| 2886 Aristotle Rhet. 3.8.1, 1408b; Cicero Or. Brut. 50.168–69.231; cf. Rowe, «Style,» 154; balanced clauses in Anderson, Glossary, 90–91. Mythical language would fit poetry (Menander Rhetor 1.1, 333.31–334.5; cf., e.g., Isa 51:9) but does not require it (cf., e.g., Rev 12:1–9). 2888 See Cicero Or. Brut. 20.67 (though complaining that poetry can emphasize euphony over intelligible content, 20.68). 2890 Even very careful syllabic structures may represent prose rhetoric rather than poetry per se; e.g., the parallelism characteristic of isocolon and homoeoteleuton; see Rhet. Alex. 27.1435b.39–40; 1436a.1–4; Rowe, «Style,» 137 (citing Isocrates Paneg. 4.39; Cicero Mur. 9; Gorgias He1. 7); Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 580; Anderson, Glossary, 90–91 (citing, e.g., Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.27–28; Demetrius 25). 2894 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 24. Rhetorical handbooks already insisted that the introduction should summarize the arguments the speech would use (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thucyd. 19; LCL 1:512–513 n. 1 cites Rhet. Alex. 29), though there were some exceptions in spoken rhetoric (Seneca Dial, 1.pref.21). 2896 Quintilian 4.1.5; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 17; Cicero Or. Brut. 40.137; also Heath, «Invention,» 103. 2897 Artemidorus Onir. 1.pref.; 2Macc 2(at the end of a long prologue). This is not to deny the possibility of long introductory sections after various sorts of prologues (e.g., Polybius 1–2; cf. 2.71.7; Luke 1:5–4:30; Matt 1:18–2:23; probably John 1:1–51 ). 2899 E.g., Xenophon Agesilaus 1.2; Plutarch Themistocles 1.1; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 1.2; but this was not necessary (Philostratus Vit. soph, pref.480). Noble ancestry (especially from deities) helped define a person " s heroic power (Homer II. 20.215–241); it did not, however, guarantee positive outcome in the end (Sallust Cati1. 5.1). 2902 Käsemann, Questions, 164; cf. comments on the Logos " s mythical language in Kümmel, Theology, 282. 2904 An inclusio surrounding a proem appears in a widely read Greek classic, Homer Od. 1.1–10, where 1.1–2 and 1.10 invoke the Muse to tell the story while 1.2–9 summarizes the whole book " s plot, inclusio is frequent (e.g., Catullus 52.1,4; 57.1,10). Cf. also repetition of a refrain in narratives ( Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25 ); or especially poetry: the wedding invocation to Hymen in Catullus 61.4–5, 39–40, 49–50, 59–60; 62.4–5, 10, 19, 25,31,38, 48,66 (with to added, 61.117–118, 137–138, 142–143, 147–148, 152–153, 157–158, 162–163, 167–168, 172–173, 177–178, 182–183); the bridal summons (Catullus 61.96,106,113); invocation to the Fates (Catullus 64.327, in briefer form thereafter in 333, 337, 342, 347, 352, 356, 361, 365, 371, 375, 381); or a summons to love (Perv. Ven. 1, 8, 27, 36, 48, 57–58, 68, 75, 80, 93). |
| 2:11: signs lead to disciples» faith 2:23: signs produce faith of untrustworthy people 4:48: Jesus complains about those who require signs for faith 6:30: crowds demand a sign before faith, although they have already received signs 7:31: many members of the crowds believed Jesus because of his signs 11:47–48: people are believing because of Jesus» signs 12:37: the crowds refused to believe despite Jesus» signs (though even some rulers did believe secretly–12:42) One should also factor in texts which link Jesus» «works» with faith: 10:25: they refuse to believe despite Jesus» works 10:37–38: they should at least believe his works 14:10–11: believe on account of the Father " s works