To my beloved wife, Cathy, whose love, patience, and endurance were the only reasons this project could be completed

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations List of Tables Preface Acknowledgments List of Abbreviations

x

x xi XIII

xiv

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 THE MOVEMENT FROM 'DISCOURSE' TO 'DISCOURSES'

Stage One: The Assumption of Unity Unified Authorship Early Legends on the Origins of the Fourth Gospel The Middle Ages and Reformation Stage Two: The Loss of Unity The Wedge: Authorial Doubts Early Partitionists Apologetic Partitionists The Rise of the Tiibingen School The Opposition to Tiibingen The First Period of Consolidation Stage Three: The Gottingen Revolution Transposition Theories Second Period of Consolidation A Decisive Turning Point: Bultmann Stage Four: A Splintered Consensus 15-17 Is a Source Used by the Evangelist 15-17 Is an Addition by the Evangelist Added by the Evangelist 15-17 Is Material by the Evangelist Added by Another 15-17 Is Material by Another Added by Another

10 11 11

15 17 18 19

26 27 28 30 34 37 41

44

45 52 53 53 55 58

viii

The Unity of the Farewell Discourse

New Directions Chi as tic Solutions Rhetorical Solutions A Textlinguistic Solution Retrospective and Conclusion

61 63 72 75 76

Chapter 2 UNITY OF STYLE Introduction Stylometric Examinations A. Q. Morton: A Cusum Test Felton and Thatcher: A Univariate Linear Model Specific Lexical Style New Directions Ruckstuhl and Dschulnigg: Unique Style Traits Poythress, Levinsohn, and Buth: Intersentence Conjunctions Retooling the Test Testing the Farewell Discourse 13.31-14.31 15.1-16.33 Genre Effect Tense Preferences Retrospective and Conclusion

113 120 122 123 124 126 131 132

Chapter 3 STRUCTURAL UNITY Introduction Methodology Semantic Structure Analysis Boundary Features Higher Level Divisions Internal Divisions Propositions Communication Relationships Peak Cohesion The Structure of the Farewell Discourse 13.31-38 Unit 1: Commands That Comfort. 14.1-31 14.1-14 14.15-31 Unit 2: Commands That Unite. 15.1-16.4a

136 136 138 141 141 143 143 144 144 145 146 149 149 156 156 161 169

79 79 82 82 87 91 100 100

~ontents

15.1-11 15.12-17 IS.18-16.4a Unit 3: Advantages of Jesus' Departure, 16.4b-33 16.4b-lS 16.16-24 16.25-32

16.33 Global Structure Structural Conclusions Peak Cohesion Conclusion

ix

170 172 173 177 178 180 182

186 189 190 193 197 203

Chapter 4 AGAIN: THE MAGNUS REUS

Introduction Assumption 1: An Aporia Must Indicate a Literary Seam Assumption 2: The Magnus Reus Fits Better Immediately Before 18.l Assumption 3: The Magnus Reus is the Prototypical

205 205

208 218

Aporia

221

Conclusion

232

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Introduction Results of the Present Study Evaluating the Results Implications Call for Further Research Conclusion

234 234 235

238 240 241 243

Bibliography

245

Index of References

270

Index of Authors

276

I LLUSTRATIONS Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

A Semantic Structure Analysis of In 13.31-38 A Semantic Structure Analysis of In 14.1-14 A Semantic Structure Analysis of In 14.15-31 A Semantic Structure Analysis of In 15.1-11 A Semantic Structure Analysis of In 15.12-17 A Semantic Structure Analysis of In 15.18-16.4a A Semantic Structure Analysis of In 16.4b-15 A Semantic Structure Analysis of In 16.16-24 A Semantic Structure Analysis of In 16.25-33 10 The Global Structure of the Farewell Discourse 11 Identity Chain Cohesion in the Farewell Discourse

