| 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»). |
| Pesch, R., Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverständnis (Freiburg, 1978). Petersen, N. R., «When is the End not the End? Reflections on the Ending of Mark " s Narrative,» Interpretation 34 (1980) 151–66. Pryke, E. J, Redactional Style in the Markan Gospel (Cambridge, 1978). Quesnel, M., Comment lire un évangile. Saint Marc (Paris, 1984). Quesnell, Q., The Mind of Mark. Interpretation and Method through the Exegesis of Mark 6,52 (Rome, 1969). Räisänen, H., Das Messiasgeheimnis im Markusevangelium. Ein Redaktionskritischer Versuch (Helsinki, 1976). Reardon, P. H., «Kenotic Ecclesiology in Mark,» BT 70 (1974) 1476–1482. Roads, D. and Michie, D., Markos Story (Philadelphia, 1982). Robbins, V. K., «Summons and Outline in Mark: The Three-Step Progression,» NovT 23 (1981) 97–114. Robbins, V., Jesus the Teacher, (Philadelphia, 1984). Robinson, J. M., The Problem of History in Mark (London, 19714). Sabbe, M. (ed.), LÉvangile selon Marc. Tradition et rédaction (Gembloux, 1974). Schenk, W., Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Gütersloh, 1974). Schenke, L., Der gekreuzigte Christus (Stuttgart, 1974). Schenke, L., Die wunderbare Brotvermehrung (Würzburg, 1983). Schille, G., Offen für alle Menschen. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur Thaeologie des Markus-Evangeliums (Stuttgart, 1974). Schlier, H., Die Markuspassion (Einsiedeln, 1974). Schlosser, J., Le régne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus (Paris, 1980). Schmidt, K. L., Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchung zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung (Darmstadt, 1964repr). Schweizer, E., «Towards a Christology of Mark,» God " s Christ and His People, Festschr. N. A. Dahl (Oslo, 1977) 29–42. Senior, D., The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Wilmington, 1984). Senior, D., «The Struggle to be Universal: Mission as Vantage Point for New Testament Investigation,» CBQ 46 (1984) 63–81. Smith, M., The Secret Gospel. The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark (New York, 1973). Smith, M., Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge, 1973). |
| 363 A. M. Farrer in Muddiman, «John " s Use»; cf. Gundry, Matthew, 2. Although the case for Matthew is not certain, it is often affirmed: e.g., Goppelt, «Church in History,» 198; Zumstein, «Antioche»; Gundry, Matthew, 609; Ellis, Matthew, 6; Hengel, Acts, 98; some opt for Palestine, e.g., Viviano, «Matthew.» For the suggestion of Matthew " s Sitz im Leben as conflict with Yavneh or neo-Pharisaic authorities, resembling the scenario often proposed for John, cf. Davies, Setting, and Tilborg, Leaders. 364 See the thorough treatment of scholars» perspectives on the relationship between John and Luke in Smith, John Among Gospels, 85–110. For agreements with Acts, see Cribbs, «Agreements.» 366 Eller, Disciple, 47. For the thesis that Luke may have used John in his Passion Narrative, see Maison, Dialogue. 367 See Myllykoski, «Luke and John,» esp. 152; for the thesis of a common document on which they depend, see Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 1:15. 368 E.g., Streeter, Gospels, 393–426 (plus Lukés Passion Narrative). MacGregor, John, x, thinks this «can hardly be questioned,» though he does not presume that John had Mark directly in front of him. 369 Vogler, «Johannes als Kritiker.» Some writers did critique predecessors (see, e.g., Diodorus Siculus 1.3.1–2; Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 67); others, however, sought merely to supplement them (cf. Xenophon Apo1. 1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.1.1). 370 Stein, «Agreements.» Cf. Smith, Johannine Christianity, 12: though Bent Noack has overstated the case, the parallels may indicate oral traditions that the Johannine and Synoptic communities held in common. 371 Cf. Borgen, «Passion Narrative,» 259. But much of their redaction could also depend on prior common tradition. 372 Barrett, «Synoptic Gospels,» allows that John had something akin to Mark, but that he only alluded to the material rather than depending on it as Matthew and Luke did. But John " s use of Mark may have been even less significant than this, given other available sources (cf. Luke 1:1) and above all his own independent tradition. |
