| We should remember that whereas John strongly emphasizes realized eschatology, he does not thereby abandon all future eschatology (e.g., 5:28–29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48; 21:22–23). That Jesus was no longer physically present with the Johannine community was obvious, and the Lukan tradition of an ascension was the most obvious spatial solution to the current fact (Luke 24:50; Acts 1:9–11; cf. Mark 16:19 ; Rom 8:34 ; Eph 1:20 ; Col 3:1–2; Heb 1:3). Matthew, Mark, and John close before the point where the event would be described (Mark even before resurrection appearances), but the ascension is presupposed by Jesus» Parousia from heaven, a teaching found in Paul " s earliest letters (e.g., Phil 3:20; 1 Thess 4:16; 2 Thess 1:7). 10627 It appears multiply attested outside the Gospels, at least on a theological level ( Eph 4:8–10 ; 1Tim 3:16 ; Heb 4:14; 7:26; 8:1; 9:24; 1Pet 3:22 ). That the Spirit came as another advocate, standing in for Jesus, suggests that John also understood that Jesus would be absent from the community, while not «in spirit,» yet in body (cf. 1 John 2:1 ). 10628 Jesus would not only go to the Father and return to give them the Spirit; though it is not John " s emphasis, he also implies that Jesus would remain with the Father until the «last day,» when those in the tombs would arise. It is also clear that ancient writers could predict events never recounted in their narratives but that the reader would understand to be fulfilled in the story world; the Greek East " s favorite work, the Iliad, could predict, without recounting, the fall of Troy, which was already known to the Iliad " s tradition and which it reinforced through both subtle allusions and explicit statements in the story. 10629 The book ends with Hector " s burial, but because the book emphasized that Hector was Troy " s last adequate defender, 10630 this conclusion certainly implies the tragic demise of Troy. The Odyssey predicts but does not narrate Odysseus " s final trial, 10631 but in view of the other fulfillments in the story, the reader or hearer is not left with discomfort. The Argonautica will not directly address Medeás unpleasant slaying of Pelias yet hints at that tradition. 10632 Likewise, that Mark probably ends without resurrection appearances ( Mark 16:8 ) hardly means that Mark wanted his readers to doubt that they occurred (cf. Mark 14:28 )! John probably assumes the tradition of the ascension more widely held by his audience, just as he has probably assumed their knowledge of a more widely circulated passion tradition in earlier narratives. |
| 3828 See comments on 1:6–8 above. One should not press too much the distinction between «confessed» and «denied not» (as Westcott, John, 18, endeavors to do). 3829 So many commentators, e.g., Hooker, Message, 9; Ladd, Theology, 35; Lane, Mark, 51. Nortjé, «John,» sees Jesus as a John, hence Elijah, redivivus. 3830 Hunter, John, 22, suggests that our author " s remark is difficult to explain if the author knew Mark. 3831 Martyn thinks that the Fourth Gospel suppressed a source identifying Jesus as Elijah to conform to the broader Christian tradition. Another proposal, that Jesus viewed himself as a new Elisha following John the new Elijah (Bostock, «Elisha»), is reasonable but lacks adequate supporting evidence. 3832 Taylor, Mark, 390 suggests that in the transfiguration Moses and Elijah represent the law and prophets; but probably they are just harbingers of the end; cf. Moule, Mark, 70. 3833 For the latter view, see Brown, Essays, 181–84. The evangelist may use rhetorically less favored historical presents here (1:21) and elsewhere for vividness (as, e.g., in the Latin of Caesar Gallic War, passim), though scholars could criticize inconsistency in verb tenses (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2 Amm. 12); on the importance of vividness, see Anderson, Glossary, 43,125 (cf. also 73). 3834 Diversity of perspectives on Elijah extended even to interpretations of biblical narratives; cf. Zeller, «Elija.» 