| Alexander, «Ipse Dixit» Alexander, Loveday. «Ipse Dixit: Citation of Authority in Paul and in the Jewish and Hellenistic Schools.» Pages 103–27 in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Alexander, «Logos» Alexander, Archibald B. D. «The Johannine Doctrine of the Logos.» ExpTim 36 (1924–1925): 394–99,467–72. Alexander, Possession Alexander, William Menzies. Demonic Possession in the New Testament: Its Historical, Medical, and Theological Aspects. 1902. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Alexander, «Preface» Alexander, Loveday. «Lukés Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing.» NovT28 (1986): 48–74. Alexander, «Production» Alexander, Loveday. «Ancient Book Production and the Circulation of the Gospels.» Pages 71–112 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Allegro, «History» Allegro, John M. «Further Light on the History of the Qumran Sect.» JBL 75 (1956): 89–95. Allegro, «References» Allegro, John M. «Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature.» JBL 75 (1956): 174–87. Allegro, Scrolls Allegro, John M. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1959. Allen, «Church» Allen, E. L. «The Jewish Christian Church in the Fourth Gospe1.» JBL 94 (1955): 88–92. Allen, «John vii.37, 38» Allen, Willoughby C. «St. John vii.37,38.» ExpTim 34 (1922–1923): 329–30. Allen, Philosophy Allen, Reginald E., ed. and trans. Greek Philosophy: Thaïes to Aristotle. Readings in the History of Philosophy. New York: Free Press, 1966. Allison, «Baptism» Allison, Dale C, Jr. «The Baptism of Jesus and a New Dead Sea Scrol1.» BAR 18, no. 2 (March/April 1992): 58–60. Allison, «Elijah» Allison, Dale C, Jr. «Elijah Must Come First.» JBL 103 (1984): 256–58. Allison, «Eye» Allison, Dale C, Jr. «The Eye Is the Lamp of the Body [Matthew 6.22–23-Luke 11.34–36].»NTS 33 (1987): 61–83. Allison, «Land» Allison, Dale C, Jr. «Land in Early Christianity.» Pages 642–44 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1997. |
| 114 Текст опубликован в серии «Texte und Untersuchungen " (Bd. 61. S. 255–256). Английский перевод в: Sheerin D. J., Glazier M. (eds.) The Eucharist. Wilmington (Delaware), 1986. P. 224–229. 115 Слова, которыми свт. Кирилл обозначает преложение Святых Даров, следующие: μεταποιειν (Cyr. Alex. In Matth. 26. 27), μεθιστναι (Ibidem; Idem. In Luc. 22. 19); все они используются как взаимозаменяемые. Как именно происходит чудо Евхаристии, не было для него вопросом, поскольку он рассматривал его просто как проявление Божественной силы. Главным вопросом для него было единство Божественного и человеческого в таинстве Воплощения и как это же самое единство в Евхаристии животворит земные Дары и делает их источником животворящего благословения (см. Gebremedhin. Life–Giving Blessing. P. 69). 116 Образ «смешения» (μξις) возникает в ранних богословских сочинениях свт. Кирилла (до 433 г.); впоследствии он более осторожно использовал такие слова из–за радикальной критики сирийцев. 117 Не считая «Слова на Тайную Вечерю» (PG. 77. Col. 1016–1029), ранее приписываемого свт. Кириллу, которое M. Ришар атрибутировал Феофилу Александрийскому и датировал его Великим четвергом 400 года. В то время свт. Кирилл уже пятнадцать лет учился у своего дяди. Многое в рассуждениях о Евхаристии можно приписать свт. Кириллу, особенно такую интерпретацию шестой главы Евангелия от Иоанна. В последних абзацах «Слова...» интересны нападки на монахов-оригенистов, которые осуждаются как инославные, в том числе потому, что не принимают реалистическое учение о Евхаристии (См. Sheerin, Glazier. The Eucharist. P. 148–157). 118 Издание: Pusey P. E. (ed.) Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Ioannis evangelium. Oxford, 1872. 3 vols. 119 Издание: Payne–Smith R. S. S. Cyrilli Alexandriae archiepiscopi commentarii in Lucae evangelium quae supersunt syriace. Oxford, 1858; английский перевод: Idem. A Commentary Upon the Gospel According to St. Luke by St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. Oxf., 1859. 2 Vol. Греческий текст см. в: PG. 72. Col. 475–950. |
