| 8721 Forestell, «Paraclete,» 157, doubts that the Paraclete saying is an interpolation, but believes that 14:12–17 as a whole interrupts the context. 8722 Metzger, Commentary, 245; Berg, «Pneumatology,» 131; Morgan-Wynne, «Note.» Michaels, John, 253, and Hunter, John, 146, take the second verb as present but read both verbs in a future sense. 8725 This is acknowledged even by most who emphasize futurist eschatology in the Gospel (e.g., Holwerda, Spirit, 65, 76). 8726 Cicero Fam. 12.30.4 speaks of the Senate «bereft of relatives» (orbus) by the loss of its consuls (whom Cicero would have regarded as «fathers» to the state); murdering onés benefactor could be seen as parricide (Valerius Maximus 1.5.7; 1.6.13; 1.7.2; 1.8.8). 8727 E.g., Isa 47LXX; 1 Thess 2:17; perhaps Pss. So1. 4:10; cf. Bernard, John, 2:546. Achilles» mere absence from his (living) parents is described as ρφανιζομνω in Pindar Pyth. 6.22–23. No one else could fully replace a deceased father (Homer I1. 22.490–505); nevertheless, the Kjv " s «comfortless» is untenable (Bernard, John, 2:547). 8729 R. Akiba for R. Eliezer in " Abot R. Nat. 25A. Commentators frequently follow Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2here (e.g., Holwerda, Spirit, 41–42; ÓDay, «John,» 748); Brown, John, 2also cites Plato Phaedo 116A. 8732 Holwerda, Spirit, 38–45. In later tradition «orphan» could be mildly derogatory (b. Hu1. 111b), perhaps alluding to a father " s death as punishment (e.g., allegedly Ben Azzai in p. Meg. 1:9, §19), but it was not necessarily a figure of shame (Tob 1:8). As children they remained legally defenseless (p. Ketub. 3:1, §4), although only as minors (p. Ter. 1:1). 8733 On the connection between the impartation of the Spirit and the resurrection, see also Schlier, «Begriff,» 265. 8736 Also noted in DeSilva, «Wisdom of Solomon,» 1275. On «keeping the word» in the Fourth Gospel, see Pancaro, Law, 403–30. 8737 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lit. Comp. 25; cf. Wis 2:22; 1QH 2.13–14; 9.23–24; see Keener, Matthew, 378–79. Gnostics may have developed their «secret tradition» to explain their lack of earlier attestation; but some authentic traditions actually were probably initially «secret.» |
| 761 Cf. also, e.g., Barnett, Reliable, 78. Todd, «Introduction to Symposium, " 376, doubts Xenophon " s claim to be present in Symp. 1.1, but the genre of dialogues differs from later biography; he admits some historical setting to the account (376–78); and his reason for skepticism (which is less than secure) is that Xenophon nowhere places himself in the narrative–a situation which does not obtain with the beloved disciple (19:35). 762 Nicol, «Research,» 9, thinks that «Westcott " s commentary is still one of the best» (commenting on his attention to the Greek). 763 Often noted by conservative writers, who are more apt to attend to Westcott, e.g., Tenney, John, 297–303. 767 Westcott, John, x-xviii; less persuasive are his appeals to Palestinian text types, etc. On his knowledge of Jerusalem topography, see also Bernard, John, l:lxxx; Smalley, John, 37. 768 Westcott, John, vii; Brown, «Burney,» 339; Smalley, John, 62; Meeks, «Jew,» 164–67; Dodd, Interpretation, 74–75; Schnackenburg, John, 1:110. 770 Cf. Torrey, «Origin.» Very little literature was being written in Aramaic in this period (Albright, «Discoveries,» 155); cf. Manson, Paul and John, 86, who finds Aramaisms clustered almost entirely in . 771 Westcott, John, xxv-xxviii (examining 1:14, 19:35, 21:24). Besides the explicit claims of the writer, Westcott also appeals to details (xviii-xxi) concerning time (xix), number (xix), place (xix-xx) and manner (xx). This line of argument is weaker than one based on the writer " s claims, but helpful as a support. See the fuller argument in Morris, Studies, 139–214. 773 Culpepper, John, 31; and Smith, John (1999), 26, who also objects to an appeal to Synoptic tradition here (presumably because John " s audience may not have known it; but John does know the Twelve, 6:13, 67–71; 20:24). But presumably John " s first audience already knew John " s identity; my appeal to Synoptic tradition is for us who do not, and depends only on the Synoptics» accurate portrayal of the Twelve and three as Jesus» most intimate disciples. |
