4911 Burge, Community, 166; Dunn, Baptism, 192; Turner, Spirit, 68; Talbert, John, 99 (Talbert also cites useful works by Léon-Dufour, «Reading»; Summers, «Born»). 4913 Bürge, Community, 166; Dunn, Baptism, 192, citing 4:23–24; 6:63; cf. the repetition of synonyms in 12:49. 4914 Calvin, John, 1:110–11 (on John 3:5 ), disagreeing with most earlier commentators and citing accurately both the grammar and other water images for the Spirit (e.g., Matt 3:11). See also Beasley-Murray, John, 48 (citing Origen Comm. Jo. 2.249ff.; Calvin, John, 1:64–65), though Beasley-Murray himself finds such interpretations dubious. 4915 So Belleville, «Born,» 134–35, though she argues that the terms together refer to the dual work of God " s Spirit, the «Spirit» here being God " s nature imparted by the Spirit (p. 140), the water here being the Spirit " s purifying work (140; followed by Carson, Fallacies, 42). Westcott, John, 49, argues that «water» and «Spirit» are separate. 4917 Cf. similarly Calvin, John, 1:111. For spiritual purification in early Christianity, see, e.g., Sent. Sext. 23–24. Conversely, Herrn. Vis. 3.3 affirms baptismal regeneration. 4919 Some rabbis appealed to Ezek 36for the eschatological eradication of the evil impulse (b. Sukkah 52a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:17; Exod. Rab. 41:7; Lev. Rab. 35:5; Song Rab. 6:11, §1) and guilt (Pesiq. Rab. 14:15), others for the eschatological pervasiveness of the Spirit (third-century tradition in Gen. Rab. 26:6). 4921 Hoskyns, Gospel, 214; LaSor, Scrolls and NT, 151; Bruce, History, 156–57; Smalley, John, 227; Belleville, «Born,» 140; Suggit, «Nicodemus,» 96; Turner, Spirit, 68; McCabe, «Water and Spirit»; cf. Ladd, Theology, 285. 4922 Lit., «waters of impurity,» an expression often used in the Hebrew Bible for waters that purify one from impurity. 4924 Num. Rab. 7:10. Citing this text, R. Akiba emphasized that God himself would be their mikve, punning on «hope» and the ritual bath (the context in m. Yoma 8applies this promise to Yom Kippur; also noted in Torrance, «Baptism,» 153; idem, «Origins,» 166). |
Carriera das Neves, «Pronome» Carriera das Neves, Joaquim. «O pronome pessoal μες como chave hermenêutica do IV Evangelho.» Didaskalia 20 (1990): 43–65. Carroll, «Eschatology» Carroll, John T. «Present and Future in Fourth Gospel «Eschatology.»» Biblical Theology Bulletin 19 (1989): 63–69. Carroll, «Exclusion» Carroll, Kenneth L. «The Fourth Gospel and the Exclusion of Christians from the Synagogues.» Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 40 (1957–1958): 19–32. Carroll, «Peter» Carroll, Kenneth L. « " Thou Art Peter.»» NovT 6 (1963): 268–76. Carson, Discourse Carson, D. A. The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Carson, Fallacies Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. Carson, John Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Carson, «Matthew» Carson, D. A. «Matthew.» Pages 3–599 in vo1. 8 of The Expositor " s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. Carson, «Paraclete» Carson, D. A. «The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:7–1 1.» JBL 98 (1979): 547–66. Carson, «Purpose» Carson, D. A. «The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20Reconsidered.» JBL 106 (1987): 639–51. Carson, «Responsibility» Carson, D. A. «Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility in Philo: Analysis and Method.» NovT 23 (1981): 148–64. Carson, «Source Criticism» Carson, D. A. «Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions.» JBL 97 (1978): 411–29. Carson, Sovereignty Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. New Foundations Theological Library. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Carson, «Tradition» Carson, D. A. «Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?» Pages 83–145 in Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Vo1. 2 of Gospel Perspectives. Edited by R. T. France and David Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Carson, Triumphalism Carson, D. A. From Triumphalism to Maturity: An Exposition of 2Corinthians 10–13. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. |
