| Certainly such ideas would discourage Jewish men from intercourse with Samaritan women. Yet given the biblical traditions about Rebekah, Rachel, and Zipporah at wells, shared by Jew and Samaritan alike, 5363 the woman might have supposed that Jesus, noting that she had to come to the well alone hence was probably morally disreputable to begin with, wanted something else. In the eyes of many potential first-century readers, the beginning of the narrative is fraught with sexual ambiguity that is clarified only as the narrative progresses. The narrative subverts a plotline borrowed from biblical romance; the normal plotline would lead to affection between the two parties 5364 –a prospect that would have shocked any Jewish reader even if she were not viewed as specifically immora1. 5365 Jesus» talking with a woman may have been offensive to some (4:27), but the ethnic barrier dominates much of the dialogue, for «Jews avoid dealing with Samaritans» (4:9). 5366 4C. Jews Have No Dealings with Samaritans (4:9) In contrast to common ideals of antiquity, the woman speaks boldly and forthrightly with Jesus; 5367 in view of the expectation generated by the woman-at-the-well-type scene (esp. Gen 24:18 ), her lack of deference would strike much of John " s audience as rude. 5368 Her observation in 4(possibly probing Jesus» motives), however, would not have been controversia1. The text starkly summarizes the less than amicable relationship between Jews and Samaritans; the opposition between the two peoples was proverbia1. A widely circulated book of Jewish wisdom announced that God hated «the foolish people» who lived in Samaria, no less than he hated the Edomites and Philistines ( Sir 50:25–26 ). 5369 Jews even circulated militant atrocity stories–for instance, that a Samaritan caused the notorious slaughter of Jews at Bethar in the Hadrianic revolt. 5370 Later teachers recounted theological-conflict stories where Jewish teachers, naturally, triumphed. 5371 Like many ethnic conflicts in today " s world, these conflicts were deeply rooted in history, although in recent centuries the Jewish side of the conflict had often held the upper hand. Jewish tradition indicated that hostilities had begun immediately after some Jews returned from the Exile; 5372 later Samaritans raided Judea. 5373 The Samaritans were friendly to Herod the Great (e.g., Josephus War 1.229), but Herod " s benevolence with tax revenues earned him allies even among foreign Gentiles. After one bloody conflict in the mid-first century, Samaritans appealed to the Roman governor of Syria to punish the Jews (Josephus War 2.239; Ant. 20.125); the emperor, however, listened to Agrippa and executed the Samaritan leaders (Josephus War 2.245–246; Ant. 20.136). |
| 1920 P. Ros Hal 4:6, §1. That halakic customs varied is clear (e.g., p. Ketub. 4:14, §1, following m. Ketub. 4:14; p. Ned. 2:4, §3). 1924 Urban dwellers could despise them as uneducated rural dwellers, especially if from less respectable regions (Aelian Farmers 20, Phaedrias to Sthenon, end). 1927 Technically he was from Gamala across the Jordan (Josephus Ant. 18.4; Witherington. Christology, 88–89). 1929 Zeitlin, «Galileans»; Loftus, «Note»; cf. idem, «Revolts» (though he may be correct about continuing Hasmonean sympathies). 1936 Goodman, State, 120; Horsley, Galilee, 251. Freyne, «Ethos,» argues for some limited trade connections but notes that this does not indicate a cultural or religious continuum. 1937 Finley, Economy, 123–49; Meeks, Moral World, 38; Lee, «Unrest,» 128; MacMullen, Relations 15, 30, 32; cf. idem, Enemies, 163–91; e.g., Longus 2.22; Cicero Rose. Amer. 14.39; Philostratus Viz soph. 2.5.573. In Palestine, cf. Applebaum, «Life,» 663–64; Neusner, Beginning, 24–25; m. Meg. 1:3; p. Meg. 1:3. 1941 In Matthew and Mark, Jesus appears to the disciples in Galilee; skipping this, Luke-Acts, the focus of which is particularly urban, reports the establishment of the apostolic church in Jerusalem. Contrast Goulder, Matthew, 141, who speculates that Peter, James, and John remained in Jerusalem when the others returned to Galilee, providing two independent traditions. 