| Jesus declares, «It has been finished!» (19:30), and John reminds his audience that the Sabbath began at sundown that evening (19:31). (John does not invent this Sabbath tradition–cf. Mark 15:42 –but may make theological use of it.) 10219 Or Jesus may have «finished» «preparing» dwelling places for believers (14:2–3); or «finished» may signify the fulfillment of Scripture (19:28) and Jesus " word (18:32). 10220 5C. Handing Over His Spirit (19:30b) Jesus bows his head, perhaps as a matter of mortal weakness (cf. 4:6) but, on the Johannine level, perhaps as an authoritative nod of approva1. 10221 What invites more comment is what follows: Jesus «gave his spirit.» John probably intends «finish» to include the work of redemption (cf. 1:29). One suggestion that might support this probability is the appearance of John " s verb for the surrender of Jesus» spirit, παραδδωμι, twice in the LXX of Isa 53(παρεδθη). 10222 By itself, such an observation would remain insignificant; the verb is frequent elsewhere. But John elsewhere portrays Jesus» death in servant language, especially «glorified» and «lifted up» (Isa 52LXX), and his proclivity toward double entendres commends for us the possibility that he reads the «betrayals» of the Passion Narrative in light of Isaiah. In Isaiah LXX as elsewhere in the Passion Narrative, the «handing over» is in the passive voice; here Jesus takes the lead in his death, consistent with John " s Christology and view of Jesus» «hour» and submission to the Father " s wil1. Although the departure (often breathing out) of onés spirit appears frequently in ancient texts as a euphemism for death, 10223 that Jesus gave up his spirit (19:30) is theologically significant. In Mark " s tradition, Jesus breathed his final «breath» (εξπνευσεν, Mark 15:37 ); here he hands over his «spirit» (πνεμα, John 19:30 ), suggesting a Johannine twist on a more familiar tradition. (What John would add to Mark may also stem from tradition; see Luke 23:46, where Jesus «commits» his «spirit» to God before «breathing» his last breath.) The text does not clarify to whom Jesus hands over his spirit; probably the term for «hand over» here is employed for its symbolic value (see below; cf. 18:2, 30; 19:16) rather than with an indirect object in view, but if an indirect object is implied, it must be the Father (Luke 23:46). This image of handing over his spirit to his Father could evoke the Roman custom in which the nearest kin would receive in the mouth the dying person " s final breath to ensure the survival of that person " s spirit (spiritum). 10224 But the custom seems to have been a local Italian one largely removed from John " s eastern Mediterranean audience, 10225 and in any case, a more typical Johannine image is likely. |
| It is well known that the categorical rejection of the historicity of John, so familiar in earlier critical exegesis, can no longer be maintained. We may still find writers stating that the Fourth Gospel cannot be seriously considered as a witness to the historical Jesus, but these represent a type of uncritical traditionalism which arises with age, even in heterodoxy. 425 Charlesworth suggests that today nearly all John scholars «have concluded that John may contain some of the oldest traditions in … the Gospels.» 426 John " s Distinctive Style and Adaptation of the Gospel Form Given that John is closer to the Synoptics than to other writings, and that both fall within the spectrum of the ancient biographical genre, one must still seek to account for the differences. 427 Johns narrative progressively nuances the character of the genre, adapting expectations with which readers more accustomed to such gospels as the Synoptics would have approached his work. That John " s biography of Jesus differs from those of the Synoptic writers is evident; what accounts for these differences? 428 Certainly John " s style, first of all, is distinctive. 429 The distinctiveness is most evident in the discourses (John " s most distinctive literary feature vis-à-vis the Synoptics, discussed in our following chapter) but hardly limited to them. Because this commentary " s focus is the Fourth Gospel " s Mediterranean context, we may focus our remarks about John " s style here on the elements that lend themselves most readily to comparison with other ancient style (though, for further discussion, see ch. 2 of the introduction on discourses, and comments on individual passages). A standard Greek grammar rightly observes that in the technical sense John " s discourses lack «rhetorical art.» 430 John " s style is uniform whether in narrative or discourse, 431 whereas rhetorically trained writers preferred to adapt speeches even to their specific audiences. Lack of indication of technical rhetorical training does not, however, imply a lack of some rhetorical strategies familiar from the milieu. 432 At various points in the commentary, we observe parallels from ancient rhetorical conventions, not because John or his aides would have consciously drawn on rhetorical training but because they are the closest available sources we have for studying speeches disseminated in an ancient Mediterranean context. Many of these parallels apply to the rhythmic patterns in Jesus» speech; such features may, however, simply represent standard techniques of oral patterning for an oral culture, an area that invites much more detailed exploration. 433 |
