| Jesus more likely called them to be «fishers of men» primarily because fishing was their prior profession, as the text indicates. 10843 That Jesus called some fishermen as disciples was probably widely known (cf. Mark 1:16–17 ) and is historically likely. 10844 Although the primary occupation even on the Lake of Galilee was agricultural, 10845 fishing remained a major industry there, 10846 and fish was a primary staple in Mediterranean antiquity. 10847 Fishermen were «among the more economically mobile of the village culture,» 10848 even if later educated urban readers might regard their occupation as a humble one. 10849 Clues in other gospels suggest that Jesus» fishermen disciples may have often had adequate income: Zebedeés family had hired servants ( Mark 1:20 ) 10850 and may have formed a fishing cooperative with Simon and Andrew (Luke 5:7). 10851 Such professional background had not provided much help that night, however (21:3). D. Moody Smith " s observations are of interest here. He suggests that the appearance narrative of 21:1–14 «is exactly the one that Mark " s Gospel leads us to expect, even to the extent that Peter plays a leading role» (cf. Mark 16:7 ). Perhaps this narrative «may well be the earliest account of Jesus» appearance to his disciples that we possess.» 10852 Whether or not the narrative may be the earliest, there is no reason to doubt that John depends here on prior tradition (or, in our view, an eyewitness account). 10803 E.g., Bultmann, John, 700; Schnackenburg, John, 3:350; Smith, Johannine Christianity, 18–19; Schulz, Evangelium, 249; Kysar, John, 311; Barrett, Essays, 160; Beasley-Murray, John, 395–96. Ancients also used stylistic criteria (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 11–12). For inner development of Johannine theology in light of John 21 and beloved-disciple texts, see Thyen, «Entwicklungen.» 10805 E.g., Isocrates Demon. 52, Or. 1; Demetrius 5.304; Lucan C.W. 10.542–546; Herodian 8.8.8; and further citations above. Cf. Thucydides 8.109.1 (though Thucydides may have added book 8 some time after completing the more adequate break of 7.87.6; he never included speeches in book 8). |
| 8755 Both expansion (cf., e.g., Theon Progym. 1.172–175; 2.115–123; 3.224–240) and abridgement (2Macc 2:24–28) were standard practices; see our comments on pp. 18–19, 27–28. Post-Easter embellishment becomes far more common in the apocryphal gospels than in the Synoptics (see Carmignac, «Pré-pascal»); Hill, Prophecy, 169, thus is right to observe that the Johannine discourses «may indeed be homilies composed around sayings of Jesus,» without being from Christian prophets. 8756 Many scholars emphasize the centrality of the Word and the Jesus tradition here; see Bürge, Community, 213; Dietzfelbinger, «Paraklet,» 395–402; for the reason for this emphasis, Dietzfel-binger, «Paraklet,» 402–8. Cf. the importance of authentic memory of the right Teacher in the Scrolls (Stuhlmacher, «Theme,» 13; cf. Roloff, «Lieblingsjünger,» whom he cites). 8762 Berg, «Pneumatology,» 149–50. This is likely however one interprets the phrase. On acting in onés name, see discussion at 14:13. 8764 Franck, Revelation, 44, points out that in Philo it is normally God or his Word or Moses who «teaches.» Wegenast, «Teach,» 760, observes that the term is normally used in the LXX for instruction in how to live the Torah, not for prophetic preaching. 8765 E.g., m. " Abot 3:8; Met Pisha 1:135–136; Sipre Deut. 4.2.1; 48.1.1,4; 306.19.1–3; p. Meg. 4:1, §4; cf. Let. Aris. 154 (Hadas, Aristeas, 161, also compares Philo Spec. Laws 4.106ff). See comments on memory in our introduction; cf. in pre-Christian sapiential testaments, such as Tob 4(perhaps Tob 1:11–12). 