1943 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 56–57; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 292; Neusner, Crisis, 38. This does not mean that no Pharisees may have been Galilean; see Horsley, Galilee, 150–52, 256; Witherington, Christology, 66; perhaps Eleazar in Josephus Ant. 20.43. 1944 Freyne, «Relations»; Freyne, Galilee, 178–90 (the exception being Sepphoris, Josephus Life 348–349). 1950 Cf. Meeks, Prophet-King, 41. Geyser, «Israel,» relates the anti-Judean polemic of the Gospel to its special interest in Diaspora Jewry " s restoration to the land. 1952 Compare how many Germans rallied around Luther, the local scholar, when the pope condemned his writings (cf., e.g., Chadwick, Reformation, 47,61). |
| 1494 Travelers in the ancient Mediterranean regularly brought word from other friends (e.g. Euripides E1. 361–362; Cicero Att. 2.11); see comments under John " s knowledge of the Synoptics in introduction, pp. 41–42. 1500 My arguments are summarized in Keener, Marries, 23, and notes 2–6 on 145–46. On scribes, see also Scott, Customs, 165–68; Orton, Scribe, 39–133. Sandmel, Genius, 43, is probably right that the rabbinate was in some sense established before 70, minimizing the difficulty of the transition to Yavneh. 1501 Cf. m. " Abot 3:10, if the reference to «houses of assembly» of the am háaretz means more than nonreligious gatherings in homes. 1502 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 255–56; idem, Judaism, ix, 3, 11, 449; cf. McEleney, «Orthodoxy»; Aune, «Response»; McEleney, «Replies.» 1503 Cf. the saying attributed to Hillel in m. " Abot 2:4: «Do not separate [ ] yourself from the community,» which originally probably would have been meant more broadly than a Pharisaic association. Flusser, Judaism, 483, rightly distinguishes Essene sectarianism from the more usual, growing solidarity in Judaism. 1505 Cohen, Maccabees, 126, suggests the «true Israel» ideology as the distinguishing mark of an ancient Jewish sect. 1506 Cf. Kraabel, «Diaspora.» Rabbinic literature is far more useful for reconstructing the Palestinian than the Diaspora Jewish social setting (Meyers, «Judaism and Christianity,» 75). 1508 Neusner, Legend, 60, supposes that the pro-Roman Sadducees vied with Johanan ben Zakkaís party for Roman favor; if this is the case, however, they must have been considerably weakened for a Pharisaic party to have ultimately won out. 1509 Although ben Zakkai and his successors were advocates of peace, Akibás openness to Bar Kokhba shows that some revolutionary sympathies survived among them. Cf. also Josephus Ant. 13.288–298; 17.41–44,149–163 (if these were Pharisees), and compare the descriptions of Pharisees and the early first-century revolutionaries in Josephus Ant. 1.23; cf. also War 2.118 (to which Josephus contrasts only the relatively reclusive Essenes at length, War 2.119–161). |
| The narrative portrays those who brought the charge as quite insistent that Jesus be executed, and this behavior is hardly surprising given the situation portrayed. What is instead striking is Pilatés reticence to pronounce sentence; if no Roman citizens were involved, one would expect most governors to act quickly at the local aristocracy " s request. 9836 The Gospels show that Pilate did indeed act relatively quickly, but they also report his reluctance to do so. Thus some scholars question whether the Pilate of the Gospels is «in character» with the Pilate known to us from other sources. 9837 Pilate executed people without trial; excessive use of capital punishment ultimately cost him his office (Philo Embassy 302; Josephus Ant. 18.88–89). 