3835 E.g., b. Móed Qat. 26a; Sanh. 113b, although such texts may reflect differing implications as to whether (perhaps " Abot R. Nat. 38, §103 B, till Messiah comes) or not (cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:4) he would die. Josephus " s words are more guarded (Ant. 9.28), probably accommodating Hellenistic skepticism. 3836 See Keener, Spirit, 20–22; Sipra Sh. M.D. 99.5.6; also Tg. Jon. on 1Sam 19and on 2 Kgs 6:1; 9:1,4. 3837 " Abot R. Nat. 2A; b. c Abod. Zar. 36a; Ber. 3a; Git. 42b; Hag. 9b; Qidd. 79a; Menah. 32a; p. Ber. 9:2, §3; Ter. 1(unclear here whether the activity in this text was in ancient Israel or the rabbinic period); Pesiq. |
| 9701 Matt 26:3, 57 and Luke 3mention Caiaphas; Luke 3briefly mentions Annas; neither name appears in Mark. John may mention both because the Synoptics attest two inquiries (Barrett, John, 529), but this is less probable given John " s independence on the inquiries themselves. 9702 losephus Ant. 18.26. Ananus is a variant Greek rendering of Annas; one may survey the frequent names, both masculine and feminine, cognate to Annas in antiquity (e.g., CIJ1:62, §88; 1:228, §290; 1:244, §310; 1:314–15, §411; 2:127, §907; 2:155, §967; 2:186, §§1013, 1014; 2:195, §1066; CPJ 1:165–66, §24; Acts 9:10; see more fully CPJ 3:169). 9709 Wiles, Gospel, 9, citing Theodore of Mopsuestia 233.23; John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 83.2; Cyril of Alexandria 3.29.26–27 on John 18:15 . Interestingly, Chrysostom (2.1) nevertheless thought that John must have been very poor or his father would not have allowed him to leave fishing to follow Jesus (Wiles, Gospel, 10). Fishermen could make more income if they sold directly to the rich rather than through middlemen (Alciphron Fishermen 9 [Aegialeus to Struthion], 1.9). 9711 Dodd, Tradition, 86–87. Dodd (p. 88) thus suggests that the Fourth Gospel provides information from a Judean disciplés source comparatively neglected by the Synoptics (though they also, he believes, show some Judean supporters of Jesus). 9712 For this disciplés favorable comparison with Peter here, see also Haenchen, John, 2:168; see comment on 13:23–24. 9713 Vicent Cernuda, «Desvaido,» suggests Lazarus, which could be plausible if 12is fictitious, but again, why not name him this late if John knows his identity? 9714 See also Charlesworth, Disciple, 336–59, but his proposal that the disciple was Judas (pp. 342–59) seems unlikely though Judas was probably from Judea and handled Jesus» money (343). John would probably name Judas if he implied him, though it is possible (as ibid., 359) that Judas played this role in John " s tradition but John wished not to name him. 9715 E.g., Ovid Amores 1.6.1–2; Plutarch Cicero 15.1; 36.3; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 19.11; implied in Seneca Controv. 10.4.22. Householders who had porters had no reason to answer the door themselves (Theophrastus Char. 4.9 considers it ignorant behavior); a household member sneaking to answer the door might be suspected of mischief (Tibullus 1.2.7, 15–24, 41, 55–56). Undoubtedly porters screened unwelcome guests, provided safety, and moved the sometimes heavy doors. |
| Although his theological complexity is undoubtedly deliberate, however, some obscure features of his grammar prove more surprising. He often includes δ where we would expect κα and vice-versa, supplies neither where we would expect a conjunction (see comment on 1:17); 451 and includes ον in unexpected locations. This pattern, along with often oscillating verb tenses, may reflect a loose storytelling style due to repeated retelling of the Johannine tradition. Otherwise it could resemble a deliberately abrasive κακοφωνα, unexpected syntax meant to hold attention in the forceful style of some rhetoric. 