| 5644 Homer I1. 13.624–625; Od. 6.207–208; 14.57–58; Euripides Cyc1. 355; Apollonius of Rhodes 2.1131–1133; 3.193; Greek Anth. 7.516. 5645 Tob 5:10–15; 7:8–9; 10:6–10; Ps.-Phoc. 24; m. " Abot 1:5, 15; 3:12; t. Demai 3:9; b. Ber. 63b; Luke 7:36; Acts 16:15; see further Koenig, Hospitality, 16. For lodging in synagogues or school-houses, cf. b. Qidd. 29b; p. Meg. 3:3, §5. Abraham provided the supreme example (Gen. Rab. 48:9; 50:4; Num. Rab. 10:5; Song Rab. 1:3, §3), though sometimes transferred to other figures (T. Job 10:1–4). Among early Christians, e.g., Rom 12:13 ; 1Tim 3:2 ; 1Pet 4:9 ; Heb 13:2. 5649 Talbert, John, 118, citing especially Josephus War 3.459; 7.70–71; cf. War 4.112–113; 7.100–103,119. 5651 E.g., Aeschylus Supp1. 26; Euripides Herc. fur. 48; Aristophanes Frogs 738, 1433; Epictetus Diatr. 1.22.16; Plutarch Borr. 7, Mor. 830B; Arrian Ind. 21.2; 36.3; Pausanias 2.20.6; 4.34.6; 9.26.8; Athenaeus Deipn. 7.288f. 5652 Pausanias 1.40.3 (Artemis); 8.31.2 (Kore); the mother goddess in Orphic Hymns 14.8; 27.12; 74.4. 5653 Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 12.1.8; Josephus Life 244,259; OGIS 90; CPJ 1:185–86, §38; 2:31, §151. Especially Heracles (Demosthenes Or. 60, Funeral Speech §8). 5657 See more fully Longenecker, Christology, 142–43. The title may function in something of a messianic sense in Isa 19:20; cf. «the Lord " s salvation» in Τ Dan 5:10; human deliverers in Judg 3:9, 15 ; 1Sam 10LXX; Neh 9:27. 5658 For special love for onés native land, see also, e.g., Seneca Ep. Lucil 66.26; Menander Rhetor 2.4, 392.8–9; Iamblichus V.P. 32.214. 5659 Davies, Land, 329; Brown, Community, 39; Schnackenburg, John, 1:462; Van Belle, «Faith.» The term applies most easily to onés place of origin, not onés citizenship (Philostratus Hrk. 44.1). 5661 More peripheral, first-time readers might have taken such language philosophically (Anaxagoras called heaven his «fatherland» in Diogenes Laertius 2.7; cf. the world in Musonius Rufus 9, p. 68.15–16, 25; citizenship in the world, ibid. 68.21–22; Diogenes Laertius 2.99; 6.2.63, 72; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 28.4; Marcus Aurelius 12.36), but the sense is clear after reading the Gospel as a whole. |
| 6949 In the Scrolls, overseers should be between thirty and fifty (CD 14.8–9); Buchanan, «Age,» cites also lQSa 1.13–21. This was the age range for temple service ( Num 4:35 ; cf. 8:24; t. Šeqa1. 3:26); thirty (Luke 3:23) held wider precedent as a transition age ( Gen 41:46 ; 2Sam 5:4 ; Gaius Inst. 1.20); forty was the minimum for a chorgos so that he could be trusted not to corrupt children (Aeschines Timarchus 11–12). 6950 Or at least surprise (Philostratus Hrk. 21.6). 6951 On controversia, see Black, «Oration at Olivet,» 88 (Quintilian 9.2.65–95). 6952 E.g., T. Job 27:2/3 (of Satan); an angelic annunciation in Tob 12:15; T. Ab. 16:11; 17:5A; 13(Death). 6953 E.g., Τ Job 29:4; 31:6/7. 6954 See Painter, John, 37–38; cf. Rabiej, «Jestem»; Probst, «Jésus»; Gwynne, «Invisible Father»; Okorie, «Self-Revelation.» 6955 «I am» appears predicatively in divine (Rev 1:8; 21:6) and equivalent christological (1:17; 2:23; 22:16) speech in Revelation, but never absolutely (Hill, Prophecy, 81). 6956 E.g., Nicholson, Death, 112–13. 6957 E.g., ibid., 112–13; Pancaro, Law, 60; Bell, I Am, 195–98. Some (e.g., Schnackenburg, John, 2:88) take this only as a claim that God utters himself through Jesus the eschatological revealer. 6958 Cf. Harner, I Am, 49–50, noting the use of the definite article in these predicate nominatives despite its relative rareness in Greek. 6959 See further Reinhartz, Word, 34–35. 6960 See most fully Bell, I Am, 27–32. 