| Six days before the Passover (12:1) Jerusalem would already be filling, both for purification (11:55) and for Diaspora Jews making pilgrimage who could neither calculate the exact time of their arrival nor risk arriving late. In John " s story world (in which Passover begins Friday evening; see 18:28; 19:14), this timing apparently indicates Saturday evening after sundown, when Martha could serve at table. 7766 Yet Mark strongly implies that the anointing occurred two days before Passover ( Mark 14:1–3 ). Some think that John corrects Mark on the basis of independent tradition; 7767 whether the difference involves a deliberate correction or not, it does emphasize the independence of the tradition. Mark may have moved the anointing closer to Passover to clarify the connection or increase suspense, or to recount it after the fateful meeting of authorities, which he places two days before Passover ( Mark 14:1–2 ) but which John places earlier ( John 11:47–53 ). John may wish to begin passion week with the anointing; having recounted Jesus» conflicts in Jerusalem as early as 2:14–18, he now must bring the passion to an end quickly once Jesus enters the holy city. It is also possible, in view of an early Christian tradition concerning the transfiguration ( Mark 9:2 ; Matt 17:1), that John uses the six days to allude to the waiting period for the revelation of God " s glory at Sinai (Exod 24:16); at the Passover Jesus would be «glorified» (12:23–24), and his disciples would behold his glory as Moses had (1:14). 7768 Less likely (though reflecting the Pentateuch " s most frequent use of «six days») it refers to the period of work preceding a Sabbath (cf. John 19:14,31,42 ). The six days might also allow a careful interpreter to note the transition to the next day (12:12) and thus to suggest that Jesus entered Jerusalem on the day the Passover lambs were set aside (Exod 12:3), four days before their offering (Exod 12:6); but the lack of explicit chronological indication at the time of Jesus» entrance, when it would be most helpful to convey this point, renders unlikely the suggestion that John sought to communicate this impression. |
| 8247 Plutarch Cimon 3.1–3; Plutarch claimed that he sometimes merely observed similarities that God had created (Plutarch Demosthenes 3.2). Historical comparisons predate Plutarch as a technique of Greek historiography (e.g., Polybius 10.2.8–13). 8248 Cf. Hengel, Mark, 52, who argues that the comparison exalts the guarantor of the Johannine tradition over «the guarantor of the Markan-Synoptic tradition.» For Mark " s dependence on Peter, see Hengel, «Problems,» 238–43; for possible qualified egalitarian sentiments also in Petrine tradition, see, e.g., 1Pet 5:1–6 . 8251 Ibid., 81 (contrasting even Alcibiades, where Socrates, in exemplary manner, does not become aroused–Plato Symp. 217–218); Tilborg, Ephesus, 149. 8254 Ibid., 33–34, noting especially the competition between this disciple and Peter against the notion that the disciple was among the Twelve. Yet who but one of the Twelve could be laid most effectively against Peter? 8255 Ibid., 89. Note also the view that the Johannine «school,» while respecting the author " s anonymity, wove reports about the beloved disciple into the narrative to honor him (Michaels, John, xxi-xxii). Bruns, «Ananda,» improbably seeks to derive John " s role from that of Gotamás disciple in Indian Buddhism. 8260 Also Culpepper, School, 266. Westcott, John, 194, contrasts «bosom» as «the full fold of the robe» (13:23) with «breast,» Jesus» «actual body,» after John leans back. 8261 L.A.B. 19:16. Thus texts also spoke, e.g., of a «favorite» maid (Chariton 1.4.1, πρ πντων φλην; cf. Jos. Asen. 2:6/11; 10:4/6). 8262 E.g„ Musonius Rufus 11, p. 80.26 (title); Let. Aris. 49; î. Eph. 1944; CPJ 1.xix; CIJ l:lxvii. 8263 Hunter, John, 137; for Jesus seeking to win Judas back, see Whitacre, John, 335 (citing John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 72.2). By contrast, Stauffer, Jesus, 116, connects the bitter herbs in which the bread was dipped with a curse (citing Deut 29:18–19 ), thereby prefiguring Judas " s betraya1. The charosheth, «or sauce in which the herbs, bread and meat were dipped,» may be a Passover meal allusion from the tradition ( Mark 14:20 ; Watkins, John, 307). |