8766 Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.16.28; Plutarch Educ. 13, Mor. 9E; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.31; 10.1.12; Theon Progym. 2.5–8; Quintilian 1.3.1; 2.4.15; 11.2.1–51; probably Seneca Dia1. 7.10.3; Culpepper, School, 50, 106, 193; Anderson, Glossary, 126–27; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 98; Gerhardsson, Memory, 124–25. Understanding and remembering profitable sayings were both vital (Isocrates Demon. 18, Or. 1), and reminder was common enough in moral exhortation (Isocrates Demon. 21, Or. 1; Epictetus Diatr. 4.4.29; Phil 3:1 ; 2Pet 1:12 ; cf. Cicero Amic. 22.85; Rom 15:15 ). Note taking was, of course, practiced; cf. Diogenes Laertius 2.48; Epictetus Diatr. 1.pref; Quintilian 1.pref.7–8; introduction to Plutarch Stoic Cont. 13:369–603, in LCL 398–99. |
| 9328 E.g., Michaels, John, 271–72; Witherington, Wisdom, 266; Titus, Message, 204; Bernard, John, 2:513. 9330 Plutarch Lect. 11, Mor. 43BC; Aulus Gellius 1.26.2; 12.5.4; 20.10.1–6; t. Sank 7:10; " Abot R. Nat. 6A; see also Goodman, State, 79. 9331 Cf. Isocrates Demon. 41, Or. 1; Plutarch Lect. 18, Mor. 48A. Pythagoreans carried this further than others (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 52.10; Aulus Gellius 1.9.4; Diogenes Laertius 8.1.10). 9333 Cf. also 8:56; 17:13. For the association of joy with the resurrection of the righteous, see T. Jud. 25:4. See further the comment on 3:29. 9336 Syr. Men. 97–98; Xenophon Mem. 2.2.5. Often mothers did die in childbirth (Safrai, «Home,» 765, noting texts that blame such deaths on disobedience to the law; see Keener, Paul, 118–19), albeit not frequently enough to produce a decline in the Jewish population. 9337 Safrai, «Home,» 765, citing m. Šabb. 18:3; Roš Haš. 2:5; " Oha1. 7:4; also among Gentiles, e.g., Maximus of Tyre Or. 10.4. On the importance of midwives, see, e.g., Aristophanes Lys. 746–747; Galen N.F. 3.3.151–152; on the urgency, Seneca Ep. Luci1. 117.30. 9338 Descriptions of it nearly always focus on pain (e.g., Ovid Metam. 9.292–304; Phaedrus 1.18.2–3). 9343 E.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 294; Morris, John, 706; Cadman, Heaven, 196; Fenton, John, 169; Robinson, Coming, 174; Carson, Discourse, 162. 9346 Cf. realized eschatology in Rev 12:2, 5; Rom 8:22 . Many spoke of the final turmoil without the specific metaphor of «birth pangs» (e.g., Jub. 23:13; 36:1; 1QM 15.1; Sib. Or. 3.213–215; 4 Ezra 8:63–9:8; 13:30; 2 Bar. 26:1–27:13; 69:3–5; T. Mos. 7–8; m. Sotah 9:15; b. Sanh. 97a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9). 9348 Cf. Hoskyns, Gospel, 487–88. The distributive singular for «heart» (14:1; 16:22; Brown, John, 2:618) might also reflect Isa 66LXX here. 9351 It may have been a commonplace that, even if one was robbed of possessions, others could not seize onés abilities or identity (cf. Cicero Atf. 3.5; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.26.614); but the childbirth analogy remains central here. |
| 6753 See Schnackenburg, John, 2:207; cf. Sanders, John, 227. 6754 E.g., Borchert, John, 304. 6755 See, e.g., Urbach, Sages, 1(citing Sipre Shelah 115). This is not a dominant motif in Deuteronomy, where λευθερ- is always used for literal slaves. 6756 E.g., m. " Abot 6:2; b. B. Mesi c a 85b; Qidd. 22b (attributed to ben Zakkai); Gen. Rab. 92:1; Num. Rab. 10:8; Pesiq. Rab. 15:2; see further Abrahams, Studies, 2:213; Odeberg, Pharisaism, 50. 6757 Crates Ep. 8, to Diogenes; Epictetus Diatr. 4.7.17; cf. similarly Epictetus Diatr. 3.24.68; Iamblichus V.P. 7.33; 17.78. Euripides Hec. 864–867 says all are enslaved by something (money, fate, or law). 