done by Jesus 14:12: those who believe will replicate the same kind of works 2411 Various texts are clear that God provided Jesus» signs or works to produce faith (10:37–38; 11:15, 42; 13:19; 14:10–11, 29; cf. 6:40); texts that indicate the obduracy of those disbelieving despite signs (10:25; 12:37) or despite encountering Jesus himself (6:36,64; 8:46) also fall into this category. Faith as a result of signs is not bad (1:50; 2:11, 22; 10:41–42; 11:45; 12:11; 16:30; 17:21; 20:8), but it must proceed to discipleship (8:30–31; 9:35–38), and is by itself inadequate (2:23–24; 3:2–3; 4:48; 9:18). Demands for signs usually presuppose unbelief (6:30; 7:4–5) or inadequate faith (20:25); often faith must precede signs (4:48,50; 11:40). (The inadequacy of «signs-faith» also appears in the Synoptic tradition: Mark 8:11–12; 15:32 ; Matt 12:38–39; 16:1–4; Luke 11:16, 29.) The ultimate basis of faith is the Spirit-inspired witness to the truth (1:7; 4:39, 41–42; 5:38, 46–47; 15:26–27; 19:35). Saving faith (e.g., 1:12; 3:15–16, 18, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 40, 47; 7:38–39; 8:24; 11:25–27; 12:36, 46; 16:27) normally goes beyond this. It is persevering faith (6:67–69; 8:30–31, 45; 16:30–33), and suggests integrity of heart–and perhaps an initial stage of faith–as a prerequisite (1:47; 3:19–21; 5:38, 44; 10:26; 12:38–43). One passage explicitly distinguishes two levels of faith (4:50, 53) even though the second only implies discipleship. Likewise, though unbelief in general is the essence of sin (16:9), narratives seem to imply that some levels of unbelief may produce greater measures of hostility than others, when such hostility becomes the only way to maintain the unbelief of others (12:9–11 ). The connection between faith and signs is a theme that climaxes, appropriately, in the climax of the Gospel: blessed are those who believe without seeing (20:29), such as the audience which believes on the basis of the apostolic witness (20:31). God ultimately demands a commitment tht runs deeper than mere acceptance of what should be obvious. (See more detailed discussion of «faith» in ch. 7 of the introduction.) 5D. Signs-Faith as a Biblical Allusion |
| 10146 See Jeffers, World, 43–44; Watkins, John, 388. John leaves unstated the irony of a soldier afterward wearing (or perhaps selling) the very tunic Jesus had worn. 10153 Schnackenburg, John, 3:274; Beasley-Murray, John, 347. An allegorical application of νωθεν as a play on the tradition ( Mark 15:38 ) or more likely on John " s vertical dualism (3:3, 7, 31; 19:11) is plausible but difficult to make sense of. 10157 E.g., Homer Od. 11.432–434, 436–439 (even though Clytemnestra also slew Cassandra in 11.422); Euripides Orest. 1153–1154. (The subtext of the Iliad was that male warriors were fighting because of women, such as Helen and Briseis; cf. esp. I1. 9.339–342.) 10159 Pace Barrett, John, 551. Women relatives were typically allowed, e.g, to visit a man in prison (e.g., Lysias Or. 13.39–40, §133). 10162 See, e.g., Josephus Ant. 4.320 (Israelite society); Homer I1. 18.30–31, 50–51; 19.284–285; Sophocles Ajax 580; Euripides Here. fur. 536; Thucydides 2.34.4; Cicero Fam. 5.16.6; Diodorus Siculus 17.37.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.67.2; 8.39.1; Livy 26.9.7; Valerius Maximus 2.6.13; Pomeroy, Women, 44; Dupont, Life, 115. Ancients did, however, expect both parents of a crucified person to mourn (Sipre Deut. 308.2.1). 10163 Cf., e.g., Valerius Maximus 5.4.7 (cited in Rapske, Custody, 247); 9.2.1; Polybius 5.56.15 (mob action); Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.267 (on Athenian execution of women); Ovid Metam. 