| Clearly someone gave Simon this name, so the burden of proof should lie with those who deny the only evidence we do have, which points to Jesus as its originator. 4255 Such epithets were usually positive, 4256 and «rock» makes sense in connection with a saying about «building» onés church, language which would have been familiar in Jewish thought 4257 and coheres well with other known teachings of Jesus, especially his almost certainly authentic use of the cornerstone image from the Hallel ( Ps 118:22 ). 4258 The preservation of Peter " s Aramaic name Kephas in early tradition (e.g., 1Cor 9:5 ; Gal 2:11,14 ) also supports the saying " s authenticity. Perhaps because the most natural Greek translation of Aramaic Kepha, Petra, is feminine, the Gospel writers prefer the less common masculine Petros, a term which by this period had come to be used interchangeably with the former. 4259 Some have also found specific historical tradition in the number of initial disciples mentioned before the wedding at Cana. As mentioned above, this proposal lacks merit. But many other details in the narrative reflect both historical tradition and John " s literary-theological purpose. Philip and Nathanael (1:43–51) This narrative directly parallels the Andrew and Simon account (one disciple bringing a prospective disciple to Jesus, and Jesus revealing the newcomer " s heart), with significant contrasts (Jesus initiates Philip " s discipleship) and narrative developments (Nathanael " s christological confession; like the climactic third parable in Luke 15, the climactic account here is the fullest). 4260 1. Jesus Seeks Philip (1:43–44) The setting of this paragraph is significant; although technically in Galilee already, Jesus «went out» into Galilee (1:43) to find an emphatically Galilean disciple (cf. 1:44; 12:21) who would soon after bring to him a «true Israelite» (1:47). Although the phrase may mean nothing more than that Jesus left a particular location to venture into a broader one, it reinforces John " s geographical emphasis that Galilee, the more peripheral «frontier» of Judea, was the place that welcomed Jesus when his «own» Judea would prove hostile (1:11; 4:43–44; 7:1,9). |
| Nicodemus, by contrast, had to be named because he recurs in 7and 19:39.) The contrast between Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman (as well as some other characters) would frustrate a normal ancient Jewish reader " s expectations (although John s own original audience already may be predisposed to suspect that the Judean elite is more hostile); in matters of ministry as well as Christology, one dare not judge by outward appearance (7:24). Because Nicodemus eventually believes (19:39), this text illustrates the wide spectrum of believers in Jesus. 5210 Other, more subtle narrative connections are also possible, like the comparison with Jesus» crucifixion scene, the epitome of his rejection by his own people in contrast to the positive Samaritan reception. 5211 1. Theological Themes in the Narrative Jesus crosses at least three significant barriers in the story: the socioethnic barrier of centuries of Jewish-Samaritan prejudice; the gender barrier; and a moral barrier imposed by this woman " s assumed behavior. The heart of the story appears in 4:23–24: the Father has been seeking true worshipers who will worship him in Spirit and truth, and that was why the Father sent Jesus (4:4) to this particular woman. Outward markers, which John " s religious contemporaries would contemplate, such as her gender, religious tradition and ethnicity, and past moral activity, prove irrelevant in revealing the sort of person God seeks to worship him. Indeed, whereas Jesus sought Philip (1:43), he did not seek out members of the religious elite; even open-minded Nicodemus had to come to Jesus (3:2); but Jesus went to great lengths and took serious risks to reach the Samaritan woman. 