6961 E.g., Betz and Smith, «De Iside,» 45; Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 42. Some (e.g., Aune, Environment, 52) acknowledge Hermetic and gnostic parallels, but these may depend on Johns language. 6962 Horsley, Documents, 1:19–20, §2; Boring et a1., Commentary, 272–73; Kee, Origins, 62, comparing Isis with the figure of Wisdom; more extensively, Kee, «Isis.» 6963 CIJ 2:54, §802: γ εμι μγας èv ορανω καθμενος. 6964 Carson, John, 58 n. 1. 6965 See Aune, Prophecy, 41,65, and esp. 71. 6966 See in fuller detail Harner, I Am, 18–21 (also, e.g., Pesiq. Rab. 33:7–8); against a Hellenistic origin, see ibid., 26–30. Those who cite Hellenistic backgrounds usually also recognize the Jewish background (Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 43). |
| 9839 Others viewed this act as misappropriation of funds (Josephus War 2.175–176; cf. Ant. 18.60; The Suda, Korbanas, in Sherk, Empire, 75); Pilate, however, probably assumed that he followed safe Roman precedent: Augustus and others paid for workmen on aqueducts from public and imperial treasuries (Frontinus De aquis 2.89–101, 116–118, in Jones, History, 207), and the use of public money would have been expected (Josephus Life 199) had it not been from the temple treasury. Romans themselves complained when designated funds in a public treasury were redirected (Appian C.W. 2.6.41; Lysias Or. 25.19, §173; 27.7, §178; 27.16, §179; Plutarch Cicero 17.2; Caesar 35.2–4; worse, despoiling temple treasuries, e.g., Valerius Maximus 1.1.21; see further Keener, Matthew, 557 n. 72); they would have been angriest had he profited himself, which sometimes happened (Catullus 10.7–13; cf. Jeffers, World, 111–12). 9841 E.g., Cicero Verr. 1.1.2; 1.4.12; 2.3.22.55; 2.3.28.69; Sest. 25.55; many Judean governors as presented by Josephus, e.g., Ant. 20.106–117, 162–163, 215, 253–257; War 2.223–245, 272–279. 9842 Cf. Benoit, Jesus, 1:141–42. Some first-century writers complained about societal injustice (e.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 95.30). 9844 Cf. Brown, Death, 697. Smallwood, «Historians,» concludes that Philo is even more accurate than Josephus when reporting the same historical events (in this case, concerning Caligula). 9845 Still despised in a later period, e.g., in Juvenal Sat. 10.66, 76, 89–90, 104; Phaedrus 3.pro1.41–44; cf. also Brown, Death, 694, on Philo Flaccus 1; Embassy 160–161. 9846 Cf. rumors circulating in Luke 13and Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 75. Brown, Death, 695–705, ultimately concludes, as we do, that most of the Gospel portrait fits what we know of Pilate from the other sources once all has been taken into account. 9848 The baraita in b. Sanh. 43a suggesting special caution regarding Jesus» conviction «because he was close to the kingdom» would be a Jewish deterrent but could have actually aggravated Roman hostility; it is, however, probably derived from later debate with Jewish Christians. |
| 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). |
| But none of these objections is ultimately persuasive for all the discourses. The Synoptic Jesus also debates in Jerusalem ( Mark 11:27 –12par.), and the Johannine Jesus debates with a crowd in Galilee ( John 6:22–59 ). Jesus privately provides secret teachings to his disciples in both streams of tradition ( Mark 4:11 ). Although the Synoptic Jesus occasionally speaks in «Johannine idiom» (Q material in Matt 11:27/Luke 10:21), 690 that style of speech is so titled because it is characteristic of and permeates the Fourth Gospel; 691 in the Fourth Gospel, one is often scarce able to discern whether Jesus or the narrator is speaking 692 (and perhaps for good reason, since the narrator believes himself inspired by the Paraclete who continues Jesus» mission). John " s revelation of Jesus may not contradict the Synoptics, but the emphasis is quite different. Even where we have clear proof that John depends on earlier tradition (e.g., 6:1–21), John goes his own way, writing in his own idiom and connecting the events and teachings to theological motifs that run throughout his Gospe1. 