| At the same time, Pauline Christianity had left its mark on Asian churches. John " s emphasis on the indwelling of Christ and the Spirit for moral and relational empowerment finds far more parallels in Paul than in other extant early Jewish and first-century Christian sources. 1953 Granted, John does not use Paul " s language for salvation or justification; 1954 but this is at some points more a stylistic matter than one of substance. 1955 Different writers emphasized different points, but when viewed from the broad spectrum of early Judaism and Christianity, John had a great deal in common with Pau1. 1956 The common points with various circles of early Christianity, as well as the differences, suggest that this Gospel provides a glimpse into a distinctive (yet not wholly separate) circle of late first-century followers of Jesus. Some of John " s distinctive (though not wholly unique) contributions use the language of knowing and seeing God, depicting the intimate relations believers have with Jesus. Because John makes a claim that his opponents would not make, this claim to direct revelatory knowledge also supports the Gospel " s apologetic and polemical function, 1957 as does its pneumatology, which likewise includes a revelatory component. 1958 Knowledge of God By claiming that Jesus» «sheep» know him (10:3–4,14–16), John alludes to biblical images of the covenant people in covenant relationship with God. The Fourth Gospel often uses the language of knowledge and vision to define those who are in this covenant relationship. Signs can produce some faith, but ultimately John demands a faith, vision and knowledge that run deeper than any continued dependence on signs, regardless of how faith begins. This chapter will survey John " s revelatory motifs and the broader setting in which they would have been most intelligible to a first-century Mediterranean audience. We begin with John " s teaching about «knowing» the Father and Jesus. Because John writes in Greek, his epistemological terminology is necessarily Greek, and we must therefore briefly survey Hellenistic concepts of knowledge. 1959 But his understanding of revelation is securely anchored in OT traditions of God " s revelation, so we will also examine various particularly Jewish understandings of knowledge of God. In the following discussion, we employ various Greek terms for knowledge interchangeably, 1960 as ancient writers often did. 1961 |
| At the same time, Johns view of Jesus» deity, like that of other first-century Christians, should not be exaggerated. Later Trinitarian doctrine, zealous to advocate the Father and Son " s equality in deity, sometimes neglected the earliest Christian emphasis on the Son " s voluntary subordination to the Father in role, a subordination which John emphasizes no less than Mark (see comment on 5:18–20). None of this requires us to suppose that John provides verbatim reports of Jesus» preresurrection claims to deity; it does allow for the possibility that Jesus made some claims which were only later understood as claims to deity by his followers. That some of Jesus» opponents pressed more significance into such statements than did the disciples, who in the gospel tradition had not yet understood Jesus» identity ( John 5:18; 8:59; 10:31–33 ), is also suggested by Mark (2:7; 14:63). John has reworked his narrative to speak to the events of his own day (e.g., making the Pharisees the primary opposition), and chosen to emphasize some points of the Jesus tradition to the exclusion or near exclusion of others. But in doing so John may nevertheless develop motifs already implicit in the Jesus tradition itself, reapplying Jesus to his generation rather than creating from whole cloth a new Jesus with great authority but no continuity with the earlier tradition (contrast 1 John 4:1–6 , which counters gnosticizing charismatics who have abandoned the Jesus of history for spiritual revelations from a different Jesus). 2660 Whereas the Fourth Gospel does include some protestations that Jesus has not revealed himself (10:24), and includes a Messianic Secret of its own based on the hardness of unbelieving hearts, it is clear that we must take account of the particular emphases of John, of Mark, or of both to understand why the Johannine Jesus reveals his glory (messiahship included) so early and so comparatively openly. It may be that John, «who had meditated for many years on the significance of the acts and words of Jesus, had learned to appreciate even the earliest stages of the ministry in the light of its consummation.» 2661 |
