| 9474 The emphasis throughout this prayer on the unity of believers probably points to a need for unity among believers in, and in the proximity of, John " s audience (cf. Käsemann, Testament, 57). 9475 Cf. Minear, «Audience,» 345, 348. 9476 Robinson, Coming, 179, thinks this the Johannine equivalent of worldwide evangelism in Mark 13:10 ; Matt 24:14. 9477 Sectarian groups tend to be cohesive; for comparison and contrast between unity here and that in the Qumran Scrolls, see de Wet, «Unity.» 9478 This is not to attribute to Greeks an individualistic concept that transcended group loyalties; see Martin, «Ideology.» 9479 Heraclitus Ep. 9; Babrius 15.5–9; Herodian 3.2.7–8; Yamauchi, Archaeology, 164–65; Ramsay, Cities, 115; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.36.2–3; Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.3.4; Gen. Rah. 34:15. 9480 E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.53.1; Livy 2.33.1; 5.7.10; 24.22.1, 13, 17; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 94.46; Musonius Rufus 8, p. 64.13; Maximus of Tyre Or. 16.3; Menander Rhetor 2.3, 384.23–25; some thinkers even applied this globally (cf. Whitacre, John, 417; Keener, Revelation, 341). In early Christianity, cf. 1Cor 1:10; 11:18–19 ; Phil 2:1–2; 4:2 . 9481 Babrius 85. 9482 Valerius Maximus 2.6.8 (spoken to children and grandchildren by one about to die, as in testaments). 9483 E.g., Homer I1. 1.255–258; Livy 2.60.4; 3.66.4; Sallust Jug. 73.5; Herodian 8.8.5; Babrius 44.7–8; 47. 9484 E.g., Homer Od. 1.369–371; Iamblichus V.P. 7.34; 9.45. 9485 E.g., Sallust Jug. 73.5; Plutarch Sulla 4.4; 7.1; Aulus Gellius 6.19.6; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 4.1; 25 (Atticus), 7.1–11.6. 9486 See esp. Winter, Philo and Paul, passim. 9487 E.g., Aulus Gellius 17.4.3–6; Plutarch Cimon 8.7. Note the need for self-defense in most of Terencés prologues (e.g., Lady of Andros 1–27; Self-Tormentor 16–52; Eunuch 1–45; Phormio 1–23; Mother-in-Law 1–57; Brothers 1–25) and in Phaedrus 2.9.7–11; 3.pro1.23; 4.pro1.l5–16. 9488 See Valerius Maximus 4.2 passim. 9489 For the parallelism, see, e.g., Brown, John, 2:769; Appold, Motif, 157, though the alleged parallel between 17and 17is unconvincing. |
| 7867 John may place the ειμ before the γ to avoid inadvertently introducing christological connotations from other contexts (such as 8:58) where they are not the issue (Bernard, John, 2:435). 7868 E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.68.2–3; Josephus Ant. 3.208; 4.322; 6.126–127; Xenophon Mem. 4.8.2; Lysias Or. 2.25, §193; 2.78–79, §198; Epameinondas 2 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 192C; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Isoc. 5. 7872 Neither, however, are they antiheroic, like Abraham " s unwillingness to die in T. Ab. passim. 7876 From Epicurus (ταραξ,αν in Diogenes Laertius 10.85; cf. 10.144.17) to Stoics (ατραχος in Epictetus Diatr. 4.8.27). 7879 With, e.g., Jeremias, Prayers, 98; Smith, Parallels, 136; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 43; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:595; Luz, Matthew, 371; pace, e.g., Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:361–62 n. 36. 7882 Josephus Ant. 13.282–283; Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27.36; Sib. Or. 1.127, 267, 275; outside early Judaism, Plutarch Isis 12, Mor. 355E; Mart. Po1. 9.1; from terrestrial locations in Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.56.3; 5.16.2–3; 8.56.2–3; Valerius Maximus 1.8.5; 2.4.5; 7.1.2; Lucan C.W. 1.569–570; Plutarch Camillus 6.1; 14.2; Philostratus Hrk. 18.4; cf. talking serpents in Arrian Alex. 3.3.5. Cf. Johnson, Prayer, 62–63. 