| 6534 E.g., Sipre Deut. 313.3.1; 355.6.1; b. Pesah. 54a. Many of these texts also particularly link the gift with the merit of Miriam (Sipre Deut. 305.3.1; b. Šabb. 35a; Ta c an. 9a; Num. Rab. 1:2; 13:20; Song Rab. 4:5, §2; but cf. Ecc1. Rab. 1:9, §1). 6535 E.g., Dodd, Interpretation, 350; Hunter, John, 84–85; Schnackenburg, John, 2:155. 6536 Hodges, «Rivers,» 244. 6537 Freed, Quotations, 23; Barrett, «Old Testament,» 156; Grelot, «Rocher»; Bürge, Community, 92; Bienaimé, «L " annonce,» 417–54. Hanson, Gospel, 113–14, rightly notes a number of allusions with primary emphasis on Ezek 47 and Zech 14:8. 6538 Long, Philosophy, 52 (citing Lucretius Nat. 3.136ff.). Cf. Sib. Or. 3.762, where minds (φρνας) are located in the breasts (στθεσι). 6539 Burney, «Equivalent,» 79–80; cf. Freed, Quotations, 24; Beasley-Murray, John, 116–17. 6540 Fee, «Once More»; Blenkinsopp, «Note»; Hodges, «Rivers»; Bernard, John, 1:282; Cortes, «Look»; Horton, Spirit, 131; Augustine Jr. Ev. Jo. 32.2.2; Luther, 8th Sermon on John 7; Ridderbos, John, 273. 6541 Fee, «Once More,» 117; Morris, John, 423–24; Hodges, «Rivers,» 242. But if John is citing Scripture, this is weakened; «my» would not have been a preferred substitute. 6542 Hodges, «Rivers,» 242; Cortés, «Look,» 78–79; but cf. 6as a parallel if the source is Christ. 6543 Fee, «Once More,» 116–17. But 7speaks of giving, not receiving, waters and seems to be the source of believers receiving in v. 39. 6544 Cortés, «Look,» 79; Hodges, «Rivers,» 240. 6545 Barrett, John, 326; Cortés, «Look,» 77; Kuhn, «John vii.37–8,» 65. 6546 Dodd, Interpretation, 349; Brown, John, 1:321–23; Dunn, Baptism, 179–80; Michaels, «Discourse,» 208–9; Menken, «Origin»; Smith, John (1999), 174. Punctuated thus, the two lines are parallel, a «rhythmical couplet» (Bruce, Time, 46; cf. Bruce, John, 181–82; Hoskyns, Gospel, 321). 6547 Brown, John, 1:321; Turner, «Punctuation»; cf. some of the early textual evidence in Bruce, Time, 46. Cf. Odes So1. 30:1–7; church fathers appeared on both sides of the question. |
| The transition from the uniform liquid to the structured liquid can be compared to the transition from a physical state of the universe with no life to the state when life emerged. In the case of the Bernard phenomenon, the transition from the uniform state to the complex state depends on satisfying some conditions that can be called the necessary conditions. In particular, there must be two factors: (1) the presence of the external gravitational field and (2) the presence of the difference in temperature on the upper and low plains ΔΤ. When this difference reaches some critical level ΔΤc, one observes the transition from the uniform liquid to the liquid that is formed by cell tubes. If we make an analogy between the external factors in the Bernard experiment (that is, the external gravitational field and the difference in temperature between the two planes containing the liquid) and the external cosmological conditions that are necessary for the emergence of life (such as the strength of the cosmological gravitational fields and the temperature of the background radiation, which decreases as the universe expands), then the necessary condition for the Bernard phenomenon to occur (ΔT > ΔTc) can be paralleled with some cosmological event, when the temperature of the background radiation dropped to such a level that the stability of the constituents of the biological factors on the earth were achieved and life could emerge. The most intriguing part of the Bernard experiment, however, is that the phenomenon of complexity can be of two different types. The Bernard cell in a given place of the liquid can have either clockwise (right, or R) or counterclockwise (left, or L) chirality, so that the spatial structure of complexity, attained in a fixed point of the liquid, can be depicted as a sequel of cells with different order of chiralities, namely, either A (… RLRLRL…) or B (… LRLRLR…). It is important to realize that the complexity of the Bernard type will necessarily emerge if ΔT > ΔΤc, that is, the phenomenon is deterministic with respect to the external, necessary conditions. |