13.497 (among captives; cf. Polybius 5.111.6, in a camp). 10168 Ilan, Women, 53, following Hallett, Fathers, 77–81. «Mary» (and variations) was «easily the most popular woman " s name in lst-century Palestine» (Williams, «Personal Names,» 90–91, 107). If one sister had two names, perhaps she came to use the shared name after marriage removed her from her original home? 10169 One could argue that one Mary in Mark 15is Jesus» mother ( Mark 6:3 ; cf. Matt 13:55; 27:56), but if Jesus was the eldest (or even if he was not), one would expect «mother of Jesus» there unless the passion had somehow terminated that relationship (certainly not Lukés view, Luke 24:10: Acts 1:14). |
| 25 3 Kgd 19:9 ff. 26 Probably an echo of both the chariot in which Elijah ascends into heaven in 4 Kgd 2:11, and of the chariot of the soul in Plato’s Phaedrus (246A-C). 27 Cf. 4 Kgd 2:1ff. 28 Probably commenting on 4 Kgd 1:9–12, but alluding also to 4 Kgd 6:15–17. 29 Cf. 1 Kgd 1:9–20. 30 Cf. Lev. 14:33–42 . 31 Cf. 3 Kgd 17:8–24. 32 Cf. Matt. 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8 , Luke 9:28–36. 33 Cf. Isa. 53:2. 34 Cf. Psa. 44:3. 35 Cf. John 1:1 . 36 Apophasis: Maximus introduces here the technical terms of apophatic and cataphatic theology. 37 Cf. John 1:14 . 38 This section develops the theme just introduced in the dual interpretation of the radiant garments of the Transfigured Christ as both Scriptures and creation. 39 The Evagrian triad of ascetic struggle (praktike), natural contemplation (physike), and theology was related by Origen to a very similar classification of the categories of philosophy in the prologue to his Commentary on the Song of Songs: see Louth (1981), 57–8. 40 Cf. Denys the Areopagite, Ep. 9.1 (1105D). 41 Literally: in a Greek way. It is in contrast with the later ‘in a Jewish way’: cf. St Paul’s contrast between Greeks/Gentiles and Jews, especially in Rom. 1–3 . 42 Cf. Phil. 3.19 . 43 A metaphor for the Incarnation used by Gregory Nazianzen in Sermon 38.2 (PG 36:313B). Maximus devotes a Difficulty to Gregory’s use of the term (suspected of Origenism?): Amb. 33:1285C-1288A, where the Word’s expressing itself in letters and words is one of the interpretations offered of the metaphor. 44 Cf. Gen. 39:11–12 . 45 This is an important section in which Maximus reworks a fundamental Evagrian theme. For Evagrius, the five modes of contemplation are: 1. contemplation of the adorable and holy Trinity, 2. and 3. contemplation of incorporeal and incorporeal beings, 4. and 5. contemplation of judgment and providence (Centuries on Spiritual Knowledge I.27, in Guillaumont 1958 ). Maximus’ understanding is quite different. See Thunberg (1965), 69–75 and Gersh (1978), 226–7. 46 I do not know where Maximus gets these five secret meanings (or hidden logoi) from. They recall Plato’s ‘five greatest kinds’ (being, rest, motion, sameness and difference: see Sophist 254D-255C), but are evidently not the same. |
| 6512 E.g., 3 En. 48A:7; t. Sotah 12:2; Sipra A.M. pq. 11.191.1.3; par. 8.193.1.7; " Abot R. Nat. 28, 30A; 23, §46B; Esth. Rab. 10:5; Rom 4:3; 9:17 ; Matt 19:4–5; 1 Clem. 56.3; cf. the similar wording, probably intended as analogous to oracular authority, in Epictetus Diatr. 1.10; and appeal to philosophic authority in Epictetus Diatr. 3.13.11. 6513 Guilding, Worship, esp. 92–120. Some have tried to date the triennial cycle as early as the first century (Monshouwer, «Reading»). 6514 See Morris, Lectionaries. 