5212 All of these barriers appear individually in other Gospel traditions. Thus Jesus ministers to Samaritans in Luke (10:33; 17:16–19), 5213 and Gentiles appear at notorious points in Mark (7:26–29) and Q (Matt 8:5–13; Luke 7:1–10); the later church found these few traditions particularly usefu1. Still more clearly, women appear in prominent roles in the gospel tradition, 5214 with an undoubtedly historical core. 5215 Although later Christians like Paul seem to have moderated this emphasis for apologetic reasons, many of these traditions, distinctly progressive by ancient Mediterranean standards, remained. 5216 Jesus» banquets with sinners, as well as complaints of the pious against this practice, are also significant in the tradition and undoubtedly reflect a historical nucleus. 5217 Mark " s account of the Syro-Phoenician woman combines two of these issues, 5218 but John " s account of the sinful Samaritan woman underlines three of these issues latent in the Jesus tradition. |
| Carter W. John and Empire. Initial Explorations. New York; London, 2008. Casey M. Jesus of Nazareth. An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching. London; New York, 2010. Chapman D.W, Schnabel E.J. The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus. Texts and Commentary. Tübingen, 2015. Cohn H. The Trial and Death of Jesus. New York, 1967. Colin J. Les villes libres de l’Orient gréco-romain et l’envoi au supplice par acclamations populaires. Bruxelles, 1965. Conzelmann H.The Theology of St. Luke. New York, 1961. Cousland J.R. The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew. Leiden; Boston; Koln, 2002. Creed J.M. The Gospel according to St. Luke. London, 1930. Crossan J.D. The Historical Jesus. The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. New York, 1991. Crump D. Jesus the Intercessor. Tübingen, 1992. Cullmann O. Early Christian Worship. London, 1953. Dale Bruner F. The Gospel of John. A Commentary. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2012. Dalman G. Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels. New York, 1929. Davidson R. The Vitality of Worship: A Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Grand Rapids, 1998. Davies W.D., Allison D.C. Matthew. Vol.1–3. Edinburgh, 1988–1997. Dodd C.H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge, 1953 (reprint 1995). Dodd C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge, 1963. Dodson D.S. Reading Dreams. An Audience-Critical Approach to the Dreams in the Gospel of Matthew. New York, 2009. Donahue J.R. Crucifixion//Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible/ed. by D.N. Freedman, A.C. Myers, A.B. Beck. Grand Rapids, 2000. P.298–299. Dubarle A.M. L’homélie de Grégoire le Référendaire pour la réception de l’image d’Édesse//Revue des Études Byzantines. 1997. P.5–51. Duplacy J. La préhistoire du texte en Luc 22:43–44//New Testament Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis/Ed. by E.J. Epp, G.D. Fee. Festschrift B.M. Metzger. Oxford, 1981. P.77–86. Ehrman B.D. Jesus. Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium. Oxford, 2001. Esler Ph.F., Piper R.Lazarus, Mary and Martha. Social-Scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John. Minneapolis, 2006. |
| The idea that a prophet was unwelcome in his own land fits a variety of sayings about philosophers 5667 and prophets 5668 already circulating in this period. Jewish tradition long emphasized that Israel had rejected and persecuted its prophets, amplifying the biblical foundation for this tradition ( Jer 26:11, 23; 1 Kgs 18:4; 19:10; 2 Chr 36:15–16; Neh 9:26). 5669 The basic saying appears in all four gospels (Matt 13:57; Mark 6:4 ; Luke 4:24), but John " s version (4:44) may be the «closest to the original» form. 5670 By dishonoring Jesus, God " s agent, they were dishonoring God himself (5:23; cf. 8:49); by contrast, those who served Jesus would receive honor from God (12:26; cf. 12:43). Jesus meanwhile would receive glory from the Father, whereas his accusers sought glory only from each other (5:41,44). 