| 1995. Vol. 37. Fasc. 3. P. 209-231; Frickenschmidt D. Evangelium als Biographie. Tüb., 1997; Inch M. Exhortations of Jesus According to Matthew and Up from the Dephts: Mark as Tragedy. Lanham etc., 1997. P. 69-170; Wills L. M. The Quest for the Historical Gospel: Mark, John, and the Origins of the Gospel Genre. N. Y.; L., 1997; Bonz M. P. The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic. Minneapolis, 2000; Burridge R. A. Gospel Genre: Christological Controversy and the Absence of Rabbinic Biography//Christology, Controversy, and Community: NT essays in honour of D. R. Catchpole/Ed. G. Horrell, C. M. Tuckett. Leiden, 2000. P. 137-156; idem. What are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Greco-roman Biography: Grand Rapids, 20042; McDonald D. R. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. New Haven; L., 2000; Reiser M. Sprache und literarische Formen des NT. Paderborn, 2001; Vines M. E. The Problem of Markan Genre. Atlanta, 2002; W ö rdermann D. Das Charakterbild im Bios nach Plutarch und das Christusbild im Evangelium nach Markus. Paderborn etc., 2002; Mitchell M. Review: Homer in the NT//J. of Religion. 2003. Vol. 83. N. 2. P. 244-260. Евангелие как исторический источник. Westcott B. F. The Gospel according to St. John. L., 1882, 19082, 1980r; Weiss B. Das Matthaus-Evangelium. Gött., 18989; Strachan R. H. The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian? L., 1925; Turner C. Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical on the Second Gospel//JThSt. 1925/1926. Vol. 27. P. 58-62; Clark K. W. The Gentile Bias in Matthew//JBL. 1947. Vol. 66. N 2. P. 165-172; Riesenfeld H. The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings: A Study in the limits of «Formgeschichte»//Studia Evangelica. B., 1959. Bd. 1. S. 43-75. (TU; 73); Higgins A. J. B. The Historicity of the Fourth Gospel. L., 1960; Gerhardsson B. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Tradition in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity: Diss. Uppsala, 1961; idem. The Parable of the Sower and Its Interpretation//NTS. 1967/1968. Vol. 14. |
| Synaxis of the Archangel Gabriel Commemorated on March 26 Synaxis of the Holy Archangel Gabriel: The Archangel Gabriel was chosen by the Lord to announce to the Virgin Mary about the Incarnation of the Son of God from Her, to the great rejoicing of all mankind. Therefore, on the day after the Feast of the Annunciation, the day on which the All-Pure Virgin is glorified, we give thanks to the Lord and we venerate His messenger Gabriel, who contributed to the mystery of our salvation. Gabriel, the holy Archistrategos (Leader of the Heavenly Hosts), is a faithful servant of the Almighty God. He announced the future Incarnation of the Son of God to those of the Old Testament; he inspired the Prophet Moses to write the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament), he announced the coming tribulations of the Chosen People to the Prophet Daniel (Dan. 8:16, 9:21-24); he appeared to Saint Anna (July 25) with the news that she would give birth to the Virgin Mary. The holy Archangel Gabriel remained with the Holy Virgin Mary when She was a child in the Temple of Jerusalem, and watched over Her throughout Her earthly life. He appeared to the Priest Zachariah, foretelling the birth of the Forerunner of the Lord, Saint John the Baptist. The Lord sent him to Saint Joseph the Betrothed in a dream, to reveal to him the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God from the All-Pure Virgin Mary, and warned him of the wicked intentions of Herod, ordering him to flee into Egypt with the divine Infant and His Mother. When the Lord prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane before His Passion, the Archangel Gabriel, whose very name signifies “Man of God” (Luke. 22:43), was sent from Heaven to strengthen Him. The Myrrh-Bearing Women heard from the Archangel the joyous news of Christ’s Resurrection (Mt.28:1-7, Mark 16:1-8). Mindful of the manifold appearances of the holy Archangel Gabriel and of his zealous fulfilling of God’s will, and confessing his intercession for Christians before