| Pagels, «Exegesis» Pagels, Elaine H. «Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John.» 751 118 (1999): 477–96. Pagels, Gospels Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House, 1979. Pagels, Paul Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Painter, «Christology» Painter, John. «Christology and the Fourth Gospel: A Study of the Prologue.» ABR 31 (1983): 45–62. Painter, «Church» Painter, John. «Christ and the Church in John 1,45–51 .» Pages 359–62 in L " évangile de Jean: Sources, rédaction, théologie. Edited by Marinus de Jonge. BETL 45. Gembloux: J. Duculot; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1977. Painter, «Discourses» Painter, John. «The Farewell Discourses and the History of Johannine Christianity.» NTS 27 (1980–1981): 525–43. Painter, «Glimpses» Painter, John. «Glimpses of the Johannine Community in the Farewell Discourses.» ABR 28 (1980): 21–38. Painter, «Gnosticism» Painter, John. «Gnosticism and the Qumran Texts.» ABR 17 (1969): 1–6. Painter, «Israel» Painter, John. «The Church and Israel in the Gospel of John: A Response.» NTS 25 (1978–1979): 103–12. Painter, John Painter, John. John: Witness and Theologian. Foreword by C. K. Barrett. London: SPCK, 1975. Painter, « John 9 » Painter, John. « John 9 and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospe1.» JSNT 28 (1986): 31–61. Painter, «Opponents» Painter, John. «The Opponents» in 1 John.» NTS 32 (1986): 48–71. Painter, «Tradition» Painter, John. «Tradition and Interpretation in John 6 .» NTS 35 (1989): 421–50. Palatty, «Ascension» Palatty, Pau1. «The Ascension of Christ in Lk-Acts: A Study of the Texts.» Biblebhashyam 12, no. 3 (1986): 100–17. Palatty, «Covenant» Palatty, Pau1. «Discipleship and the Covenant (continued).» Biblebhashyam 15, no. 4 (1989): 254–72. Palatty, «Disciple and Thomas» Palatty, Pau1. «The Beloved Disciple and Apostle Thomas.» Bible Bhashyam 27, no. 3 (2001): 161–73. Palmer, «Monograph» Palmer, Darryl W. «Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph.» Pages 1–29 in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke. Vo1. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. |
| All our arguments concerning authorship are matters of probability, and some are more probable than others. We regard as very probable that the Gospel and Epistles, especially 1 John, derive from the same author, that Revelation stems from a seer named John, and that the Gospel includes at least eyewitness tradition from John the apostle. We regard as probable that John and Revelation stem from the same community and at least traditions from a prominent «John.» We also regard as likely, based on external evidences, yet more difficult to prove, that John son of Zebedee authored the substance of the finished Gospel, and as more plausible than usually recognized that both John and Revelation could share a common authorship. But given obvious stylistic differences, different presuppositions depending on the value of external attestation would produce an entirely different result in the final view of authorship. What I hope this study has demonstrated is that such common authorship is at least possible, arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, and that attribution at least to the same Johannine circle remains very likely. 698 Some critical circles disparage and ignore all scholarship attentive to ancient tradition or open to faith claims, whether from a Jewish, ecumenical Protestant, evangelical, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox perspective; some other circles ignore these voices more selectively. But such unwillingness to engage dissenting views may be as fundamentalistic (in the popular, pejorative sense of that designation) when practiced by secular or the more extreme liberal scholars as when practiced by conservative scholars. 699 Cf., e.g., Doriani, «Review,» critiquing my «grave reservations» concerning Matthean authorship (although I believe the adjective considerably overstates the degree of my skepticism). 700 Many scholars accept an eyewitness tradition of some sort (e.g., Kysar, John, 12; ÓDay, «John,» 500; Witherington, Wisdom, 15–17; Smith, John 400; Ridderbos, John, 3; Beck, Paradigm, 6); but if an eyewitness, why not John (Bruce, John, 4–5)? Even in fiction, eyewitnesses carry more weight in the story world (Euripides Iph. aul 1607), but modern historians can ignore such claims in novels; yet in the historical genre, eyewitness claims must be taken more seriously (Carson, John, 63–64). |
