| The priestly aristocracy might act, however, even on Passover to preserve public order; Pilate would care little for calendrical matters; and an execution on the day on which the lamb had been eaten would deter crowds no less than the day on which they were being slaughtered if the site of execution were not far outside Jerusalem " s walls. The minor details «behind» Mark " s Passion Narrative could also be explained in other ways that fit the narrative equally wel1. Mark could simply be correct that the preparation was for the Sabbath; 9806 Simon could come «from the fields» because he has spent the night in a suburb like Bethphage. 9807 The main argument against the Johannine chronology in a conflict between John and the Synoptics is that on most points Mark " s narrative seems more dependable for historical detail, John " s more expository (although many hold John " s chronology to be an exception, especially regarding the duration of Jesus» ministry). Thus many scholars suggest that the Synoptics are correct; the Synoptics certainly portray the Last Supper as a Passover meal, even on details that their audiences would no longer have recognized as relevant. 9808 Those favoring the Johannine dating respond that whereas the Synoptics regard the meal as a Passover meal (this is «challenged by no one»), this does not decide the historical question. 9809 But then how do Mark and Paul, writing for Gentile audiences, conform the narrative so closely to Passover traditions? And if the Synoptics report the disciples actually keeping the Passover but on a «sectarian» date, would sectarians have observed so many other paschal customs as the text suggests? Jeremias admittedly depends on later Passover traditions for his parallels with the Last Supper, but what evidence we do have fits the Gospel narratives and Jewish traditions can hardly have derived from the Gospels. As scholars commonly note, 9810 John certainly had theological reasons to place the death of God " s lamb ( John 1:29 ) on Passover (19:36). |
| Trocmé, Formation Trocmé, Etienne. The Formation of the Gospel according to Mark. Translated by Pamela Gaughan. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975. Troster, «Quest» Troster, Lawrence. «Journey to the Center of the Earth: Birkat Ha-Mazon and the Quest for Holiness.» Conservative Judaism 47, no. 2 (winter 1995): 3–16. Trudinger, «Fishes» Trudinger, Pau1. «The 153 Fishes: A Response and a Further Suggestion.» ExpTim 102 (1990–1991): 11–12. Trudinger, «Ironies» Trudinger, Pau1. «Subtle Ironies and Word-plays in John " s Gospel and the Problems of Chapter 21.» St Mark " s Review 162 (1995): 20–24. Trudinger, «Israelite» Trudinger, L. Pau1. «An Israelite in Whom There Is No Guile: An Interpretive Note on John 1:45–51 .» EvQ 54 (1982): 117–20. Trudinger, « John 3:16 » Trudinger, Pau1. «Jesus» " Comfortable Words» in John 3:16 : A Note of Disappointment to Some?» St Mark " s Review 147 (1991): 30–31. Trudinger, « John 21 » Trudinger, Pau1. « John 21 Revisited Once Again.» DRev 106 (1988): 145–48. Trudinger, «Non-deity» Trudinger, Pau1. «John " s Gospel as Testimony to the Non-deity of Jesus.» Faith and Freedom 48 (1995): 106–110. Trudinger, «Prologue» Trudinger, L. Pau1. «The Prologue of John " s Gospel: Its Extent, Content and Intent.» Reformed Theological Review 33 (1974): 11–17. Trudinger, «Prophet» Trudinger, Pau1. «A Prophet Like Me ( Deut. 18:15 ): Jesus and Moses in St. John " s Gospel, Once Again.» DRev 113 (1995): 193–95. Trudinger, «Text» Trudinger, L. Pau1. «Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation.» JTS NS 17 (1966): 82–88. Trudinger, «Women» Trudinger, Pau1. «Of Women, Weddings, Wells, Waterpots, and Wine! Reflections on Johannine Themes ( John 2:1–11 and 4:1–42).» St Mark " s Review 151 (1992): 10–16. Tsuchido, «Anti-Semitism» Tsuchido, K. «Is There Anti-Semitism in the Fourth Gospel? An Exegetical Study of John 11:45–54 .» Annual of the Japanese Biblical Instituten (1995): 57–72. Tuckett, History Tuckett, Christopher M. Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. |