the Lord, the Orthodox Church calls upon its children to pray to the great Archangel with faith and love. The Synaxis of the Holy Archangel Gabriel is also celebrated on July 13. All the angels are commemorated on November 8. Troparion — Tone 4 Gabriel, commander of the heavenly hosts,/we who are unworthy beseech you,/by your prayers encompass us beneath the wings of your immaterial glory,/and faithfully preserve us who fall down and cry to you:/“Deliver us from all harm, for you are the commander of the powers on high!” Kontakion — Tone 8 Supreme commander Gabriel,/you are the glorious intercessor and servant/before the all-radiant, worthy, all-powerful, infinite and awesome Trinity./Ever pray now that we may be delivered from all tribulations and torments,/so that we may cry out to you:/“Rejoice, protection of your servants!” Подпишитесь на рассылку Православие.Ru Рассылка выходит два раза в неделю: Мы в соцсетях Подпишитесь на нашу рассылку |
| 1451 Lucian Pereg. 11 (Loeb 5:12–13); but Tiede, Figure, 85, is all too accurate when he calls this passage «perplexing.» Wilken, «Christians,» 119–23, notes that outsiders recognized Christianity " s Jewish roots well into the third century. 1454 E.g., Smallwood, Rule, 539; Reinhold, Diaspora, 74; Selwyn, Peter, 51; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 6. 1455 Rome treated it as a collegium rather than a religio; see Rajak, «Charter»; Parkes, Conflict, 8; Koester, Introduction, 1:365. For general information on their status, cf. Rabello, «Condition»; Applebaum, «Status»; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 92–105. 1456 See Pucci Ben Zeev, «Position»; cf. Aune, Revelation, 169–72; Witherington, Acts, 541–44. Some cities had challenged these rights, but rarely in the preceding century (Trebilco, Communities, 13,183–84). 1460 Cf. Luke (Kent, Jerusalem, 17; Bruce, Commentary, 20–24); this may be why Acts 18omits mention of the reasons Suetonius later cites for Claudius " s expulsion. 1463 E.g., Borchert, John, 72; some suggest that Christians in Galatia may have accepted circumcision to escape the demands of the imperial cult (Winter, Welfare, 133–43). For persecution in John " s Sitz im Leben, see Minear, «Audience,» 340–41; cf. Kysar, Evangelist, 153. 1465 Foakes Jackson and Lake, «Evidence,» 183–84; Aune, Environment, 137. For this practice in antiquity in Judaism, cf., e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.1,58–59,103–105; Justin 1 Apo1. 44; Parke, Sibyls, 8; Mason, Josephus and NT, 196–98; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 349; Hengel, Judaism, 1:93. 1466 Some accuse Luke of anti-Judaism (Sandmel, Anti-Semitism, 100; Klausner, Paul, 229; Slingerland, «Jews»; cf. Hare, «Rejection,» 27). More likely, Luke-Acts merely emphasizes the veracity and Jewishness of Christianity, despite much of Judaism " s rejection (Brawley, Jews, 158–59); Lukés portrayal of the Pharisees (Brawley, Jews, 84–106) and the Jewish people (Brawley, Jews, 133–54; cf. Jervell, Luke, 44, 49; Stowers, «Synagogue»; Hengel, Acts, 63–64) is essentially positive (contrast Justin Martyr). The Christianity of Luke-Acts may have been sectarian like other early Jewish movements, but this hardly makes it anti-Semitic (see Donaldson, «Typology»). |
| 35 Marxsen, Mark, 150, thus objects to applying Mark " s term «Gospel» to Matthew and Luke, arguing that Matthew is a collection of «gospels» and sermons (pp. 150 n. 106; 205–6), and Luke a «life of Jesus» (150 n. 106). He is uncomfortable with the language of a Gospel «genre» (25). 36 Aune, Environment, 83, cites Quintilian 2.42; Cicero Inv. 1.27; Sextus Empiricus Against the Professors 1.263–264 for the three major categories (history, fiction, and myth or legend), though noting that they overlapped in practice (Strabo Geog. 1.2.17, 35); for distinctions between mythography and history proper, see Fornara, Nature of History, 4–12. 38 This view was proposed by K. L. Schmidt, who provided analogies among later folk literatures of various cultures. He is followed by Kümmel, Introduction, 37; cf. Hunter, Message, 30; Deissmann, Light, 466. 