9838 His earlier plundering of the temple treasury to support an aqueduct 9839 and particularly his recent issue of coins bearing an insignia of the divine emperor 9840 blatantly demonstrated his insensitivity to local Jewish concerns. (Pilate was an ethnocentric colonialist governor, but both the republic and the empire reveal even harsher cases of provincial exploitation and maladministration.) 9841 From what Philo and especially Josephus show us of Pilatés character, any reticence to accept the local leaders» recommendation would be more out of spite for them than out of concern for justice. 9842 Yet this reticence need not be unhistorica1. 9843 As corrupt as the later governor Albinus was, he dismissed Jesus ben Hananiah from further punishment (after a scourging reportedly bared his bones) once he took him to be insane and hence harmless (Josephus War 6.305). Philo and especially Josephus are ill disposed to report good of Pilate; 9844 they seem to have felt that the unrest in Judea is better blamed on deceased prefects such as Pilate (once supported by the corrupt Sejanus) 9845 than left with the Judeans themselves. Even when governor, Pilate seems to have been quite unpopular. 9846 Still, the narratives go to great lengths to emphasize that Pilate cooperated with Jesus» execution against his own preference, and this emphasis is understandable for apologetic reasons. |
| 1247 Sambursky, «Gematria»; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 103, citing Cicero Inv. 2.40.116; Hengel, Hellenism, l:80ff.; Lieberman, Hellenism, 47–82. Some may also reflect Babylonian sources (Cavigneaux, «Sources»). 1248 Judith 16:7; Josephus War 1.353; 2.155–158; Ag. Ap. 1.255; 2.263; Pesiq. Rab. 20(cf. Greek Phlegethon; cf. the Elysian plain and Acherusian lake in Sib. Or. 2.337–338, probably Christian redaction; Apoc. Mos. 37:3). 1249 E.g., Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27.3; Sib. Or. 2.15 (Poseidon); 2.19 (Hephaistos); 3.22 (Tethys); 3.110–116, 121–155, 551–554, 588 (euhemeristic; cf. similarly Let. Aris. 136; Sib. Or. 3.723; 8.43–47); 5.334 (personification; cf. also 7.46; 11.104, 147, 187, 205, 219, 278; 12:53, 278; 14.56, 115); T. Job 1.3 (cornucopia); 51:1/2 (perhaps allusion to Nereus, also in Sib. Or. 1.232); cf. (not Greek) Ishtar as an evil spirit in Text 43:6–7, perhaps 53:12, Isbell, 103; cf. art (some of it in Palestinian synagogues) in Goodenough, Symbols, vols. 7–8 (and Dura Europos synagogue, vols. 9–11, and 12:158–183). 1250 The clear examples are few (even Egyptian use may have been more common; cf. «Biblés Psalm»), despite apologetic protestations to the contrary (e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.165; 2.257). 1252 E.g., Martin, Colossians, 18–19; Knox, Gentiles, 149; Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 259. Although an Egyptian provenance for the Testament of Solomon is possible, I would favor an Asian provenance, given its date (cf. also Artemis in 8:11, etc.), and stress the magical-mystical nature of some of Judaism in Asia. 1253 So Kennedy, Epistles, 14, 22; Robinson, Redating, 294. Palestine had its Pharisees and Essenes, but had even more Am Háarets. 1258 Cf. CD 5.6–8; lQpHab 9.6–7. Others also believed that profaning the temple could bring judgment, although not applying it to this time (Pss. So1. 1:8; 2:1–10; Josephus War 5.17–18; cf. the ambiguous evaluation of Tannaitic sources in Goldenberg, «Explanations»). 1263 Grant, Gods, 51; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 121–22; Conzelmann, «Areopagus,» 224; van de Bunt-van den Hoek, «Aristobulos»; cf. Renehan, «Quotations.» Jewish and early Christian texts often followed the Greek practice (instilled in school memorization exercises) of citing or alluding to Homer (e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 195–197; Syr. Men. 78–93; Josephus Ant. 1.222; Sib. Or. 3.401–432, passim; 3.814; 5.9; 2 Bar. 10:8; Tatian 8; cf. Rahmani, «Cameo») or other poets (Acts 17:28; 1Cor 15:33 ; Tit 1:12 ; Justin 1 Apo1. 39; Theophilus 2.37; Athenagoras 5–6; cf. Manns, «Source»), or proverbs originally based on them. |