| Walter Bauer, for instance, divined that Papias either ‘expressed himself in an unfavorable manner [about John], or he kept silent also with respect to this gospel’. If he kept silent it was because John’s Gospel ‘apparently belonged to the long-winded prattle in which the great masses took pleasure... the Fourth Gospel [was suspect], no doubt, because of its content, origin, and the friends it had made.’ 288 Bauer is the main source of the popular but recendy debunked theory mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 8, which states that the Gospel of John was for a long time avoided or rejected by the orthodox (who suffered from what we might call ‘orthodox Johannophobia’) but was loved by the heretics (‘heterodox Johannophilia’). Bauer thus leaves us with a choice of two possible conspiracies: either it was Papias who suppressed the Gospel according to John, because it was entirely suspect and was popular with the wrong sorts of people; or Papias said something negative about John and it was Eusebius who edited out Papias’ embarrassing testimony. It is the second of these conspiracy theories which has been preferred by a few more recent scholars. In contrast to Bauer, these scholars suppose that Papias had a quite positive view of John, but they still propose that Eusebius purposely censored Papias’ testimony because Papias had, as Bauer suggested, ‘expressed himself in an unfavorable manner’ about it. What these scholars believe Papias said about John that was unfavourable was that its author was not the apostle John but the mysterious ‘Elder John’ mentioned above (yes, John was a quite common Jewish name). This would mean that Eusebius was intentionally concealing from his readers a very crucial fact. Now, I have to say, a lot of people are quite prepared to believe that Eusebius was fully capable of this kind of duplicitous censorship. It would certainly not be the only time Eusebius could be accused of reporting things in a way most favourable to his own position. Yet, it should not be forgotten that copies of Papias’ writings were in existence when Eusebius wrote, and he seems not the least threatened by the possibility that others will read Papias’ books and learn the ‘truth’ themselves. In fact, he recommends it (EH 3.39.14, ‘to which [i.e. Papias’ books] we refer those interested’). Moreover, the deception in this case cannot be confined to Eusebius. Other ‘interested’ people clearly had read Papias’ books, including Irenaeus and a number of other second- and third-century writers, yet neither they nor any one else ever reports the opinion that the Gospel according to John had been written by John the Elder. If Papias reported that the true author of the Fourth Gospel was not John the apostle but John the Elder, this would mean that a host of people in different times and places were involved in the same cover-up. In my opinion, this conspiracy theory more than stretches credulity. |
| 1026 E.g., the schismatics» abuse of Johannine pneumatology (see ibid., 138–44); 1 John introduces discussion of the spirit of error (1 John 4:1–6). 1027 E.g., Brown " s own retraction of his earlier identification of the beloved disciple with John, son of Zebedee (Brown, Community, 33). 1031 Thus while it is true that 1–3 John are less theologically profound than the Gospel (Braun, Jean, 39), this is not significant for authorship. 1032 Bonnard, «Épître,» notes that the Gospel and 1 John incontestably share the same style and vocabulary, but that the concepts are developed differently for a different setting («mutation sémantique»). 1034 Sanders, Figure, 66, thinks that anonymous works claimed greater authority (66); the plethora of pseudepigraphic works in antiquity, however, challenges the probability of his thesis. 1036 Way, «Introduction,» xii. Contrast also Cornelius Nepos 8 (Thrasybulus), 1.3 (where Thrasybulus often won without Alcibiades» help), with 7 (Alcibiades), passim (mentioning Thrasybulus only at 5.4; 6.3; 7.1). This reflects the commitment to praise the subject of the particular biography. 1039 If Apocalypse of Elijah reflects early tradition, it may be significant that both 1 John and Revelation appear to be cited in the work; but its antiquity is questionable. My own impression of the work (differing respectfully from the comments of O. S. Wintermute in its OTP introduction) is that it is a Jewish-Christian work from around the third century. 1040 E.g., Braun, Jean, 43–59; Beasley-Murray, John, xliv; Smith, John (1999), 13; Cothenet, «Communautés.» 1041 Smalley, «Revelation.» He believes that Revelation was composed by the Apostle John in the 70s. 1046 Fiorenza, Revelation, 101,107; Aune, Revelation, liv-lvi. Koester, «Ephesos,» 138, thinks John of Ephesus wrote Revelation, but Irenaeus attributed the Gospel to him merely to make it more authoritative, and (139) the late second-century Acts of John simply accepts this fiction. 1047 Howard, Fourth Gospel, 123–24. Dionysius " s view, however, was far from the most common one in his era (Origen Comm. Jo. 2.42). |