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

154 160 170 173 174 178 182 183 188 191 203

TABLES

Table Table Table Table Table

1 2 3 4 5

Group A Style Traits Group B Style Traits Group C Style Traits Distribution of Style Traits in the Farewell Discourse Combined Style-Trait Distribution in the Farewell Discourse Table 6 Control Passages Using the Ruckstuhl Dschulnigg Test Table 7 Eschatological Discourse Influence on Tense in the Gospels Table 8 Statistical Calculations Table 9 Variances Inserting a Foreign ED into the Remaining Gospels Table 10 Variances of FD1 and FD2 Table 11 Unusual Johannine Tense Distribution of the Farewell Discourse Verbs

104 105 107 109 III

112 127 128 129 130 131

PREFACE The present work is a revision of my doctoral dissertation completed in December of 2002 at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary under Dr Andreas Kostenberger. I will be eternally grateful to him for his encyclopedic knowledge of the Fourth Gospel, theological insight, and godly wisdom. His scholarly energy, knowledge, and endless patience have been tremendous blessings and influence upon me. Others also have helped in producing this work. My second readers, Dr David Beck and Dr David Alan Black, have positively influenced the present work. Dr George Guthrie, the external reader of the dissertation, has been instrumental in bringing this work to a wider audience. He has my undying gratitude. Their support and encouragement has been invaluable to me personally and professionally. The present work began as a desire to apply text linguistics to an appropriate span of text. The span that most interested me was the heart of the Fourth Gospel: The Farewell Discourse. In early discussions on the parameters of the dissertation, it was decided not to attempt a purely textlinguistic work, but to apply new disciplines to the old problem of the literary unity of the text. It would prove to be both wise and stimulating. Traditionally, textlinguistics studies tend to assume the unity of a given text. In John's Farewell Discourse, the issue of the unity cannot be bypassed or simply assumed. It is, in fact, the first question the exegete must ask in approaching the text. This necessity is upon us because the solution to the aporia at 14.31 ('Arise, let us depart from here', + 3 more chapters of discourse) has become 'exhibit A' for many in solving the mystery of the Fourth Gospel's origins. Many assert that this is evidence of editorial activity; i.e., some sort of addition and expansion has occurred. This solution does not stand in academic isolation, but has hermeneutical ramifications. Several monographs have approached the text trying to tease out the meaning for the original community in the interplay between the 'original' and 'improved' discourse. Yet, the solution offered by many has not been completely satisfying. So a closer investigation seemed in order.

xu

The Unity of the Farewell Discourse

The present work proposes to be a close investigation of the problem of the literary unity of the Johannine Farewell Discourse. It is offered in the hope of bringing new methodologies to bear on the problem. However, the investigation (by way of its limitations) cannot fully address the issue of the origins of John's Gospel. only the Farewell Discourse. Furthermore, I have not addressed the issue of the relationship of the rest of John's Gospel to the Farewell Discourse. Although the present discussion can touch on these issues, they are discussions for another day. It is hoped that the reader will be as fascinated and stimulated by the problem as I was in researching it. Soli Deo Gloria, L. Scott Kellum Wake Forest, NC February, 2004

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Space will not allow a complete catalogue of those who have been a great help in the completion of this dissertation. I regret that I cannot list them all. There are, however, a few who deserve special recognition. First, I wish to thank my mentor and advisor, Dr Andreas J. K6stenberger, for his example, help, and encouragement. In all our conversations and consultations he has always made suggestions that made the work better. I am particularly indebted to both his linguistic skill and knowledge of Johannine literature. Any deficiencies are all my own. In like vein, Dr David Beck. under whom the seed of the present idea was germinated, has my gratitude. Mrs Pam Young, my former secretary, also deserves heartfelt thanks. Her 'eagle eye' in proofing the manuscript has made this a better work. I am deeply indebted to those who have allowed me to support my family during this process. These are B. J. Kisiel, Ted Collier. North Raleigh Christian Academy. and most of all Dr Gerald Cowen and Dr Paige Patterson who entrusted me with teaching the word of God to the next generation of ministers while this work was in progress. Further thanks go to Dr Daniel L. Akin who has benefited this project with his enthusiasm and support. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Library staff at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Special thanks are due to Reference Librarian Terese Jerose and the interlibrary loan department of SEBTS. who. more than once, obtained obscure. antiquated. or foreign material (often all of the above). In like manner the library staff at Duke Divinity School was also particularly helpful. I am also bles~ed to have been supported both financially and spiritually by a host of people. My parents. Glenn and Helen Kellum. deserve more than the space devoted to them here. without their godly input and financial support this work could have never been finished.