6515 Ancient texts, like modern ones, often assume a fair degree of cultural competence for their ideal audience (e.g., Philostratus Hrk. 1.3; see Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 5 n. 6). Informed members of even very hellenized churches a few decades before John knew of the festivals (e.g., 1Cor 5:7; 16:8 ; Acts 20:6,16; 27:9). That some of this information might be unknown in John " s day, however, could also be used to support the tradition " s authenticity (Blomberg, Reliability, 137–38). 6516 Commentators often note this lectionary reading, e.g., Dodd, Interpretation, 350; Hunter, John, 84–85; Schnackenburg, John, 2(citing b. Meg. 31a); Bruce, Time, 46. Haenchen, John, 2:17, curiously takes the tradition for Zech 14, Ezek 47 , and Isa 12 back to 90 C.E. (R. Eliezer b. Jacob) but then denies its relevance to the Fourth Gospe1. Early synagogue readings from the prophets are probable (Riesner, «Synagogues,» 202–3, cites the Masada synagogue scroll and Luke 4:17), though early standard lections are not. 6517 T. Sukkah 3(trans. Neusner, 2:222–23). 6518 T. Sukkah 3:3–10. 6519 T. Sukkah 3(4) (trans. Neusner, 2:218–19). 6520 T. Sukkah 3(trans. Neusner, 2:220). 6521 T. Sukkah 3(trans. Neusner, 2:220). 6522 The gate of John 10 could allude to the prince and his people going in and out through the gate of Ezek 46:9–10 , but the phraseology may be much broader than that: Num 27:17 ; 2Sam 5:2; 1 Kgs 3:7; 1 Chr 11:2. 6523 Hodges, «Rivers,» 247; the other uses of «last day» in the Fourth Gospel are uniformly eschatological (6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). We base this opinion on Johns propensity for double entendres and his usual use of «last day,» not on the construction, which is acceptable in the form in which it appears (cf., e.g., 1QM 18.1). |
| The passage also provides Jesus a prophecy fulfilled in 18:25–27, thereby confirming for John " s audience Jesus» role as a true prophet and guaranteeing the reliability of his other statements. 8352 Scholars debate the exact time of the cockcrow (13:38; 18:27); some point to the 3 A.M. trumpet call, called the gallicinium, or «cockcrow,» of the Roman guard in the Fortress Antonia. 8353 Various other periods for Palestinian cockcrow have been noted. 8354 This is not, however, the most obvious allusion either for Galilean disciples or for Diaspora readers of the Gospe1. Most people were not sufficiently awake during the nocturnal crowings to notice them; the most common use of cockcrow in ancient texts was to herald the dawn or a period immediately preceding it. 8355 In any case, Brown may well be right in citing Cicero: «Is there any time, night or day, that cocks do not crow?» 8356 The important point for the narrative is that, despite Peter " s vehement protestations, his denial is quite imminent! 8049 Noted by others, e.g., ibid., 18. Some source-critical theories have divided 13:1–20 into two independent earlier narratives (Georg Richter, summarized in Segovia, Relationships, 88), but this is unnecessary. 8051 Brown, John, 2:550; Michaels, John, 231; ÓDay, «John,» 721; to display a virtue even to the point of death was viewed as praiseworthy (Valerius Maximus 4.5.6). The Targum (Tg. Yer. 1 and 2 on Deut 32 ) describes Moses» impending death similarly (Glasson, Moses, 74). Cf. the eschatological «last day» (6:39,40,44, 54; 8:24,48; 11:24; 12:48; cf. 7:37; 8:56). 8052 Cf. Grayston, Epistles, 81–82, who thinks ludas may represent the Johannine Epistles» dissidents. 8054 All things in Jesus» «hands» in 13is significant; tradition said that all things were in God " s hands (4Q266 frg. 18, co1. 5, lines 9–10; but for delegation, cf. Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22). 