7887 As Baal was the thunderer of Canaanite faith, Zeus was «the high-thunderer» (ψιβρεμτης) of the Greek pantheon (e.g., Homer Od. 5.4; Pausanias 10.9.11; Pindar O1. 8.44), who produced thunder and lightning (Homer I1. 7.443,454; 8.2–3, 75–77, 133; 9.236–237; 10.5; 13.624; Aristophanes Lys. 773; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.510–511, 730–731; Pausanias 5.22.5; 5.24.9; Apollodorus 1.2.1; Pindar Pyth. 4.23; 6.24; O1. 4.1; 9.7; 13.77; Plutarch Alex. 28.2; Silius Italicus 17.474–478; differently, Pausanias 8.29.1; Pliny Nat. 2.18.82). Greeks and Romans shared with Jews the conception of the highest deity ruling storms (Brown, «Elements»); but for naturalistic explanations, cf., e.g., Pliny Nat. 2.18.82; Plutarch Nat. Q. 4, Mor. 912F-913A. |
| 3540 Richardson, Theology, 45, regards this «peculiarly Johannine» πιστεουσιν εις τ νομα as a probable «reference to the baptismal confession of faith in Christ " s name»; cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 184. Philo may employ «the Name» as a title of the Logos (Confusion 146, in Longenecker, Christology, 43), but the title usually applies to God himself; early Christians, however, transferred it to Jesus (Longenecker, Christology, 45–46). «Believe into» may reflect the varied use of prepositions in Koine, though Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 14–15, suggest antilanguage for an antisociety. 3541 Speaking in another " s name was acting as that person " s messenger or traditionary, e.g., «Abba Saul said in his [R. Johanan ben Zakkaís] name [literally, from his name, ]» (m. " Abot 2:8). Believers are also forgiven «on account of Jesus» name,» i.e., through his merit ( 1 John 2:12). 3542 Bultmann, John, 58. Cf. corporate apotheosis in Hellenistic texts in Tabor, «Sons,» though even Paul, like John, reflects more Jewish concerns (Israel " s future glory in the prophets and Jewish corporate eschatology). 3543 Seneca Dia1. 1.1.5; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.6 (through rational communion with deity); 1.19.9. 3544 Diogenes Laertius 7.147; Epictetus Diatr. 1.3.1; 1.6.40; 1.9.4–7; 1.13.3–4; 1.19.12; 3.22, 82; Alexander 15 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 180D; Plutarch R.Q. 40, Mor. 274B; Macrobius Sat. 4.5,4 (citing Virgil Aen. 6.123; Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 226); Musonius Rufus 18a (112.23–25L/96.1–3H; in Van der Horst, «Musonius,» 309). 3545 Homer Il. 2.371; 3.276,320,350,365; 16.458; Od. 14.440; Hesiod Theog. 457,468,542; Scut. 27; Op. 59,169; Sophocles Ajax 387; Euripides Medea 1352; Aristophanes Clouds 1468–1469. Cf. the exposition of Homer in Cornutus Nat. d. 9 (Grant, Gods, 78). For much fuller documentation, see Keener, Matthew, 217, on Matt 6:9. 3546 Zeus in Diodorus Siculus 1.12.1; Babrius 142.3; Orphic Hymns 15.7; 19.1; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.241; Virgil Aen. 1.60; 2.691; Georg. 1.121, 283, 328; Apollo in PGM 1.298, 305; Ouranos in Orphic Hymns 4.1; Herakles in Orphic Hymns 12.6; Janus in Martial Epigr. 10.28. For much fuller documentation, see Keener, Matthew, on Matt 6:9. |
| Some scholars have modified or at least qualified their earlier source-critical views. Fernando Segovia, who produced a substantial source-critical study on the Farewell Discourses, 351 now writes in the forefront of Johannine literary criticism, and recognizes much more unity and coherence in the text. 352 John Ashton concedes that in his earlier, monumental work Understanding the Fourth Gospel he accepted too uncritically the common older view of various versions of the Gospe1. Although he continues to think there were two editions, he admits that he is no longer sure; 353 authors could certainly tinker with their work, but the image of various editions of books may be «somewhat misleading» before printing presses from the fourteenth century. 