| 701 Plutarch Demosthenes 11.1 regards Demetrius as a reliable source because he learned the information from Demosthenes himself in his old age. 703 Streeter, Gospels, 425–26, doubts that John was an eyewitness because John depends on Mark and Luke (a thesis often disputed; see our discussion of the relation between John and the Synoptics). 704 Xenophon Hel1. 3.1.2 cites an account of the Greek mercenaries» escape from Persia, but, though aware of this source, later composed his own account (Anabasis). 706 Especially, though not exclusively, among many conservative and moderate scholars (some allowing for degrees of subsequent redaction), e.g., Carson, John; Bruce, John; Ellis, «Christology,» 1–6; Blomberg, «Reliable,» 30–37; Milne, Message, 17–19; Munn, «Introduction»; Silva Santos, «Autoria»; Watkins, John, 8–18; Wenham, «View»; tentatively, Temple, Core, viii. 707 E.g., Braun, Jean, 301–30; Munoz Léon, «Discipulo.» Barrett, John, 133, attributes all the canonical Johannine literature to disciples of the apostle; Schnackenburg also suggests dependence on Johannine tradition, while allowing that the «spokesperson who transmitted» and interpreted the tradition need not have been the apostle himself (John, 1:102). 712 So Malatesta, Inferiority, 83; Ellis, World, 13–17; Köstenberger, John, 22–24; Blomberg, Reliability, 26–31; cf. Smalley, John, 77; Nunn, Authorship, 99ff. 716 Beasley-Murray, John, lxxiii. One wonders how immediately the author intended the Gospel to circulate outside the Johannine circle of churches, but this is irrelevant to our case. 717 Rigato, «Apostolo,» and Winandy, «Disciple» both even allowing that the priest of Acts 4may be in view. 718 Admittedly πταλον could bear a specifically priestly sense (in Exod 28:36; 29:6; 39:3, 30; Lev 8:9 , five of its seven LXX uses), but its usage was much broader in Greek and probably simply contributes to the metaphor. It is also not impossible, though it is very unlikely, that Zebedee was of levitic descent; similar names appear among Levites (Neh 11:17; 1 Chr 26:2; 2 Chr 17:8; Ezra 10:20), but were hardly limited to them (Josh 7:1, 17–18; 1 Chr 8:19; 27:27). |
| 4883 M. «Abot 3:1; »Abot R. Nat. 16, 19A; b. c Abod. Zar. 20a; Gen. Rab. 63:8; Lev. Rab. 14:2, 5–6; 18:1; other texts in Urbach, Sages, 1:232. More helpfully regarding date, Michaels, John, 38, cites 1QH 1.21; 3.24; 12.25; 13.15. Cf. probably also PGM 4.645–648 (though it could perhaps imply natural birth as well). 4884 It represents saliva in Lev. Rab. 16:4. Rain itself can represent life for the (agricultural) world (e.g., p. Ta c an. 1:1, §2). 4885 Cf. Seneca Ep. Luci1. 29.2; 38.2; Philo Heir 119; 4Ezra 9:31,33; b. Ber. 63a. Seed, admittedly, refers also more broadly to divine conception of the soul (Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.4; Maximus of Tyre Or. 10.4; Philo Moses 1.279; Alleg. Interp. 3.40; Posterity 171), which language John might reapply to spiritual rebirth (cf. comment on John 3:13 ); but the metaphor had various uses (e.g., Plutarch Cor. 16.2). 4890 Against this, Belleville, «Born,» 126–27, notes that «water» and «Spirit» are coordinated, not opposed; but the objection would not stand if Spirit baptism replaces proselyte baptism yet retains the image of water in a positive sense, as we argue below. 4891 Bürge, Community, 162–63; Beasley-Murray, John, 48–49; Ridderbos, John, 128. John " s baptism in this connection is also mentioned, though not fully endorsed, by Howard, Gospel, 206; Morris, John, 215. 4892 Bürge, Community, 164–65, thinks baptism as Nicodemus would have understood it here refers to John " s lustrations in 3:22–30. 4894 Many hold this view or variations on it, e.g., Vermes, Religion, 150; Gabriel, «Faith»; Evans, John, 31; Moloney, Belief, 113; Quast, Reading, 26; Brown, Essays, 127–30. Cf. also Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 11.1.2 (baptism in the true church vs. the schismatics); Luther, 22d and 23d Sermons on John, on John 3 ; 2d Sermon on John 4 (baptismal water becoming efficacious through the Spirit and the Word; citing Tit 3:5 ). 4900 Cf. also Robinson, «Baptism,» 20–21, addressing a contrast between traditional Jewish ritual and birth by the Spirit. |