Petersen. Ed. by J.M. LeMon and K.H. Richards. RBS 56. Winona Lake, 2009, pp. 311–332. Britt 2003 – Britt B. Unexpected Attachments: A Literary Approach to the Term хсд in the Hebrew Bible//JSOT 27.3 (2003), pp. 289–307. Brockington 1973 – Brockington L.H. The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. The Readings Adopted by the Translators of the New English Bible. Oxford Cambridge, 1973. Brodie 2001 – Brodie T.L. Genesis as Dialoguë A Literal, Historical and Theological Commentary. Oxford, 2001. Brown 2005 – Brown R. Translating the Biblical Term «Son(s) of God» in Muslim Contexts//IJFM 224 (2005), pp. 91–96. Brucker 1997 – Brucker R. «Christushymnen» oder «epideiktische Passagen»? Studien zum Stilwechsel im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt//FRLANT, 176, Gottingen, 1997. Biihlman Scherer 1973 – Biihlman W., Scherer K. Stilfguren der Bibel//BB 10. Fribourg, 1973. Bultmann 1954 – Bultmann R. Urchristentum. Zurich, 1954. Byron 2004 – Byron J. Paul and the Background of Slavery: The Status Quaestionis in New Testament Scholarship//CBR 3, pp. 116–139. Capps 2000 – Capps D Jesus: A Psychological Biography. St. Louis, 2000. Carson 1983 – Carson D.A. Unity and Diversity within the New Testament//Scripture and Truth. Ed. by D.A.Carson and J.D.Woodbridge. Grand Rapids, 1983, pp. 65–95. Carson 1984 – Carson D.A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids, 1984. Carson 1998 – Carson D. A. The Inclusive Language Debatë A Plea for Realism. Leicester, 1998. Cassuto 1967 – Cassuto U. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Jerusalem, 1967. Cassuto 1989 – Cassuto U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part Onë From Adam to Noah. Jerusalem, 1989. Childs 1970 – Childs B.S. Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia, 1970. Childs 1974 – Childs B.S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary. Philadelphia, 1974. Childs 1977 – Childs B.S., The Sensus Literalis of Scripturë an Ancient and Modem Problem//Beitrage zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie, Her. von H. Donner und and., Gottingen, 1977. Childs 1979 – Childs B.S. |
774 Michaels, John, xvii; Carson, John, 72; Whitacre, John, 21. Surprisingly, Culpepper, John, 31, counts James " s lack of explicit mention as an argument against Johannine authorship, perhaps because one might expect John to mention his brother. But such mention might be difficult without mentioning himself (James never appears independently from John in the Synoptics). Boismard, «Disciple,» argues that the disciple remains one of the anonymous ones of 21:2, hence cannot be a son of Zebedee. But even in that verse, not every anonymous disciple may be the beloved disciple! 777 For Egypt, see Braun, Jean, 69–133 (including Basilides, Clement of Alexandria, Diognetus, and the Bodmer Papyri); for Rome, 135–80; for Asia Minor, 181–289. 783 Nunn, Authorship, 3–4. His point stands for ancient works even if his example from history, from Shakespeare, is not itself beyond dispute. 784 Carson, John, 69, following Kennedy, «Criticism»; cf. Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 141. 786 There is little firm «orthodox» attestation before Irenaeus, as Smalley, John, 72, points out, but what evidence we do have (early gnostic, some reportedly earlier and more subsequent attestation) is fully consistent with Johannine authorship. 787 E.g., Ptolemy, ca. 130–140 c.E. (Irenaeus Haer. 1.8.5); also Heracleon (Origen Comm. Jo. 6.3; Wiles, Gospel 7). 791 E.g., Carson, John, 28. For the fourth-century date, see Gamble, «Canonical Formation,» 189; others have dated it to the late second or third century. 793 Daniel B. Wallace brought this to my attention in a communication of March 7, 2000 (citing Porter, «Variation,» who argues that P 75 and Vaticanus attest the same text type as early as 200). 794 Sanders, Figure, 64–66. He also thinks anonymous works claimed greater authority (66); this thesis is, however, doubtful (cf. the plethora of pseudepigraphic works). 795 Aune, Environment, 18; and Witherington, Wisdom, 11, suggest ca. 125 C.E. Some follow Hengel in suggesting an even earlier date, e.g., Carson, John, 24. |