| The thesis of Johannine dependence on the Synoptics has been argued often and thoroughly. 362 It has been argued that John used Matthew; both Johannine and Matthean tradition probably originated and developed in Syria-Palestine. 363 Scholars more often affirm that John used Luke, 364 though common sources might explain the relationship better, 365 and one writer even suggests conversely that Lukes research ( Lk 1:3 ) may have included interviewing the beloved disciple. 366 More commonly scholars deny John " s direct dependence on Luke, appealing instead to minor coincidences and dependence on similar traditions. 367 Most often scholars who think John used another Gospel suggest that he used Mark. 368 Some also argue that John believed his tradition superior to that of the Synoptics and critiqued them accordingly. 369 But many parallels indicate only John s use of pre-Synoptic tradition (which could also have been drawn upon at times by Matthew or Luke independently of Mark or Q). 370 At other points he could depend on Matthean or Lukan redaction that was incorporated into subsequent preaching tradition, 371 or could have gleaned such tradition from a cursory reading of the Gospels in question without a greater degree of dependence. 372 But arguments for even marginal dependence rather than common tradition must be made with caution; a high degree of the minor parallels can be accounted for by coincidence and the simple limitations of vocabulary imposed by the common language in which they wrote. 373 Variations among the Gospels on the story of the anointing could have arisen during oral transmission; the writers could have independently drawn elements from different forms of the story 374 or two stories, conflating these elements in the process. Not only John " s Passion Narrative 375 or the aretalogical signs source often held to stand behind his miracle stories, 376 but his entire Gospel has been viewed as independent from the Synoptics. 377 This became, in fact, the prevailing view in recent years, although new developments have evaporated what seemed to be a «consensus.» 378 Although some argue that John used the Synoptics, 379 probably a greater number of scholars still hold that he simply used independent traditions that have contacts with the Synoptics. 380 |
| 10621 Schnackenburg, John, 3:318; Brown, John, 2:992; McPolin, John, 255; Morris, John, 841; Bruce, John, 389; Carson, John, 644; Whitacre, John, 476; Smith, John (1999), 377. 10622 One could try to distinguish the prohibition for Mary from the invitation to Thomas by suggesting that Mary as a woman might be impure ( Lev 15:19–30 ), but apart from lacking clues in the text, this position would violate Johannine thought about purity as well as about gender (e.g., 2:6; 4:9). 10623 One might sever the first imperative grammatically from the following statement if one could take 20:17 " s γρ as anticipatory («since,» for the following clause) rather than causal (for the preceding; McGehee, «Reading»), but Johannine style makes that suggestion less likely. 10624 Bruce, John, 389; Carson, John, 644. 10625 Cf. McPolin, John, 255. 10626 Schneiders, «Encounter,» 165. 10627 Witherington, Acts, 112–13. 10628 This real presence was, however, stronger than the mere epistolary presence that such language conventions as «absent in body, present in spirit» could imply ( 1Cor 5:3 ; Col 2:5; 1 Thess 2:17; Isocrates Nic. 51–52, Or. 3.37; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 32.1; Achilles Tatius 5.20.5; Stowers, Letter Writing, 60; Funk, «Parousia» 264; cf. Diogenes Laertius 7.1.24; contrast Diogenes Ep. 17). 10629 E.g., Homer I1. 12.15. The Iliad regularly predicts (e.g., I1. 21.110; 23.80–81) but does not narrate Achilles» death. 10630 Homer Il. 6.403; 22.506–507. 10631 E.g., Homer Od. 23.266–284. 10632 Apollonius of Rhodes 3.64, 75, 1135; 4.241–245. Writing after Euripides, this must be expected. 10633 E.g., Ovid Metam. 14.824–828; Diogenes Laertius 8.2.68; Phaedrus 4.12.3; cf. Euripides Iph. au1. 1608, 1614,1622. See more fully Talbert, «Immortals.» 10634 See also 2 En. 67:1–3; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:7; more fully, Palatty, «Ascension»; Luke, «Ascension»; Tabor, «Divinity»; Begg, «Disappearance.» 10635 Seealso Jos. Asen. 17:8, MSS; T. Ab. 4:5; 8:1; 15:11; 20:12A; 4:4; 8:1; 10:2B; cf. Jub. 32:20–21. 10636 Because of Heracles» apotheosis, people searched only vainly for his corpse (Diodorus Siculus 4.38.3–5); Romulus «vanished» (Plutarch Camillus 33.7); other deified persons, such as Aeneas, also «disappeared» (φανσθη, Diodorus Siculus 7.5.2; the term applies to Heracles in Lysias Or. 2.11, §191), as did Moses in Josephus Ant. 4.326. Boring et a1., Commentary, 163–64, also compare the first-century B.C.E. traditions of Romulus " s ascension (Livy 1.16.2–8; Ovid Metam. 14.805–851; Vir. illustr. 2.13; Plutarch Numa 11.2–3), even by horses and carriage (Ovid Fasti 2.475–510; cf. 2 Kgs 2:11–18), and Job " s children in T. Job 39:8–40:4. |