693 As F. F. Bruce notes, the Synoptics present what Jesus did and said; John, while also relying on historical tradition, is more concerned to tell us who Jesus was and what he meant. The Fourth Gospel is more than a mere eyewitness account; it also represents many decades of deep meditation on the meaning of what was witnessed, a meaning John hopes to share with his readers in his own historical situation. 694 If the early Christian writer Origen exaggerated the differences between John and the Synoptics when he viewed John as a «spiritual gospel» (a diagnosis which Origen used to justify his extensive allegorization), he at least noticed a legitimate difference, which most readers of the Fourth Gospel since him have likewise recognized. John " s Gospel is history; but it is a much more theological and homiletical history than the Synoptics. John seeks to be faithful to his historical tradition by articulating its implications afresh for his own generation. Conclusion |
| 701 Plutarch Demosthenes 11.1 regards Demetrius as a reliable source because he learned the information from Demosthenes himself in his old age. 703 Streeter, Gospels, 425–26, doubts that John was an eyewitness because John depends on Mark and Luke (a thesis often disputed; see our discussion of the relation between John and the Synoptics). 704 Xenophon Hel1. 3.1.2 cites an account of the Greek mercenaries» escape from Persia, but, though aware of this source, later composed his own account (Anabasis). 706 Especially, though not exclusively, among many conservative and moderate scholars (some allowing for degrees of subsequent redaction), e.g., Carson, John; Bruce, John; Ellis, «Christology,» 1–6; Blomberg, «Reliable,» 30–37; Milne, Message, 17–19; Munn, «Introduction»; Silva Santos, «Autoria»; Watkins, John, 8–18; Wenham, «View»; tentatively, Temple, Core, viii. 707 E.g., Braun, Jean, 301–30; Munoz Léon, «Discipulo.» Barrett, John, 133, attributes all the canonical Johannine literature to disciples of the apostle; Schnackenburg also suggests dependence on Johannine tradition, while allowing that the «spokesperson who transmitted» and interpreted the tradition need not have been the apostle himself (John, 1:102). 712 So Malatesta, Inferiority, 83; Ellis, World, 13–17; Köstenberger, John, 22–24; Blomberg, Reliability, 26–31; cf. Smalley, John, 77; Nunn, Authorship, 99ff. 716 Beasley-Murray, John, lxxiii. One wonders how immediately the author intended the Gospel to circulate outside the Johannine circle of churches, but this is irrelevant to our case. 717 Rigato, «Apostolo,» and Winandy, «Disciple» both even allowing that the priest of Acts 4may be in view. 718 Admittedly πταλον could bear a specifically priestly sense (in Exod 28:36; 29:6; 39:3, 30; Lev 8:9 , five of its seven LXX uses), but its usage was much broader in Greek and probably simply contributes to the metaphor. It is also not impossible, though it is very unlikely, that Zebedee was of levitic descent; similar names appear among Levites (Neh 11:17; 1 Chr 26:2; 2 Chr 17:8; Ezra 10:20), but were hardly limited to them (Josh 7:1, 17–18; 1 Chr 8:19; 27:27). |