839 Whereas the conservative introductions often arrive at predictably conservative conclusions, they interact with less conservative scholars, whereas some of the traditional critical introductions completely ignore the contributions of conservative scholarship. See also Bruce, John, 6–12. 841 Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 5.20.5–6; see comments in Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 139; Guthrie, Introduction, 270. The letter " s authenticity may be questioned, but at least Eusebius thought it authentic; given his own view of two Johns, it is improbable that he would have forged Irenaeus " s letter. 842 An argument from lack of explicit mention of John in Polycarp (cf. Davies, Rhetoric, 246; Culpepper, John, 34) is an argument from silence (especially given the one letter of Polycarp that remains), ignores possible allusions to the Epistles, and might ask too much after the Gospel " s relatively recent publication (though cf. P 52 ). Does one mention onés ordaining or academic mentor in every work? (As much as I respect mine, I certainly have not!) Culpepper, John, 34, likewise protests Ignatius " s silence, but Ignatius also fails to mention John the seer, though he must have been known to Ephesus (Rev 1:1,4,9, 11; 2:1; 22:8). 848 Wiles, Gospel, 8; Carson, John, 27–28; Bruce, John, 12; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 141, citing Epiphanius Pan. 51.3; probably Irenaeus Haer. 3.11.9; and noting the pun on Johns logos. 849 Carson, John, 28; Bruce, John, 12; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 141; Braun, Jean, 149–56. 853 Witherington, Wisdom, 14–15. We answered above the objection that John differs too much from the Twelve to have been one of them. 857 For a response see, e.g., Stanton, Gospels, 186. Cf. similar responses concerning the Greek of the allegedly Judean author James (e.g., Davids, James, 10–11; cf. Sevenster, Greek, passim, for the wide use of literary Greek), acknowledged also by some who do not believe James wrote it (Laws, James, 40–41). The Greek of James is on a much higher level than that of John. |
9243 Carson, «Paraclete,» 549,561. This view has not gained much support (cf. Bürge, Community, 209–10), and the more traditional view that the righteousness is that of Christ (e.g., Tribble, «Work,» 275) or his people is to be preferred. 9245 Bammel, «Paraklet,» 203, contends that this triad is comparable to similar triads summing up the law " s meaning in Judaism or that of secret knowledge in gnosticism but offers no compelling evidence for the case. Stanton, «Convince,» thinks that the last two clauses are less clear because John has compressed more expanded material, but the partial parallelism suggests that if the parallelism existed in John " s source at all, it was not more expansive than John has it here. 9246 Reading cm as «in that,» rather than «because,» against Bürge, Community, 209; Holwerda, Spirit, 56. 9248 Against Carson, «Paraclete,» 559–60; Carson, Discourse, 141; Hunt, «Paraclete,» 109 (although the idea of counterfeit righteousness is not unknown; cf. CD 4.15–17 and the Amoraim in Gen. Rab. 49:9). Carson " s main argument insists on parallel form, but as Berg, «Pneumatology,» points out, «the subjects of the subsidiary clauses are quite un-parallel» (p. 206). The revelation of the Tightness of the divine agent exposes the sin of the accusers, 9:41; 15:24. 9249 Cf. Dahl, «History,» 139: «The vindication of Jesus by his ascension.» Stenger, " Dikaiosyne» thinks δικαιοσνη here refers to Jesus» righteousness even before the incarnation (cf. 1 John 2:1,29, 3:7 ). But while the clause no doubt assumes the eternal Tightness of God " s side, it is Jesus» glorification that establishes this fact. Conversely, Porsch, Pneuma, 286; Potterie, «Paraclet,» 104, and others (cf. Tribble, «Work,» 275) are probably too narrow to limit this even to Jesus» righteousness; his exaltation establishes the rightness of his disciples before God " s court as well (1 John 2:1). 9250 Hatch, «Meaning,» 105, also defines it as the believers» justification, due to the Johannine Advocate with the Father. |
Пс 140 в других христианских традициях . В большей части сохранившихся традиций вост. христианства Пс 140 является частью группы вечерних псалмов. В арм. богослужении на вечерне поется группа псалмов 139, 140 и 141 (псалмы 139 и 141 могут быть поздним добавлением к арм. традиции, где также известно повторение стиха из Пс 140. 2 в определенные дни - см.: Janeras. 1964. P. 219-220). В различных традициях сир. христианства (яковиты, марониты, несториане) вечерние псалмы включают группу из псалмов 140, 141, 118. 105-112 и 116 (в стихе из Пс 118. 