ABBREVIATIONS

AB AnBib ANF BARev BBR BFCT Bib BibLeb BT BWANT CBQ ETL EvT ExpTim FRLANT FN HBT HTR Int JAOS JBL JETS JOTT JSNT JSNTSup

JSOTSup JTS LCL MTZ NCB

Anchor Bible Analecta Biblica The Ante-Nicene Fathers Biblical Archeology Review Bulletin for Biblical Research Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie Biblica Bibel und Leben Bible Translator Beitriige zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Nellen Testament Catholic Biblical Quarterly Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Filologia Neotestamentaria Horizons in Biblical Theology Harvard Theological Review Interpretation Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Text and Textlinguistics Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library Mitchener Theologische Zeitschrift New Century Bible

Abbreviations

NICNT Neot NovT NTOA NTD NTS OPTAT PG PL SA NT SBLDS SBLMS SBT Sec Cen t SIL SNTSMS TNTC TRu TSK TynBul TZ VT WBC WTJ WUNT ZNW

New International Commentary on the New Testament Neotestamentica Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Studies Occasional Papers in Text and Textlinguistics J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca (Patrologiae cursus completes: Series Graeca. J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina (Patrologiae cursus completes: Series Latina) Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series Studies in Biblical Theology Second Century Summer Institute of Linguistics Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Theologische Rundschau Theologische Studien und Kritiken Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Ancient Sources Adv. Marc. Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews I QS Community Rule / Manual of Discipline Hist. ecc!. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Haer. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Episl. Pliny the Younger, Epistulae and Panegyric us War Josephus, The Jewish War

xv

INTRODUCTION

The Problem Like any discipline, biblical studies works under a series of axioms. These axioms, and the paradigms that grow from them. are always in danger of being challenged. if not replaced. In Johannine studies, for instance, it was once considered axiomatic that the Fourth Gospel was Hellenistic in its audience and outlook and little or nothing about the historical Jesus could be learned from it. However. J. A. T. Robinson's article. 'The New Look on the Fourth Gospel'. challenged these axioms. and. upon review, the Fourth Gospel was 'rehabilitated' in the eyes of many. I In fact. hard and fast axioms of the past face serious challenges in many areas. It is becoming increasingly rare in modern academic circles to be able to claim a 'sure result of modem criticism'.2 The present study investigates one of the axioms in modem biblical studies related to the Farewell Discourse of the Fourth Gospe\. Up through the nineteenth century, biblical scholars worked under the famous dictum of D. F. Strauss that the Fourth Gospel (including the Farewell Discourse) was, unlike the Synoptic Gospels, a seamless robe.·' Over the years, however. this axiom has been challenged and overturned. Today the opposite is the accepted paradigm. especially as it pertains to the Farewell I. John A. T. Robinson. 'The New Look on the Fourth Gospel'. in TlI'ch'c Nell' Tt-slamelll Swdies (SBT. 34: London: SCM. 1962). pp. 94·106. For an update ,md expansion of the;: article see especially John A. T. Robinson. TI,e Priority 0/.101111 (Oak Park, IL: Meyer-Stone. 1987). pp. 36-44. The entirety of his second chapter. 'From Sources to Source'. is devoted to the subject of the 10hannine milieu. 2. E.g .. history has shown that the Synoptic Problem. at many stages in history. was considered solved. but repeatedly new paradigms arose to replace older ones. The issue today is far from settled. See, e.g., France's discussion of the issue. R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist & Teacher (New Testament Profiles: Downers Grove. IL: InterVarsity. 1989). pp. 13-49. 3. David F. Strauss. Gespriiche Will Ulrich 1'011 HI/lien (vol. 3 of Ulrich \'011 HI/tten: Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1860), pp. xliii-xliv.