8058 If the meal was gender-segregated, it is not likely the women would be doing much serving (in contrast to 12:2), since they would also be partaking somewhere. 8059 Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 96; Dupont, Life, 98–99; Haenchen, John, 2:110; Anderson, Mark, 104 (the position was not limited to banquets; cf. Valerius Maximus 5.1.ext.lb). For reclining at banquets, see, e.g., Plato Rep. 2.372D; Xenophon Anab. 6.1.4; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 47.5; Martial Epigr. 3.30.1 (recumbis); Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 2.14; Athenaeus Deipn. 1.18ab; Let. Aris. 181, 183; t. Ber. 4:20; Sipre Deut. 41.2.5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:3; b. Ber. 37a, 42b-43a; Ecc1. Rab. 9:8, §1; this may have pertained only to adult males (Xenophon Symp. 1.8, where a boy sits beside his father). |
| 5759 Jesus» «finding» the man implies that he sought the man (cf. 1:43; 2:14; 4:23), but the contrast between this text and 9may suggest that humans sought by Jesus remain morally responsible for embracing or rejecting him. 5760 E.g., Sophocles Phi1. 481–86,1032–1033; Appian R.H. 1.10; Cornelius Nepos 17 (Agesilaus), 8.1. 5761 Ellis, Genius, 88; Strombeck, «Grace,» 106–7; contrast Hoskyns, Gospel 265. Even if one reads Sirach " s prologue as Joshua ben Sirach " s grandson being in Egypt thirty-eight years, it is doubtful that statement alludes to the exodus. 5762 Cf. John 9:1 ; Mark 5:25 ; Luke 13:11; Acts 3:2; Gen. Apoc. 20.20; Γ. Job 26:1; 27:6/9; 28:1; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 3.38; 6.43; Epid. inscr. 1; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 45; see esp. Theissen, Stories, 51–52. 5763 Demonstrations were an essential component of miracle stories (e.g., Mark 1:31, 44; 2:11–12; 5:43 ; IG 4.951; Lucian Philops. 11; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 4.45 in Bultmann, Tradition, 225, 232–33; Theissen, Stories, 66). 5764 Safrai, «Home,» 735–36. 5765 Ibid., 744; Jeffers, World, 68. 5766 Theissen, Stories, 66, cites Lucian Philops. 7; Lex. 12; Abdic. 5; Ver. hist. 1.40; 2.41; Charon 7; Asin. 12; Antiphanes Metragyrtes frg. 154; P.S.I. 4.435 and other sources, including invocations in magical papyri (e.g., PGM 3.35–36; 12.58, 81) and accounts in the Gospels (in which Mark not surprisingly dominates). 5767 E.g., the claim in Lysias Or. 24.10–12, Hippocrates knows that some purported cures for lameness were useless (Airs, Waters, Places 22.1–36). 5768 Beck, Paradigm, 87, compares Jesus» abrupt responses to those needing signs that he will grant (2:4; 4:48; cf. also 3:3). 5769 Although θλω (5:6) recurs later in the chapter (5:21, 35, 40), its usage here is determined only by the need of the statement (as in 6); it is probably not related closely to the more theological or christological uses. 5770 See 11:24; Mark 5:39 ; Acts 3:5; 2 Kgs 5:5–7; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 4.45 (Theissen, Stories, 55). |
| 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. |
| 5394 Occasionally pagans also suggested that mortals who rejected deities did so because they did not recognize who they were (e.g., Apollo to Daphne, albeit in erotic circumstances, in Ovid Metam. 1.514–515). 5395 Boers, Mountain, 166. Most interpreters through history have viewed her as a model for conversion, but Reformed commentators also typically portrayed her as insolently ridiculing Jesus (see Farmer, «Samaritan Woman»). But given some portrayals of bold flirtation in sources of this period, if the narrative is at all already headed in that direction (4:17), a somewhat more curious and playful banter might be in view (cf. also the widely coveted woman in dialogue with Socrates in Xenophon Mem. 3.9.18). 