| 877 Smith, John (1999), 335, connecting more explicit appearances with 18:16. If this connection held, Lazarus, Barnabas, or John Mark " s mother " s family might prove better candidates for supplying a well-to-do, priestly Jerusalem disciple (cf. Acts 4:36–37; 12:12–13; Col 4:10). 879 On the prophecy not arising after the event, see, e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 243–44; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 147; Keener, Matthew, 485–86. 881 E.g., Culpepper, John, 31. The objection based on John " s opposition to the Samaritans (Luke 9:54; ibid.) falls into the same category, especially in view of the explicit testimony of Acts 8:14–15 (which should be doubted no more than Lukés claim in Luke 9:54–55). 882 Carson, John, 74. Peter " s character changes even between Luke and Acts! John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 1 attributes the Gospel directly to the «son of thunder.» 883 Fishermen were usually relatively high on the socioeconomic scale (see sources in Keener, Matthew, 151–52; Stanton, Gospels, 186; Whitacre, John, 20), but Galilee was a long way from Jerusalem (Smith, John 335). The high priest " s household could import fish from the Lake of Galilee, but probably through agents (though fishermen could make more income if they sold directly to the rich rather than through middlemen; Alciphron Fishermen 9 [Aegialeus to Struthion], 1.9). Blomberg, Reliability, 35, argues that Zebedeés wife had priestly relatives ( Mark 15:40 ; Matt 27:56; John 19:25 ; Luke 1:36, 39). 884 E.g., Thucydides 1.1.1; 2.103.2; 5.26.1; Xenophon Anab. 2.5.41; 3.1.4–6 and passim. Polybius uses first-person claims when he was an observer (e.g., 29.21.8) but prefers third-person when he is an active participant in the narrative (31.23.1–31.24.12; 38.19.1; 38.21.1; 38.22.3; cf. 39.2.2). A narrator might distance himself from his role as participant in this way to meet expectations for objectivity (see esp. Jackson, «Conventions»). 885 E.g., Dunn, «John,» 293–94. He commendably recognizes that the stages are now difficult to reconstruct; but one then wonders how it is possible to know they existed. |
| 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. |
| Humphreys C. The Mystery of the Last Supper. Cambridge, 2011. Jackson H.M. Why the Youth Shed His Cloak and Fled Naked: The Meaning and Purpose of Mark 14:51–52 //Journal of Biblical Literature. 1997. P.273–289. Jaubert A. La date de la Cène. Calendrier biblique et liturgie chrétienne. Paris, 1975. Jeremias J.The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. London, 1966. Juster J. Les juifs dans l’empire romain. Leur condition juridique, économique et sociale. Paris, 1914. Vols.1–2. Paris, 1914. Kahler M. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historical Biblical Christ. Philadelphia, 1964. Kee H.C. Jesus: Glutton and Drunkard//Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Chilton B., Evans C.A. ed. Boston; Leiden, 2022. P.311–332. Keener C.S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. Vol. I: Introduction and 1:1–2:47. Grand Rapids, 2012. Keener C.S. The Gospel ofJohn. A Commentary. Vol. 1–2. Peabody, 2003. Keener C.S. The Gospel of Matthew. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2009. Keener C.S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2009. Kelber W.H. The Hour of the Son of Man and the Temptation of the Disciples//The Passion in Mark. Studies on Mark 14–16 . Ed. by W.H.Kelber. Philadelphia, 1976. P.41–60. Kidner D. Psalms 1–72. An Introduction and Commentary. London, 1973. Klassen W. Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus. Minneapolis, 2005. Koet B.J. Isaiah in Luke-Acts//Isaiah in the New Testament/Ed. by S.Moyise and M.J.J.Menken. London; New York, 2005. P.79–100. Kottukapalli R. «Blessed Are Those Not Seeing...» John 20, 29 in the Light of John 20, 30–31 and Rev. 1, 3; 22, 7. Extractum ex dissertatione ad Doctoratum in Facultate Theologiae (Pontificia Universitas Urbaniana). Roma, 2010. Ladd G.E. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, 1993. Lampe G.W.H. The Two Swords (Luke 22:35–38)//Jesus and the Politics of His Day//ed. by E.Bammel and C.F.D. Moule. Cambridge, 1984. P.335–351. Lane W.L. The Gospel of Mark. The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 1974. |