2

The Unity of the Farewell Discourse

Discourse. Simply put, the Farewell Discourse is seen by most scholars as a redacted text. Segovia has stated it well: 'Nowadays hardly any exegete would vigorously maintain that John 13.31 18.1 is a literary unity as it stands.'4 The new axiom is founded upon the observation that at the end of ch. 14 Jesus declares to his disciples, 'Arise, let us depart from here'. But he then speaks for three full chapters before 18.1 narrates the departure to the garden. For most Johannine source critics this is the foremost difficulty (technically called an 'aporia') which is useful in separating sources in the Fourth Gospel. The assumption is that this non sequitur is evidence of editorial activity (also known as a literary seam). The axiom is so well entrenched that one studying the Farewell Discourse can expect most of the modern commentaries, monographs, and articles sitting on any theological shelf to represent some form of textual disunity. The theory has found its way into more evangelical circles as well. Consider John Pryor's statement; 'The only satisfactory solution is to see 18.1 as having once directly followed on from 14.31.'5 However, scholarship is not united in the specifics of the literary history. A great variety of solutions to the problem have arisen. Given the axiomatic literary seam, the question is the relationship of chs. 15 ·17 to chs. 13-14. Some have seen a textual disruption that has resulted in transposition of chapters. The solution, then, is a reshuffling of the leaves. Others have seen the discourses as evidence that the author edited his text. Still others have posited that 15-17 belongs to another hand and have been inserted into the text. And finally, some have ventured that the text has been misinterpreted. 6 Needless to say, a consensus has not been reached in answering the question of the literary unity of the Farewell Discourse. It is the purpose of the present study to make a contribution to the question of the Farewell Discourse's literary unity through a close investigation of its linguistic and literary characteristics. In the discussion that follows, 'unity' represents the premise that the Farewell Discourse was written by one author at generally one period of time. That is. 'unity" does not suggest that the writer wrote the text at one sitting. Nor does it

4. Fernando F. Segovia. LIII',· Rl'latiollships ill till' Jollwmille Traditioll: agape agapall ill J John and the Fourth Gospel (SBLDS, 58; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), p. 82. 5. John Pryor, John: Evangelist of the Covenant People: The Narrative and Themes of the Fo/(rtlr Gospel (Downers Grove. IL: InterVarsity. 1992). p. 104. For other evangelicals who see multiple discourses as the solution of the problem. see Gary M. Burge. /1I{('rpretil/g tire GOofp,,1 o(Jolm (Guides to New Testament Exegesis; Grand Rapids: Baker. 1992). p. 58 and Hermann Ridderbos. 11", Gos,,!'1 a('cor,lillg to Jolrn: A 71le%gica/ Commel/tal'\' (trans. John Vend; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1997). p. 487. Ridderhos is far more conser~ative in his approach in that the evangelist felt the need to expand his discourse of ch. 14. 6. More details are given on the history of interpretation discussed in Chapter 1.

Introduction

3

preclude the rewriting and revising of his material over a period of time. Nor does 'unity' suggest that the writer could not have used certain sources. It does, however. reject the idea that the project imported sources wholesale that accumulated and grew over an extended period of time. In short. 'unity' suggests that the writer worked on his project until he considered it finished and then published it.