2. A Galilean Aristocrat Learns Faith (4:46–54) This pericope is linked with the preceding narrative both geographically (Samaria and Galilee as opposed to Judea) and in terms of their unorthodox respondents to Jesus. 5671 The Samaritans received Jesus» ministry (4:4–42); here Galileans sought Jesus for miracles. Jesus» deliberate return to Galilee (4:43–45) leads to another mention of «Cana of Galilee,» with a conscious reference to Jesus» first miracle there (4:46; cf. 2:1–11). Every reference to Cana in this Gospel explicitly adds its connection with Galilee (2:1, 11; 4:46; 21:2); this could be to distinguish it from some other «Cana» elsewhere, but because its mention in 2comes so quickly after 2:1, when the reader would not need a reminder, it may be intended to draw attention to its representative Galilean character. 5672 A geographical inclusio mentioning Galilee explicitly brackets the entire unit (4:43, 54). 5673 The connection with the «first» Cana miracle suggests a comparison of the two stories. 5674 In the first story Jesus» mother is the suppliant and responds to Jesus» rebuke by refusing to take no for an answer (2:3–5); in this passage the royal official acts in the same manner (4:48–50). 5675 In both cases Jesus works a sign but invites those entreating him to a level of faith higher than signs-faith. Presumably Jesus» mother surmounts his rebuke based on confidence in Jesus whereas this story includes a greater element of desperation, but on the formal level they share the same insistence that refuses to be deterred. Indeed, this man offers initial faith without a sign, in contrast to Nicodemus (2:23; 3:2) and the Samaritan woman (4:18–19). The link with the first Cana miracle, a secret miracle which is tightly connected with the temple dispute which follows it (2:13–23), may also help the reader of the second Cana miracle to anticipate the bitter public debates about to come (5:16–18). Jesus» rebuff challenges not only the man but the broader constituency of mere signs-faith that he represents (in 4the «you» is plural). 5676 |
| Theologically, the discourse underlines the theme of Jesus» continuing presence with his people. 8046 In place of an eschatological discourse preceding the passion, as in the Synoptic traditions and probably traditions known to the Johannine community (which was, however, also capable of eschatological interpretation; cf. Rev), John treats his audience to an emphasis on the present experience of Jesus» presence through his past return to them. 8047 7995 E.g., Becker, «Abschiedsreden.» For a thorough summary of views on composition and redactional questions, see Segovia, Farewell, 20–47. 8011 Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 127. First John has more in common with this discourse than with the rest of the Gospel (perhaps because this discourse focuses on Jesus» message to disciples), though this need not imply the Epistlés author redacting this discourse (Smalley, Epistles, xxix). 8012 " Day, «John,» 770; see further 736–37. Similarly Witherington, Wisdom, 248, who attributes the repetition to sapiential style and «successive discourses given in a short span of time.» 8022 The lack of emphasis may, however, speak against a eucharistie interpretation (pace Moloney, «Reading»). 8024 E.g., Plato Symp.; Xenophon Symp.; Cicero Tusc; Plutarch Dinner; T.T.; Athenaeus Deipn.; Aulus Gellius 7.13. For elements of a mock symposium, see Trimalchiós dinner in Petronius Sat. In a Diaspora Jewish setting, see Letter of Aristaeus (specifically, Hadas, Aristeas, 42–43), which may draw on 1 Esd 3–4 (the latter is not, however, a dinner setting); in the Gospels, Luke 7:36–50; 11:37–54; 14:1–24 (Aune, Environment, 122). 8025 Stauffer, Jesus, 118. Even after a main meal (perhaps occurring here in 13:2) had been finished, people could drink more (Xenophon Cyr. 8.4.9). 8027 E.g„ Homer I1. 13.95–124; Battle of Frogs and Mice 110–112, 132–159; Polybius 15.10; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.6.1–6.9.6; Appian R.H. 8.7.42; 8.17.116; C.W. 4.16.126; Arrian Alex. 3.9.5–7. Such exhortations, however, also occur outside military contexts (e.g., P.Tebt. 703.40–43). |
