| Tüb., 1919; Schmidt K. L. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung. B., 1919; Bousset W. Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus. Gött., 19212; Bultmann R. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Gött., 1921; idem. Theologie des NT. Tüb., 1948; Dodd Ch. H. The Framework of the Gospel Narrative//The Expository Times. Edinb., 1932. Vol. 43. P. 396-400; Idem.// Idem. NT Studies. Manchester, 1953. P. 1-11; Holmes B. T. Luke " s Description of John Mark//JBL. 1935. Vol. 54. N 2. P. 63-72; Lightfoot R. H. Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels. L., 1938; Taylor V. The Gospel according to St. Mark. L., 1952; Parker P. The Gospel before Mark. Chicago, 1953; Riesenfeld H. Tradition und Redaktion im Markusevangelium//Neutestamentliche Studien für R. Bultmann zu seinem 70. Geburtstag/Hrsg. W. Eltester. B., 1954. S. 157-164 (англ. пер.: idem. On the Composition of the Gospel of Mark// Idem. The Gospel Tradition. Phil., 1970. P. 51-74); Marxsen W. Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums. Gött., 1956; Schreiber J. Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums//ZTK. 1961. Bd. 58. S. 154-183; Bruns J. E. John Mark: A Riddle within the Johannine Enigma//Scripture. L. etc., 1963. Vol. 15. N 31. P. 88-92; idem. The Confusion between John and John Mark in Antiquity//Ibid. 1965. Vol. 17. N 37. P. 23-26; Hahn F. Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum. Gött., 1963; Vielhauer Ph. Erwägungen zur Christologie des Markusevangeliums//Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an R. Bultmann. Tüb., 1964. S. 155-169; Brandon S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. Manchester, 1967; Lohmeyer E. Das Evangelium des Markus. Gött., 196717; Vermès G. The Use of bar nash/bar nasha in Jewish Aramaic// Black M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxf., 19673. P. 310-328; idem. Jesus the Jew: A Historian " s Reading of the Gospels. |
| Marky ho habary Giri Bu kitap Isany döwründe ýaan Mark atly adam tarapyndan ýazyldy. Ol IsaMesihi resuly Pawlus bilen täze ýygnaklary düýbüni tutmakda (Res 13-nji bap), resul Petrus bilen Ho Habary ýaýmakda (1Pet 5:13) arman-ýadaman zähmet çekenleri biridir. Mark Isany durmuyny, eden ilerini we wagyzlaryny ilkinji bolup ýazga geçiren adam diýen pikir Mukaddes Ýazgylary öwrenýän alymlary arasynda örän ýörgünlidir. Olary çaklamalaryna görä, Mark bu kitaby Rim äherinde tussaglykda saklanan Pawlusa kömek beren döwründe, ýagny b.e. 55 — 65-nji ýyllary ýazypdyr. Kitapda arameý dilini sözlerine, ýahudy halkyny däp-dessurlaryna düündiri berilýär. eýle düündiriler bu kitaby ýahudy däl halklar üçin ýazylandygyny aýdy görkezýär. Mark ony Rimdäki ýygnak üçin ýazypdyr, sebäbi ol döwürde ýygnagy agzalary ýahudy we ýahudy däl halklary wekillerinden ybaratdy. Marky esasy maksady Isany Mesihdigini, ýagny Hudaýy pygamberler arkaly wada berlen Patyadygyny mälim etmekden ybaratdy. Ol öz kitabynda Isany ilkibadan Mesih, ýagny Hudaýy Ogly diýip atlandyrýar. Mark Isany il içinde görkezen gudratlary, adamlary haýrana galdyran mugjyzalary barada aýat hökmünde ýazýar. Mark eýle gudratlary we mugjyzalary Hudaýy güýji arkaly amala aýandygyny nygtap, adamlary kem-kemden Isany kimdigine düünilerini görkezýär. Isa Öz ägirtlerinden: «Siz Maa kim diýýärsiiz?» diýip soranda, Petrus «Sen Mesihsi» diýip jogap berýär (Mar 8:29). eýle-de Mark Mesih bolmagy die ygtyýarlylyk däl, eýsem hyzmat we özüi gurban etmeklikdigini hem görkezýär. Ol Isa Mesihi ýönekeý adamlary söýüp, olara hyzmat ediini, olary ugrunda Özüni gurban etmäge-de taýyndygyny beýan edýär. Isa Mesih eýle diýýär: «Ynsan Ogly hem Özüne hyzmat edilmegi üçin däl-de, eýsem, bagalara hyzmat etmek üçin, köpleri ugrunda janyny gurban edip, olary azat etmek üçin geldi» (Mar 10:45). Isa Özüni Ynsan Ogly diýip atlandyrýardy. Mark Isa Mesihe iman edip, Onu güýjüne ynanan islendik adamy keselden gutulýandygyna, jynlardan azat bolýandygyna we ebedi ýaaýa eýe bolýandygyna aýatlyk edýär. Ýöne ol Isa Mesihe eýermegi asat däldigini hem aýdýar. Isany hakyky ägirtleri öz Halypalary ýaly adamlara hyzmat etmeli, ejir çekmäge we Ol kimin özüni gurban etmäge-de taýyn bolmaly. |