354 In our view, if the Gospel had an earlier form (aside from its early draft stage, which was probably not circulated), it may have been the oral form in which the beloved disciple and/or the Fourth Evangelist preached it. 355 The Fourth Gospel functions as a unity, as various comments in our commentary will emphasize. Claiming that the Gospel is a unity does not mean that every element within it readily fits every other element without extrinsic context for both; but such dissonances need not in every case imply distinct sources. 356 As literary deconstructionists have repeatedly shown, such incongruities appear often enough in unified works. This certainly includes ancient Mediterranean works that through most of their ancient history were treated as unities regardless of the disparate oral sources on which they might depend. Thus Harpalion " s father Pylaemenes mourned for him in Homer Iliad 13.658– but Pylaemenes, Harpalion " s father, had already died in 5.5 76. 357 The story world of the Iliad appears inconsistent when Hephaistos took a full day to fall from heaven (I1. 1.592), but Thetis could leap directly from Olympus into the sea (I1. 1.532), Athene could dart immediately to earth (IL 4.78), and Ares could flee swiftly from earth to heaven (I1. 5.885). Some accounts appear inconsistent with the extrinsic world we know: the dog Argos, admittedly old, recognizes Odysseus, though according to the story line, Odysseus has been away twenty years, much longer than a normal dog " s life (Homer Od. 17.292, 301–302). 358 |
| 3596 John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 11 (antidocetic); Strachan, Gospel, 18–19; Argyle, «Incarnation,» 137; Barclay, «Themes,» 115–16; Ellis, World, 36; Lohse, Environment, 274; Schnelle, Christology; for the view that Cerinthianism is here opposed, see Stuart, «Examination,» 38; Harrison, « John 1:14 ,» 26; Talbert, John, 73–74 (cf. Irenaeus Haer. 3.11.1). For attitude of gnostics toward «flesh,» see Schmithals, Gnosticism, 155–66. Various religious traditions have «incarnations» of various sorts (see, e.g., Hoynacki, «Flesh»), but Christianity is the only monotheistic religion that has one. 3597 Lutz, «Musonius,» 64–65, cites parallels in Xenophon Cyr. 8.1.22; Philo Moses 2.1.4; Clement of Alexandria Strom. 2.438). 3598 Homer Il. 4.86–87, 121–124; 13.43–45, 69, 215–216, 356–357; 14.136; 16.715–720; 17.71–73, 322–326, 333, 554–555, 582–583; 20.79–81; 21.284–286, 599–611; 22.7–11; 24.354–458; Od. 1.105, 420; 2.267–268,382–387,399–401; 6.21–22; 7.19–20; 8.8,193–194; 10.277–279; 13.221–222,288–289; 22.205–206,239–240; 24.502–505, 548; Virgil Aen. 12.784–785; Ovid Metam. 1.676; 6.26–27. 3600 E.g., Homer Il. 22.224–231 (which Hector realizes too late, 22.298–299); Ovid Metam. 3.275–277. 3603 Käsemann, Testament, 65, 76–77. Noting that the emphasis of 1is not flesh, Käsemann wrongly ignores the statement altogether (p. 9), citing Johannine miracles to prove that Jesus was not human (though many of these are paralleled in the Synoptics!). Bultmann, John, 61, reads John " s language here as mythological, analogous to the gnostic Redeemer myth (on which see comments in our introduction). For developed docetism, see Hippolytus Haer. 8.2; 10.12. 3604 E.g., Bornkamm, «Interpretation,» 94 notes that it anachronistically reads later categories into the first century. On Jesus» humanity in the Fourth Gospel, see, e.g., ÓGrady, «Human Jesus»; Kysar, «Contributions,» 354; Smith, Theology, 166–68; and esp. Thompson, Humanity. 3605 Gilbert, «Notes,» 45; Cranfield, « " Became,»» 215; Sanders, John, 79), in contrast to texts merely postulating préexistent souls (e.g., Plato Phaedo 76CD; Meno 81 BD; Epictetus Diatr. 2.1.17; Wis 8:20; cf. 3 En. 43:3; h. Hag. 12b; Gen. Rab. 8:7; Dillon, Platonists, 177). ÓNeill, «Flesh,» thinks εγνετο here means «born»; but while this was the means (18:37), it is not the specific sense of the term here (cf. 1:3,6, 10, 17). |