| Dunn, J. D. C., «Le secret Messianique chez Marc,» Hokhma 18 (1981) 34–56. Dupont, J., Études sur les évangiles synoptiques, 2 vols. (Leuven, 1985). Egger, W., Frobotschaft und Lehre (Frankfurt, 1976). Egger, W., Nachfolge als Weg zum Leben (Klosterneuburg, 1979). Englezakis, B., «Markan Parable: More than Word Modality a Revelation of Contents,» ΔΒΜ 2 (1973–74) 349–57. Evans, C. A., «The Hermeneutics of Mark and John: On the Theology of the Canonical Gospels,» Bib 64 (1983) 153–72. Evans, C. F., The Beginning of the Gospel (London, 1968). Farmer, W. R., The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (New York, 1974). Feneberg, W., Der Markussprolog: Studien zur Formbestimmung des Evangeliums (Munich, 1974). Feuillet, A., L " agonie de Gethsemani (Paris, 1977). Ford, D., The Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology (Washington, D. C., 1979). Fowler, R. M., Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (Chico, 1981). Fusco, У., Parola e regno. La sezione delle Parabole nella Prospettiva Marciana (Brescia, 1980). Gaboury, A., «Christological Implications Resulting from a Study of the Structure of the Synoptic Gospels,» SocBibLit Meeting 1972 (Los Angeles) Yol. 1,97–146. Genest, Olivette, Le Christ de la Passion. Perspective Structurale (Montreal, 1978). Hahn, F., (ed.), Der Erzählung des Evangeliums (Stuttgart, 1985). Harrington, D. J., The Gospel according to Mark (New York, 1983). Harrington, D. J., «A Map of Books on Mark (1975–1984),» BTB 15(1985)12–16. Harrisville, R. A., The Miracle of Mark. A Study in the Gospel (Minneapolis, 1967). Hartman, L., Prophecy Interpreted (Lund, 1966). Higgins, A. J. B., Jesus and the Son of Man (Philadelphia, 1964). Hooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark (London, 1967). Hooker, M. D., The Message of Mark (London, 1983). Horstmann, M., Studien zur markinischen Christologie (Münster, 1969). Hug, J., La finale de l " Évangile de Marc (Paris, 1978). Hultgren, A. J, Jesus and His Adversaries (Minneapolis, 1979). |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| The prologue is emphatic in its contrast between John and Jesus, as between creation and creator: the world was made (γνετο) «through him» (Jesus) in 1:3. When the prologue declares that «through him» (John) all might believe (in Jesus) in 1:6, it notes that he came (γνετο) for that purpose. In our introduction to the prologue, we observed that most of the prologue could constitute a hymn in three equal sections of twelve lines, if the lines about John were excluded. Most reconstructions of the original form of the prologue that exclude any part of it exclude the lines about John. Whether or not the prologue was written as a seamless whole, it is likely that the material about John (whom we shall sometimes call «the Baptist,» to distinguish him from the author to whom the Gospel is traditionally attributed) was present in the prologue from the time it became part of the Fourth Gospe1. (The lines about John may in part be woven into the rest of the prologue to connect it with the historical ministry of Jesus beginning in 1:19. 3440 John, like Mark and some examples of the apostolic preaching in Acts, starts the gospel narrative with the Baptist.) 3441 In a prologue which features the cosmic and préexistent Christ, lines about the Baptist seem hopelessly out of place to modern readers. The question we must thus ask is the function the Baptist material serves for John " s implied readers, the first community he was addressing. Two theories commend the most attention: the author contrasts the prophet John with the supreme Lord because some contemporaries were exalting John inappropriately; or the author uses John to serve a broader symbolic function (like the function that many attribute to the beloved disciple), namely, the importance of a witness. Both theories merit attention and both may be correct; the acceptance of either does not logically exclude the possibility of the other. 1. Polemic against a Baptist Sect Writers in the early twentieth century advanced the thesis that the Fourth Gospel " s portrayal of John the Baptist represented Johannine polemic against the Baptist " s followers. 3442 Reitzenstein and his followers, like Bultmann, accepted medieval claims of the Mandean sect to have grown directly from a movement founded by John the Baptist. Because the Mandeans were both anti-Christian and anti-Jewish, Reitzenstein doubted that their source was Christian or Jewish, and regarded their source of traditions later related to Christianity as deriving from the Baptist. 3443 Such an application of the criterion of dissimilarity is unwarranted, however, for several reasons: first, many gnostic sects were anti-orthodox Christian or anti-Jewish yet sprang from orthodox Christian or Jewish roots. |
