| Losie, «Gospel» Losie, Lynn A. «Mark, Secret Gospel of.» Pages 708–12 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1997. Lourenço, «Targum» Lourenço, Joào. «Targum de Is 52,13–53,12 : Pressupostos historicos e processus literârios.» Didaskalia 20 (1990): 155–66. Lowe, «IOUDAIOI» Lowe, Malcolm. «Who Were the IOUDAIOI?» NovT 18 (1976): 101–30. Lowe and Flusser, «Synoptic Theory» Lowe, Malcolm, and David Flusser. «Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory.» NTS 29 (1983): 25–47. Lown, «Miraculous» Lown, John S. «The Miraculous in the Greco-Roman Historians.» Forum 2, no. 4 (December 1986): 36–42. Lucas, «Origin» Lucas, Ernest C. «The Origin of Daniel " s Four Empires Scheme Re-examined.» Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989): 185–202. Lührmann, «Geschichte» Lührmann, Dieter. «Die Geschichte von einer Sünderin und andere Apokryphe Jesusüberlieferungen bei Didymos von Alexandrien.» NovT 32 (1990): 289–316. Luke, «Ascension» Luke, K. «Enoch " s Ascension: The Apocalyptic Tradition.» Indian Theological Studies 25 (1988): 236–52. Luke, «Society» Luke, K. «Society Divided by Religion: The Jewish World of Jesus» Time.» Bible-bhashyam 1, no. 3 (1975): 195–209. Lukito, «Christology» Lukito, Daniel L . «Logos Christology: An Interaction between Early Christian Beliefs and Modern Scholars» Attempts to Relate Them to the Asia Context.» Stulos Theological Journal 1 (1993): 105–21. Lull, Spirit Lull, David John. The Spirit in Galatia: Paul " s Interpretation of Pneuma as Divine Power. SBLDS 49. Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1980. Lupieri, «Morte» Lupieri, Edmondo. «La morte di croce: Contributi per un " analisi di Fi1. 2,6–11.» RivB 27 (1979): 271–311. Luther, John Luther, Martin. Sermons on the Gospel of St. John. Vols. 22–24 of Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. St. Louis: Concordia, 1957–1961. Lutkemeyer, «Paraclete» Lutkemeyer, Lawrence J. «The Role of the Paraclete: Jn 16:7–15 .» CBQ 8 (1946): 220–29. |
| Morris, Judgment Morris, Leon. The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. Morris, Lectionaries Morris, Leon. The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries. London: Tyndale, 1964. Morris, Luke Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to St. Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Morris, Romans Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Morris, Studies Morris, Leon. Studies in the Fourth Gospe1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Morris, Thessalonians Morris, Leon. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. Morton and MacGregor, Structure Morton, A. Q., and G. H. C. MacGregor. The Structure of Luke and Acts. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Moses, Transfiguration Story Moses, A. D. A. Matthew " s Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy. ISNTSup 122. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Mosley, «Reporting» Mosley, A. W. «Historical Reporting in the Ancient World.» NTS 12 (1965–1966): 10–26. Moss, «Lamp» Moss, L. W. «A Menorah Lamp from Atripalda.» IEJ 25 (1975): 156. Most, «Luke» Most, William G. «Did St. Luke Imitate the Septuagint?» JSNT 15 (1982): 30–41. Motyer, «Anti-Semitic» Motyer, Stephen. «Is lohn " s Gospel Anti-Semitic?» Themelios 23 (1998): 1–4. Motyer, Father the Devil Motyer, Stephen. Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to John and " The Jews.» Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. Motyer, «Method» Motyer, Stephen. «Method in Fourth Gospel Studies: A Way out of the Impasse?» JSNT 66 (1997): 27–44. Motyer, «New Start» Motyer, Stephen. «The Fourth Gospel and the Salvation of Israel: An Appea-for a New Start.» Pages 92–110 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. Moulder, «Background» Moulder, W. J. «The Old Testament Background and the Interpretation of Mark X.45 .» NTS 24 (1977–1978): 120–27. |