| The symbolic use of «woman» might also be parallel, although this is more questionable (Rev 12vs. 17:3; cf. John 2:4; 4:21; 19:26 ); until one presupposes the connection between John and Revelation, it is not clear that the narrative should be read metaphorically. If John 14:1–3 refers to the coming of Jesus in the Spirit after the resurrection, as the context suggests, the «place prepared» may be a verbal connection between the books, meaning the same in both (Rev 12:6; John 14:3 ). The devil is an opponent in both, though described differently (Rev 2:10,13; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 ). While one would not expect exorcisms in an apocalyse, the rarity of demons in the Gospel is harder to explain (Rev 9:20; 16:14; John 7:20; 10:20–21 ; apocalyptic texts portrayed them more as fallen angels, but the other extant gospels emphasize exorcisms). In both, the devil is thrown down at the cross (Rev 12:9, cf. 20:3; John 12:31 ), is a deceiver (Rev 12:9; 20:10; John 8:44 ; cf. 1 John 2:26–27 ) and accuser (Rev 12:10; cf. Jesus» enemies in John and the opposite role of the Paraclete). «Lying» refers to speaking falsehood about Jesus Christ in Revelation (3:9; 14:5) as well as in John (8:44; 1 John 2:22). Satan is connected with heresy (Rev 2:24; John 8with 1 John 2:22 ), and idols, which are connected with heresy (Rev 2:14, 20; 1 John 5:21 ), are connected with demons in Revelation (9:20; 16:14). 2C. Conclusion on John and Revelation None of these parallels (some of which are stronger than others) prove or come close to proving common authorship. They do, however, illustrate that common authorship is not impossible, a possibility which may commend itself on other grounds (such as Revelation " s probably explicit and the Gospel " s possibly implicit claim to authorship by a prominent leader named John, and early Christian tradition). The case is considerably weaker than the argument for unity of authorship of Luke and Acts (two volumes of one work) and of the Gospels and Epistles of John, but perhaps similar to the case that can be made for Pauline authorship of the so-called deuteropauline works, and perhaps better than the case for common authorship of 1 and 2 Peter. |
| Farewell speeches often included warnings (e.g., Josephus Ant. 4.177–193), but like some other early Christian examples of this genre (e.g., Mark 13 ; Acts 20:28–31), the words of warning in 15:18–25 reflect the traditional apocalyptic perspective of suffering before the end. The Gospel " s emphasis on realized eschatology underlines the immediacy of the eschatological situation of tribulation; one may also compare the similar result of imminent eschatology in the book of Revelation. 1A. Part of the Context Some argue that the focus of 15:18–16is quite different from ch. 14; 9113 certainly the focus moves from the relationship of believers with God and one another (13:31–15:17) to the relationship of believers to hostile society. Yet one need not view 15:18–16:4 as an independent discourse formed under circumstances distinct from the rest of the Gospel; 9114 the Gospel as a whole is basically consistent in its dualism (see introduction). 1B. The Worldview of the Passage The worldview presupposed in 15:18–25 is one common to sectarian groups, in which apocalyptic ideologies (in the modern sense of that expression) often prevai1. Some early Christian writers, such as Luke, seem to represent a socioeconomic stratum and social conditions that provide more optimism for engaging the broader culture from a Christian perspective. Thus Acts includes eschatology (1:11; 3:19–21; 10:42; 17:31; 24:15; 26:6–8) but focuses more on the current mission (1:6–8); one finds favorable and just officials (5:34; 10:4; 13:7; 18:12–16; 19:31; 22:29; 23:9, 23–24; 25:25; 26:31–32; 27:43) and others (e.g., 28:2,10,21). John, however, expects his audience to view the world as hostile, with a perspective comparable to other Johannine literature (1 John 2:15–17; 4:4–5; 5:19; Rev 13:7–17). 9115 This admittedly characterized also those who, while working within society, shared an apocalyptic worldview ( Rom 12:2; 13:11–12 ; 1Cor 10:11 ; Gal 1:4; 2 Thess 2:1–13). 9116 Such hostility from the out-group would also help define the boundaries and strengthen cohesiveness of the in-group. 9117 |
|
|