| 9399 Also Painter, John, 59. 9400 Appold, Motif, 199, suggests connections «with the worship experiences of the Johannine church» (cf. 4:23–24); but the hymns in Revelation, which differ considerably from this prayer, may be more revealing. 9401 Also Tob 3:11–12; 4Q213 frg. 1, co1. 1, line 8; 4 Bar. 6:5; Jos. Asen. 11:19/12:1; f. Ber. 3:14; Pesiq. Rab. 3:5; p. Ber. 4:6; Carson, Discourse, 175; see comment on 4:35. Prayer toward Jerusalem was, however, normative as we11: 1 Kgs 8:44; Dan 6:10; 1 Esd 4:58; m. Ber. 4:5–6; t. Ber. 3:14; for standing in prayer, see, e.g., Matt 6:5; Luke 18:11; p. Ber. 1:1, §8; Lachs, Commentary, 210. 9402 Homer/. 7.178, 201; Xenophon Cyr. 6.4.9; Virgil Aen. 2.405–406 (because she could not lift her hands); 12.195; Silius Italicus 1.508; Chariton 8.7.2; cf. some (albeit only some) traditional cultures in Mbiti, Religions, 84. PGM 4.585 reports closing eyes for prayer, but some parts require the eyes to be open (PGM 4.625; cf. Iamblichus V.P. 28.156); the magical papyri require many different magical gestures. 9403 E.g., Judaism frequently associates God with «heaven» (e.g. 1 Esd 4:58; Tob 10:13; Jdt 6:19; 1Macc 3:18, 50, 60; 4:24; 3Macc 7:6; 1 En. 83:9; 91:7). Greeks also sometimes located Zeus in heaven (Achilles Tatius 5.2.2; cf. Seneca Dia1. 12.8.5). As a circumlocution for God, see comment on John 3:3 . 9404 Ezra 9:5; Lam 2:19; 3:41 ; Isa 1:15; 1 En. 84:1; Jub. 25:11; Ps 155:2; 1 Esd 9:47; 2Macc 3:20; 14:34; 15:12, 21; 3Macc 5:25; 4 Macc 4:11; Sib. Or. 3.559–560, 591–593; 4.162–170; Josephus Ant. 3.26,53; 4.40; Ag. Ap. 1.209; 3.26; T. Mos. 4:1; Mek. Pisha 1.38; t. Móed Qat. 2:17. Cf. also 1Tim 2:8 ; 1 Clem. 29.1; Acts John 43. 9405 E.g., Homer I1. 1.450; 3.275, 318; 5.174; 6.257; 7.130; 8.347; 15.368–372; 19.254; Od. 9.294, 527; 17.239; 20.97; Euripides E1. 592–593; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.248; 4.593,1702; Virgil Aen. 1.93; 4.205; 9.16; 12.195; Ovid Metam. 2.477, 580; 6.261–262; 9.702–703; 11.131; 13.410–411; Diodorus Siculus 14.29.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 3.17.5; 15.9.2; Appian C.W. 2.12.85; R.H. 2.5.5; Livy 7.6.4; Suetonius Nero 41; Arrian Alex. 4.20.3 (a Persian); Epictetus Diatr. 4.10.14; Plutarch Cleverness 17, Mor. 972B; Chariton 3.1.8. |
| Nevertheless, scholars who dismiss too quickly the possibility of substantial historical tradition in John ignore abundant details that would have made fullest sense only in a Palestinian Jewish setting, as well as numerous incidental parallels in the Synoptics. Some questions can be answered only by examining passages one at a time (particularly those which appear to overlap or conflict with Synoptic claims). 391 For the most part, such a comparison (see commentary) suggests that John adapts fairly freely at points (more than one would expect from a Luke, for example) but within the setting of traditional events or sayings. It is, however, appropriate to frame the discussion with some general issues here (a few of which summarize arguments above). The Fourth Gospel, no less than the Synoptics, fits the general format of ancient biography, as we have already suggested. 392 Its purpose reported in 20was a legitimate purpose in ancient biographies, especially in philosophical bioi? 393 The explicit centrality of Jesus» «works» in the Fourth Gospel ( ) fits the biographical genre followed by the Synoptics and most other biographical works. 