| The vehemence that Jesus» promise of 8provokes in 8suggests ancient cultural assumptions unfamiliar to most modern readers; Jesus» hearers find implicit in his promise a statement of their spiritual inadequacy. Their counterclaim to be children of Abraham (8:33), developed further as the dialogue progresses (see comment on 8:39), reflects issues of contention between Jewish Christians and traditional Judaism far earlier than John " s day (Q material in Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8). Their reaction about freedom requires even more exploration in ancient concepts unfamiliar to most modern readers. Some scholars suggest that Jesus» hearers in 8understand freedom in a political sense. 6732 Many ancient writers indeed applied the terms for freedom and bondage in their national or political senses. 6733 Writers used λευθρια and its equivalents for just and appropriate remedies under the law, 6734 or not being subject to absolute monarchs 6735 or to another people, 6736 and spoke of subjection to tyrants 6737 or other peoples as slavery. 6738 Capitulation to defeat was itself slavery (perhaps mental slavery; Diodorus Siculus 33.25.1). Thus the followers of Judas the Galilean expressed an irrepressible yearning for freedom because they affirmed only God as their master (δεσπτης, Josephus Ant. 18.6). Jewish people believed that Rome had granted Jewish communities freedom and autonomy (ελευθρων και αυτονμων, Diodorus Siculus 40.2.1). A claim that the Israelites had never been subjugated politically, however, would be absurd. 6739 Plainly, Israelites endured slavery in Egypt; 6740 they also were said to have endured it in Babylon. 6741 Following biblical teachings (e.g., Judg 2:14; 3:8; 4:2; 10:7 ; 1Sam 12:9 ), Jewish teachers affirmed that God subjected the Israelites to foreign bondage when they disobeyed him. 6742 But if pagans insulted Israel with the charge of long-term bondage (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.125–128), a Jewish apologist could respond that nearly all nations have been subdued and ruled by others (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.127). Under Herod Jews were less subjugated than other nations (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.134). |
| 234 Against Bultmann, Tradition, 57. Gerhardsson, Memory, 181–89, comments on narrative in rabbinic tradition, since disciples learned from their teachers» lives as well as from their words; but as Gundry («Genre,» 101) points out, this still does not correspond to what we have in the Gospels, nor to the enormous tradition that must stand behind them. 235 Neusner, Biography, is skeptical even of the attributed sayings. There is certainly nothing comparable to the early nineteenth-century collection of tales, «In Praise of the Baal Shem Τον,» available in English in Ben-Amos and Mintz, Baal Shem Τον. 238 Cf. Canevet, «Genre» (Moses as commander-in-chief). Like other Hellenistic Jewish writers, Philo adjusts biblical accounts where necessary to suit his idealization of virtues; cf. Petit, «Exemplaire.» Philo can nevertheless prove accurate when reporting events surrounding more recent personages (Smallwood, «Historians»). 241 Silver, «Moses» (on Josephus Ant. 2:243–253 and Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27). Runnalls, «Campaign,» suggests that Josephus indirectly challenged Artapanus " s account; but the use of the same tradition demonstrates the inroads that Hellenism had made into Moses haggadah (cf. Rajak, «Moses»). Aristobulus (second century B.C.E.) frg. 4 (Eusebius Praep. ev. 13.13.5) possibly divinizes Moses with the vision of God. Some Jewish writers may adapt Orphean and Heraclean motifs (cf. Philonenko, «Juda»), and some euhemeristically identify pagan figures with biblical ones (e.g., Ps-Eupolemus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.17.9). 246 Begg, «Zedekiah,» argues that Josephus portrays him as something of a tragic hero, following Aristotelian conventions. 