5402 Cf., e.g., Pesiq. Rab. 47:3, where God asks Job if he considered himself greater than Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, or Aaron; the question assumes that any normal person recognizes that he or she is not. 5403 That Jesus made such claims is historically likely; cf. the Q material in Matt 12:41–42; Luke 11:31–32. 5404 Whitacre, Polemic, 89; Lightfoot, Gospel, 134. For John " s use of «greater,» see comment on 1:50. 5405 For 4:13, cf. perhaps Xenophon Oec. 7.40, where drawing water with a leaky jar was an old Greek figure for laboring in vain. 5406 E.g., Sipre Deut. 32.5.10; see comment on 1:17. Greeks and Romans spoke of wine as του δρου του Διονσου (Plutarch frg. 54, from Scholia on Hesiod Op. 368–369 in Plutarch LCL 15:146–47) and (sometimes coupled or contrasted, e.g., Euripides Bacch. 275–280) bread as the «gift of Ceres» (Ovid Metam. 11.122). Origen Comm. Jo. 13.26–39 thinks the point of this passage is that Jesus» water is greater than that of Scripture (allegorizing the well). 5407 E.g., m. " Abot 1:4, 11; 2:8; Mek. Vay. l:74ff.; see much more fully the comment on John 1:25–26 . Schnackenburg, John, 1:430, cites the late Yalqut Shim " oni 2.480 for Torah becoming a spring within a student. Greeks could compare oracular prophecy to streams of water (Plutarch Obso1. |
| 6171 Rhetoricians recognized the sort of statement that both began and ended with repetitions, combining επιβολ with επιφορ; see Cicero Or. Brut. 39.135; Anderson, Glossary, 69,111; Rowe, «Style,» 131–32 (under the title συμπλοκ). 6172 Borgen, Bread, 151, suggests that they refuse to interpret the Scriptures christologically. John " s closest parallel to any Maccabean texts is in 6:40, to 2Macc 7(Reim, Studien, 191). 6175 Brown, John, 1:270. From a Diaspora viewpoint, the whole people were «Jews» and Galileans were the Judean frontier; but for the Johannine sense, see our comments on pp. 214–28. 6176 In a town of at most 1,600–2,000 inhabitants (Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 56), and probably around 500 inhabitants (Stanton, New People, 112; Horsley, Galilee, 193), most people would have assumed that they knew Jesus better than this already (cf. Luke 13:26–28). 6177 If it is significant (οτος appears 217 times in the Gospel) that the use of οτος resembles christological confessions in John (e.g., 1:30,33; 4:29), then it is significant that this crowd " s highest Christology is «son of Joseph» (6:42; cf. 1:45). 6179 Though cf. Carson, Sovereignty, 185, who protests that the contexts of the two passages are very different. 6183 Wiles, Gospel, 110–11; see, e.g., John of Damascus The Orthodox Faith 2.29 (Oden and Hall, Mark, 69). See in greater detail the comment on 3:19–21. 6184 Like some rabbis, John may blend the Greek and Hebrew texts (cf. Freed, Quotations, 18), but a free quotation from the LXX is also possible (e.g., Stevens, Theology, 25; Menken, « John 6,45 »; Schuchard, Scripture, 47–57). Later rabbis could apply Isa 54to the eschatological time when Israel would receive the Spirit (Deut. Rab. 6:14), when God himself would teach all Israel (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:21; Gen. Rab. 95:3), though they could also apply it to those who labor in Torah (Exod. Rab. 38:3). 6186 E.g., Socrates Ep. 1; the messianic king in Pss. So1. 17:32. 4Q491 MS C, frg. 11, co1. 1, lines 16–17, may speak of the Messiah (or Qumran " s righteous Teacher?) teaching yet being formally untaught, perhaps implying divine instruction (the context is unclear; God or Wisdom could be the untaught teacher). |
|
|