| 3857 Bruce, Time, 36–42, esp. 39; cf. Longenecker, Christology, 34. Simon, Stephen, 61, 73, affirms that the Mosaic prophet-messiah appears in the Samaritan Táeh (Taheb) but not in Judaism; but Qumran employed the same texts (see Gaster, Scriptures, 393,444–46), including Deut 18 (Villalon, «Sources,» 62–63; cf. Vermes, Scrolls, 247–48). 3858 Brown, John, 1(citing Teeple); Bruce, Time, 40. 3859 See Hill, Prophecy, 53–54; Robinson, Studies, 32. 3860 For Acts and John here, see Cribbs, «Agreements,» 55; but both probably derive the language from earlier Jewish or Christian tradition. On the correspondence between Acts and traditional Jewish language here, cf. de Waard, «Quotation.» Teeple, Prophet, 86, also finds allusion to Lev 23:29 . Aune, Prophecy, 155, thinks this reflects older tradition (because Luke neglects Moses redivivus imagery in his Gospel); contrast Meeks, Prophet-King, 27–28. Many note the helpful double entendre on «raise up» in Acts 3:22, 26 (Doeve, Hermeneutics, 155; ÓToole, «Observations»; Ellis, «Uses,» 202). 3861 Davies, Sermon, 24; Gundry, Matthew, 342; Lane, Mark, 321; Bruce, Time, 40. 3862 Cf. Davies, Sermon, 20–21; Argyle, Matthew, 132; Lane, Mark, 317. 3863 See Meeks, Prophet-King, especially his proposition on p. 25. 3864 On the Johannine community and prophetism, see esp. Keener, «Pneumatology,» 284–329; see the discussion of the Paraclete and prophetism on 14:16. 3865 For short reference, Jewish testimonia collections sometimes attributed composite citations to the more prominent author (Longenecker, Exegesis, 138). 3866 Roman-period Jews still understood Isaiah " s language («preaching good news,» etc.) with respect to eschatological salvation and Israel " s restoration, e.g., Pss. So1. 11:1, and expectation of a new exodus continued (e.g., 4Q389 frg. 2). 3867 The idea of making a highway straight for a king or other travelers by leveling ground was still widely known in the late first century (in Trajan " s reign, cf., e.g., ILS 5863, in Sherk, Empire, 155 (100 C.E.); similarly Galen 10.633 in Sherk, Empire, 164) and hence would not be lost on John " s readers (cf. |
| 88 Cf. the interesting parallels between Acts and «institutional history» in Cancik, «Historiography.» Cancik (p. 673) and others are right to recognize the influence of the genre of Acts on Luke, but the Gospel " s focus on a single person still makes it a «life»; no rule prohibited an overlap between biography and history. 91 See Domeris, «Drama.» The Gospel also pictures Jesus» ministry as a trial (e.g., Kobelski, «Melchizedek,» 193; Lincoln, Lawsuit Motif; van der Watt and Voges, «Elemente»), but this is not the most prominent aspect of the Gospel " s portraya1. 92 Bilezikian, Liberated Gospel, especially on the plot, 51–78; idem, «Tragedy»; Stock, «Mystery Play»; Stone, " Oedipus»; cf. Via, Kerygma, 99–101; Weeden, Mark, 17; Cox, «Tragedy,» 316–17; Hengel, Studies in Mark, 34–36. On the plot, see Aune, Environment, 48. 94 Cf., e.g., Arrian Alex. 3.22.2–6; for interchange between drama and rhetoric see Scodel, «Drama and Rhetoric.» Stricter historians could, however, criticize others» elaborations intended to evoke pathos (Polybius 2.56.7,10–11). 96 Duke, Irony, 141. He thinks that John used these features for a Jewish purpose. Cultural Roman pessimism, however, may contribute alongside Greek tragedy. 