105 говорится о «светильнике», что, возможно, и стало причиной выбора этого отрывка), к к-рой может прибавляться поэтический материал (в Церкви Востока до или после этой группы псалмов, в практике др. сир. Церквей - только после нее) (см.: MacLean. 1894; Griffiths. 2005; Woolfenden. 2004). В эфиоп. традиции Пс 140 включен в праздничную вечерню (wazema) как последний из 3 псалмов, составляющих основную часть этой службы ( Habtemichael-Kidane. 1998). В копт. традиции, напротив, единственная связь Пс 140 с вечерним богослужением - это использование 1-2 стихов с припевом «Аллилуия» в вечерней службе каждения ( Burmester. 1967. P. 42-43). Насколько важной была роль Пс 140 в традиц. вечерней службе зап. Церквей - менее понятно. Все богослужебные традиции кафедрального типа в Риме были поглощены монашеским обрядом, к-рый со мн. изменениями был зафиксирован в рим. Бревиарии, использовавшемся до 1914 г. Вечерня в этом обряде имеет разные наборы псалмов для каждого дня недели, за ними следуют гимн (добавленный в службу позднее), короткое библейское чтение, стих и респонсорий перед песнью Богородицы ( «Величит душа Моя Господа» ; см. также ст. Magnificat ). Стих и респонсорий для большинства дней недели - Пс 140. 2. Предполагается, что это может быть остатком пения всего псалма, т. к. ритуал каждения лежал в основе вечерни по рим. и бенедиктинскому обрядам ( Winkler. 1974. S. 97-99). В амвросианском обряде Пс 140 первоначально употреблялся по пятницам в период Великого поста как 1-й элемент службы lucernarium, соединяя т. о. ритуал возжжения света с принесением каждения; последовательное использование Пс 140 в испано-мосарабском и галликанском обрядах не прослеживается (см.: Woolfenden. 2004). |
У Иоанна имеются лексические отличия. Около 150 слов, встречающихся в речах Иисуса у Иоанна, нет в других Евангелиях (Carson, 45). Многие из этих слов настолько распространены, что Иисус, если вообще употреблял их, вряд ли мог бы обойтись без них в самой обычной речи. Отсутствие их у синоптиков расценивается как свидетельство того, что Иоанн сам сочинял, а не записывал речи Иисуса. При такой аргументации упускается из виду, что хороший проповедник всегда подбирает слова, соответствующие случаю. А поскольку общепризнанно, что Иисус говорил на арамейском языке, остаются широкие возможности различного выбора слов при записи и переводе на греческий высказываний Иисуса. Из этих соображений вытекает некий общий принцип, который должен учитываться при самых разных позициях относительно цитат из речи Иисуса в Евангелиях. Беседу или диалог можно передать как дословно, так и сокращённо (Westcott, cxv-cxix). Стиль и цели изложения могут меняться. Карсон отмечает: «В некоторые моменты может быть важно передать живое звучание речи, дословно воспроизводя целый ряд выражений и игру слов; в других случаях стратегически гораздо важнее может быть сосредоточение на сущности доводов и ясной их формулировке, даже если словесное их выражение будет полностью отличаться от оригинальной речи» (Carson, 46). В связи с этим многие консервативные учёные готовы признать, что не все изречения Иисуса могли сохраняться ipsissima verba (с точной передачей слов), но лишь ipsissima vox (с точной передачей смысла). Как указывает Карсон, времена глаголов и другие грамматические категории тоже влияют на выбор слов. Если «историческое настоящее» сравнительно часто используется в повествовании, но редко в беседах, то, как показано, не имеют обоснования современные источниковедческие теории, которые пытаются приписывать соответствующие разделы разным редакторам (Carson, 45). Аргументация против аутентичности этих изречений представляет собой разновидность логической ошибки petitio principii, то есть построения порочного круга. Единственная причина, почему вообще возникает проблема, состоит в том, что различные способы выражения, встречающиеся у Иоанна, заведомо не учитываются при определении того, каков был стиль Иисуса. Но это построение порочного круга, так как заранее предполагается, что высказывания у Иоанна выходят за пределы подлинного стиля речи Иисуса. |
