| 290 Stanton, Jesus, 5; Hengel, Atonement, 35; Aune, Prophecy, 213; Keck, «Ethos,» 448; Witherington, Christology, 223; idem, Sage, 211–12. Q " s theology probably does not differ appreciably from Mark " s (Meadors, «Orthodoxy»; cf. Witherington, Sage, 233–36). 291 Compare Josephus " s demonstrable additions, omissions, conflations, and rearrangement, some of which is similar to, and some of which contrasts with, what we know of the Gospels from redaction critics; cf. the data in Downing, «Redaction Criticism.» 292 See the discussion in Dunn, Acts, 117; he notes, however, that the words of dialogue remain identical each time (p. 121). Cf. also Luke 24:47–51; Acts 1:8–11. 293 Cf. Bultmann, Tradition, 13; Wenham, «Note»; Peabody, «Tradition.» Jacobson, «Q,» argues that Mark and Q indicate separate traditions. While this is true for the most part, Mark may have used Q, adopting some material from it (cf. Catchpole, «Beginning»); Q is probably pre-Markan (see Theissen, Gospels, 232). For various agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, see Neirynck, Agreements. 294 Some recent scholars have dated the Gospels quite early; see, e.g., Robinson, Redating; Wenham, «Gospel Origins»; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction (79, 99, 117, 167). Although I am personally inclined to date only Mark before 70 C.E. (Luke perhaps in the early 70s; Matthew the late 70s), in general arguments concerning the situation and date of the Synoptics lack the objective data supporting those of most NT epistles; arguments advanced for earlier dates thus merit more serious consideration than they usually receive. 297 Appian R.H. pref.12. If the events were recent, it could include interviewing eyewitnesses (Thucydides 1.22.2–3; cf. Xenophon Apo1. 2; Plutarch Demosth. 2.1–2); prosecutors preparing cases also did such research (Lysias Or. 23.2–8, §§166–167). 299 Polybius 12.25d.l-12.25e.7 critiques Timaeus for failing to do research beyond the many documents available to him and (for the sake of his critique) even ranks field research and interpretive political context above documents (12.251.2). |
| Stevens, Theology Stevens, George B. The Johannine Theology: A Study of the Doctrinal Contents of the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John. New York: Scribner, 1894. Stevenson, «Benefactor» Stevenson, T. R. «The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought.» Classical Quarterly 42 (1992): 421–36. Stewart, «Domitian» Stewart, R. «Domitian and Roman Religion: Juvenal, Satires Two and Four.» Transactions of the American Philological Association 124 (1994): 309–32. Stewart, «Procedure» Stewart, Roy A. «Judicial Procedure in NT Times.» EvQ 47 (1975): 94–109. Stewart, «Synagogue» Stewart, Roy A. «The Synagogue.» EvQ 43 (1971): 36–46. Stibbe, «Elusive Christ» Stibbe, Mark W. G. «The Elusive Christ: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospe1.» JSNT44 (1991): 19–37. Stibbe, Gospel Stibbe, Mark W. G. John " s Gospe1. New Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 1994. Stibbe, «Return» Stibbe, Mark W. G. ««Return to Sender»: A Structuralist Approach to John " s Gospe1.» Biblical Interpretation 1 (1993): 189–206. Stock, «Mystery Play» Stock, Augustine. «Literary Criticism and Mark " s Mystery Play.» The Bible Today 100 (February 1979): 1909–15. Stock, «Peter» Stock, Augustine. «Is Matthew " s Presentation of Peter Ironic?» Biblical Theology Bulletin 17 (1987): 64–69. Stone, «Boat» Stone, G. R. «The Galilee Boat–a Fishing Vessel of NT Times.» Buried History 25, no. 2 (1989): 46–54. Stone, »Oedipus» Stone, Jerry H. «The Gospel of Mark and Oedipus the King: Two Tragic Visions.» Soundings 67 (1984): 55–69. Story, «Attitude» Story, Cullen I. K. «The Mental Attutude of Jesus at Bethany: John 11.33, 38 .» NTS 37 (1991): 51–66. Story, «Chronology» Story, Cullen I. K. «The Bearing of Old Testament Terminology on the Johannine Chronology of the Final Passover of Jesus.» NovT 31 (1989): 316–24. Story, Truth Story, Cullen I. K. The Nature of Truth in «The Gospel of Truth» and in the Writings of Justin Martyr: A Study of the Pattern of Orthodoxy in the Middle of the Second Christian Century. NovTSup 25. Leiden: Brill, 1970. |