247 Feldman, " " Aqedah? Joshua may become a Jewish Pericles (Feldman, «Joshua»). See other citations from Feldman above. 248 Maccabees, 194; cf. in general Attridge, «Historiography,» 326; cf. Eisman, «Dio and Josephus.» Even his apology for his «substandard» Greek fits rhetorical conventions for lowering audience expectations and may be compared with Anacharsis " s reported apology to the Athenians (Anacharsis Epistles 1.1–6). Other Hellenistic Jewish historians probably employed similar techniques (cf. Rajak, «Justus of Tiberias,» 92). Egyptians and Babylonians likewise sought to present their histories in Greek in that period of Hellenistic cultural dominance (Bartlett, Jews, 7). |
| 194 E.g., Thucydides 1.21.1; Livy 6.1.2–3; 7.6.6; Diodorus Siculus 1.6.2; 1.9.2; 4.1.1; 4.8.3–5; Dionysius of Halicarnasus RA. 1.12.3; Thucyd. 5; Pausanias 9.31.7; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.15,24–25,58; cf. Bowersock, Fiction as History, 1–2. Some also considered the earlier period qualitatively different because of divine activities (Hesiod Op. 158–60, 165; Arrian Alex. 5.1.2), but others mistrusted its reports because of such unusual events (Thucydides 1.23.3). 195 Some, like the author of the Life of Aesop, may simply string together all the available popular traditions into a narrative. These traditions had grown over six centuries (see Drury, Design, 28–29). 196 Plutarch Theseus 1.3. Arrian accepts but explains on rationalistic grounds some old legends (Alex. 2.16.6). 198 E.g., demythologizing in Thucydides 1.21.1–2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.39.1; 1.41.1 (cf. 1.84.4); Thucyd. 6; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.1.554; recognizing how propaganda helped create legend (Arrian Alex. 4.28.1–2); applying a criterion of coherency with known customs of a report " s day (Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 9.22.1–5); reporting stories as difficult to believe and recommending the reader " s use of discretion (Livy 4.29.5–6; 23.47.8); or examining chronological and other tensions within a text (Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, il–1 [citing Philostratus Hrk. 23.5–6; 25.10–13]). 199 Arrian Alex. 7.14.4–6. The same criterion could apply, however, in fictitious composition or historical reconstruction based on plausibility (cf. Aristotle Poet. 15.4–5, 1454a; Theon Progymn. 1.46–52; 2.79–81; 8.2–3; in a history, see, e.g., Dio Cassius 62.11.3–4). 201 Aulus Gellius 10.12.8–10. Some could also caution readers not to be too skeptical of an account that otherwise appeared implausible (Sallust Cati1. 3.2; Plutarch Camillus 6.4). 202 E.g., Josephus Ant. 20.156–157; see more extensively Mosley, «Reporting,» passim. Even Josephus Life 336–339 attests to historians» concern for accuracy. 205 See Josephus Life 357; Ag. Ap. 1.45–49,56; War 1.2–3; Xenophon Hel1. 6.2.31 (refusing to believe a report until an eyewitness was available); Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thucyd. 7; Seneca Nat. 3.25.8; 4.3.1; Arrian Alex, 1.pref.2–3; 6.11.8; Cornelius Nepos 23 (Hannibal), 13.3; 25 (Atticus), 13.7; 17.1. Historians often preferred sources closer in time to the events reported (Livy 7.6.6; 25.11.20). |
| John 1:3 ), e.g., Hambly, «Creation»; Barosse, «Days.» Most of these theories (addressed in our comments on «the third day» in 2) have little support in the text, where chronology probably functions as a structuring device, as it probably does in Mark 1:21–35 (so Smith, Parallels, 131, citing m. Šabb. 1:4–5; Sotah 5:2–5; Yad. 4:1–4; t. Šabb. l:16ff.; Yad. 16–18) and in the symposium section of Let. Aris. 203,221, 236,248,262, though Let. Aris. 275 suggests a more careful count than John 2:1 ! Perhaps the days are intended as literal (cf. 12:12), to show a sample of meaningful days in Jesus» early ministry. 3797 See also Michaels, Servant, 15; cf. Smalley, John, 26–27. 