| 7768 Glasson, Moses, 72, who also compares (less persuasively) glory revealed on a seventh day in 2(where chronology is not mentioned) and possibly 7(which we believe may be the eighth) 7769 E.g., Bruce, John, 255. It may have been a meal in Jesus» honor; for the significance of this and status issues of seating, see Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 207–8; and our comment on status and the foot washing in ch. 13. 7770 It occurs sixteen times in the Synoptics, including in a saying quite consonant with John 12 ( Mark 10:45 ; Matt 20:28; Luke 22:26–27). Seven of its appearances are in Luke alone, including Luke 10:40; but it appears frequently enough elsewhere for one to doubt that John must simply reproduce Lukés style rather than earlier tradition here. 7771 Beare, Matthew, 505, complains that such a quantity would not fit in a usual alabaster flask; but even if this is the case, John omits mention of such a flask (a common container; see Witherington, Women, 55) present in the Synoptic accounts (Matt 26:7; Mark 14:3 ; Luke 7:37), reinforcing our picture that John is independent of them here. 7772 Catullus 13.9–14; by contrast, Seneca Ep. Luci1. 108.16 and others advocated avoiding perfumes (unguento), preferring no scent. 7773 Brown, John, 1:448. Essentially the same population type lived on both sides of the Red Sea (Huntingford, «Axum,» 28; Rashidi, «Africans,» 22–23). On myrrh, see further Harrison, «Myrrh.» 7775 Ibid., also commenting that the rare πιστικς may translate overliteraly an Aramaic expression that can mean «genuine» nard or apply to «faith» (better than Hunter, John, 121). 7778 See Witherington, Women, 113, citing Athenaeus Deipn. 12.553 and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 1:427–28, 986. Bruns, « Jn 12:3 ,» cites the same Athenaeus reference and relates anointing to royalty byPolybius 26.1.12–14. 7782 Morris, John, 576–77; Witherington, Women, 55; on the eastern Mediterranean Jewish custom, see, e.g., m. Ketub. 7:6; Sotah 1:5; Sipre Num. 11.2.3; " AbotR. Nat. 3; 17A; 14, §35B; cf. Jos. Asen. 15:1–2; 18:6; Belkin, Philo, 230; further sources in Keener, Paul, 19–69; idem, «Headcoverings.» |
| Talbert, «Worship» Talbert, Charles H. «Worship in the Fourth Gospel and in Its Milieu.» Pages 337–56 in Perspectives on John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospe1. National Association of the Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies Series 11. Edited by Robert B. Sloan and Mikeal C. Parsons. Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1993. Talmon, «Prayer» Talmon, Shemaryahu. «The Emergence of Institutionalized Prayer in Israel in the Light of the Qumran Literature.» Pages 265–84 in Qumran: Sa piété, sa théologie, et son milieu. Edited by M. Dekor. BETL 46. Paris: Gembloux, Leuven University Press, 1978. Tannehill, Acts Tannehill, Robert C. The Acts of the Apostles. Vo1. 2 of The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Tannehill, Luke Tannehill, Robert C. The Gospel according to Luke. Vo1. 1 of The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Tannehill, Sword Tannehill, Robert C. The Sword of His Mouth. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Supplements 1. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. Tannenbaum, «God-Fearers» Tannenbaum, Robert F. «Jews and God-Fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite.» BAR 12, no. 5 (September/October 1986): 54–57. Tarn, Civilisation Tarn, W. W. Hellenistic Civilisation. Revised by W. W. Tarn and G. T. Griffith. 3d. ed. New York: New American Library, 1974. Tasker, John Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel according to St. John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Taylor, «Artemis» Taylor, Lily Ross. «Artemis of Ephesus.» Pages 251–56 in vo1. 5 of The Beginnings of Christianity. Taylor, Atonement Taylor, Vincent. The Atonement in New Testament Teaching. London: Epworth, 1945. Taylor, «Baptism» Taylor, T. M. «The Beginnings of Jewish Proselyte Baptism.» NTS 2 (1955–1956): 193–98. Taylor, «Capernaum» Taylor, Joan E. «Capernaum and Its " Jewish-Christians»: A Re-examination of the Franciscan Excavations.» Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 9 (1989–90): 7–28. |
