¹ This must not be taken to imply that he is actually following either of these Gospels. An investigation of the relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics would demand a treatment of the Gospel as a whole, which would be impossible within the scope of this article. For present purposes it is irrelevant whether he is using his general knowledge of the Synoptics but quoting from memory, or using one or more of them, or again using a somewhat different version now lost; it is also possible that he has direct access to some of the sources from which the Synoptic Gospels are drawn.

² In favor of the view that we have a primitive tradition is the wealth of unnecessary detail with which the scene is described in 4f. and again at 12, but I doubt if the point can be pressed.

The washing of feet as a mark of servility appears in rabbinical literature, (cf. Str. — B.ad loc) and also in Hierocles ap.Stob.Anth.4.25.53 (Hense 4.644.1), where children are advised to show special marks of consideration to their parents ὤστε καὶ πόδας ὑπόνιψαι καὶ κλὶνην στόρεσαι καὶ παραστῆναι διακουμένους; the association of the washing of feet with διακονείσθαι is interesting in view of the possible connection between this passage and the tradition from which Luke drew 22.26f.

³ For other references cf. my Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity 76 and add Lucian Demonax 4(376). But I wrongly ascribed the similarity of the footwashing in John and the proverb to coincidence; the original meaning of the Johannine footwashing was to provide a lesson in humility and service. The interpretation of it as a preliminary to the supreme revelation is added by the evangelist on the strength of the proverbial phrase.

⁴ The omission of εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόςας by א and other authorities and the D.variant τὴν κεϕὰλην νίψασθαι seem to be due to scribes who rightly saw in λελούμενος an allusion to baptism, but were puzzled by the fact that the Church had no minor ablutions after baptism; they may also have felt that minor ablutions, as typified by the footwashing, might be regarded as a dangerous concession to Judaism. Without the words there is no really tolerable sense. Origen makes the passage mean that he who has been cleansed has no absolute need of minor washings; but such washings may be given him by the free gift of God in the form of special graces which are desirable but not necessary.

⁵ For the distinction between two kinds of sin in 1 John cf. Dodd in Moffatt's commentary on 5.16. The Epistle does not attempt to reconcile the inconsistency between 3.6 and the other two passages; but one would hardly expect its author to be a systematic theologian.