6758 E.g., Arrian Alex. 3.11.2; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 8.7; 27.4; Plutarch Lect. 1, Mor. 37E; Superst. 5, Mor. 167B. One is also a slave of goals one serves (Philostratus Hrk. 53.2). 6759 A pervasive topic, e.g., Aeschines Timarchus 42; Xenophon Oec. 1.22–23; Hel1. 4.8.22; Apo1. 16; Mem. 1.3.8, 11; 1.5.1, 5; 4.5.3, 5; Sophocles Ant. 756; Trach. 488–489; Plato Phaedrus 238E; Isocrates Demon. 21, Or. 1; Nic. 39, Or. 3.34; Arrian Alex. 4.9.1; Diodorus Siculus 10.9.4; 32.10.9; Sallust Cati1. 2.8; Speech to CaesarS.2; Cicero Amte. 22.82; Off. 1.29.102; 1.38.136; 2.5.18; Sen. 14.47; Horace Sat. 2.7.83–87; Tibullus 2.4.1–3; Cicero Prov. cons. 1.2; Appian C.W. 5.1.8–9; Musonius Rufus 3, p. 40.19; Seneca Benef. 3.28.4; Ep. Luci1. 14.1; 39.6; 47.17; 110.9–10; 116.1; Nat. 1.16.1; Epictetus Diatr. 3.24.70–71, 75; Plutarch Bride 33, Mor. 142E; Maximus of Tyre Or. 36.6; Porphyry Marc. 34.523–525; Achilles Tatius 1.7.2–3; 5.25.6; Longinus Sub1. 44.6; Diogenes Laertius 2.75; 6.2.66; Diogenes Ep. 12; Heraclitus Ep. 9; Socratics Ep. 14; Pyth. Sent. 21,23; Apuleius Metam. 11.15; Arius Didymus Epitome 1 lh, pp. 76–77.10–11; Sir 47:19 . Derrett, « John 8,32–36 ,» also finds the idea in ancient Buddhist texts, though these are much further removed geographically. 6760 E.g., Seneca Benef 3.20.1–2; Epictetus Diatr. 1.11.37; 1.19.8; 3.24.68; 4.7.16–18; Aulus Gellius 2.18.9–10; Diogenes Laertius 7.1.121–122; cf. Philo Cherubim 107. Epictetus regarded as freedom pursuing only what one can control (see Pérez, «Freedom»). |
| 500 Diogenes Laertius 10.1.12, on Epicurus, according to Diocles; on followers of Pythagoras, cf. Culpepper, School 50. 501 Quintilian 1.3.1; Plutarch Educ. 13, Mor. 9E; Musonius Rufus frg. 51, p. 144.3–7; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.31; Koester, Introduction, 1:93; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 84; Heath, Hermogenes, 11; Watson, «Education,» 310, 312; examples were also memorized (Theon Progymn. 2.5–8). The youngest learned by pure memorization (Quintilian 2.4.15; Jeffers, World, 256), and higher education (after about age sixteen) included memorizing many speeches and passages useful for speeches (Jeffers, World, 256). But the ultimate goal was both understanding and remembering (Isocrates Demon. 18, Or. 1). Ancient theories on how memory worked varied (see Aristotle Mem.; Plato Meno 8ICD; Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.22.523). 503 Culpepper, School 177. The effectiveness of long-term memorization by a certain amount of repetition (beyond a certain point it is unnecessary) has been studied, e.g., by Thompson, Wenger, and Bartling, «Recall,» 210 (this source was supplied to me by M. Bradley, then a student at Duke University); for memorization by repetition, see Iamblichus V.P. 31.188. 504 Diodorus Siculus 10.5.1; Iamblichus V.P. 29.165; on their memories, see further ibid., 20.94; 29.164; 35.256. On memorization techniques, cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.22.35. See further Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 98. 505 Some mnemonic claims from much earlier periods (Valerius Maximus 8.7.ext.l6: Cyrus " s knowledge of all his troops» names, or Mithridates» of the twenty-two languages of his subjects) are less credible. 506 See, e.g., Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 5.21; Liefeld, «Preacher,» 223; Robbins, Jesus, 64. Some writers emphasized that an internal inclination to virtue was superior to imitation (Philo Abraham 6, 38). 507 Amoraim underlined this principle with stories of rabbis who imitated even their masters» toilet habits and home life (b. Ber. 62a). Rabbis» behavior later established legal precedent (t. Piska 2:15–16; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; p. B. Mesi c a 2:11, §1; Demai Nid. 1:4, §2; Sanh. 7:2, §4; Yebam. 4:11, §8). |