Limitations For the purposes of this study. the Farewell Discourse is identified as the speech of Jesus located at Jn 13.31-16.33. While it is certainly valid to investigate the entirety of chs. 13-17. the limitation also has good warrant in the context of the current question. The speech is, first of all, naturally divided from the beginning and concluding episodes, forming a selfcontained unit. The boundaries of the speech are clearly marked by the departure of Judas (13.30) and the beginning of the prayer (17.1). This demarcation is so strong that it is a common convention in Johannine studies on the Farewell Discourse to conclude at 16.33.7 Not only is the limitation common, but extending the limits brings diminishing returns regarding the question of literary unity. Without a doubt the Farewell Discourse is linked to both the rest of ch. 13 (the supper) and the entirety of ch. 17 (the final prayer) to form what is sometimes known as the farewell cycle. Although exegetically the links are quite important. for matters of source criticism the key is more narrow. While 13.1-30 sets up the discourse. and 17.1-26. in many ways. summarizes and applies the discourse, the question of literary unity resides in the content of Jesus' speech itself. For this reason. the present work is limited to 13.31-16.33. 8 In spite of the fact that some interpreters have posited minor rearrangements and certain insertions in ch. 13. no consensus has been attained as it has concerning 14.3Id. Decisions reached concerning the latter verse will impact how one approaches the entirety of ch. 13. Furthermore, ch. 17 has been seen as a single unit by most scholars. If it is considered an insertion. it has been inserted wholesale into the discourse. Those who see ch. 17 as an insertion do so from the perceived need to place 7. See, e.g., George Johnston, The Spirit-Paradele in the Gospel of John (SNTSMS, 12; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1970); Fernando Segovia. Tire Farewell o/the Word: The Johallllille Call to Ahide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); and Andreas Dettwiler, Die Gegemmrt de,l' ErhOhten (FRLANT, 169; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995). 8. The term 'discourse' is used here according to the convention of Johannine studies to refer to the speeches of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. The term 'discourse' among discourse analysts, however. could refer to any specific text-segment, but eventually the entirety of the discourse, i.e., the whole Gospel.

4

The Unity of the Farewell Discourse

14.31d and 18.1 together in the original arrangement of the Gospel. Thus. the adjudication on the question of the difficulty at 14.31d will also adequately adjudicate the position of ch. 17 as well. Y Therefore. a close inspection of the Farewell Discourse. as opposed to the entirety of the farewell cycle, should sufficiently answer the present question of literary unity.

The Approach to the Problem It could be argued that the burden of proof is upon those who hold to literary disunity. There are no extant· Ur-versions' of the Fourth Gospel. The Gospel is, by and large, the same text that we have today (allowing consideration for text-critical questions). The early Church Fathers left no records indicating they knew of more than one version of the Farewell Discourse. Finally, there is a lack of documents known to have been constructed along similar lines as proposed for the Farewell Discourse. Classical scholars have from time to time proposed multiple hands in Homer and other works of antiquity. However, generally today no classical scholar proposes multiple hands for the O(~l"Sser or the Iliad. 11I In somewhat of a turnabout the Historiae AugllSlae proposes to be by multiple hands, but most classical scholars assume it to be from one hand. 11 Other classical works, from time to time. are attributed to more than one hand. but these are always contested and are the exceptions to the rule. All this is to say that, given the nature of authorship. it is more likely that a literary work is the product of one author. However, on the other hand. the consensus among scholarship should not be lightly dismissed. The question, then. should be weighed with both considerations in mind. The evidence found in the text should be the deciding factor. The bulk of the investigation is. therefore. based on internal criteria. We will attempt to clarify the origins of the Farewell Discourse in an investigation that consists of three planks: stylistic. structural, and procedural. Because internal evidence is slippery work indeed. a history of the problem is assayed in Chapter I to gain an 9. There has heen a tcxtlingllistic invcstigati,'n of the so-called high priestly prayer of John 17. Sec David Alan Ulack. 'On the Sty!.: and Signiticance l,f Jnhn IT. CrislI'cl/ Tilc%gic most scholars see the 'Homeric Qu~stion' as a nineteenthcentury oddity. For a nice descriptillll of it sec Frank Turner. 'The Homeric Question'. in Ian Morris and BaIT} Powell (eds.). A Nell' COlIIl'lIl1ioll /0 I/olller (Leiden: Brill. 1997). pp. 123-45. 11. 'Editor~' note (I'll) I). in 7/11' Sai",orcs His/or;u. M. A. K. Halliday. and RU4aiya Hasan. Lallgllage. COII/oundari.:s ror wh.:n kai is used arc also somewhat adjusted.' Poythress, 'Use of the Intersentence Conjunctions', pp. 335--36. 116. Levinsohn, Discourse Features, p. 85. 117. Poythress, 'Use of the Intersentence Conjunctions', p. 328. 118. Buth, 'Ouv, tJ.t, K«l, and Asyndeton', p. 150. 119. Levinsohn, Discourse Features, p. 2. 120. Admittedly a style different than the usage elsewhere in John would support evolutionary models of lohannine origins.