| 2 . Второй аргумент частично базируется на общепринятом представлении, будто бы сначала первые христиане ожидали второго пришествия Иисуса в любой ближайший момент и только несколько позднее продолжительная отсрочка Его пришествия навела их на мысль, что они в чем–то допустили ошибку, и возвращение Христа отложено до неопределенного будущего. Но, с одной стороны, все факты решительно свидетельствуют против того, что первые христиане ждали возвращения Иисуса непосредственно сразу после Его воскресения. С другой стороны, в Евангелии от Луки нет ни намека на то, что ожидание возвращения Христа утратило все свое значение (см.: 12:35–40; 17:20–37; 18:8; 21:5–36). Что до предположения, будто Церковь уже была организована как институт, то это, очевидно, не так. Достаточно сравнить Евангелие от Луки с работами ранних отцов Церкви, чтобы это осознать. Короче говоря, все аргументы против авторства Луки на поверку оказываются совершенно несостоятельными. Время написания Евангелия нам не известно. Существуют две весьма вероятных возможности. Во–первых, Евангелие от Луки могло быть написано в самом начале 60–х гг. I в. Во–вторых, его написание можно датировать более поздним временем, что–то около 80 г. н. э. Все зависит от того, знал ли автор в момент написания своего Евангелия о том, что сбылось пророчество Иисуса об уничтожении Иерусалимского храма, и знал ли он о гибели апостола Павла, когда писал Книгу Деяния святых Апостолов. Большинство ученых склонны дать утвердительный ответ на оба вопроса, но в действительности мы просто не знаем этого. Место написания также остается неточно установленным. Ранние традиции полагают, что Лука писал свой труд в Ахайе (Греция). Однако использование текста Евангелия от Марка позволяет предположить связь с Римом. Опять же мы просто не знаем этого. Дополнительная литература Wilcock M. The Message of Luke, BST (IVP, 1979). Morris L. Luke, TNTC (IVP/UK/Eerdmans, 1988). Gooding D. According to Luke (IVP/UK, 1987). Evans C. A. The Gospel of Luke, NIBC (Hendrickson, 1990). |
| He being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own tongue and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek and this is the reason why it seems to differ from other epistles of Paul. Some read one also to the Laodiceans but it is rejected by everyone. 6. Barnabas Barnabas the Cyprian, also called Joseph the Levite, ordained apostle to the Gentiles with Paul, wrote one Epistle, valuable for the edification of the church, which is reckoned among the apocryphal writings. He afterwards separated from Paul on account of John, a disciple also called Mark, none the less exercised the work laid upon him of preaching the Gospel. 7. Luke Luke a physician of Antioch, as his writings indicate, was not unskilled in the Greek language. An adherent of the apostlePaul, and companion of all his journeying, he wrote a Gospel, concerning which the same Paul says, We send with him a brother whose praise in the gospel is among all the churches and to the Colossians Luke the beloved physician salutes you, and to Timothy Luke only is with me. He also wrote another excellent volume to which he prefixed the title Acts of the Apostles, a history which extends to the second year of Paul " s sojourn at Rome, that is to the fourth year of Nero, from which we learn that the book was composed in that same city. Therefore the Acts of Paul and Thecla and all the fable about the lion baptized by him we reckon among the apocryphal writings, for how is it possible that the inseparable companion of the apostle in his other affairs, alone should have been ignorant of this thing. Moreover Tertullian who lived near those times, mentions a certain presbyter in Asia, an adherent of the apostle Paul, who was convicted by John of having been the author of the book, and who, confessing that he did this for love of Paul, resigned his office of presbyter. Some suppose that whenever Paul in his epistle says according to my gospel he means the book of Luke and that Luke not only was taught the gospel history by the apostle Paul who was not with the Lord in the flesh, but also by other apostles. This he too at the beginning of his work declares, saying Even as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. So he wrote the gospel as he had heard it, but composed the Acts of the Apostles as he himself had seen. He was buried at Constantinople to which city, in the twentieth year of Constantius, his bones together with the remains of Andrew the apostle were transferred. 8. Mark |