39 Downing, «Literature»; Aune, Environment, 12, 63; Burridge, Gospels, 11, 153. Rhetorical principles influenced narrative techniques; see, e.g., Dowden, «Apuleius.» 40 Koester, Introduction, 1:108; Kodell, Luke, 23; cf. Perry, Sources, 7. This is not to mention Lukés architectonic patterns (for which see Goulder, Acts; Talbert, Patterns; idem, Luke; Tannehill, Luke). 41 E.g., Socratics Ep. 18, Xenophon to Socrates» friends. Diogenes Laertius includes compilations of traditions, but from a variety of sources. 42 Cf. Papias frg. 6 (Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.39), on the hypothesis that Papias " s «Matthew» is our «Q» (cf. Filson, History, 83; rejected by Jeremias, Theology, 38). Downing, «Like Q,» compares Q with a Cynic «Life» (cf. Mack, Lost Gospel 46); contrast Tuckett, «Q.» 43 Justin 1 Apo1. 66.3; 67.3; Dia1. 103.8; 106.3 (see Stanton, New People, 62–63; Abramowski, «Memoirs,» pace Koester). 45 This is not to deny the Synoptics» substantial dependence on tradition, but tradition is not so dominant (as Jones, Parables, 36, seems to suggest) as to prohibit pursuit of literary coherence. 46 Quintilian 10.6.1–2. One should also be ready to add improvisations during the speech (10.6.5). |
| Лит.: Никольский. Устав. Т. 2. С. 253-256; Скабалланович. Типикон. Вып. 2. С. 288-293; Gunkel H. Die Lieder in der Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu bei Lukas//Festgabe für A. von Harnack/Hrsg. K. Holl etc. Tüb., 1921. S. 43-60; Harnack A. Studien zur Geschichte des NT und der alten Kirche. B., 1931. Bd. 1. S. 62-85; Schneider H. Die bibl. Oden im christl. Altertum//Biblica. 1949. Vol. 30. P. 28-65, 239-272, 433-452, 479-500; Tannehill R. C. Magnificat as poem//J. of Biblical Literature. Middletown (Connecticut), 1974. Vol. 93. P. 263-275; Арранц М. Как молились Богу древние византийцы. Л., 1979; Buth R. Hebrew Poetic Tenses and the Magnificat//JSNT. Sheffield, 1984. Vol. 21. P. 67-83; Brown R. E. The Annunciation to Mary, the Visitation, and the Magnificat//Worship. 1988. Vol. 62. P. 249-259; Luzpraga J. Las versiones siriacas del Magníficat//Estudios Bíblicos. Madrid, 1992. Vol. 50. N 1-4. P. 103-122; Theotokos: Ricerche interdisciplinari di Mariologia. R., 1997. Vol. 5. N 2. P. 403-422, 463-485, 643-674; Marshall I. H. The New International Greek Testament Comment.: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, 19982; Niccacci A. Magnificat: Una ricerca sulle tonalità dominanti//Liber annuus. Jerusalem, 1999. Vol. 49. P. 65-78; Никодим Святогорец, прп. Толкование на 9-ю песнь Богородицы Марии/Пер. и комм. иером. Дионисия (Шленова)//Встреча. Серг. П., 2000. 3 (13). С. 40-43; Farris S. The Canticles of Luke " s Infancy Narrative: The Appropriation of a Biblical Tradition//Into God " s Presence: Prayer in the NT/Ed. R. N. Longenecker. Mich.; Camb., 2001. P. 91-112; Bovon F. Luke 1: Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1. 1-9. 50. Minneapolis, 2002. А. А. Ткаченко В современной русской певческой практике Известно неск. напевов «В.»: обиходный (Благослови душе моя Господа: Песнопения всенощного бдения. М., 1995. С. 118-121), знаменный распев (в 1-голосном изложении - Обиход. 1909. Л. 62-62 об., в гармонизации - Яичков. С. 23-27), т. н. киевский (Обиход церковного пения. М., 1997. С. 130-133) и его варианты (напевы Дивеевского мон-ря или Зосимовой пустыни (Октоих. М., 1981. С. 30), Яблочинского мон-ря (Нотный сб. С. 118-119), Ф. Мясникова (Всенощное бдение. М., 2000. Сб. 2. С. 35), киевский распев (Обиход нотный Киево-Печерской лавры. Всенощное бдение. М., 2001р. Ч. 1. С. 120-122) и др. В певч. практике РПЦ чаще используется обиходный или т. н. киевский напевы; иногда «В.» может распеваться на гласовый напев ирмосов или других жанров, если структура напева представляет чередование 2 мелодических строк (напр., на 6-й «болгарский»). В старообрядческой практике исполняется «по напевке» (вероятно, устная версия знаменного распева). Существуют также оригинальные муз. сочинения на текст «В.», принадлежащие А. А. Архангельскому , П. Г. Чеснокову , Г. И. Рютову и др. композиторам (Свод напевов. С. 56-59). Во время пения «В.» совершается благовест из 9 или большего количества ударов. |