2. Unity of Style

121

conjunctions. whether from the same author or not. 121 A strong case for stylistic unity could only come if the passages under scrutiny are together uniquely discrete in their use of intersentence conjunctions. In order to falsify a theory of stylistic unity, only one of the passages should use Johannine style. Thus. one passage in unique style and one passage in the more standard style would be a strong case for disunity. Since the test should look for uses of ouv. Of. Kat. and asyndeton that are exceptional to Johannine style. this requires a working theory as to both Synoptic style and the style in Acts. Levinsohn briefly describes the uses of conjunctions in the historiographic genres of the New Testament. In the Synoptics and Acts the default intersentence conjunction is KaL In John. it is asyndeton. The developmental marker is Kai. and Of in Matthew, most likely Of in Mark and definitely Of in Luke. In John it is Of and ouv.m Because. John uses clearly distinct conjunctions in the categories of 'default' and 'development', these would clearly indicate a stylistic distinction. The first involves Kai. and asyndeton. Since the Fourth Gospel routinely uses asyndeton, a restricted use of asyndeton would be a clue to disunity. Depending on the length of the discourse, one or two uses of Kai. where one would expect asyndeton would not be particularly remarkable. The lexical and semantic range is certainly available to the author writing in Greek. However, prolific use of Kat as opposed to asyndeton would be out of character for the Fourth Gospel. The reverse is true for Synoptic discourse. For example, the Johannine Bread of Life Discourse (In 6.2259) compared to the Synoptic Olivet Discourse (M t. 24.1-25) displays some stark differences. In the Olivet Discourse, asyndeton is used five times (6 percent), while Kai. more regularly connects sentences (sixteen times, 21 percent). In the Bread of Life Dist;ourse, on the other hand, the author connects twenty-seven sentences by asyndeton (69 percent) and only twice uses Kai. (5 percent). The severe restriction of asyndeton in the Olivet Discourse would be quite exceptional to Johannine usage. Conversely. the usage of Kat in the Bread of Life Discourse is exceptional to Synoptic style, but certainly in line with the rest of the Gospel of John. The second field 'development' involves the usage of ouv and Of. Since ouv is used as a low-level developmental marker, a use of ouv restricted to non-development would suggest a stylistic variance. Ouv is used in John with an inferential force (in this way it shows up in the margins of reported speech and to introduce events in logical sequence), introducing event clusters and with a resumptive force. In Synoptic usage. bE is regularly used

121. That is not to say that each might not have their own peculiarities. Mark for instance generally uses U when a sharper distinction is implied. But their differences are not as marked as those in John. See, Levinsohn, Discourse Features, p. 80. 122. Levinsohn, Discourse Features, p. 70.

122

The Unity of the Farewell Discourse

in these contexts. Again. comparing the Bread of Life Discourse to the Olivet Discourse reveals the dissimilarity in style. Ouv is used six times in the Olivet Discourse (7 percent). each time between propositions in either grounds implication or grounds-exhortation relationships. No speech margins are accompanied by ouv and no event clusters. None of these uses are exceptional nor uniquely Johannine. but fully in agreement with Synoptic style. In contrast. the Bread of Life Discourse uses ouv eight times (21 percent). It is used six times in introducing direct speech (6.28. 30. 32. 34. 52. and 53). Twice it is the resumptive use of ouv (6.24. 41). These are uniquely Johannine uses of ouv as a developmental marker. Thus in the usage of ouv the Bread of Life Discourse is in agreement with Johannine style and contrary to Synoptic style. The Olivet Discourse is at best neutral but doubtful. Finally. the proliferation of oE (because Johannine style restricts its usage) would falsify a theory of unity. In this aspect. certain absences of 0( become important. With the speech orienter arrOKp LVOIlIl L. the Fourth Gospel far more regularly uses asyndeton or ouv rather than the very common Synoptic oE. In our test passages. we find oE used once in the Bread of Life Discourse with OU1:o