| Most disciples in the Gospel had begun to «believe» Jesus before the resurrection, often with minimal signs (cf. 1:49); they become paradigmatic for believers after Jesus» ascension. 10775 Like the disciples before the resurrection appearances, John " s own audience comprised entirely, or almost entirely, believers through the word of others (17:20), who had not seen Christ for themselves (cf. 1Pet 1:8 ); 10776 through Jesus» words to Thomas, John exhorts his own audience to believe despite having to depend on the eyewitnesses. The Spirit, after all, presented the real Jesus through the witnesses» testimony ( John 16:7–11 ). Signs-faith is not rejected here; Thomas " s faith is a start. But signs are not always available, and signs do not in themselves guarantee faith (6:26; 11:45–47). Thus Jesus provides a beatitude (see comment on 13:17) for those who believe without signs, on the testimony of others about signs Jesus already worked (20:30–31). The argument that those who had not seen yet believed were more blessed (20:29) would have been intelligible in terms of Jewish logic about rewards. 10777 But as Thomas " s confession demonstrates, the true, resurrection faith requires more than commitment to Jesus (cf. 11:16); it requires in addition the recognition of Jesus» divine role. 10375 Niccacci, «Fede,» emphasizes parallels between 1:19–51 and 20:1–29, including in the four units of each section (some others make the parallels with the epilogue, ch. 21–e.g., Breck, «Conclusion»; Ellis, «Authenticity»). 10376 Cf. Sabugal, «Resurreccion.» 10377 See Brown, «Resurrection.» 10378 Here we have used material especially from Keener, Matthew, 697–712. 10379 Dodd, Tradition, 148. 10380 See Lindars, «Composition,» 147. He believes that John utilized his material creatively (Lindars, Behind, 76). 10381 Wenham, «Narratives»; Gundry, Matthew, 590–91. 10382 The sudden ending in Mark 16fits some ancient narration patterns; though in some cases, e.g., L.A.B., the ending may be lost, one may compare also abrupt original endings, e.g., in some of Plutarch " s speeches (Fame of Athenians 8, Mor. 351B; Fort. Alex. 2.13, Mor. 345B; Fort. Rom. 13, Mor. 326C; Uned. R. 7, Mor. 782F); Isocrates Demon. 52, Or. 1; Demetrius 5.304; Lucan C.W. 10.542–546; Herodian 8.8.8. See esp. Magness, Sense, for more ancient literary parallels; for consistency with Markan style, especially a final γρ, cf. Boomershine and Bartholomew, «Technique.» An abbreviated conclusion allows Mark to retain the centrality of the cross without actually playing down the resurrection (cf. also Thompson, Debate, 225), because he points to resurrection appearances beyond his narrative (e.g., Anderson, Mark, 353; Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 42; Hooker, Mark, 120». Farmer, Verses, even makes a noteworthy case on external (pp. 3–75) and internal (79–103) grounds that Mark 16:9–20 has more support for being the original ending than usually accepted. |
| 6977 Explicitly «high» Christology is rare in Mark " s sayings and in Synoptic material dependent on Mark, 6978 but Mark, if he knew this sort of tradition, may have lacked reason to emphasize it (the suffering Son of Man is more central for his point than exalted Wisdom), and we suspect that he did have reason, given his focus on the Messianic Secret, to de-emphasize it. In the sixties a more subtle christological approach may have proved more strategic in most Diaspora synagogues. Perhaps more to the point, Mark strategically preserves his plot " s suspense of the Messianic Secret until the passion week. But high Christology appears in Q (Matt 3:11–12/Luke 3:16–17; Matt 11:27/Luke 10:22), 6979 from which John 8appears a relatively short distance in the broader context of christological expectations. After all, many claimed messiahship, but what other historical figure was held to actually embody Wisdom? It usually appeared as a personification or, if hypostatic, certainly not a hypostasis likely to be incarnated as a human being. Mark is also more explicit about divine connotations in Mark 6:48–50 (in view of his biblical allusions, including «I am») than is John in the parallel passage (see comment on John 6:20 ). 