9191 Tribble, «Work,» 278; Hunt, «Paraclete,» 94; Sanders, John, 350; Holwerda, Spirit, 52; cf. Schlier, «Geist,» 106–7; Boring, Sayings, 62. Carson, «Paraclete,» 564, thinks the conviction is partly through the disciples. 9192 The lack of questions about his departure does not contradict 13and 14:5; it is present tense, and in the story world the disciples have not been asking questions since 14(Barrett, John, 485; Blomberg, Reliability, 213). 9194 On the technical use of συμφρει in moral texts, see comment on 11:50; but the moralistic usage exercises little influence on this passage. 9195 For parallels between Jesus and the Spirit, see, e.g., Brown, «Paraclete,» 126; Bornkamm, «Paraklet,» 12; Schlier, «Geist,» 107–8. On the Spirit " s relation to the kerygma, see, e.g., Boice, Witness, 120–22, 143–45. 9197 Cf. Bammel, «Paraclet,» 214–16; Zerwick, «Wirken,» 230; Hegstad, «Hellige»; Bultmann, John, 575 (though Bultmann is correct that the Spirit does restate Jesus» word). Haenchen, John, 2:144, argues that the Spirit will go beyond the earthly Jesus as John goes beyond his sources» traditions. 9199 Schlier, «Begriff, " 271. Cf. McNaugher, «Spirit» (Christ is the substance of the Spirit " s revelation). 9202 For an example, see Porphyry Marc. 24.376–384; see esp. Anderson, Glossary, 32–33; Rowe, «Style,» 134. 9204 Marcus Aurelius 1.17.1; 6.21; to «refute» in Musonius Rufus 8, p. 62.39–40; in rhetoric, «refutation» (see Anderson, Glossary, 40). 9209 Lutkemeyer, «Paraclete,» 222, maintains this on the basis of an opposition between a social religious Hebraic sense (after citing Isa 11:4!) and a forensic judicial Greco-Roman sense. Cf. Forestell, «Paraclete,» 168–69 (presenting evidence for both positions); Swete, Discourse, 116–17 (convinces understanding and convicts conscience); Hatch, «Meaning,» 104 (confute or convict). 9210 Smith, « John 16 ,» 60; Carson, Discourse, 138; Trites, Witness, 118–19; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 144; Sanders, John, 350; Witherington, Wisdom, 264; cf. Porsch, Pneuma, 275–89; Potterie, «Paraclet,» 101–5, though Baum, Jews, 129–30, overstates the consensus when he says that «all commentators are agreed that there is a question here of a trial before God, where the world is the accused party and the Spirit the prosecutor.» This is more than just convincing the world that it is wrong (cf. Stevens, Theology, 211; Carson, «Paraclete,» 558). |
Jesus would remain with them just «a little while» (13:33; cf. the first «little while» of 16:16); as he has been saying (cf. aorists, plus «now» in 13and perhaps «immediately» in 13:32), his departure is imminent. These are the same words he had offered the crowds in 7:33. Further, like «the Jews,» the disciples could not yet follow Jesus where he was going (13:33), that is, to the Father by way of the cross (13:3; 14:5–6). «The Jews» (representing the elite Jewish opponents of John " s Jewish audience; see introduction, ch. 5) could not follow Jesus where he was going (7:34–36) because they would die in their sin rather than lay down their lives for God " s will (8:21–22). The disciples could not yet follow Jesus because they are not yet prepared to die; but they would follow him in death later (13:36–38; cf. 21:18–19). Jesus had been «with» them for a time (12:8, 35; 14:9; 16:4); in contrast to his enemies, however, who would never find him, his disciples would find him in a new way when he returned–that is, he would be with them in a new way. Sandwiched between Jesus» comments about following him is a commandment. This commandment is relevant to the context, for it includes readiness to die: to love as he did would require laying down their lives for one another (13:34). The foot washing (13:3–10) illustrated this love, because it foreshadowed the salvific work of the Suffering Servant (13:1–2, 31–38). The commandment also articulated how believers could represent the most vital aspect of Jesus» presence among themselves after his departure: by loving one another, they would continue to experience his love. 3. Following Jesus» Model (13:34–35) The exhortation to «love one another» (13:34–35) implied unity in the face of diversity (17:21–23), such as Jewish, Gentile, and Samaritan believers in Jesus might experience (4:39; 10:16). Representatives of various social groups now constituted together a new «in-group,» and frequent early Christian exhortations to mutual service seem directed toward blending such diversity. 8307 In the Johannine community, love is partly cohesiveness to the community; secessionists lack such love (1 John 2:19; 3:14). 8308 Ethnic and other forms of reconciliation within the Christian community are essential to its identity as a Christian community; without such evidences the world cannot see the character of Jesus (13:35). |
| |