| Crucifixion victims often had wounds, and those who had been wounded often showed their wounds to make a point (see comment on 20:20); that Jesus did so stems from pre-Johannine tradition (Luke 24:39–40, though 24is textually uncertain). Soldiers who carried out crucifixions often used rope 10755 but also used nails through the wrists, 10756 which seem to have been used for Jesus (20:25, 27). Dibelius, noting that Matthew and Mark omit the piercing of hands and/or feet, which appears only as hints in the Easter narratives of Luke (24:39) and John (20:20,25,27), thinks the hints of piercing stem from Ps 22rather than historical recollection. 10757 But Dibelius " s skepticism on this point is unwarranted for several reasons: all four extant first-century gospels omit it in descriptions of the crucifixion (as well as many other explicit details, such as the height of the cross, shape of the cross, and other variables we must reconstruct secondhand); Mark and Matthew include the briefest resurrection narratives, Mark without any appearances, so one would not expect them to recount it there; and finally, Luke and John probably supply independent attestation of a tradition that predates both of them, yet neither allude clearly to Ps 22:17 . 10758 Putting hands into Jesus» wounds would convince Thomas that this was the same Jesus (see comment on 20:20); no trickery would be possible. 10759 John omits another tradition in which Jesus confirms his bodily resurrection by eating with the disciples (Luke 24:41–43), preferring the stronger proof of his corporal resurrection. 10760 In the third-century Vita Apollonii by Philostratus, Apollonius invites two of his disciples to grasp him to confirm that he has not, in fact, been executed; 10761 but the Christian resurrection narratives were widespread in the Roman Empire by the time Philostratus dictated his stories. 10762 2C. The Climactic Christological Confession (20:28–29) Ancient writers often used characterization to communicate points about «kinds» of people. Nicodemus was slow to believe (3:2; cf. 7:50) but eventually proved a faithful disciple (19:38–42). Likewise, Thomas had missed the first corporate resurrection appearance, which convinced most of his fellow disciples; given the problem with secessionists in some Johannine communities (1 John 2:19), his missing might provide a warning to continue in fellowship with fellow believers (to whatever extent Thomas " s fellow disciples had already been disciples and believers when Jesus first appeared at that point!) Nevertheless, Thomas becomes the chief spokesman for full christological faith here (20:28–29)–and the foil by which John calls his readers to a faith deeper than the initial resurrection faith of any of the twelve disciples (20:29). |
| 78 Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius I.270, III.6.62 (Jaeger 1960 , 1. 105, 2.66) and frequently elsewhere in Gregory of Nyssa. 79 Cf. Luke 10:30–7. 80 Cf. Gen. 2:17 . 81 Eriugena distinguishes between speculatio and theoria–translated here ‘contemplation’ and ‘spiritual interpretation’. Theoria could well be translated ‘contemplation’, but it is the regular word in the Antiochene tradition for spiritual interpretation, and is used in that sense here. The eighteen spiritual interpretations seem to consist of ten numbered ones (in 31a), and the seven sections that follow (31b-h) plus the introduction to 31a. 82 Cf. 4 Kgd 2:11. 83 For time as number, see Aristotle, Physics 4.11. 84 Cf. Psa. 94:11; Heb. 3:16–4:1. 85 For this understanding of the relationship of time to eternity (derived from Plato’s metaphor of time as a ‘moving image of eternity’), see Plato, Timaeus 37D; Plotinus, Enneads III.7.2; Denys the Areopagite, Divine Names X.3. 86 Cf. Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals I.5. 87 This introduces the theme of the two modes of theology – apophatic and cataphatic – which continues through to section 31e (cf. above section 17, and also below Amb. 71) 88 Theourgiai: to be taken in the Christian sense, found in Denys the Areopagite, of ‘divine works’, rather than in its pagan meaning of ‘ritual ceremonies’. See Louth (1986). 