| Charlesworth, Disciple Charlesworth, James H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995. Charlesworth, «Exclusivism» Charlesworth, James H. «The Gospel of John: Exclusivism Caused by a Social Setting Different from That of Jesus (John 11and 14:6).» Pages 479–513 in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000. Edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001. Charlesworth, «Introduction» Charlesworth, James H., with J. A. Sanders. Introduction to «More Psalms of David.» OTP 2:609–11. Charlesworth, «Judeo-Hellenistic Works» Charlesworth, James H. «Editor " s Introduction to Fragments of Lost ludeo-Hellenistic Works.» OTP 2:775–76. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT Charlesworth, James H. OTP and the New Testament: Prolegomena for the Study of Christian Origins. SNTSMS 54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Charlesworth, «Qumran and Odes» Charlesworth, James H. «Qumran, John, and the Odes of Solomon.» Pages 107–36 in John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972. Charlesworth, «Reinterpreting» Charlesworth, James H. «Reinterpreting John: How the Dead Sea Scrolls Have Revolutionized Our Understanding of the Gospel of John.» Bible Review 9, no. 1 (February 1993): 18–25, 54. Charlesworth, Routes Charlesworth, M. P. Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire. 2d rev. ed. New York: Cooper Square, 1970. Charlesworth, «Scrolls and Gospel» Charlesworth, James H. «The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John.» Pages 65–97 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. Charlesworth, «Voice» Charlesworth, James H. «The Jewish Roots of Christology: The Discovery of the Hypostatic Voice.» SJT 39 (1986): 19–41. Charlier, «L " exégèse» Charlier, Jean-Pierre. «L " exégèse johannique d " un précepte légal: Jean VIII 17.«RB 67 (1960): 503–15. |
| Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany Issues an Open Letter to the German Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops Source: ROCOR Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, First Vice President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and ruling bishop of the German Diocese, appealed to his brother hierarchs of the German Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in which he objects to the one-sided coverage of events in Ukraine. Vladyka Mark points to the intolerable pressure being exerted upon the traditional Ukrainian Orthodox Church under its canonical leader, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onouphry of Kiev and All Ukraine. The letter also mentions the political pressure being placed on other Local Orthodox Churches. At the same time, the hierarch of the oldest Orthodox diocese in Germany urges open dialog between the members of the Assembly of Bishops in Germany, which has suffered serious harm, as has all of Orthodox Christianity throughout the world, from the unilateral actions of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Vladyka Mark stresses that the Church must not be drawn into the sphere of political conflict and division, which does not serve the matter of peace. Archbishop Mark also mentions the peace-making experience of his own diocese, which made an active contribution towards the overcoming of the old division within the Russian Orthodox Church, which directly contradicts the processes that are in play initiated by the enemies of the Church. Dialog must be held, in his opinion, in the proper way under today’s circumstances, a challenge to the President of the Assembly of Bishops, Metropolitan Augustine, whose signature under the “tomos” is mentioned critically and with sorrow: An open letter to all members of the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops in Germany Munich, January 30/February 12, 2019 The Feast of the Three Hierarchs: John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian and Basil the Great Your Eminences and Excellencies: It is with a saddened heart that I, as archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Berlin and Germany (ROCOR), take this opportunity to clarify our diocese’s position on the current developments among the Orthodox. |