452 Johns distinctiveness is most evident to the majority of readers, however, at the theological leve1. Commentators regularly cite the verdict of Clement of Alexandria, preserved in Eusebius, that John differs from the Synoptics as a more «spiritual» gospel, that is, a more theologically interpretive one. 453 While this verdict is probably correct, we should note that not all early Christian writers would have concurred to the same degree. Origen regarded John " s portrait of Jesus as sometimes only symbolic (although he also allegorized the Synoptics to a lesser degree); but other early Christian commentators did not agree. 454 Origen noted disagreements between John and the Synoptics but often resolved them by arguing that John made spiritual points by these divergences; 455 Theodore of Mopsuestia sometimes harmonized but sometimes treated the divergences as a sign that John was an eyewitness more accurate than the Synoptics; 456 Cyril focused on John " s theology, claiming that John addressed the deeper spiritual significance of events, but also harmonized at times. 457 Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Augustine worked especially hard to harmonize John and the Synoptics; 458 the emphasis on harmonization is hardly surprising given the apologetic needs of early Christians. With his philosophic penchant for allegory, Origen clearly overstated the case, but in some sense John did engage in more theological exposition than the other gospels; 459 his great number of asides testify to considerable explanation, though much of it is historica1. Certainly John " s Christology invites more than historical treatment: a Gospel that speaks of «eating» and «drinking» Jesus the way other works described consuming divine Wisdom may invite mystical contemplation of the divine such as appeared in both Platonist and merkabah mysticism. 460 Citing examples such as the anointing story (12:1–8), which shows that John followed his sources but employed them creatively, 461 Lindars compares this Gospel with a historical play of Shakespeare that conveys real issues and character yet exhibits freedom in details. 462 Conservative scholar Bruce puts it similarly, comparing Shakespeares interpretive paraphrase of Mark Antony " s eulogy with a source like Caesar in Plutarch " s Life of Brutus: |
| Stevens, Theology Stevens, George B. The Johannine Theology: A Study of the Doctrinal Contents of the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John. New York: Scribner, 1894. Stevenson, «Benefactor» Stevenson, T. R. «The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought.» Classical Quarterly 42 (1992): 421–36. Stewart, «Domitian» Stewart, R. «Domitian and Roman Religion: Juvenal, Satires Two and Four.» Transactions of the American Philological Association 124 (1994): 309–32. Stewart, «Procedure» Stewart, Roy A. «Judicial Procedure in NT Times.» EvQ 47 (1975): 94–109. Stewart, «Synagogue» Stewart, Roy A. «The Synagogue.» EvQ 43 (1971): 36–46. Stibbe, «Elusive Christ» Stibbe, Mark W. G. «The Elusive Christ: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospe1.» JSNT44 (1991): 19–37. Stibbe, Gospel Stibbe, Mark W. G. John " s Gospe1. New Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 1994. Stibbe, «Return» Stibbe, Mark W. G. ««Return to Sender»: A Structuralist Approach to John " s Gospe1.» Biblical Interpretation 1 (1993): 189–206. Stock, «Mystery Play» Stock, Augustine. «Literary Criticism and Mark " s Mystery Play.» The Bible Today 100 (February 1979): 1909–15. Stock, «Peter» Stock, Augustine. «Is Matthew " s Presentation of Peter Ironic?» Biblical Theology Bulletin 17 (1987): 64–69. Stone, «Boat» Stone, G. R. «The Galilee Boat–a Fishing Vessel of NT Times.» Buried History 25, no. 2 (1989): 46–54. Stone, »Oedipus» Stone, Jerry H. «The Gospel of Mark and Oedipus the King: Two Tragic Visions.» Soundings 67 (1984): 55–69. Story, «Attitude» Story, Cullen I. K. «The Mental Attutude of Jesus at Bethany: John 11.33, 38 .» NTS 37 (1991): 51–66. Story, «Chronology» Story, Cullen I. K. «The Bearing of Old Testament Terminology on the Johannine Chronology of the Final Passover of Jesus.» NovT 31 (1989): 316–24. Story, Truth Story, Cullen I. K. The Nature of Truth in «The Gospel of Truth» and in the Writings of Justin Martyr: A Study of the Pattern of Orthodoxy in the Middle of the Second Christian Century. NovTSup 25. Leiden: Brill, 1970. |