| L., 1973; Weeden T. J. The Heresy That Necessitated Mark " s Gospel//ZNW. 1968. Bd. 59. N 3/4. S. 145-158; idem. Mark: Traditions in Conflict. Phil., 1971; Linton O. Evidences of a 2nd-Cent. Revised Edition of St Mark " s Gospel//NTS. 1968. Vol. 14. N 3. P. 321-355; Tilesse G. M., de. Le secret messianique dans l " Évangile de Marc. P., 1968; Achtemeier P. J. Toward the Isolation of the Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae//JBL. 1970. Vol. 89. N 3. P. 265-291; idem. The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae//Ibid. 1972. Vol. 91/2. P. 198-221; Linnemann E. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte. Gött., 1970; Kuhn H. W. Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium. Gött., 1971; Tiede D. L. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker. Missoula, 1972; Hamerton-Kelly R. Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and The Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-Existence in the NT. L. etc., 1973; Räisänen H. Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium. Helsinki, 1973; Dormeyer D. Die Passion Jesu als Verhaltensmodell: Literarische und theologische Analyse der Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Markuspassion. Münster, 1974; idem. Das Markusevangelium als Idealbiographie von Jesus Christus, dem Nazarener. Stuttg., 1999; Farmer W. R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. L.; N. Y., 1974; Hull J. M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition. L., 1974; Kelber W. H. The Kingdom in Mark. Phil., 1974; idem., ed. The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14-16. Phil., 1976; idem. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Phil., 1983; Schenke L. Die Wundererzählungen des Markusevangeliums. Stuttg., 1974; Theissen G. Urchristliche Wundergeschichten: Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien. Gütersloh, 1974; idem. Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Gött., 1989; Koch D. A. Die Bedeutung der Wundererzählungen für die Christologie des Markusevangeliums. |
| 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). |
| 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. |
| 10982 A probably later tradition, purportedly stemming from the late first century, claims that though all the seas were ink and the earth scrolls, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, teachers of R. Akiba, believed it would not be enough to record all the Torah that they had learned, and they had understood at most a drop of what there was to understand about Torah. 10983 The number of books actually available in John " s day would have been limited in any case, but estimates remained hyberbolic. One widespread Jewish story offers an estimate on the number of books then in circulation; Demetrius of Phalerum reportedly sought to collect for Ptolemy all the books in the world (Let. Aris. 9), which came to over 200,000, reaching for 500,000 (Let. Aris. 10). The point is that the author provided only a small selection of Jesus» works; 10984 Jesus is further praised by what the author must leave unsaid (cf. Heb 11:32). What John does include, however, is sufficient to summon his audience to deeper faith and was selected for that purpose (20:30–31). 10963 Cf, e.g., Hunter, John, 197; Minear, «Audience,» 348; Blomberg, Reliability, 37–39. «Siblings» here refers to believers, at least (though not necessarily exclusively) in the Johannine circle of believers (cf. Brown, John, 2:1110). 10966 Carson, John, 684, though allowing that it may refer to the elders of the Ephesian church; Köstenberger, John, 195. Cf. 3:11; the apostolic circle in 1:14; 1 John 1:2,4 (though church tradition makes John its final survivor). 10968 As frequently noted, e.g., Bultmann, John, 718. Theodore of Mopsuestia thought that 21was a later editorial addition, but there is no textual evidence for this view (Sinaiticus " s first hand omits and then corrects the verse; Birdsall, «Source»). 10969 This is the only verse in John that Robinson, Trust, 83, thinks must be an addition. Morris, John, 879; but his secondary appeal to the transition from plural to singular in 1 Thess 2may recall Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1). 10970 Cullmann, Circle, 2. This might be the «elders of the Ephesian church» (Hunter, John, 198), though we think Smyrna somewhat more likely. 10971 The final verses establish the beloved disciplés authority, but not necessarily against Peter (Kysar, John, 321). Smith, John (1999), 400, thinks 21attests that probably «the Beloved Disciplés witness authorized the Gospel,» though he doubts that he actually wrote it down. 10972 E.g., P.Eleph. 1.16–18; 2.17–18; P.Lond. 1727.68–72; P.Tebt. 104.34–35; P.Co1. 270.1.25–28; BGU 1273.36–40; P.Cair.Zen. 59001.48–52; the Aramaic git from Wadi Murabbáat ca. 72 C.E. (Carmon, Inscriptions, 90–91, 200–201); Cicero Quinct. 6.25; cf. further comments in Epictetus (LCL 1:136–37 η. 1). Prof. Dale Martin, then of Duke University, first pointed out this correspondence with legal documents to me (January 23, 1990). |