3798 E.g.,Theon Progymn. 1.93–171. 3799 See also Dodd, Tradition, 258, citing also Acts 13:25; cf. Freed, «Eg Eimi.» 3800 For comments on this passage, cf., e.g., Longenecker, Ministry, 70; see especially our discussion on John 1:6–8 above. 3801 Cf., e.g., Keener, Marries; for a more thorough redaction-critical analysis and some different conclusions, see Collins, Divorce, and the suggestions of Keener, «Review of Collins.» 3802 This is not to say with Fenton, John, 40, that our writer «was not acquainted with the situation in Palestine» before 70, a position contradicted by evidence cited above and throughout the commentary. 3803 E.g., the ον of 1:21, which Brown, John, 1counts 195 times in the Gospel, though not once in the First Epistle. (Cf. only 3 John 8 ; it appears only 6 times in Revelation and 6 times in Mark.) 3804 Sanders, Judaism, 52–53, cites Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.32; Philo Hypothetica 7.12–13, and archaeological evidence as wel1. 3805 Sanders, Judaism, 171, cites Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.165, 184–187, 194; Ant. 14.4. See more fully Smallwood, «Priests.» For evidence from Jewish texts and Greek administrative analogies identifying the high priesthood with «the rulers,» see Reicke, Era, 147. 3806 In contrast to OT usage, the NT (e.g., Mark 2:26; 14:55; 15:11 ; Acts 5:24; 23:14; 25:15; cf. Acts 4:6), other early Christian texts (e.g., the agraphon in Jeremias, Sayings, 51), Josephus (e.g., War 2.243,316,318,320,322,336,342,410–411; 4.314), and probably the Scrolls (1QM 2.1) apply «high priests» in the plural to the members or leaders of the priestly aristocracy, not to the chief priest alone (see Stern, «Aspects,» 601,603; Reicke, Era, 147–48; Feldman in the Josephus LCL 10:157). |
| 9748 See also Demosthenes Against Meidias 1,80; Euripides Herac1. 219; Plato Apo1. 32E; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.43.2; Sallust Speech of Gaius Cotta 4; Josephus Life 361; Acts 26:4–5,26. 9749 Plato Apo1. 33, in MacGregor, John, 331. Secretive action is hostile (Philodemus frg. 41.2–3). 9751 Brown, Death, 585; for unofficial blows for reviling leaders in another ancient Mediterranean tradition, cf. Homer Il. 2.265; on honor accruing to even a disobedient priest, e.g., Acts 23:5; p. Sanh. 2:1, §2. On the requisite formality with social superiors, see, e.g., Malina, Windows, 37–38. 9752 Even those in authority who struck soldiers for discipline (Xenophon Anab. 5.8.12–13) might afterwards need to justify it (5.8.18). One might interpret «giving» a blow (also 19:3) as a worldly parody of the «giving» motif in John (cf. comment on 3:16), though here it may be simply idiomatic (cf. Gen. Rab. 78:11). For ρπισμα, see Isa 50LXX. 9753 Deut 25:2–3 ; Josephus Ant. 4.238,248; m. Hu1. 5:2; Ki1. 8:3; Mak. passim, e.g., 1:1–3; 3:3–5, 10–11; Naz. 4:3; Pesah. 7:11; Tern. 1:1; Sipra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; Sipre Deut. 286.4.1; 5.1; b. B. Mesi c a 115b; Ker. 15a; Ketub. 33b; Pesah. 24ab; p. Besah 5:2, §11; Naz. 4:3, §1; Ter. 7:1; Yoma 77a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3. 9754 Cf. Brown, John, 2:827; Morris, John, 757 (citing the assault by the attendant in b. Sebu. 30b). 9757 Diogenes the Cynic, once accosted, allegedly complained that he forgot to don his helmet that morning (Diogenes Laertius 6.2.41–42). Jesus» answer with dignity here contravenes an inappropriately literalist reading of Matt 5(Vermes, Religion, 36; cf. idem, Jesus and Judaism, 53). 9759 Blinzler, Trial, 135, suggests that proper public trials required an advocate, which Jesus appears to have lacked; but he also concedes (pp. 142–43) that the Mishnaic rules are late. 9761 Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.191, citing Hecateus of Abdera; 2.218–219,233–235. They also would die rather than disobey their laws (1.212) and wanted to kill those they thought brought harm to the nation (Josephus Life 149). |
|
|