| 376 Arguments for this source may be found in Robinson, «Trajectory,» 235–38; Appold, Motif, 87; Fortna, «Christology,» 504. Cf. Smith, «Book of Signs,» 441–57, who notes (441) that one need not accept this source as distinct from the Gospe1. We are inclined to agree with the judgment of Carson, «Source Criticism,» 428, that none of the proposed source theories for the Fourth Gospel has been adequately demonstrated. 377 E.g., Brown, John, 1:xliv-xlvii; Schnackenburg, John, 1:42; Dodd, ««Herrenworte,»» 86; Robinson, Twelve Studies, 96; Smalley, John, 38; Hunter, John, 5; Ladd, Theology, 219–20; Morris, Studies, 15–63. Gardner-Smith, Gospels, was an early and able proponent of this thesis, which carried much of Johannine scholarship. 378 See Smith, John Among Gospels, 139–176. This book represents the most thorough treatment of different views on the question to date. 380 E.g., Marsh, John, 44–46; Yee, Feasts, 11–12; Smith, John (1999), 14; see esp. idem, Among Gospels, 195–241. 381 Early Christians assumed that John knew the Synoptics and regularly compared them (Wiles, Gospel, 13–21); but apologetic considerations more than tradition may have shaped their communal memory. 383 People often sent mail when they heard of someone traveling in the right direction (e.g., Cicero Att. 1.10,13; 4.1; 8.14); one letter from as far as Britain reached Cicero in less than a month (Cicero Quint, fratr. 3.1.8.25). In the present day, despite the availability of a postal service, travelers to and from many parts of Nigeria, Kenya, and Cameroon still carry mail for acquaintances. 384 See esp. Smith, «John and Synoptics,» 425–44; also Sanders, John, 10; Conzelmann, Theology, 324; Goppelt, Jesus, Paul, and Judaism, 40–41; Beasley-Murray, John, xxxv-xxxvii; Bordiert, John, 37–41; Witherington, Wisdom, 5–9; Brown, Essays, 194–96; Dvorak, «Relationship»; Blomberg, Reliability, 48–49; Köstenberger, John, 37. 390 Smith, «Problem,» 267. One cannot a priori use Mark " s framework, which he may have imposed on tradition, to evaluate John " s reliability (Moloney, «Jesus of History»). |
| Sloan, «Absence» Sloan, Robert B. «The Absence of Jesus in John.» Pages 207–27 in Perspectives on John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospe1. Edited by Robert B. Sloan and Mikeal C. Parsons. National Association of the Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies Series 11. Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1993. Sloyan, «Adoption» Sloyan, G. S. «The Gnostic Adoption of John " s Gospel and Its Canonization by the Catholic Church.» Biblical Theology Bulletin 26 (1996): 125–32. Sloyan, John Sloyan, Gerald S. John. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988. Sloyan, Saying Sloyan, Gerald S. What Are They Saying about John? New York: Paulist Press, 1991. Small, «Memory» Small, J. P. «Artificial Memory and the Writing Habits of the Literate.» Helios 22 (1995): 159–66. Smalley, Epistles Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. WBC 51. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984. Smalley, John Smalley, Stephen S. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978. Smalley, «Paraclete» Smalley, Stephen S. « " The Paracleté: Pneumatology in the Johannine Gospel and Apocalypse.» Pages 289–300 in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Smalley, «Recent Studies» Smalley, Stephen S. «The Johannine Literature: A Sample of Recent Studies in English.» Theology 103 (2000): 13–28. Smalley, «Relationship» Smalley, Stephen S. «The Christ-Christian Relationship in Paul and John.» Pages 95–105 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday. Edited by Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris. Exeter: Paternoster, 1980. Smalley, «Revelation» Smalley, Stephen S. «John " s Revelation and John " s Community.» Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 69 (1986–1987): 549–71. Smalley, «Sayings» Smalley, Stephen S. «The Johannine Son of Man Sayings.» NTS 15 (1968–1969): 278–301. Smallwood, «Historians» Smallwood, E. Mary. «Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events.» Pages 114–29 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. |