| 5118 E.g., T. Ab. 11:1, 3B (Enoch is the heavenly prosecutor, ελγξων τς αμαρτας); 2 Bar. 19(the law as light). The sense of «prosecute» would fit the «judgment» of 3:18–19 (cf. 16:8–11) 5120 E.g., Tobit went in the ways of αληθεας and righteousness (Tob 1:3); Israel is summoned to ποισαι … λθειαν (Tob 13:6). Usually in the LXX «do the truth» means «to act loyally,» «to keep faith» (Brown, John, 1:135), though some later texts may apply it to specific practices (Grayston, Epistles, 49). Westcott, John, 57, remarks that «doing the truth» appears in rabbinic texts. As many early observers of the Scrolls noted (e.g., Albright, «Discoveries,» 169; Sanders, John, 131), it is also familiar in Essene-type circles (e.g., Jub. 36:3), especially from Qumran (e.g., 1QS 1.5– ; cf. also 5.3; 8.2; 9.17). 5121 lQpHab. 7.10–11; cf. 12.4–5. God will punish evildoers, distinguishing them from those who do good (4Q417 frg. 2,1.7–8,17–18, with 4Q418, in Wise, Scrolls, 381). 5124 E.g., Isocrates Demon. 17, 48, Or. 1; Demosthenes 3 Olynthiac 14; 2 Philippic 1; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.28; 6.2.64; Quintilian 1.pref.14; Epictetus Diatr. 1.25.11; 2.9.13; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 20.2; Dia1. 4.28.6–8; Juvenal Sat. 2.9–10,20–21; 14.38–40; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.33.3; 9.10.3; 9.47.4; 11.1.4; 11.58.3; Diodorus Siculus 9.9.1; Cornelius Nepos frg. 3.1; Aulus Gellius 17.19; Herodian 1.2.4; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.169, 292. 5125 Cf. Smith, John (1999), 108. The passage recapitulates some themes from 1:19–36 (Quast, Reading, 26). Source criticism on 3:22–36, as on the rest of the Gospel, seems unlikely to yield any consensus; but for one suggestion, see Klaiber, «Zeuge.» 5126 So, e.g., White, Initiation, 250; Longenecker, Ministry, 70. See esp. Rensberger, Faith, 52–61; and comment on 1:6–8. 5127 Pace Ellis, World, 62, the «Jew» of 3:25, and not the disciples of John, represents common Judean Judaism. 5129 See Talbert, John, 105, who suggests the chiastic frame for 3:22–4in Jesus» relation to Judea (3:22a; 4:3); Jesus baptizing (3:22b; 4:2) and the partial competition between John " s disciples and those of Jesus (3:26; 4). |
| 12; Socratics Ep. 24; Diodorus Siculus 12.12.3; 12.14.1; Diogenes Laertius 1.60; in terms of skill rather than ethics, cf. Isocrates Demon. 20, Or. 1; Plutarch Educ. 6, Mor 4A. 5338 Rabbis generally delegated the obtaining of supplies to their disciples (b. c Abod . Zar. 35b; Liefeld, «Preacher,» 228), as here. 5339 Maccini, Testimony, 132. His appeal to Gen 24may miss the differences between the two eras (cf. Bordiert, John, 202); his claim that Samaritans may have excluded women from the public sphere less than Jews (Maccini, Testimony, 133–38), even if true, was probably not something John could have expected his audience to catch without his making it explicit. 5344 E.g., b. Ber. 43b. See in more detail Keener, Paul, 161–62, although the balance there may be overly negative. 5345 E.g., p. c Abod. Zar. 2:3, §1; Sotah 1:1, §7. This would apply even more so to a Jewish woman left alone with a Gentile (m. c Abod. Zar. 2:1); Samaritan women were also not highly regarded (see comment on 4:7). 5346 E.g., Euripides E1. 343–344, though there are two men; cf. Valerius Maximus 5.3.10–12 (in Harrell, Divorce, 31); and comment on 4:27. 