| 4348 It is Nathanael, not Jesus, who is the new Jacob here (1:47; Jesus is greater than Jacob, 4:12); 4349 Jesus is Jacob " s ladder (what Jubilees calls the «gate of heaven»), 4350 the way between God and the world (14:6). 4351 If later rabbis could claim that Moses was greater than Jacob because he not merely saw angels but ascended into their domain, no one could dispute that Jesus was greater than Jacob, 4352 for angels depended on him as the true connection between the worlds (cf. also 3:13–15, where Jesus is the true ascender superior to Moses). This confession climaxes the human christological titles of 1:19–50; Jesus is Christ, the lamb, the Son and the King, but only when the disciples recognize him as the exalted Son of Man and way to the Father do they recognize the full heavenly reality behind the other titles. 4353 3791 One should begin a narrative at its most natural starting point (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thucyd. 10–12); political biographies often opened in adulthood (Plutarch Caesar 1.1–4; also the Life of Aesop, Drury, Design, 29). Smith, lohn (1999), 78–80, compares 1:19–51 with the introductory infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, but it might fulfill better the role of the remaining introductions of Matt 3–4 and Luke 3–4. It might function as a (lengthy) transition between the proem and main narrative (cf. Seneca Dia1. 1.1.25). 3792 Cf. Schenke, «Entstehungsgeschichte»; «Israel» appears again in this Gospel only in 3:10; 12:13. 3794 Niccacci, «Fede,» observes correspondences between 1:19–51 and 20:1–29, suggesting that both model coming to faith (one in Jesus» messiahship, the other in his resurrection). That the Baptist " s witness is paradigmatic for others» witness in this section is clear; earlier Christian writers employed it similarly (cf. Luke 3:4; 9:52; 10:1; in Tannehill, Luke, 1:49). 3796 Scholars have proposed various theories concerning the opening days of this Gospel, some connecting them with the idea of a new creation (cf. 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. |
| Historians valued such investigation, which often included traveling to the places where events had reportedly occurred, 297 and criticized those who failed to accomplish it as well as possible. 298 Whereas Roman historians consulted records, the Greek model normally entailed travel and consulting with available eyewitnesses, 299 although many even in the eastern Mediterranean fell short of this idea1. Evidence strongly suggests that Luke fits the more reliable end of the spectrum. 300 Lukés claim to investigation and his dependence on available eyewitness tradition are especially likely if the «we» sections in Acts, which include a meeting with James the Lord " s brother in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17–18), may be attributed to the author and not to someone elsés travel journal 301 or to a fictitious literary device. 302 Whereas «we» appears in novelistic texts, it appears no less in historical texts; its function depended on the genre of the text. 303 Further, the «we» sections in Acts may well reflect a travel journal, but it was far more likely Lukes own than another " s, for Luke is too skilled a writer to leave a secondary source in his narrative unedited. Given the correspondence of the «we» sections to appropriate geographical intervals (16:11–18, 20:6) and the lack of emphasis the writer gives to his own presence (although known to his patron Theophilus and perhaps his implied audience, he remains in the background and appears rarely), the «we» most likely means, as ancient readers would have normally understood, «we.» 304 If «we» includes the author or even identifies merely an eyewitness source, Luke may be accepted as all the more dependable. Like some other early Christian writers (Acts 26:26; 1Cor 15:6 ; 2Cor 12:12 ), Luke also appeals to «public knowledge» (1:4); he has investigated these matters, but his audience, including his probable patron Theophilus, already has some knowledge about them. Appeals to public knowledge such as that contained in documents, 305 claims offered among those who could have refuted them (such as the living eyewitnesses in positions of prominence in the church; cf. |