97 See esp. Josephus. Schmitt, «Form,» finds parallels in Wis 1:1–6(although other scholars would dispute some of these). 105 So, e.g., Aune, Environment, 46–76; Stanton, Jesus, 117–36; Robbins, Teacher, 10; Burridge, «People,» 121–22; idem, «Biography, Ancient»; Cross, «Genres,» 402–4; Frickenschmidt, Evangelium als Biographie; for aretalogical biography, see Wills, Quest. Some of these writers (e.g., Stanton, Gospels, 19) reverse an earlier skepticism toward the biographical proposal (see Stanton, New People, 64; cf. Aune, «Problem»). Cf. also Hodgson, «Valerius Maximus.» 106 See e.g., Culpepper, John, 64–66. Some later examples of this form may borrow the gospel form (see Dillon and Hershbell, «Introduction,» 25, who also suggest that John " s Gospel may well have been available). |
| They continued to distinguish this biblical God " s identity from all other realities. 2590 Later Judaism became far more precise in its definition of monotheism, perhaps under the influence of Maimonides» use of Aristotelian metaphysics learned from Muslim Arabs (which affirmed a monotheism so rigorous that it could define even divine attributes as entities distinct from the Deity). 2591 Flusser, an Israeli scholar, is probably correct in his contention: «On the one hand, Christology developed from Jesus» exalted self-awareness and from what happened to or was believed to have happened to Jesus and, on the other hand, from various Jewish religious motifs which became connected with Jesus Christ.» 2592 2. Wisdom Christology Although John uses some other Jewish images, he focuses on Christ " s deity from Wisdom Christology (1:1–18), 2593 a Christology found in probably pre-Pauline formulas (e.g., 1Cor 8:6 ; 2594 Phil 2:6–7 ; 2595 Col 1:15–17), 2596 of which Paul plainly approves, 2597 and in Matthew and probably Q (Matt 11:28–30; 2598 23:34; Luke 11:49; cf. Matt 11:19; Luke 7:35), and nowhere clearly challenged in extant records of the early church. Nor is Pauls application of Wisdom language to Jesus merely symbolic, as if he did not wish to convey Jesus» preexistence; 2599 Paul would not risk compromising monotheism in a Hellenistic environment certain to interpret him literally, if he did not mean his words literally. 2600 As some scholars have noted, Enlightenment rationalists must pursue «naturalistic explanations» for the disciples» faith, but Jesus appears as divine Wisdom already in Paul and the Synoptics. 2601 Indeed, Paul shows us that preaching of a divine/wisdom Christ precedes Mark " s adaptation of the Greco-Roman biographic form to appeal to Gentile audiences accustomed to the sort of narrative structure Mark provides. 2602 I have argued elsewhere that these stories would be accurately preserved; 2603 but the church " s central proclamation was a briefer outline of the salvific story, and in that story Christ was no mere mortal (e.g., Acts 2:21, 38; 22:16; 1Cor 8:6; 12:3 ; Phil 2:6 ). |
| Klauck H. J. Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten. Münster, 1978. Kloppenborg J. S. The Tenants in the Vineyard. Tübingen, 2010. Klostermann E. Das Matthäusevangelium. Tübingen, 1971. Lambrecht J. Out of the Treasure. The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew. Louvain, 1998. Lampe G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1961. Léon-Dufour X. Life and Death in the New Testament. The Teachings of Jesus and Paul. San Francisco, 1986. Levine A. J. Short Stories by Jesus. NY, 2014. Lischer R. Reading the Parables. Louisville, 2014. MacArthur J. The Prodigal Son. The Inside Story of a Father, His Sons and a Shocking Murder. Nashville, Tennessee, 2008. Malina B. J., Rohrbaugh R. L. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis, 1992. Manson T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London, 1937 (reprint 1964). Manson T. W. The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content. Cambridge, 1967. Marcus J. Mark. 1–8 . A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven: London, 2000. Martin T. W. Watch During the Watches ( Mark 13:35 )//Journal of Biblical Literature. 2001. 120. P. 685–701. McArthur R., Johnston R. They Also Taught in Parables: Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era. Grand Rapids, 1990. Meier J. P. The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans: What can be Said?//Biblica 2000. 81 (2). P. 202–232. Minear P. A. A Note on Luke 17:7–10//Journal of Biblical Literature. 1974. 93. P. 82–87. Moessner D. P. Lord of the Banquet. The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative. Harrisburg, PA, 1998. Morris L. The Gospel according to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Leicester, 1992. Nave G. D. The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke–Acts. Leiden; Boston; Köln, 2002. Nygren A. Agape and eros. Philadelphia, 1953. O’Collins G. Jesus: A Portrait. NY, 2008. Olmstead W. G. Matthew’s Trilogy of Parables. The Nation, the Nations and the Reader in Matthew 21.28–22.14. Cambridge, 2003. P. 22–46. Orton D. E. The Understanding Scribe. Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal. London; NY, 1989. |
| 6715 In the NT αληθς appears eight times in the Synoptics (christological in Mark and Matthew, stylistic in Luke-Acts), eight times in Johannine literature (usually christological), and on only two other occasions. 6716 For this verb as «remains,» see, e.g., Musonius Rufus frg. 51, p. 144.7–9. 6717 E.g., m. " Abot 5:19; b. Ber. 6b. 6718 In parabolic language they also could speak of Israel as God " s disciples at Sinai (Pesiq. Rab. 21:6). 6719 See Marmorstein, Names, 180; our comment on 14:6. Because truth about discipleship is not the issue, ληθς in 8provides at most a verbal link for λθεια in 8:32. 6720 Jesus» opponents lack this; see 7:17,49, 51. 6721 E.g., Xenophon Hel1. 1.7.16–17; 5.11.32; Acts 24:14; 25:11. 6722 See Johnston, «Parables,» 590. 6723 Dodd, More Studies, 48–49, citing also Philós Every Good Person Is Free; cf. Origen Comm. Jo. 2.112, who interpreted 8likewise. Commentators often seek to differentiate the NT and Stoic conceptions (e.g., Kelly, Peter, 111; Sevenster, Seneca, 117–22); Schmithals, Gnosticism, 218–24, traces the concept in Gnosticism. 6724 E.g., Seneca Benef. 3.20.1–2; Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.21; 1.12.9; 1.19.8; 1.25.3; 2.18.28; 4.1.1 (cf. the whole of 4.1, «Περ ελευθερας»); Dio Chrysostom Or. 14, On Slavery and Freedom 1, §18; Achilles Tatius 6.22.4. (Some suggest that Epictetus " s background in slavery was highly formative in his emphasis on freedom; see Oldfather, «Introduction,» vii-viii.) Some also contended that suicide freed one from suffering (Chariton 6.2.9). 6725 Cicero Parad. 33–41; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 27A; Diogenes Laertius 2.72 (Aristippus); Plutarch Lect. 1, Mor. 37E; 4 Macc 14:2. Cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.17.28; Malherbe, Exhortation, 159. In Senecás tragedies, those who seek autonomy from God become slaves (Lefèvre, «Cult»). 6726 Marcus Aurelius 8.1; Diogenes Laertius 7.1.33 (Zeno); cf. further Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 74–75. In Stoic thought, such liberating wisdom and virtue amounted to the same thing (Diogenes Laertius 7.1.121–122). |