| 5899 E.g., 2 Bar. 51:1–2; cf. t. Ber. 6:6. For distinction after death, see 1 En. 22:9–11; cf. sources in Keener, Matthew, 129, on Gehinnom, and 710–11, on the resurrection of the dead. 5900 It appears in most streams of NT tradition and is denied in none: Acts 24:15; 2Cor 5:10 ; Rev 20:4–6; Matt 25:46; cf. Matt 5:29–30; 10:28; Luke 11:32; Bernard, John, 1:245. 5901 1QS 4.13–14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in t. Sanh. 13:3,4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5; cf. 2Macc 12:43–45. By contrast, the souls of the wicked will remain in hell on the day of judgment in 1 En. 22:13; 61:5; 108:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanh. 13:5; probably L.A.B. 38:4; Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; t. Ber. 5:31. 5902 Ps 62:12 ; Prov 24:12 ; Sir 16:12,14 ; Matt 16:27; Rom 2:6 ; 2Cor 11:15 ; Rev 22:12; Pesiq. Rab. 8:2; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.2.3. 5903 It continued in widespread use (Josephus Life 256; Ant. 4.219; b. Sanh. 37b, bar.; p. Git. 4:1, §2; cf. m. Roš Haš. 1:7; 2:6); see further the comment under 8:13. Early Christians also employed this rule; see 2Cor 13:1 ; 1Tim 5:19 ; Matt 18:16. 5904 Boring et al, Commentary, 270–71, cites Cicero Rose. Amer. 36.103. Witnesses confirmed a matter (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 26), and a claim offered without them might be scathingly contested (Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111). 5905 E.g., Lysias Or. 4.5–6, §101; 7.12–18, §§109–110; 12.27–28, §122; 19.24, §154; 29.7, §182; Cicero Quinct. 24.76. Establishing a credible motive was standard procedure for the prosecution (Cicero Rose. Amer. 22.61–62). 5906 E.g., Isaeus Estate of Cleonymus 31–32, §37; Estate of Hagnias 6; Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111; 7.43, §112. Cf. the preference for multiple and diverse testimonies, e.g., in Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 61, §19D; for challenging the credibility of opposing witnesses, see, e.g., Hermogenes Issues 45.5–10. 5907 Cicero Quinct. 23.75. 5908 The witness of one person was inadequate in many kinds of cases (Boice, Witness, 47, cites m. Ketub. 2:9; Roè Haï. 3:1); self-accusation, by contrast, could invite condemnation (Achilles Tatius 7.11.1; though in early Judaism cf. Cohn, Trial, 98). In some matters, however, onés self-testimony was held reliable (e.g., m. Ketub. 2:10), even against two witnesses (m. Tehar. 5:9). |
| 3567 E.g., Matt 6:9/Luke 11:2. The alleged Pompeiian evidence (Botha, «Prayer,» 43) is not, however, compelling (see Baines, «Square»). 3568 Jeremias contends that the use of «Abba» for God was unique to Jesus until passed on to Jesus» followers (Jeremias, Prayers, 57; followed also by Bruce, Time, 21–22); Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 210–11, cites b. Ta c an. 23b to the contrary, but if the tradition there is pre-Christian, it is still parabolic and rare rather than vocative and standard (as apparently with Jesus; cf. already Klausner, Jesus, 378). Whether Christians learned «Abba» from Jesus» example ( Mark 14:36 ) or from an Aramaic address in the Lord " s Prayer (e.g., Ridderbos, Galatia, 158; Hunter, Predecessors, 50; for the Lord " s Prayer in Aramaic rather than Hebrew, see Jeremias, Theology, 188–89; idem, Prayers, 95–98; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 19–20; but then why not include the common «Abba» in the prayer?) or experienced the cry ecstatically based on either tradition (Lull, Spirit, 67; cf. Aune, «Magic,» 1550) is disputed. 