| 3285 Griffiths, «Predicate,» 315. For the more complex situation in Josephus, cf. Shutt, «Concept.» 3287 E.g., Dreams 1.65–66 (recognizing both as «god»); 1.239–240 (the Logos is to God what the parhelion is to the sun). MacGregor, John, xxxvi, acknowledges that Philo personalized the Logos, but thinks it functioned as a divine agent only figuratively. 3288 Dreams 1.228–230, in Hengel, Son, 80; Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 27; Haenchen, John, 1:109; cf. Borgen, «Agent,» 146. 3289 Cf. the practical divinity of Torah–experienced as God " s presence by Israel–in Sandmel, Judaism, 184. Justin likewise distinguishes the Logos from God while calling him God (e.g., 1 Apo1. 63, in Osborn, Justin, 30–31). 3290 Like Michaels, John, 7, we are inclined to accept both reasons for the lack of definite article, without determining which was decisive. 3291 Stuart, «Examination,» 41. Cf. similarly Bernard, John, 1:2; Ellis, John, 21; Brown, Christology, 187–88; perhaps this is also what Painter, John, 57, intends. 3292 Hoskyns, Gospel, 141, contends that John means more than «divine» because the Word is personal; while John " s usage elsewhere indicates a stronger sense of «divine» than many uses (e.g., Philós for Moses), Hoskyns " s argument need not follow logically, especially given Philós Logos. 3293 MacGregor, John, 4. Kenney, John 1:1 , argues that a trinitarian perspective makes more sense of the text than a unitarian one. For Jesus to be fully deity without all deity being identified with Jesus, geometric logic would represent Jesus as a member of the set «God.» 3294 See, e.g., Miller, " Logos»; Bultmann, John, 33; Fennema, «Only Son»; Harner, «Nouns,» 86–87; Griffiths, «Predicate,» 315; Harris, Jesus as God, 51–71,293. 3296 NEB; Bruce, Books, 247. An explanatory note may be needed on whichever side of caution one wishes to err; Harris, Jesus as God, 70, prefers to retain «the Word was God» but to explain that this means the same nature, not the same person. 3297 Irenaeus Haer. 1.1–3. On creation through angelic powers in gnosticism, see «The Apocryphon of John,» NHL 104–16; «On the Origin of the World,» NHL 161–79; Jonas, Religion, 132–36; cf. «The Gospel of the Egyptians,» NHL 195–205. Perhaps the emphasis on God " s creation of evil in Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2:9 may be antignostic. |
| 839 Whereas the conservative introductions often arrive at predictably conservative conclusions, they interact with less conservative scholars, whereas some of the traditional critical introductions completely ignore the contributions of conservative scholarship. See also Bruce, John, 6–12. 841 Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 5.20.5–6; see comments in Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 139; Guthrie, Introduction, 270. The letter " s authenticity may be questioned, but at least Eusebius thought it authentic; given his own view of two Johns, it is improbable that he would have forged Irenaeus " s letter. 842 An argument from lack of explicit mention of John in Polycarp (cf. Davies, Rhetoric, 246; Culpepper, John, 34) is an argument from silence (especially given the one letter of Polycarp that remains), ignores possible allusions to the Epistles, and might ask too much after the Gospel " s relatively recent publication (though cf. P 52 ). Does one mention onés ordaining or academic mentor in every work? (As much as I respect mine, I certainly have not!) Culpepper, John, 34, likewise protests Ignatius " s silence, but Ignatius also fails to mention John the seer, though he must have been known to Ephesus (Rev 1:1,4,9, 11; 2:1; 22:8). 848 Wiles, Gospel, 8; Carson, John, 27–28; Bruce, John, 12; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 141, citing Epiphanius Pan. 51.3; probably Irenaeus Haer. 3.11.9; and noting the pun on Johns logos. 849 Carson, John, 28; Bruce, John, 12; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 141; Braun, Jean, 149–56. 853 Witherington, Wisdom, 14–15. We answered above the objection that John differs too much from the Twelve to have been one of them. 857 For a response see, e.g., Stanton, Gospels, 186. Cf. similar responses concerning the Greek of the allegedly Judean author James (e.g., Davids, James, 10–11; cf. Sevenster, Greek, passim, for the wide use of literary Greek), acknowledged also by some who do not believe James wrote it (Laws, James, 40–41). The Greek of James is on a much higher level than that of John. |
|
|