| This aside serves several functions. First, it notifies members of an audience perhaps familiar with the Markan tradition preserved in the Synoptics that the author of the Fourth Gospel is not unaware that John would be imprisoned; it simply had not happened at this point in Jesus» ministry, as one might gather from the Synoptic abbreviation ( Mark 1:14 ). Second, it serves as a prolepsis for those familiar with that tradition; the Gospel must mention it here because it will not be narrated later. 5143 Finally, the aside sounds much like an earlier aside in Jer 37:4 , augmenting the prophetic identity of John and the reliability of his witness. Once arrested, John was imprisoned in the fortress Machaerus, 5144 which was in Perea, the region «across the Jordan» where the Fourth Gospel places much of John s public ministry (1:28; 3:26; 10:40). Even outside Palestine, Machaerus was known as one of the strongest fortresses of Judea. 5145 Just as the Synoptic tradition may have abbreviated the overlap between Jesus and John, Josephus appears to have simplified the account of John s martyrdom. Whereas in Josephus John " s execution appears to follow his arrest quickly, Mark (6:17,21) and Q (Matt ll:2/Luke 7:18) both suggest that Antipas kept John imprisoned for some time before executing him. 5146 John " s imprisonment may function to foreshadow Jesus» impending arrest (though not as clearly as in Mark 6:14–29 ); this was an accepted and ancient literary technique. 5147 1D. John versus Traditional Jewish Purifications (3:25–26) The Fourth Gospel portrays Jesus» purification by the Spirit as superior to John " s by water (1:33), but John " s is also the best of all Jewish purifications, from which it is here distinguished 5148 and to which Jesus» work is also far superior (2:6; cf. 3:5). Purification rites were common throughout the Mediterranean world (see comment on 1:25–26, 31), and early Judaism, which had developed biblical purification rituals, was no exception. Various baptistic sects, most notably the Essenes, may have competed in the wilderness, 5149 and these may have challenged the character of the Baptist " s immersions; but these sects and the Pharisees also condemned one another " s baptisms. 5150 In the context of this Gospel, the «Jew» with whom John " s disciples here clash 5151 probably means one of more Pharisaic, Jerusalemite persuasion. |
| 3285 Griffiths, «Predicate,» 315. For the more complex situation in Josephus, cf. Shutt, «Concept.» 3287 E.g., Dreams 1.65–66 (recognizing both as «god»); 1.239–240 (the Logos is to God what the parhelion is to the sun). MacGregor, John, xxxvi, acknowledges that Philo personalized the Logos, but thinks it functioned as a divine agent only figuratively. 3288 Dreams 1.228–230, in Hengel, Son, 80; Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 27; Haenchen, John, 1:109; cf. Borgen, «Agent,» 146. 3289 Cf. the practical divinity of Torah–experienced as God " s presence by Israel–in Sandmel, Judaism, 184. Justin likewise distinguishes the Logos from God while calling him God (e.g., 1 Apo1. 63, in Osborn, Justin, 30–31). 3290 Like Michaels, John, 7, we are inclined to accept both reasons for the lack of definite article, without determining which was decisive. 3291 Stuart, «Examination,» 41. Cf. similarly Bernard, John, 1:2; Ellis, John, 21; Brown, Christology, 187–88; perhaps this is also what Painter, John, 57, intends. 3292 Hoskyns, Gospel, 141, contends that John means more than «divine» because the Word is personal; while John " s usage elsewhere indicates a stronger sense of «divine» than many uses (e.g., Philós for Moses), Hoskyns " s argument need not follow logically, especially given Philós Logos. 3293 MacGregor, John, 4. Kenney, John 1:1 , argues that a trinitarian perspective makes more sense of the text than a unitarian one. For Jesus to be fully deity without all deity being identified with Jesus, geometric logic would represent Jesus as a member of the set «God.» 3294 See, e.g., Miller, " Logos»; Bultmann, John, 33; Fennema, «Only Son»; Harner, «Nouns,» 86–87; Griffiths, «Predicate,» 315; Harris, Jesus as God, 51–71,293. 3296 NEB; Bruce, Books, 247. An explanatory note may be needed on whichever side of caution one wishes to err; Harris, Jesus as God, 70, prefers to retain «the Word was God» but to explain that this means the same nature, not the same person. 3297 Irenaeus Haer. 1.1–3. On creation through angelic powers in gnosticism, see «The Apocryphon of John,» NHL 104–16; «On the Origin of the World,» NHL 161–79; Jonas, Religion, 132–36; cf. «The Gospel of the Egyptians,» NHL 195–205. Perhaps the emphasis on God " s creation of evil in Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2:9 may be antignostic. |
|
|