3569 Cf. also Paul on «adoption,» where he apparently follows the Roman concept of adoption attested by witnesses ( Rom 8:15–16 ); the custom is Greco-Roman, especially Roman, not Palestinian Jewish (Lyall, «Law»; idem, Slaves, 67–99; cf. Hester, Inheritance, 18–19, 59; Ramsay, Teaching, 203; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 203; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51; Deissmann, Studies, 239; idem, Paul, 174–75; Tarn, Civilizations, 101–2; on witnesses also to Roman wills, cf. Gaius Inst. 2.104–108; Justinian Inst. 2.10.6–11). Adoptive sons have the same legal standing as genetic sons (Gaius Inst. 2.136) and come under the father " s full authority (Gaius Inst. 1.97–117, cited in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 189–90, §194; cf. Lyall, «Law,» 466). 3570 See Pancaro, «People,» 126–27, who argues that «scattered children of God» is a double entendre for Diaspora Jews (the traditional sense John exploits here) and all those who believe, united in Christ. 3572 This is not to exclude the value of human effort once authorized; in Xenophon Oec. 7.27 God gave both genders equal βξουσαν to exercise self-contro1. Whitacre, John, 36,55, finds an antimony (a figure used by both Greek and Jewish writers) linking both divine election and human responsibility (with John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 10.2); see our comment on 6:43–44 for Jewish thought on the matter. |
| 5665 This is a summary statement, like those frequently found in Mark, Philostratus, and Josephus (cf. Aune, Environment, 54). 5667 Schnackenburg, John, 1:462; Boring et a1., Commentary, 96; and Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:460, cite Pindar O1. 12.13–16; Apollonius of Tyana Ep. 44; Dio Chrysostom Or. 47.6. 5669 Liv. Pro. 2(ed. Schermann §25 p. 81); 6(ed. Schermann §17 p. 60); 7:1–2 (ed. Schermann §14 p. 51); Jub. 1:12; Josephus Ant. 10.38; 4 Bar. 9:31; Pesiq. Rab. 26:1/2; see further Amaru, «Prophets»; Schoeps, «Prophetenmorde.» 5670 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:460, who also regard Gos. Thom. 31 and P.Oxy. 1 as likely expansions of Lukés version. Compare also εδξαντο in John 4with δεκτς in Luke 4:24. 5671 While those who emphasize the connection to the following context are correct, they are incorrect to relate it only weakly to the preceding context (as Feuillet, Studies, 39–43, does). 5672 «Cana of Galilee» probably serves as a geographical inclusio bracketing 2:1–11, but this might increase, rather than decrease, its representative function. 5674 Jesus» arrival after two days (4:43,46) may also constitute a link with the first Cana miracle (2:1; Moloney, Belief 177). 5675 Also others, e.g., Moloney, Belief 190; Maccini, Testimony, 108–9; Borchert, John, 220; Culpepper, John, 146. 5678 See Qedar, «Weights.» Paganism is widely attested in first-century Palestine (cf., e.g., Flusser, «Paganism»; Hirschfeld, «Town-Plan»; Gersht, «Reader»; di Segni, «Inscription»); cf. the second-century Roman temple in Upper Galilee in Magness, «Observations,» and the late-second-century Roman villa near Jerusalem in Edelstein, «Villa.» 5680 Cf. Moloney, Belief 183. Besides Romans who lived in Capernaum (Laughlin, «Capernaum»), some soldiers passed through places in Galilee (Dar and Kokkinos, «Inscriptions»). 5681 Feuillet, Studies, 45. So also Origen Comm. Jo. 13.395 (but he believes the Gentile symbolizes Abraham father of Israel, 13.402). Calvin, John, 1(on John 4:46 ), suggests a noble in Herod " s court, but maybe sent by Caesar. Tannaim disagreed as to whether Israelites or Gentiles prevailed in the land of Israel (p. Demai 2:1,22c). |