394 In its genre, John is certainly closer to the Synoptics than to «sayings sources» like Thomas, 395 and it is those most familiar with the four canonical gospels, rather than those approaching these gospels in the context of Greco-Roman literature as a whole, who are inclined to emphasize the differences most strongly. 396 It is difficult to deny that much historical tradition about Jesus existed in the first century that was never recorded in the Synoptics. No one in Mediterranean antiquity would assume that a one-volume account sampling an oral cycle would be comprehensive; the countless allusions to other stories in Homer (e.g., to the voyage of the Argonauts in Od. 12.69–72) lent themselves to later development, but clearly refer to fuller stories Homer " s works did not record. In the case of the Gospels, the writers themselves assume knowledge of traditions about Jesus not recorded in their Gospels (e.g., Acts 20:35; John 20:30 ). |
| 476 The speeches in Acts borrow considerable language from the LXX (Soards, Speeches, 160) and function similarly to interpretive speeches in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Samuel-Kings (Soards, Speeches, 12–13,156–57). The same may well be true of John " s discourses. 477 Some have suggested that Mark drew on complexes of tradition rather than merely individual sayings and stories (Jeremias, Theology, 37–38; Taylor, Mark, 90; cf. Dodd, Preaching, 46–51; idem, Studies, 10); while some general arrangements may have become traditional, however, it remains unclear that Mark drew on connected oral narratives, except perhaps on Q at points. 478 Lewis, History, 43; on a more popular level, cf. the accuracy of the griot " s basic information in Alex Haley " s popular work Roots (New York: Dell, 1976), 717–25. 479 Anthologists and others felt free to redact sacred cultural texts (e.g., Cicero Nat. d. 3.16.42 [concerning Homer Od. 11.600ff.; see esp. Cicero LCL 19:324–25 n. a]; Diogenes Laertius 1.48: Solon into Homer I1. 2.557), philosophical works (e.g., possibly Hierocles in Stobaeus; Malherbe, Exhortation, 85), although Jewish scribes were quite restrained in practicing this with Scripture (despite an occasional fourth-century Palestinian Amora who reportedly attempted some redaction criticism on Scripture: cf. Lev. Rab. 6:6; 15:2). 480 See Gundry, «Genre,» 102; Witherington, Christology, 22; contrast the older approach of Dibelius, Tradition, 3. Those who transmitted traditions would have preserved sayings with greater detail, allowing greater variation in recounting narratives (Pesch, «Jerusalem,» 107; cf. Culpepper, John, 21–22). 481 Cf., e.g., Hoeree and Hoogbergen, «History»; Aron-Schnapper and Hanet, «Archives»; on rote memorization in traditional Quranic education, cf. Wagner and Lotfi, «Learning.» Limitations do, however, exist, especially over time (e.g., Iglesias, «Reflexoes»; Harms, «Tradition»; Raphael, «Travail»). 482 Though exact words are fixed only at the written stage, the basic story is already stable at the oral stage (Lord, Singer, 138). |
| 7638 Tears often moved authorities to action (e.g., Lysias Or. 32.10, §505; Cicero Sest. 11.26; Caesar Gallic W. 1.20). On male authorities being particularly moved by women " s pleas in the ancient Mediterranean world, see Luke 18:2–5; 2Sam 14:1–21; 20:16–22; 1 Kgs 1:11–16; 2:17; Matt 20:20; P.Sakaon 36; Lysias Or. 32.11–18, §§506–511; perhaps Valerius Maximus 8.3; comment on 2:4. 7640 «Come and see» is a familiar invitation formula (see comment on 1:39) but, apart from Johannine style, probably bears no other relation to 1:39, 46 and 4:29. 