| Pryke, «Eschatology» Pryke, John. «Eschatology in the Dead Sea Scrolls.» Pages 45–57 in The Scrolls and Christianity: Historical and Theological Significance. London: SPCK, 1969. Pryke, «John» Pryke, John. «John the Baptist and the Qumran Community.» RevQA (1963–1964): 483–96. Pryke, Style Pryke, E. J. Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Pryor, «Egerton» Pryor, John W. «Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Fourth Gospe1.» ABR 37 (1989): 1–13. Pryor, John Pryor, John W. John–Evangelist of the Covenant People: The Narrative and Themes of the Fourth Gospe1. Foreword by Graham N. Stanton. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1992. Pryor, «lustin Martyr» Pryor, J. W. «Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospe1.» Second Century 9 (1992): 153–69. Pryor, «Relation» Pryor, John W. « John 3.3,5 : A Study in the Relation of John " s Gospel to the Synoptic Tradition.» JSNT41 (1991): 71–95. Pryor, «Thanksgiving» Pryor, John W. «The Great Thanksgiving and the Fourth Gospe1.» BZ 35 (1991): 157–79. Przybylski, Righteousness Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. SNTSMS 41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Pucci Ben Zeev, «Position» Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. «Did the Jews Enjoy a Privileged Position in the Roman World?» Revue des études juives 154, nos. 1–2 (1995): 23–42. Pucci Ben Zeev, «Reliability» Pucci Ben Zeev, M. «The Reliability of Josephus Flavius: The Case of Hecataeus» and Manethós Accounts of Jews and Judaism–Fifteen Years of Contemporary Research (1974–1990).» JSJ 24 (1993): 215–34. Puech, «Apocalypse» Puech, Emile. «Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521).» RevQ 15 (1991–1992): 475–522, plates 1–3. Puech, Croyance Puech, Emile. La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future–immortalité, resurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d " un croyance dans le judaïsme ancien. Vo1. 2: Les données qumraniennes et classiques. École biblique 22. Paris: Gabalda, 1993. |
| 6977 Explicitly «high» Christology is rare in Mark " s sayings and in Synoptic material dependent on Mark, 6978 but Mark, if he knew this sort of tradition, may have lacked reason to emphasize it (the suffering Son of Man is more central for his point than exalted Wisdom), and we suspect that he did have reason, given his focus on the Messianic Secret, to de-emphasize it. In the sixties a more subtle christological approach may have proved more strategic in most Diaspora synagogues. Perhaps more to the point, Mark strategically preserves his plot " s suspense of the Messianic Secret until the passion week. But high Christology appears in Q (Matt 3:11–12/Luke 3:16–17; Matt 11:27/Luke 10:22), 6979 from which John 8appears a relatively short distance in the broader context of christological expectations. After all, many claimed messiahship, but what other historical figure was held to actually embody Wisdom? It usually appeared as a personification or, if hypostatic, certainly not a hypostasis likely to be incarnated as a human being. Mark is also more explicit about divine connotations in Mark 6:48–50 (in view of his biblical allusions, including «I am») than is John in the parallel passage (see comment on John 6:20 ). 6980 The «I am,» then, is not wholly unique to John, though it is far more common there. Thus some evidence, while not coercive, makes plausible the possibility that some Christian traditions applied the self-claim to Jesus before Johns Gospe1. 6981 John forcefully underlines the situation " s irony: the crowds who denied knowing who might wish to kill Jesus (7:20) are now prepared to kill him themselves (8:59). 6982 (A further irony is that Jesus had predicted their violence in 8:37, 40, as part of the charges that aroused their anger.) A merely messianic claim would not have generated such severe opposition to Jesus on religious grounds (as opposed to political grounds) as he experienced here. 6983 Thus the reaction of Jesus» interlocutors suggest that they finally understand his claim to deity–but do not believe it. |