| Whether John draws directly on the Synoptics or (more likely) on independent tradition confirmed occasionally in the Synoptics, we see that the Synoptics sometimes confirm the pre-Johannine character of the events in some stylistically Johannine narratives. In addition to such occasional confirmations, some scholars note points of ««interlocking»… where either the Johannine or the Synoptic tradition contains puzzling material that is explained only by information from the other tradition.» 389 Nor in the case of differences need we always prefer the Synoptics» «majority opinion,» which may at times reflect a single stream of early tradition that coexisted with others whose emphasis differed (such as Mark and Q). D. Moody Smith has argued that at many points of divergence from the Synoptics (for example, some details of the arrest and trial) John actually provides accounts that cohere better with known historical conditions and are not generated by John " s theology. 390 In working through the Gospel, my own conclusion is that John tells these stories freely without direct dependence on the Synoptics, whether we think that his source or sources are pre- or post-Synoptic. Yet while John goes his own way, he reflects earlier traditions in these cases. Because these narratives are no different in style from his other narratives, there is no reason to assume that John does not reflect earlier traditions elsewhere. John and Historical Tradition A close examination of the Fourth Gospel reveals that John has rearranged many details, apparently in the service of his symbolic message. This is especially clear in the Passion Narrative, where direct conflicts with the presumably widely known passion tradition (most notably that Jesus gives the sop to Judas, is crucified on Passover, and carries his own cross) fulfill symbolic narrative functions. John s long discourses are of a different genre than the sayings collections in Q or even Mark " s long «apocalyptic» discourse. Such features naturally invite us to question the nature of (or, by modern historiographic criteria, the degree of) this Gospel " s historicity; certainly he is not writing a work of the exact historiographic nature of Luke-Acts. |
| Most disciples in the Gospel had begun to «believe» Jesus before the resurrection, often with minimal signs (cf. 1:49); they become paradigmatic for believers after Jesus» ascension. 10775 Like the disciples before the resurrection appearances, John " s own audience comprised entirely, or almost entirely, believers through the word of others (17:20), who had not seen Christ for themselves (cf. 1Pet 1:8 ); 10776 through Jesus» words to Thomas, John exhorts his own audience to believe despite having to depend on the eyewitnesses. The Spirit, after all, presented the real Jesus through the witnesses» testimony ( John 16:7–11 ). Signs-faith is not rejected here; Thomas " s faith is a start. But signs are not always available, and signs do not in themselves guarantee faith (6:26; 11:45–47). Thus Jesus provides a beatitude (see comment on 13:17) for those who believe without signs, on the testimony of others about signs Jesus already worked (20:30–31). The argument that those who had not seen yet believed were more blessed (20:29) would have been intelligible in terms of Jewish logic about rewards. 10777 But as Thomas " s confession demonstrates, the true, resurrection faith requires more than commitment to Jesus (cf. 11:16); it requires in addition the recognition of Jesus» divine role. 10375 Niccacci, «Fede,» emphasizes parallels between 1:19–51 and 20:1–29, including in the four units of each section (some others make the parallels with the epilogue, ch. 21–e.g., Breck, «Conclusion»; Ellis, «Authenticity»). 10376 Cf. Sabugal, «Resurreccion.» 10377 See Brown, «Resurrection.» 