Biblica_1:Layout 1 21-11-2011 12:59 Pagina 372 372 PHILIPP F. BARTHOLOMÄ temporary standards, the Johannine discourses should be considered as historically authentic provided that they reliably reproduce the basic substance of the words of Jesus. Because differences in wording are not sufficient to argue reasonably for the inauthenticity of the Jo- hannine discourses, our comparative approach to Johannine-Synoptic relations must not only function on a semantic level but also include a rigorous comparison of the conceptual content of Jesus’ teaching as found in John and the Synoptics. We, therefore, suggest a bifocal method for examining the Gospels’ evidence that is able to distinguish between the two parameters of sim- ilarity in wording (a) and similarity in content (b). Both parameters measure three levels of closeness: (a) When it comes to the parameter of wording, level 0 indicates little or no verbal agreement. This category includes sayings or propositions that show no or at least no significant overlap in wording. Level 1 iden- tifies some verbal agreement. This level requires the conformity of one or more individual words or phrases. These shared words, however, should have at least some significance in conveying the basic assertion of a given saying. Level 2 designates close verbal agreement. This type of closeness assumes a very high degree of conformity in wording, i.e., almost complete verbal correspondence. (b) By analogy, within the parameter of content, level 0 means no sim- ilarity in content, i.e., no discernible correlation in content between Jo- hannine speech material and Jesus’ words in the Synoptics. Level 1 indicates some similarity in content. This means that the conceptual thrust of a particular Johannine saying or teaching is similar to a syn- optic proposition at least to some degree. Level 2 identifies propositions that bear a close resemblance in terms of content. This method of classification enables us to assign to any given Johannine proposition a level of similarity in wording as well as content as compared with particular dominical sayings in the Syn- optic Gospels. For example, in a Johannine-Synoptic relation des- ignated as [0/2], the numbers in brackets indicate that the given propositions contain no verbal agreement (level [0/] similarity of wording) but have a close conceptual similarity (level [/2] simi- larity of content). With regard to the results of this comparative approach as related to the question of Johannine authenticity in general, the following needs to be noted. If, on the one hand, a significant amount of Jesus’