6980 The «I am,» then, is not wholly unique to John, though it is far more common there. Thus some evidence, while not coercive, makes plausible the possibility that some Christian traditions applied the self-claim to Jesus before Johns Gospe1. 6981 John forcefully underlines the situation " s irony: the crowds who denied knowing who might wish to kill Jesus (7:20) are now prepared to kill him themselves (8:59). 6982 (A further irony is that Jesus had predicted their violence in 8:37, 40, as part of the charges that aroused their anger.) A merely messianic claim would not have generated such severe opposition to Jesus on religious grounds (as opposed to political grounds) as he experienced here. 6983 Thus the reaction of Jesus» interlocutors suggest that they finally understand his claim to deity–but do not believe it. |
| Evans C.A. Mark 8:27–16:20 . Nashville, 2001. Faccini B., Fanti G. New Image Processing of the Turin Shroud Scourge Marks//URL: http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/ FacciniWeb.pdf. Fanti G., Gaeta S. Il mistero della sindone. Milano, 2013. Farmer W.R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. Cambridge, 1974. Fitzmyer J.A. Luke (X-XXIV). New York, 1985. France R.T. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2002. Frenschkowski M. Traum and Traumdeutung in Matthäusevangelium: Einige Beobachten//Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. 1998. S.5–47. Gnilka J. Das Matthäusevangelium. Bd. I-II. Freiburg, 1992. Grassi J.A. The Secret Identity of the Beloved Disciple. New York, 1992. Green J.B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 1997. Gundry R.H. Mark. A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids, 1993. Gundry R.H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Leiden, 1975. Guscin M. The Tradition of the Image of Edessa. Cambridge, 2016. Haren M.J. The Naked Young Man: A Historian’s Hypothesis on Mark. 14, 51–52 //Biblica. 2003. P.525–531. Harrington J.M. The Lukan Passion Narrative. The Markan Material in Luke 22, 54–23, 25. A Historical Survey: 1891–1997. Leiden; Boston; Koln, 2000. Hemer C.J., Gempf C.H. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Tübingen, 1989. Hengel M. Crucifixion. Philadelphia, 1977. Hengel M. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London, 1985. Hoehner H.W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids, 1977. Holmas G.O. Prayer and Vindication in Luke-Acts. The Theme of Prayer within the Context of Legitimating and Edifying Objective of the Lukan Narrative. New York, 2011. Hooker M.D. Isaiah in Mark’s Gospel//Isaiah in the New Testament/ed. by S.Moyise, M.J.J.Menken. London; New York, 2005. P.35–49. Hopf Ch. Chroniques greco-romaines inédites ou peu connues. Paris, 1873. Horsley R.A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence : Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. San Francisco, 1987. |
| De antiquissimis veterum quae ad Iesum Nazarenum spectant testimoniis. Giessen, 1913; Aufhauser J. B. Antike Jesus-Zeugnisse. Bonn, 19252; Eisler R. ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ. Hdlb., 1929-1930. 2 Bde; Windisch H. Das Problem der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu: Die ausserchristlichen Zeugnisse//ThRu. 1929. Bd. 1. S. 266-288; Bienert W. Der älteste nichtchristliche Jesusbericht Josephus über Jesus: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des altrussischen «Josephus». Halle, 1936; Jeremias J. Unbekannte Jesusworte. Zürich, 1948; Klausner J. Jesus von Nazareth. Jerusalem, 19523; Köster H. Synoptische Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vätern. B., 1957; idem. Dialog und Spruchüberlieferung in den gnostischen Texten von Nag Hammadi//EvTh. 1979. Bd. 39. S. 532-556; idem. Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels//HarvTR. 1980. Vol. 73. P. 105-130; idem. History and Development of Mark " s Gospel: From Mark to Secret Mark and «Canonical» Mark//Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches/Ed. B. Corley. Macon, 1983. P. 35-57; idem. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. L.; Phil., 1990; Conzelmann H. Jesus Christus//RGG. 19593. Bd. 3. S. 619-653; Brandon S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots. Manchester, 1967; K ö ster H., Robinson J. M. Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums. Tüb., 1971; Norden E. Josephus und Tacitus über Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophetie// Schalit A., Hrsg. Zur Josephusforschung. Darmstadt, 1973. S. 27-69; Sch ü rer E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C.-A. D. 135)/Ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar. Edinb., 1973. Vol. 1; 1979. Vol. 2; Winter P. Josephus on Jesus and James// Sch ü rer. 1973. P. 428-441; Bruce F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. L., 1974; Vielhauer Ph. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. B.; N. Y., 1975; Maier J. Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung. Darmstadt, 1978; idem. Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike. |
| 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. |
| 4058 For the importance of the eyewitness component in «witness,» see, e.g., Aune, Environment, 81; Painter, John, 8; Trites, Witness, 4–19,136–39. 4059 Michaels, Servant, 36. Cranfield, «Baptism,» 58, argues that it was a vision but a real communication to Jesus; Bultmann, History, 248, thinks it describes an objective happening as in Matthew and Luke, but only because it is a faith legend. 4060 Pace Hill, Prophecy, 59; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 18; cf. Bürge, Community, 52; Borg, Vision, 41,53 η. 19; Anderson, Mark, 75; Kelber, Story, 18–19; Hooker, Message, 13; Robinson, Problem, 81; Kingsbury, Structure, 14. 4062 Cf. also the christological inclusio of 1:1,18; 20(elsewhere, e.g., the sympathetic, choruslike εκκλησα, or public assembly, at the opening and close of Chariton Chaereas and Callirhoe). 4063 Cf. also dramatic language for personal deliverances (e.g. Ps 18:7–16 in context and some Qumran hymns, perhaps including the controversial «messianic» text 1 QH 3, which depicts the psalmist " s sufferings in terms of eschatological messianic woes). Mark " s heaven rending corresponds with the temple curtain " s rending (Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 46), but John omits this scene for other reasons than his own omission of the veil (Mark " s connection is subtle anyway). 4065 Frequent in rabbinic texts, e.g., Sipre Deut. 357.10.3; b. B. Bat. 58a, 73b, 85b; c Erub. 54b; Mak. 23b; Pesah. 114a (=Hu1. 44a); Sanh. 104b; Šabb. 88a; p. c Abod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Hor. 3:5, §3; Sotah 9:16, §2; Ta c an. 4:5, §10; Lev. Rab. 19:5–6; Lam. Rab. 1:16, §50; Ruth Rab. 6:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:2, 11:16,17:5; reportedly Tannaitic sources in b. Hu1. 44a; Ketub. 104a; Šabb. 33b; Sotah 21a; Ecc1. Rab. 7:12, §1; Song Rab. 8:9, §3 (but many of the attributions are presumably part of later haggadah). For nonrabbinic parallels, see comment on 12:28. The connection cannot be limited to an Aqedah allusion (contrast Stegner, «Baptism»). 4067 B. Pesah. 94a; Hag. 13a, anachronistically attributed to ben Zakkai; similarly R. Isaac in b. Sanh. 39b. Although the evidence is quite late, it might be relevant that the bat qol could have eschatological ramifications in some very late rabbinic sources (Lev. Rab. 27:2). |