| 6605 E.g., Hodges, «Adultery»; Heil, «Story»; idem, «Rejoinder» (cf. Trites, «Adultery,» on John " s structuring style). Hodges, «Adultery,» supposes that its deletion in one manuscript affected others, but this argument (1) must admit our lack of textual evidence in the earliest extant sources, i.e., argues from silence, and (2) supposes a model of deletion possible on a word processor but more difficult in the middle of a scroll (which the first generations of manuscripts were)! 6606 See full discussion in Metzger, Commentary, 219–21; Wallace, «Reconsidering.» 6607 See Metzger, Commentary, 220. Calvin, John, 1(on 7:53–8:11), already noted that it was missing among Greek manuscripts preserved by Greek churches. 6608 For androcentric early-church prejudices (e.g., the focus on the woman " s adultery rather than that of her accusers) that could have marginalized the passage, see ÓDay, «Misreading.» 6609 Metzger, Commentary, 221. 6610 E.g., Michaels, John, 113; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 95. Perrin, Kingdom, 131, notes that over one-sixth of the words occur nowhere else in John. Admittedly the vocative γναι is more common in this Gospel (2:4; 4:21; 19:26; 20:13, 15) than elsewhere in the NT (Matt 15:28; Luke 13:12; 22:57; 1Cor 7:16 ). 6611 E.g., Comfort, «Pericope.» By contrast, Baylis, «Adultery,» thinks the passage climaxes Johns portrayal of Jesus as the prophet of Deut 18 . 6612 Also, e.g., Yee, Feasts, 77. 6613 E.g., Montefiore, Gospels, 1:280; Derrett, Law, 156; Hunter, John, 199; Michaels, John, 132; Watkins, John, 176; Ridderbos, John, 286; Whitacre, John, 204; Bürge, «Problem»; idem, John, 238–41; Beasley-Murray, John, 144; Grayston, Gospel, 73; Bordiert, John, 225, 329, 369. 6614 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 46–47, attributes this view to «most exegetes.» Papias frg. 6 (Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.39.17) knew the story in the Gospel of the Hebrews; Beasley-Murray, John, 143–44, also cites Syr. Did. 7 (early third century C.E.); for the tradition in Didymos the Blind, see Luhrmann, «Geschichte.» |
| 2318 Cf. Talbert, Gospel, who relates men who achieved immortality (26–31) to theoi andres, while noting that not all theoi andres became immortal (35–38). Aune, «Problem,» 19 criticizes him severely on his differentiation of «eternals» and «immortals.» 2319 See Tiede, Figure, 99 (cf. 14–29, on Pythagorean conceptions; 71–97, Heracles), Gallagher, Divine Man, 173; Shuler, Genre, 18; Blackburn, «ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,» 188–91; Kingsbury, Christology, 34; Martitz, «Υις,» 8:339–40; Betz, Jesus, 64. 2323 Georgi, Opponents, 122–64, especially explores the Hellenistic Jewish use of the motif; cf. also 390–409. 2324 Tiede, Figure, 101–240 (ch. 2, «Images of Moses in Hellenistic Judaism»). Moses was «divine» in the sense that he was affected by the deity (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.279). 2328 Ibid., 238. It should be admitted, however, that many extant apostolic fathers aim at a philosophical rather than popular audience, whereas the Gospels do not. 2330 Stern, Authors, 2:221–23, citing Philopseudeis 16; Alexander Pseudopropheta 13; Tragodopodogra 171–73. 2337 So also Kee, Origins, 62; cf. similarly Betz, Jesus, 64. For a survey of especially OT theology of healings (in their ancient Near Eastern and Greek contexts), see esp. Brown, Healer. 2338 Boring, Sayings, 201–2, is wrong to suggest that Mark opposes charismatic excesses in Q; Mark draws on Q at places (e.g., in his abbreviated introduction; in Mark 3:22–30 ); but he rightly points out that as a charismatic, Mark could oppose charismatic excesses (203). Kümmel, Introduction, 93, rightly observes against Weeden that Mark does not deny Jesus» role as a wonder-worker; the signs are clearly positive (Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 105; Kingsbury, Christology, 76–77), even if they must be read in view of the cross. 2339 Vander Broek, «Sifz,» 131–89. Lane, " Theios Aner? 160, thinks the view might be attributable to the crowds. Weeden, Mark, 52–69, thought Mark " s opponents followed a theios aner Christology like Paul " s opponents in 2Corinthians; «opponents» may be too strong, and theios aner too ambiguous (although they may hold «a triumphalist theology characterized by … miraculous acts,» vii). |
|
|