5347 Theophrastus Char. 28.3, where also if they answer the door rather than a husband or porter doing so (suggesting that they have a paramour, Tibullus 1.2.7,15–24,41, 55–56). 5348 Livy 34.2.9; 34.4.18 (195 B.C.E.). A more progressive speaker argues that this behavior is acceptable under some circumstances (34.5.7–10). 5350 Ibid., 41. Ancient readers might consider it hard to keep a young man from women if they were around (Euripides Ale. 1052–1054). 5351 E.g., Arrian Alex. 2.3.4. In the more urban setting of Rome, Cicero regards the men " s bathing area by the Tiber as a place for promiscuous women to find intercourse (Cae1. 15.36). 5352 E.g., b. Qidd. 9a. Wells were normal meeting places in the ancient Near East (see Sarna, Genesis, 172). 5357 As in Lam. Rab. 1:1, §19, though the girl may be desiring reward in general rather than betrotha1. |
| Sic visus, cum se (f. 37) in angelum transfigurasset lucis, demon a it: «pax tibi Georgie famule Dei». Cui sanctus divino illum spiritu agnoscens inquit: «Quomodo me nominare audes quem times? Pacem das, qui discordiam seminas ! Profecto nominas, quem abhominaris abhominaris (sic), quem amasse debueras. Id, quo astringeris, omittis, quid peragis, omissurus eras, Agens culpas, negligens delinquis. Invadis, dum me tuis applaudis, dum insidias ponis. Quid denique pacem (f. 37 v.) mihi salutem qui eterne desideras. Cum et hiis adversa, necem, discordiam, turbationemque inter pacificos quidem seminare demon non desistas. Terram circuis illani- que perambulas, ut ad rixas contentiones et de via inclines ille- cebras suggeras, Christi vestigia deseri procures». Tunc demon latere se videns amplius equaquam posse, alium temptationis modum demens in illum adinvenit. Ait enim: «si angelus Dei es, mihi virtutis tuae (f. 38) potentiam ocius demonstra». Ac sanctus in eiusdem demouis ambitu terram cruce circumsignans inquit: «In nomine domini Nostri Ihesu Christi tibi, ut me sequaris, praecipio». Quo demon velud cathenarum quibusdam nexibus astrictus foret ; a sancto nusquam demon abire sinebatur, sed talibus cum prosequebatur dictis talibusque se castigabat sermonibus: «Heu quid, miser, miser quid tibi obvium adveni. Cur unquam te a veritatis termite avertere etsi mente agitaverim, о (f. 38 v.) pere stolido conabar. Iam tuum animum agnosco, tuam iam quem expetii, experior virtutem. En solvis me, verbi tui imperio religas, ut apud te maneam invitus a te cum velim nec voluntarie discedam». Cui beatus Georgius inquit: «Per omnipotentem Deum te adiuro quatinus cur mibi obviam veneris indices». At demon: «Quia multos a Dei itinere detraxi, te et inde divellere temerarius pensabam. Sicque cuncte minime me autem plurimum posse conspiceres pronus in ter (f. 39) ram me cadens adorares. Sum nunc ecce quia ut video de me adeo totalis tibi tributa est. facultas illius, precor, celsitudinis quam per elationem, illius claritatis quam per arrogantiam amisi, recordare. |
| Practice of the virtues (πρακτικ – praktiki): see Contemplation. Prepossession (πρληφις – prolipsis): see Temptation. Provocation (προσβολ – prosvoli): see Temptation. Reason, mind (δινοια – dianoia): the discursive, conceptualizing and logical faculty in man, the function of which is to draw conclusions or formulate concepts deriving from data provided either by revelation or spiritual knowledge (q.v.) or by senseobservation. The knowledge of the reason is consequently of a lower order than spiritual knowledge (q.v.) and does not imply any direct apprehension or perception of the inner essences or principles (q.v.) of created beings, still less of divine truth itself. Indeed, such apprehension or perception, which is the function of the