154 Karl Olav Sandnes Furthermore, the full meaning of birth from above is progressively elucidated as the Christological significance of whence and whither is developed in the story. Jesus’ whence and whither is part of the contrast between “above and below” in the Fourth Gospel. This is also a fundamental structure of what Jesus says about birth a[nwqen. John applies terms which elsewhere describe the mysterious origin of Jesus in order to explore the nature of faith. This is in accordance with the epistemological conviction at work in John 3,3-8, namely “like is known by like”: “What is born of flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is Spirit” (NRSV) (4). This article reads John 3,3-8 in the light of the whole narrative as well as this epistemological conviction. 1. The Dialogue with Nicodemus: An Epistemological Setting In the Prologue a pattern of knowledge/failure to know stands out. This pattern is expressed also in terms of acceptance/rejection or faith/denial. Cognitive terms abound in the prologue and the initial chapters of John’s story. According to John 1,10 “the world did not know him”. The believers, who are presented as born of God, saw his glory (1,14). The prologue closes by a statement inspired by the Old Testament claim that human beings cannot see God Himself. However, God was made known by Christ (1,18). This closing adds to the epistemological nature of the prologue, and is thereby also a reminder that epistemology is important to the entire story. The prologue tells us that true knowledge of God and Christ sets the agenda for the story told in the subsequent chapters. The motifs of knowing/making known/not knowing permeate the text about the Jews coming to John the Baptist (1,19-28), most directly expressed in mevso" uJmw'n sthvkei o}n uJmei'" oujk oi[date (v. 26). In his testimony, the Baptist says that he also did not know (vv. 31.33), but that he had come to see (5) (v. 34 cf. v. 32). The whole purpose of his —————— 36,25-27; Zech 13,1; Joel 3,1-2 ) accord with the narrative itself. In a narrative perspective it hardly makes sense for Jesus to blame Nicodemus for not understanding a rite that never appears in the story. (4) Few commentaries pay attention to this principle; see, however, C. TALBERT, Reading John. A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles (New York 1994) 77, 98. Cf. B.E. GÄRTNER, “The Pauline and Johannine Idea of ‘To Know God’ Against the Hellenistic Background”, NTS 14 (1967-8) 209-231 and W.C. GREESE, “‘Unless One is Born Again’: The Use of a Heavenly Journey in John 3”, JBL 107 (1988) 677-693. (5) Since eJwvraka is here used without an accusative, it takes on the meaning of “I have come to understand”.