7642 Jesus presumably weeps in 11because he «shares the sadness of his friends and their neighbors» (Smith, John 225). By ancient Mediterranean standards, mere tears were hardly wildly demonstrative (Virgil Aen. 11.148–150; cf. especially women, e.g., Homer Il. 18.30–31; Aeschylus Cho. 22–31, 423–428). Jewish mourners did not, however, participate in the more masochistic mourning rites of their pagan neighbors (e.g., Deut 14:1 ). 7643 Malina, Windows, 24–25, citing Plutarch Caesar 5.2; 11.3; 41.1; 48.2; Cicero 47.2; Acts 20:37; Lightfoot, Gospel, 229, cites Juvenal Sat. 15.132–133. Cf. also 2 Kgs 8:11–12; Homer I1. 1.348–349, 413; Od. 4.113–119; 16.190–191; 23.231–232; Sophocles Ajax 819–820; Philostratus Hrk. 45.6. Note amplification in Josephus " s hellenized accounts: Moses» prayer with tears for God " s vindication against Korah (Josephus Ant. 4.51); David " s prayers with tears during Absalom " s revolt (Josephus Ant. 7.203; 2Sam 15:23, 30 ). 7644 E.g., Livy 1.26.12; 23.8.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 9.10.1; for rhetoric, see, e.g., Lysias Or. 32.10, §505; Cicero Mi1. 38.105; Rosc. Amer. 9.24; Rab.post. 17.47; Gae1. 24.60; Sest. 11.26; Seneca Controv. 4.pref.6; Menander Rhetor 2.13, 423.30; Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.19.512; 2.1.561; 2.5.574; 2.9.582; 2.10.586; Acts 20:19. Narrators used tears to stir pathos (e.g., Xenophon Eph. 1.11); Polybius 2.56.7 complains about historians who sensationalize with tragic scenes of women " s tears invented to arouse pathos; John may deliberately evoke pathos here. |
| 10146 See Jeffers, World, 43–44; Watkins, John, 388. John leaves unstated the irony of a soldier afterward wearing (or perhaps selling) the very tunic Jesus had worn. 10153 Schnackenburg, John, 3:274; Beasley-Murray, John, 347. An allegorical application of νωθεν as a play on the tradition ( Mark 15:38 ) or more likely on John " s vertical dualism (3:3, 7, 31; 19:11) is plausible but difficult to make sense of. 10157 E.g., Homer Od. 11.432–434, 436–439 (even though Clytemnestra also slew Cassandra in 11.422); Euripides Orest. 1153–1154. (The subtext of the Iliad was that male warriors were fighting because of women, such as Helen and Briseis; cf. esp. I1. 9.339–342.) 10159 Pace Barrett, John, 551. Women relatives were typically allowed, e.g, to visit a man in prison (e.g., Lysias Or. 13.39–40, §133). 10162 See, e.g., Josephus Ant. 4.320 (Israelite society); Homer I1. 18.30–31, 50–51; 19.284–285; Sophocles Ajax 580; Euripides Here. fur. 536; Thucydides 2.34.4; Cicero Fam. 5.16.6; Diodorus Siculus 17.37.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.67.2; 8.39.1; Livy 26.9.7; Valerius Maximus 2.6.13; Pomeroy, Women, 44; Dupont, Life, 115. Ancients did, however, expect both parents of a crucified person to mourn (Sipre Deut. 308.2.1). 10163 Cf., e.g., Valerius Maximus 5.4.7 (cited in Rapske, Custody, 247); 9.2.1; Polybius 5.56.15 (mob action); Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.267 (on Athenian execution of women); Ovid Metam. 13.497 (among captives; cf. Polybius 5.111.6, in a camp). 10168 Ilan, Women, 53, following Hallett, Fathers, 77–81. «Mary» (and variations) was «easily the most popular woman " s name in lst-century Palestine» (Williams, «Personal Names,» 90–91, 107). If one sister had two names, perhaps she came to use the shared name after marriage removed her from her original home? 10169 One could argue that one Mary in Mark 15is Jesus» mother ( Mark 6:3 ; cf. Matt 13:55; 27:56), but if Jesus was the eldest (or even if he was not), one would expect «mother of Jesus» there unless the passion had somehow terminated that relationship (certainly not Lukés view, Luke 24:10: Acts 1:14). |
|
|