| Jeremias, Promise Jeremias, Joachim. Jesus» Promise to the Nations. Translated by S. H. Hooke. SBT 24. London: SCM, 1958. Jeremias, «Qumran Texts» Jeremias, Joachim. «The Qumran Texts and the New Testament.» ExpTim 70 (1958–1959): 68–69. Jeremias, Sayings Jeremias, Joachim. Unknown Sayings of Jesus. 2d English ed. Translated by Reginald H. Fuller. London: SPCK, 1964. Jeremias, Theology Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Translated by John Bowden. New York: Scribner, 1971. Jervell, Luke Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts. Foreword by Nils Dah1. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972. Jervell, Paul Jervell, Jacob. The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Jewett, Chronology Jewett, Robert. A Chronology of Paul " s Life. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Jobling, «Dominion» Jobling, David. « " And Have Dominion ...»: The Interpretation of Genesis 1,28 in Philo Judaeus.» JSJ 8 (1977): 50–82. Jochim, Religions Jochim, Christian. Chinese Religions: A Cultural Perspective. Prentice-Hall Series in World Religions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1986. Jocz, People Jocz, Jakob. The Jewish People and Jesus Christ: The Relationship between Church and Synagogue. 3d ed. London: SPCK, 1962. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Joczwiak, «Mesjanizm» Joczwiak, F. «Mesjanizm w literaturze ζ Qumran (Le messianisme dans les textes de Qumran).» Roczniki teologiczno-kanoniczne 10, no. 1 (1963): 35–42. Johansson, Parakletoi Johansson, Nils. Parakletoi: Vorstellungen von Fürsprechern für die Menschen vor Gott in der alttestamentlichen Religion, im Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. Lund: Gleerup, 1940. Johns and Miller, «Signs» Johns, Loren L., and Douglas B. Miller. «The Signs as Witnesses in the Fourth Gospel: Reexamining the Evidence.» CBQ 56 (1994): 519–35. Johnson, Acts Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostles. Sacra pagina 5. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992. |
| 10833 But both kinds of appearances appear early in the tradition; it made little sense to invent Galilean appearances despite Mark " s favoritism toward Galilee, and it is difficult to account for Lukés certitude in Acts without a Judean apostolate, despite his theological use of Jerusalem. Sanders may be right that when Lukés Jerusalem center for Luke-Acts is taken into account, the most plausible scenario is that the disciples «fled to Galilee and then returned to Jerusalem,» 10834 where Galileans often traveled. 2. Pre- or Postresurrection Tradition? Many think that John 21 recycles the same tradition as behind Luke 5:1–11. 10835 One could view John 21 as an allusion to Peter " s first encounter with Jesus, but given the form of that encounter only in Luke, this proposal may expect too much knowledge of Lukan tradition from John " s audience. In any case, a direct literary relationship between Luke 5:1–11 and John 21:5–8 is improbable; the only two significant words shared by both are ιχθς and δκτυον. 10836 Redaction in the chapter need not, of course, deny the possibility of genuine historical tradition here; 10837 one could even argue that the similarities point merely to consistency in the tradition rather than to two distinct events. But as throughout the Gospel, historical tradition is difficult to test in the absence of material parallel with the Synoptics. Fish symbols were common in Diaspora Judaism and contemporary paganism, 10838 but such symbolism is improbable here. Others also think that OT imagery stands behind the Gospel accounts of the calling of fishermen or (more commonly) at least behind Jesus» Markan summons to become «fishers of people» ( Mark 1:17 ; Hab 1:15; Jer 16:16 ; cf. Ezek 47:10 ). 10839 But the OT use is a judgment metaphor (Jos. Asen. 21MSS would be closer), so the image is questionable unless Jesus provocatively pictured those who should «trap» people for the kingdom 10840 or intended the allusion by way of contrast. 10841 Derrett, who thinks Ezek 47 stands behind both the Synoptic fishing calls and John 21:5–6 , appeals to the early Jewish use of fish symbolism to represent individual salvation, 10842 but John 21 , at least, provides no clues that support this interpretation. |
|
|