| 4216 See Hengel, Leader, 1–2, 27–33. 4217 Especially if v. 7 is construed as a question (so Jeremias, Promise, 30; Martin, «Servant,» 15; France, «Exegesis,» 257; contrast Meier, Matthew, 83–84). 4218 E.g., Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 79–80. 4219 Koester, Symbolism, 37. See esp. Theophrastus Char, passim. 4220 Collins, Witness, 46–55, and Xavier, «Andrew,» address Andrew as a character in this Gospe1. On the «roundness» of some of John " s (esp. minor) characters, cf. Grant, «Ambiguity.» 4221 John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 19 (on 1:41–42) notes that Jesus convinces Peter, Nathanael, and the Samaritan woman with prophecies. 4222 On the Fourth Gospel " s foreshadowing technique, including here, see Ellis, Genius, 9. Fenton, John, 43, correctly notes that the Johannine Jesus regularly foretells the future or demonstrates other supernatural insights (1:47–51; 2:19,21,25; 4:17–18; 5:6; 6:6,64,70–71; 11:4,11–12; 12:23,32–33; 13:1–2,10–11,21,26–27, 38; 16:31–32; 18:4,32). 4223 Brown, Community, 82–84; cf. Hengel, Mark, 52, who argues that the comparison exalts the guarantor of the Johannine tradition over «the guarantor of the Markan-Synoptic tradition.» Possibly the Markan tradition was now so entrenched that the beloved disciplés tradition needed to stake its claims (like Paul in Gal 2:6–10 ). 4224 Collins, Witness, 56–78. 4225 See Maynard, «Peter»; cf. Watty, «Anonymity.» Comparisons do not always demean their inferior object (see comment on 13:23) 4226 Although John alone of all NT writers includes this Aramaic (see Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 13) term, some older scholars, convinced that the Gospel addressed Gentiles, asked why John translates the term into Greek (though that was the language of most Diaspora Jews); Westcott even suggested that John kept the term to guard against gnosticism (John, 25). 4227 Even Andrews precedence over Peter may reflect the tradition of Asiatic Christianity reported in Papias (Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.39.4, as argued by Dodd, Tradition, 304–5). 4228 Wolmarans, «Peter,» argues that John uses standard literary conventions of this period to portray Peter " s character, adapting them for Peter " s special characteristics. Matthew and Luke depend largely on Mark " s portrayal (Feldmeier, «Peter»), which may even go back to Peter (Hengel, «Problems,» 238–43). |
| 225 Fischer and Stein, «Marble.» Less demonstrably, some have suggested that his use of conventional forms in his suicide accounts militates against the accuracy of his battle suicides (Newell, «Forms»). 227 Wright, People of God, 378, also comparing Luke 24:51; Acts 1:3. Cf. also the divergent details in Josephus and Philo on the same events (Theissen, Gospels, 149). Josephus follows but apparently modifies some literary sources (see Pucci Ben Zeev, «Reliability»). 228 Sanders, Judaism, 6. Many claims against his reliability are overstated; see, e.g., Rajak, Josephus, 9–10. 229 For specific examples of Josephus " s adaptations, see, e.g., Begg, «Jotham,» «Fall,» «Putsch,» and «Jehoahaz» (improving the character); Feldman, «Elijah,» and other articles by Feldman noted above; Gafhi, «Josephus,» 126–27. In Josephus " s case, the claim not to have added or omitted anything seems pure convention, however (Feldman, «Hellenizations,» 133). 230 Bultmann, Tradition, 369, exaggerated their Hellenistic character (though allowing some Palestinian tradition); contrast Barrett, Jesus, 6. Aune explains Gospel biography by deliberately «oversimplifying» it as exhibiting «Hellenistic form and function with Jewish content» (Environment, 22). Hellenistic narrative techniques were standard in Jewish documents written in Greek (e.g., Cohen, Maccabees, 43). 231 Greek conventions for praising heroes or deities were also sometimes transferred to Jewish heroes; cf., e.g., Van der Horst, «Children.» 232 This is not to deny that the latter depend on ultimate Palestinian sources (Hengel, «Problems,» 238–43, for example, supports the ancient tradition of Mark " s dependence on Peter) but to argue that they articulate their Gospels for a more pluralistic milieu. 233 Stanton, Jesus, 126; Aune, Environment, 37. Granted, the Gospels could draw on biblical narratives focused on persons as well as on Hellenistic sources (Hengel, «Problems,» 219–20); but the suggestion that ancient Near Eastern models provided the later Greek emphasis on individual characters (cf. Dihle, «Biography,» 366–67) is overstated. |
|
|