| Robbins, «Prefaces» Robbins, Vernon K. «Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography and Luke-Acts.» Perspectives in Religious Studies 6, no. 2 (1979): 94–108. Robbins, «Pronouncement Stories» Robbins, Vernon K. «Classifying Pronouncement Stories in Plutarch " s Parallel Lives? Semeia 20 (1981): 29–52. Robbins, Teacher Robbins, Vernon K. Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-rhetorical Interpretation of Mark. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992. Robbins, «Test Case» Robbins, Vernon K. «Socio-rhetorical Criticism: Mary, Elizabeth, and the Magnificat as a Test Case.» Pages 164–209 in The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament. Edited by Edgar V. McKnight and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Roberge, «Composition» Roberge, Miche1. «La composition de Jean 6,22–59 dans l " exégèse récente.» Laval théologique et philosophique 40 (1984): 91–123. Robert, «Malentendu» Robert, René. «Le malentendu sur le nom divin au chapitre VIII du quatrième évangile.» Revue thomiste 88 (1988): 278–87. Robert, «Mot» Robert, René. «Le mot final du prologue johannique: A propos d " un article récent.» Revue thomiste 89 (1989): 279–88. Robert, «Précédent» Robert, René. «Un précédent platonicien à l " équivoque de Jean 1,18.» Revue thomiste 90 (1990): 634–39. Robert, «Solution» Robert, René. «Une solution pour Jean, I, 16: Kai charin anti charitos.» Revue thomiste 84 (1984): 243–51. (NTA 29:31). Robert, «Suaire» Robert, René. «Du suaire de Lazare à celui de Jésus: Jean XI,44 et XX,7.» Revue thomiste 88 (1988): 410–20. Roberts, Fragment Roberts, C. H. An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospe1. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935. Roberts, ««Only Begotten»» Roberts, R. L. «The Rendering " Only Begotten» in John 3:16 .» Restoration Quarterly 16 (1973): 2–22. Robertson, Luke Robertson, A. T. Luke the Historian in the Light of Research. New York: Scribner, 1923. Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. 2d ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914. |
| Bieringer R. " I am Ascending to My Father and Your Father, to My God and Your God» ( John 20:17 ): Resurrection and Ascension in the Gospel of John//The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John/ed. by C.R.Koester and R.Bieringer. Tübingen, 2008. P.209–221. Billings B.S. Do This in Remembrance of Me. The Disputed Words in the Lukan Institution Narrative (Luke 22.19b-20): An Historico-Exegetical, Theological and Sociological Analysis. London; New York, 2006. Black C.C. Mark. Images of An Apostolic Interpreter. Minneapolis, 2001. Blaine B B. Peter in the Gospel of John. The Making of an Authentic Disciple. Leiden; Boston, 2007. Blinzer J. The Trial of Jesus. Cork, 1959. Blomberg C.A. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel. Issues and Commentary. Illinois, 2001. Bock D.L. Jesus according to Scripture. Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Grand Rapids, 2002. Bond H.K. Political Authorities. The Herods, Caiaphas, and Pontius Pilate//Jesus among Friends and Enemies. A Historical and Literary Introduction to Jesus in the Gospels/ed. by Ch.Keith, L.W.Hurtado. Grand Rapids, 2011. P.219–247. Borg M. Jesus: A New Vision. San Francisco, 1987. Bovey E.H. L’Évangile de Jean. Résumé du commentaire de Fr.Godet. Le-Mont-sur-Lausanne, 2010. Brake D.L., Bolen T. Jesus: A Visual History. Grand Rapids, 2014. Breck J. Scripture in Tradition. The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church. New York, 2001. Broer I. Der Proze gegen Jesus nach Matthaus//Der Proze gegen Jesus. Historische Rückfrage und theologische Deutung. (Hg.) K.Kertelge. Freiburg; Basel; Wien, 1988. S.84–110. Browley R.L. Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation. Atlanta, 1987. Brown R.E. The Death of the Messianh. Vols 1–2. New York; London; Toronto; Sydney; Auckland, 1998. Brown R. E. The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI). Introduction, Translation and Notes. New York, 1970. Bultmann R. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Oxford, 1963. Carlston C.E., Evans C.A. From Synagogue to Ecclesia: Matthew " s Community at the Crossroads. Tübingen, 2014. |
|
|