89 The oneness and threeness of the Godhead: discussed below in section 43, and in Amb. 1. 90 Presumably the account of the Transfiguration. 91 Cf. Luke 9:31. 92 Cf. Luke 16:19–31. 93 This is borrowed, more or less word for word, from Nemesius, On human nature 43 (Morani 1987 , 129, ll. 6–14). 94 Omitting the two sections, 1173B-1176B, which are identical with Amb. 53 and Amb. 63. They are not found in this Difficulty in Eriugena nor are they found in Vat. gr. 1502 and other MSS: they are clearly out of place here. See Sherwood (1955a), 32. Sections 35–40 have many parallels with the early chapters of John Damascene’s Exposition of the Faith (chapters 3–5, 9, 11–13). |
| Like the rest of the Fourth Gospel, John here insists that Jewish believers remain faithful to the God of Israel through fidelity to Jesus, not through satisfying the synagogue leadership (12:42–43). This is because Jesus is God " s faithful agent; he neither spoke (14:10; cf. 16:13) nor acted (5:30; 8:28, 42) on his own (12:49), but only at the Father " s command (12:49; see comment on 5:19). 7989 By again reinforcing the portrait of Jesus as God " s faithful agent, John reminds his hearers that their opponents who in the name of piety opposed a high view of Jesus were actually opposing the God who appointed him to that role. «The Father " s commandment is eternal life» (12:50) is presumably elliptical for «obedience to the Father " s command produces eternal life,» but also fits the identification of the word (1:4), Jesus» words (6:68), and knowing God (17:3) with life. For John, the concept of «command» should not be incompatible with believing in Jesus (6:27; cf. 8:12; 12:25), which is the basis for eternal life (3:15–16; 6:40, 47; 11:25; 20:31); faith involves obedience (3:36; cf. Acts 5:32; Rom 1:5; 2:8; 6:16–17; 15:18; 16:19, 26; 2 Thess 1:8; 1Pet 1:22; 4:17 ). Jesus always obeys his Father " s commands (8:29), including the command to face death (10:18; 14:31); his disciples must follow his model of obedience to his commandments by loving one another sacrificially (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10,12). 7803 Matthew " s stirring of «the entire city» (Matt 21:10), however, may invite the reader to compare this event with an earlier disturbance of Jerusalem (Matt 2:3). 7804 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 306; Catchpole, «Entry.» In favor of reliability, see also Losie, «Entry,» 858–59. 7805 In view of ancient patronal social patterns, Jesus» numerous «benefactions» would also produce an entourage, seeking favors, that could potentially double as a political support base, exacerbating his threat to the political elite (DeSilva, Honor, 135). 7806 Also for Matthew (Matt 21:10–11); in Luke those who hail him are disciples (Luke 19:37, 39); even in Mark, where «many» participate, those who go before and after him are probably those who knew of his ministry in Galilee ( Mark 11:8–9 ). This may represent a very different crowd from the one that condemned him (Matt 27:20–25; Mark 15:11–14 ; Luke 23:13, 18, 21, 23)–certainly in John, where the condemning «Jews» are the «high priests» (19:6–7, 12–15). |
| P. 70-85; Cs á nyi D. A. «Optima pars»: Auslegungsgeschichte von Lk 10,38-42 bei den Kirchenvätern der ersten vier Jahrhunderte//StMon. 1960. Vol. 2. P. 5-78; Kemmer A. Maria und Martha: Zur Deutungsgeschichte von Lk 10, 38ff. im alten Mönchtum//Erbe und Auftrag. Beuron, 1964. Bd. 40. P. 355-367; Locher G. F. D. Martha in Maria en de Prediking van Augustinus//Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis. Leiden, 1964. T. 46. P. 65-86; Baker A. One Thing Necessary//CBQ. 1965. Vol. 27. N 2. P. 127-137; Barrett C. K. The Gospel according St. John. L., 19782; Solignac A., Donnet L. Marthe et Marie//DSAMDH. 1980. T. 10. Col. 664-673; Dirks M. Maria und Marta//Katechetische Blätter. Münch., 1980. Bd. 105. S. 65 ff.; Fee G. D. One Thing is Needful?: Luke 10, 42//New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis/Ed. E. J. Epp, G. D. Fee. Oxf., 1981. P. 61-75; Brutscheck J. Die Maria-Marta-Erzahlung: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung zu Lk 10, 38-42. Fr./M., 1986; Witherington B., III. Women in the Ministry of Jesus. Camb., 19872. P. 100-116; Bovon F. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Zürich, 1989. Tl. 1; Wall R. W. Martha and Mary (Luke 10. 38-42) in the Context of a Christian Deuteronomy//JSNT. 1989. Vol. 11. N 35. P. 19-35; Collins R. F. Martha//ABD. 1992. Vol. 4. P. 573-574; idem. Mary of Bethany//Ibid. P. 578-579; Constable G. Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought: The Interpretation of Mary and Martha. The Ideal of the Imitation of Christ. The Orders of Society. Camb., 1998; Beasley-Murray G. R. John. Nashville, 1999. P. 348. (WBC; 36); Metteer Ch. A. Mary Needs Martha: The Purposes of Manual Labor in Early Monasticism//SVTQ. 1999. Vol. 43. N 2. P. 163-207; Nolland J. Luke 9:21-18: 34. Dallas, 2002. (WBC; 35B); Esler P. F., Piper R. A. Lazarus, Mary and Martha: Social-Scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John. Minneapolis, 2006; Hauser-Borel S. Participantes à la Rèsurrection: Marthe et Marie selon Jean 11, 1-45 et 12, 1-11 dans l " exégèse de Jean Chrysostome, Théodore de Mopsueste et Cyrille d " Alexandrie. |
| Presumably Philip knows Nathanael from his home town (1:45). 2. Philip Seeks Nathanael (1:45–46) Philip «finds» Nathanael (1:45) as Jesus had «found» him (1:43). 4279 «Nathanael» (1:45) was «a real if uncommon Semitic name.» 4280 Some have identified this character with Bartholomew of the Synoptic tradition, 4281 but because Jewish people did not usually have two Semitic names, other scholars prefer to follow «early patristic suggestions that he was not one of the Twelve.» 4282 Arguments for both sides of the debate are inconclusive: «Bartholomew» may represent the Greek form of Aramaic «Bar Tholmai,» son of Tholmai, a patronymic rather than a proper name; 4283 but the apparent association of Philip with Nathanael in Synoptic lists ( Mark 3:18 ; Matt 10:3; Luke 6:14) may be the only genuine evidence for the identification, and it is inadequate. Nathanael may figure prominently in the Fourth Gospel not because he is one of the Twelve but because he is a primary source of the Gospel " s Galilean tradition, being from Cana (21:2; cf. 2:1; 4:46), or perhaps a close friend of the author or his source (cf. 21:2). His role in the Gospel makes it likely that he was one of the Twelve (a group John knows, 6:70), and if he was one of the Twelve, he was likelier Bartholomew than anyone else; 4284 but the identification remains uncertain. By announcing to Nathanael that Jesus is the one of whom Moses and the prophets wrote (1:45; cf. 5:46), 4285 Philip utters a confession identical in sense to that of Andrew: «We have found the Messiah» (1:41). For John, all the Scriptures point to Jesus (e.g., 2:17, 22; 7:37–39; 12:15–16; 20:9). Philip " s confession, however, is more explicit in its appeal to the authority of Scripture–witness to Christ is the most common function of Moses in the Fourth Gospel 4286 –and climaxes in Nathanael " s own confession of Jesus» messiahship(l:49). Jesus» status as Joseph " s son (1:45; 6:42) is also attested in Synoptic tradition (Matt 1:16; Luke 3:23; 4:22; cf. Mark 6:3 ), where it can be linked with his Davidic heritage (Matt 1:6; Luke 3:31), so this confession need not imply the Johannine community " s ignorance of or opposition to the virgin birth tradition (which would probably be known throughout early Christianity by the Johannine period since it is clearly pre-Lukan and pre-Matthean). Similarly, it may but need not imply the imperfection of Philip " s christological understanding, though readers would not have reason to suppose that he understands the virgin birth nor does John anywhere make use of the virgin birth tradition (cf. 7:42). It is possible, though not likely, that John intends an additional theological allusion here; Jesus is the spiritual descendant of Joseph (cf. 4:5), the noblest son of Jacob. But the allusions to Jacob in 1:47–51 suggest Jesus» infinite superiority to Jacob, as his God or mediator, not a mere identification with him or his descendants. |
|
|