| 3828 See comments on 1:6–8 above. One should not press too much the distinction between «confessed» and «denied not» (as Westcott, John, 18, endeavors to do). 3829 So many commentators, e.g., Hooker, Message, 9; Ladd, Theology, 35; Lane, Mark, 51. Nortjé, «John,» sees Jesus as a John, hence Elijah, redivivus. 3830 Hunter, John, 22, suggests that our author " s remark is difficult to explain if the author knew Mark. 3831 Martyn thinks that the Fourth Gospel suppressed a source identifying Jesus as Elijah to conform to the broader Christian tradition. Another proposal, that Jesus viewed himself as a new Elisha following John the new Elijah (Bostock, «Elisha»), is reasonable but lacks adequate supporting evidence. 3832 Taylor, Mark, 390 suggests that in the transfiguration Moses and Elijah represent the law and prophets; but probably they are just harbingers of the end; cf. Moule, Mark, 70. 3833 For the latter view, see Brown, Essays, 181–84. The evangelist may use rhetorically less favored historical presents here (1:21) and elsewhere for vividness (as, e.g., in the Latin of Caesar Gallic War, passim), though scholars could criticize inconsistency in verb tenses (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2 Amm. 12); on the importance of vividness, see Anderson, Glossary, 43,125 (cf. also 73). 3834 Diversity of perspectives on Elijah extended even to interpretations of biblical narratives; cf. Zeller, «Elija.» 3835 E.g., b. Móed Qat. 26a; Sanh. 113b, although such texts may reflect differing implications as to whether (perhaps " Abot R. Nat. 38, §103 B, till Messiah comes) or not (cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:4) he would die. Josephus " s words are more guarded (Ant. 9.28), probably accommodating Hellenistic skepticism. 3836 See Keener, Spirit, 20–22; Sipra Sh. M.D. 99.5.6; also Tg. Jon. on 1Sam 19and on 2 Kgs 6:1; 9:1,4. 3837 " Abot R. Nat. 2A; b. c Abod. Zar. 36a; Ber. 3a; Git. 42b; Hag. 9b; Qidd. 79a; Menah. 32a; p. Ber. 9:2, §3; Ter. 1(unclear here whether the activity in this text was in ancient Israel or the rabbinic period); Pesiq. |
| Диакон Стефан Сакович 07.12.42 Омск 5 лет тюрьмы, далее судьба неизв. Иерод. Дионисий (Санников) нет данных Прот. Иннокентий Образцов 18.12.37 Умер от паралича сердца 28.01.38 Приговорен к расстрелу 10.02.38 Иркутский район Михайло-Архангельск. ц., пос. Ленино (штатн.) Прот. Алексий Литвинцев 22.12.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Иг. Пафнутий (Резниченко) 13.02.38 Расстрел 27.02.38 Михайло-Архангельская церковь, пос. Ленино (заштатные) Архим. Порфирий (Маковский) 05.03.38 Расстрел 22.05.38 Иерод. И. Подгорбунский нет данных Диакон Алексий Брыксин(?) 25.11.37 Расстрел 10.12.37 Прот.(?) Стефан Титов нет данных Свящ. Василий Византийский в 1946 г. вернулся к служению Кудинская церковь Прот. Николай Днепровский 19.12.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Куярская церковь Прот. Михаил Шастин Нет данных Харатская церковь Прот. Михаил Индриксон Нет данных Оекская рел. община (церкви нет) Свящ. Алексий Казанцев (шт.) Нет данных Свящ. Константин Холловский (зашт.) Нет данных Егоровская Вознесенкая церковь Иером. Александр (Гриценко) 10.06.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Псаломщик – иерод. Анатолий Корнильев После ВОВ в 1945 вернулся к служению Укриковская церковь Иерод. Димитрий Азаркин(зашт.) Нет данных Усть-Кудинская ц. Прот. Павел Постников 08.03.38 Расстрел 22.04.38 Слюдянский район Выдринская церковь Иером. Евгений (Красноперов) 18.03.37 10 лет ИТЛ, в 1945 вернулся к служению Больше-Голоуст. ц. Свящ. Иоанн Ильенко 22.11.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Лиственничная церковь на Байкале Прот. Арсений Иванов 21.11.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Усольский р-он Усольцая рел. общ. (церкви нет) Свящ. Сергий Багрянцев 12.02.38 Расстрел 15.03.38 Тельминская церковь Прот. Николай Успенский 18.09.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Тайтурская церковь Свящ. Вениамин Фадеев Нет данных Больше-Хитинская ц. Свящ. Александр Краснов 16.08.37 Расстрел 15.01.38 Черемховский район Бельская церковь Прот. Иоанн Письменный 16.11.37 10 лет ИТЛ Боханский аймак Таляновская церковь Свящ. Иоанн Мальцев (зашт.) 06.05.38 Расстрел 20.07.38 Бейтоновская церковь Свящ. М. Холловский (зашт.) |
|
|