| John " s point, however, is hardly Pilatés generosity; it is the hypocrisy of the Judean elite, who, after they have spent the night ignoring legal ethics to secure the quick execution of an innocent man, now are concerned with ritual purity. Such ritual purity was not high on John " s list of virtues (2:6–10). This blatant contrast between scrupulous observance of ritual purity and ignoring the law " s ethical demands epitomizes Johannine irony, 9793 though not unique to the Fourth Gospe1. 9794 They wanted to «eat the Passover» but did not understand that, in having Jesus killed, they were slaying the new Passover lamb to be consumed (cf. 2:17; 6:51; 19:31). 1C. John " s Passover Chronology Some have used Passovers to reconstruct John " s chronology 9795 and have claimed conflicts with the Synoptics, but it seems better to read John " s final Passover chronology symbolically. 9796 Passover began at sundown with the Passover mea1. Whereas in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is executed on the day of the Passover sacrifice preceding the evening meal (18:28; 19:14), the Synoptics present the Last Supper as a Passover meal, presupposing that the lamb has already been offered in the temple. 9797 Both traditions–a paschal Last Supper and a paschal crucifixion–are theologically pregnant, 9798 but we suspect that Jesus, followed by the earliest tradition, may have intended the symbolism for the Last Supper whereas John has applied the symbolism more directly to the referent to which the Last Supper itself symbolically pointed. Many scholars have argued that John is historically correct, 9799 noting that the Last Supper narrative does not explicitly mention a lamb 9800 and that an execution on the first day of the feast was inconceivable and suggesting that the disciples could have celebrated Passover early, according to a sectarian calendar, 9801 or that Mark inserted Passover references for theological reasons. 9802 One could argue more reasonably that Jesus and the temple authorities followed separate calendars; 9803 but our evidence for these calendars is relatively scant, and even if such separate calendars existed, why would John prefer that of the temple authorities? Other details of the passion narrative behind Mark, such as the Sanhédrin originally wishing to kill Jesus before the feast ( Mark 14:1–2 ), Simon coming from the fields (15:21, which some take as coming from work), or burial on a «preparation day» (which in Mark 15is preparation for the Sabbath but which some take as preparation for Passover), 9804 can support the Johannine chronology. The rabbis also spoke of Jesus» execution on the eve of Passover, 9805 although this is a late tradition probably deriving its information from early Christian sources that may reflect John " s Gospel or its tradition. |
| 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. |
| Central to the setting is the matter of ritual purification; John " s disciples disagree with traditional views about purification (3:25), as does the Fourth Gospel " s author (2:6; cf. 11:55). 5127 Yet his disciples, perhaps like some of his followers in the late first century, also held an inadequate view of purification; they may have seen Jesus as competition (3:26). As in 1:29–37 John again needs to point his disciples to the greater one (3:27–30). John, who offers the best form of Jewish purification, offers merely purification in water; Jesus offers a baptism in the Spirit (1:31–33; 3:5). 5128 That purification and baptismal questions are central to this section is clear from its unity with 4:l-3. 5129 Μετ τατα (3:22) is a frequent transitional device in John (5:1,14; 6:1; 7:1; 19:38; 21:1) 5130 and Revelation (1:19; 4:1; 7:9; 9:12; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1; 20:3) which also occurs seven times in Luke-Acts and on only two other occasions in the NT. 1A. Jesus» Ministry and John " s Ministry (3:22–23, 26) Regardless of the applicability to followers of the Baptist in the time in which the Fourth Gospel was written, a historical reminiscence likely stands behind the tension between John " s and Jesus» followers. 5131 The Synoptics allow for little overlap between John and Jesus, presenting Jesus as John " s successor and the fulfillment of his message. One might suppose that John, whose story world extends the ministry of Jesus to two or three years, overlaps Jesus and John the Baptist. For an apologetic against followers of the Baptist, however, the chronology followed in the Synoptic tradition would have worked well enough. (John apparently knew the tradition circulated through Mark and his Synoptic followers; 3seems to explicitly respond to it.) 5132 The Fourth Gospel thus allows the tension between the two movements to stand as early as Jesus» ministry, but clarifies the appropriate place of the Baptist movement through the Baptist " s own words. The Synoptics may well have suppressed the overlap as a potential embarrassment, 5133 although there is less evidence of tension with a Baptist community at that point. |
|
|