| The healed man responds with a heightened Christology as soon as the word makes a more adequate interpretation possible (9:38). Gentiles sometimes prostrated themselves before rulers, 7174 and Jewish people apparently often followed suit; 7175 even looking at another " s feet instead of another " s face showed respect for the other " s higher status. 7176 It could connote intense respect (e.g., Rev 3:9) or that one was begging or seeking mercy. 7177 Thus the term by itself need not indicate worship of a deity; but in its broader Johannine context (4:20–24; 12:20–21), including John " s Christology (1:1, 18; 20:28), it fits the Johannine portrait of Jesus» deity and invites John " s own audience to worship Jesus. 7178 2. Jesus Convicts the Pharisees (9:39–41) In 9:39–41 John epitomizes and makes more explicit the guiding irony that dominates the whole of ch. 9. 7179 John earlier affirms that Jesus did not come to judge the world (3:17; also 12:47); here (9:39) he claims that he came to bring about judgment (a characteristic messianic mission); the judgment here is to divide people into two groups, those who heed the light and those who reject it (also 3:19; cf. 1 John 2:11 ). One who presses far enough, however, will have the paradox resolved (12:44–49). John " s words about spiritual blindness develop his dualism of light and darkness (see comment on 1:4–5). Greek and Roman tradition could play on the irony of the spiritual sight of a blind seer like Tiresias; 7180 one Greek philosopher allegedly blinded himself physically to make his mental contemplations more accurate. 7181 But pagan sources more frequently viewed figurative blindness as a primarily intellectual than as a primarily moral fault, 7182 and the Jewish tradition provides much more abundant source material for John " s irony. 7183 Isaiah the prophet offered the standard text about spiritual blindness adopted by John (Isa 6:9–10 in John 12:40 ), but the image was common in the biblical prophets (Isa 29:9; 42:18–19; 56:10; Jer 5:21 ; Ezek 12:2 ), the Jesus tradition (cf. Matt 13:14–15; 15:14; 23:16; Mark 4:12; 8:17–18 ; Luke 8:10; perhaps Luke 4:18; cf. Acts 28:26–27), and appears in other early Jewish sources. 7184 John " s irony sometimes turns on convicting the leaders from their mouths, but sometimes on paradox from Jesus» own. 7185 |
| 3721 Kuyper, «Grace,» 14; Pancaro, Law, 541. For a distribution of αλθεια by writer (25 times in John, 20 in Johannine Epistles, 47 in Paul, 1 in Matthew, 3 in Mark, 3 in Luke, etc., and distribution of the adjectival cognate), see Morris, John, 294. 3724 See above. That the Baptist " s voice ends in 1is clear, but Origen Comm. Jo. 6.13 thought it ended in 1(in contrast to Heracleon, who ends it in 1:17). 3725 That John implies temporal precedence (i.e., the Logos " s preexistence) is evident from the context; see Stuart, «Examination,» 318; Hoskyns, Gospel, 151 (contrasting Matt. 3:11); Dodd, Tradition, 272. The logic here resembles the rhetorical form called an νθμημα (enthymeme; see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 44; Vinson, «Enthymemes,» 119). 3729 Fulness of a virtue can mean its epitome ( Sir 1:16 ). Gnostics viewed the Pleroma as the sum of the aeons (Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1; 1.5; cf. Prayer of the Apostle Paul in NHL, 28; Gospel of Truth in NHL, 37); but against the gnostic interpretation of Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 228, cf. Harris, «Origin,» 417–18 (Colossians, John, and gnosticism drew the word from wisdom motifs; cf. Sir 2:16; 35:14–15 ); Overfield, «Pleroma.» Few current commentators find gnosticism here (Schnackenburg, John, 1:275; Sandmel, Judaism, 474 n. 5). See comment on «full» in 1:14. 3730 Against ÓNeill, «Prologue,» 44–45, who thinks that the last phrase of v. 16 and the whole of v. 17 «form a long interpolation,» but admits that no textual evidence supports his hypothesis. Michael, «Prologue,» 278, likewise suggests an accidental change from an original χριν ντ νμου without any textual evidence. 3732 See DeSilva, Honor, 104–5, 116 (citing esp. Sophocles Ajax 522; Seneca Benef. 2.35.1), though not on this passage. Ancients would associate «grace» with patronal generosity or benevolence (DeSilva, Honor, 104–5, citing esp. Aristotle Rhet. 2.7.1, 1385al6–20; idem, «Patronage,» 768; following Danker, Benefactor). 3733 MacGregor, John, 20, citing Philo Posterity 145; Stevens, Theology, 96; Edwards, «Grace»; Brown, John, 1:16; Moloney, Belief, 46–47; cf. Westcott, John, 14 (citing the thought of m. " Abot4:5); Stuart, «Examination,» 321; note Jeremias, Message, 85; Haenchen, John, 1:120. |
|
|