10378 Here we have used material especially from Keener, Matthew, 697–712. 10379 Dodd, Tradition, 148. 10380 See Lindars, «Composition,» 147. He believes that John utilized his material creatively (Lindars, Behind, 76). 10381 Wenham, «Narratives»; Gundry, Matthew, 590–91. 10382 The sudden ending in Mark 16fits some ancient narration patterns; though in some cases, e.g., L.A.B., the ending may be lost, one may compare also abrupt original endings, e.g., in some of Plutarch " s speeches (Fame of Athenians 8, Mor. 351B; Fort. Alex. 2.13, Mor. 345B; Fort. Rom. 13, Mor. 326C; Uned. R. 7, Mor. 782F); Isocrates Demon. 52, Or. 1; Demetrius 5.304; Lucan C.W. 10.542–546; Herodian 8.8.8. See esp. Magness, Sense, for more ancient literary parallels; for consistency with Markan style, especially a final γρ, cf. Boomershine and Bartholomew, «Technique.» An abbreviated conclusion allows Mark to retain the centrality of the cross without actually playing down the resurrection (cf. also Thompson, Debate, 225), because he points to resurrection appearances beyond his narrative (e.g., Anderson, Mark, 353; Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 42; Hooker, Mark, 120». Farmer, Verses, even makes a noteworthy case on external (pp. 3–75) and internal (79–103) grounds that Mark 16:9–20 has more support for being the original ending than usually accepted. |
| 877 Smith, John (1999), 335, connecting more explicit appearances with 18:16. If this connection held, Lazarus, Barnabas, or John Mark " s mother " s family might prove better candidates for supplying a well-to-do, priestly Jerusalem disciple (cf. Acts 4:36–37; 12:12–13; Col 4:10). 879 On the prophecy not arising after the event, see, e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 243–44; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 147; Keener, Matthew, 485–86. 881 E.g., Culpepper, John, 31. The objection based on John " s opposition to the Samaritans (Luke 9:54; ibid.) falls into the same category, especially in view of the explicit testimony of Acts 8:14–15 (which should be doubted no more than Lukés claim in Luke 9:54–55). 882 Carson, John, 74. Peter " s character changes even between Luke and Acts! John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 1 attributes the Gospel directly to the «son of thunder.» 883 Fishermen were usually relatively high on the socioeconomic scale (see sources in Keener, Matthew, 151–52; Stanton, Gospels, 186; Whitacre, John, 20), but Galilee was a long way from Jerusalem (Smith, John 335). The high priest " s household could import fish from the Lake of Galilee, but probably through agents (though fishermen could make more income if they sold directly to the rich rather than through middlemen; Alciphron Fishermen 9 [Aegialeus to Struthion], 1.9). Blomberg, Reliability, 35, argues that Zebedeés wife had priestly relatives ( Mark 15:40 ; Matt 27:56; John 19:25 ; Luke 1:36, 39). 884 E.g., Thucydides 1.1.1; 2.103.2; 5.26.1; Xenophon Anab. 2.5.41; 3.1.4–6 and passim. Polybius uses first-person claims when he was an observer (e.g., 29.21.8) but prefers third-person when he is an active participant in the narrative (31.23.1–31.24.12; 38.19.1; 38.21.1; 38.22.3; cf. 39.2.2). A narrator might distance himself from his role as participant in this way to meet expectations for objectivity (see esp. Jackson, «Conventions»). 885 E.g., Dunn, «John,» 293–94. He commendably recognizes that the stages are now difficult to reconstruct; but one then wonders how it is possible to know they existed. |