intellect (q.v.), is beyond the scope of the reason. Rebuttal (αντιλογα – antilogia; ντρρησις – antirrisis): the repulsing of a demon or demonic thought at the moment of provocation (q.v.); or, in a more general sense, the bridling of evil thoughts. Remembrance of God (μνημη Θεον – mnimi Theou): not just calling God to mind, but the state of recollectedness or concentration in which attention is centred on God. As such it is the opposite of the state of self-indulgence and insensitivity. Repentance (μετνοια – metanoia): the Greek signifies primarily a ‘change of mind’ or ‘change of intellect’: not only sorrow, contrition or regret, but more positively and fundamentally the conversion or turning of our whole life towards God. Sensual pleasure (δονη – hidoni): according to the context the Greek term signifies either sensual pleasure (the most frequent meaning) or spiritual pleasure or delight. Sin (αμαρτα – hamartia): the primary meaning of the Greek word is ‘failure’ or, more specifically, ‘failure to hit the mark’ and so a ‘missing of the mark’, a ‘going astray’ or, ultimately, ‘failure to achieve the purpose for which one is created’. It is closely related, therefore, to illusion (q.v.). The translation ‘sin’ should be read with these connotations in mind. |
| The charge of demonization recalls what we know from the Synoptic tradition ( Mark 3:22 ). 6407 Here it may involve madness (here specifically paranoia). 6408 Greek sources describe madness in terms of divine possession 6409 and employ δαιμνιον and its cognates (though Greek thought typically lacked the pejorative connotations attached in Judaism) to refer to someone insane, often employing the designation as an insult (i.e., «you are crazy»), as here. 6410 But it in this context may also involve an additional component. The claim that Jesus has a «demon» (7:20; cf. 8:48–49; 10:20–21) may associate his works with sorcerers or false prophets, 6411 who were associated with demons or tried to manipulate their spirit-guides through incantations. 6412 Some ancient circles may have revered Moses as a «magician,» necessitating careful nuancing by writers, like Josephus and Philo, who wished to avoid such associations. 6413 Most circles, both Jewish 6414 and Gentile, 6415 regarded magicians as dangerous, 6416 and many sought to avoid the label for themselves or their heroes, 6417 or to charge opponents with the crime. 6418 Some other prophetic figures who acted in a bizarre, antisocial manner seem to have received this label as well (Josephus War 6.303, 305), 6419 including (according to the Q tradition in Matt 11:18; Luke 7:33) John the Baptist. Some contended that false prophets were moved by demons acting as familiar spirits (Irenaeus Haer. 1.13.1, 3). But because sorcery carried a capital sentence in biblical law (Exod 22:18; cf. Rev 21:8; 22:15), 6420 the charge functions ironically: at the very moment they accuse him of having a demon, they profess to be unaware of who might wish to kill him (7:20)! Jesus frequently claims not to act on his own but in obedience to the one who sent him (e.g., 7:16); by treating his father as a «demon,» they are guilty (like the religious leaders in the Markan tradition) of blaspheming against the Spirit ( Mark 3:22, 29–30 ; Matt 12:24, 32; cf. Luke 12:10). Jesus ultimately reverses the charge of de-monization, calling their father the devil ( John 8:41, 44 ). Such references to the devil and possession ( John 13:2, 27 ) suggest that Johns omission of exorcisms reflects his theological emphasis and not necessarily a disagreement with the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus as an exorcist. 6421 |
|
|