| Morris, John, 801; Miller, «Time.» Cf. Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 117.1 (cited in Whitacre, John. 455). 10056 Brown, Death, 958–59. Theodore of Mopsuestia (239.9–17) claimed that the Gospels could be harmonized on this point, but allowed that it would not be very problematic if they could not be (Wiles, Gospel, 19). The association of 1and 19with a Johannine community " s festival calendar (Hanhart, «Tenth Hour,» 345) seems less likely. 10057 Yee, Feasts, 68. Some have, however, found secondary schematization in Mark " s account because of the three-hour intervals (cf., e.g., Hurtado, Mark, 262). 10059 Sanders, Judaism, 135, cites Josephus War 6.423. Yet even with Josephus " s exaggerated numbers of pilgrims, the number of priests that could fit in the sanctuary might suggest instead a slaughtering of lambs from sunrise on. 10060 Stauffer, Jesus, 138; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 154; Ellis, Genius, 265–66; Beasley-Murray, John, 341; Yee, Feasts, 68. Schnackenburg, John, 3:265, claims that preparation for slaughtering the lambs began at this hour. 10061 Schnackenburg, John, 1:299; cf. Jaubert, «Calendar,» 63; Morris, John, 785; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 125. For John " s heavy use of Passover imagery in 19:16–37, see Badiola Sâenz de Ugarte, «Tipologia.» 10062 Safrai, «Temple,» 892. Admittedly it is difficult to envision pilgrims completing the sacrifices by sundown if the slaughter begins this late. 10063 Pilatés question is not merely rhetorical (cf. 18:39), but speakers were accustomed to asking at least rhetorical questions of crowds, though not expecting answers contrary to their views (note anakoinsis and aporia in Anderson, Glossary, 18, 24; Rowe, «Style,» 140–41). 10064 Cf. the Greek epigraphic proclamation of Roman propaganda about Roman benefaction, reacting against Hellenistic kings (Erskine, «Benefactors»). 10065 Disobeying God " s will or misrepresenting it through false teaching profanes it (e.g., m. " Abot 1:11; Num. Rab. 7:5; 8:4; Pesiq. Rab. 22:2); one must never profane God " s name before Gentiles (CD 12.6–8; t. B. Mesi c a 5:18; Gen. Rab. 39:7). Everything is forgiveable, said some teachers, except profaning the Name (Sipre Deut. 328.1.5). |
| 10505 The term κεται was common for lying in a tomb; to merely sample some Roman Jewish inscriptions, see, e.g., CIJ 1:8, §4; 1:12, §§6–7; 1:14, §§10–11; 1:15, §§12–13; 1:16, §§14–15; 1:17, §17; 1:19, §20; 1:21, §23; 1:23, §28; 1:24, §30; 1:26, §35; 1:30, §42; 1:31, §45; 1:32, §§46–47; 1:35, §§51–52; 1:36, §53; 1:37, §§55–56; 1:38, §58; 1:39, §§62–63; 1:49, §78; 1:52, §79; 1:56, §81; 1:60, §86; 1:62, §88; 1:66, §93; 1:69, §97; 1:70, §§99–100; 1:74, §105. 10506 Winandy, «Vestiges,» suggests this connection helps explain the beloved disciplés faith (20:8). 10507 Marsh, John, 634; Beasley-Murray, John, 372; cf. Osborne, «Napkin,» who suggests that Lazarus was still subject to death (cf. the «veil» of Isa 25in light of 25and later rabbinic tradition) but Jesus was not. 10508 Hunter, John, 184, arguing (undoubtedly correctly–cf. 20:19–but for the wrong reason) that Jesus» transformed body passed through his grave clothes (cf. also Salvoni, «Proof»). 10509 Hunter, John, 184. Sanders, John, 420, argues that the point is that they are «laid out in an orderly manner,» not that Jesus» body passed directly through the clothes. 10510 E.g., Gen. Rah. 100(though R. Judah disagrees). Cf. 1Cor 15:35–38, 53–54 . 10511 Schneiders, «Veil,» 96. Robert, «Suaire,» makes a similar argument from the Aramaic Targumim; but such an argument could at most address John " s traditions, not his present Greek text. 10512 Σουδριον is not specifically technical, appearing among «toilet articles» listed in a dowry (Deissmann, Studies, 223), but appears nowhere in the LXX. 10513 Whitacre, John, 473. For a description of the tomb in the early Middle Ages by a pilgrim reported in Bede Homilies on the Gospels 2.10, see comment on 19:38–42. 10514 Sloyan, John, 222. 10515 Cf. Koester, Symbolism, 36; Ellis, Genius, 8. 10516 The plural in her claim in 20may reflect a plural in John " s source (Kysar, John, 296, comparing Mark 16:1 ). 10517 Beasley-Murray, John, 372. 10518 Bruce, John, 385. 10519 Historians often reconstructed what was most probable on the basis of information they did have, including a person " s characteristic behavior. But it is noteworthy that the later apocryphal gospels usually fit the Synoptic tradition less wel1. |
|
|
