| By linking the glory of Jesus» cross with the expectation that disciples love one another as Jesus loved them, John calls disciples to lay down their lives (13:31–35). He further warns that the cross may prove more difficult than disciples may suppose (13:36–38); but Christ " s presence, made available at his coming after the resurrection (20:19–23), would empower disciples to follow him even to that extent (14:1–7). God will provide his nature and works for the disciples (14:8–12; cf. love and the commandments in 14:15), and full provision for what they must face as they carry on Jesus» work (14:13–27)–especially the Spirit (14:16–17, 25–26) and Jesus» presence available through obedience (14:18–24). (In this context, prayer and obedience are part of asking in Jesus» name, 14:13–16; and there appears to be an association between the Spirit " s coming and peace, 14:1, 27; 16:33.) The hour of Jesus» «glorification» (13:31–32) in this context can point only to the passion (12:23–24; cf. 7:39; 12:16); 8282 1 7:1–5 further develops the thoughts of 13:31–32. 8283 God had promised to glorify his own name (12:28), but his glory is inseparable from the glory of his Son (13:31–32; cf. 11:4,40; 12:41; 14:13; 17:1, 5, 22,24). The aorists of the context fit the perspective of completion from John " s time, but also make sense within the story world; an aorist could depict an event immediately to follow, resembling the predictive language recognized by early Christians in some biblical prophets (e.g., Isa 53LXX, τραυματσθη). God would be glorified in Jesus, hence would glorify Jesus, and would do so «immediately» (13:32). The mutual glory of Father and Son (cf. 17:10) makes sense; the Father delighted to grant the Son " s requests because the Son always pleased the Father (8:29; 11:42). The «immediately,» however, appears less clear. In contrast to Mark, who uses ευθς almost as decoration (41 of 58, or roughly 71 percent, of NT uses), John uses ευθς only three times: 13:30, 32; 19:34. Thus it is possible that he intends «immediately» as a reference to 13:30, connecting Jesus» glorification with Judas " s betraya1. Then again, the proximity of the two uses may suggest no more than that the particular term was fresh on the writer " s mind; it probably functions as a rough equivalent of «now» in 13:31, emphasizing the imminence of the events. Then again, it may suggest a temporal connection between the glory of the Father and of the Son: once Jesus has glorified the Father by submitting to the cross, the Father will turn Jesus» death into a glorification of the Son by exalting him right away. 8284 |
| More important for our consideration is the specific function of this prayer in its Johannine context. Although the Fourth Gospel emphasizes Jesus» deity, it also underlines his obedience to the Father " s will and offers significant prayers of Jesus to the Father. Jesus prays in 11:41–42 that the sign may produce faith in his divine mission. Essentially he prays for the Father " s glory (11:40), as he will soon offer prayers for the Father to be glorified by his own death and resurrection shortly to follow that prayer (12:27–28; 17:1–5). He expects the crowd to hear the prayer before God acts so that when God does act they may understand why he acted (cf. 14:29). In the same way, God speaks to Jesus in 12for the sake of the crowds (12:30). John may want his audience to understand how important it is to their Lord «that the world may know» that Jesus is the Father " s agent in part because, as he will soon inform them, they must share in that mission by their unity (17:23). Jesus begins with thanks, as in the closest parallel to an earlier pre-miracle prayer in the Gospel (6:11). By emphasizing that the Father has heard him, Jesus reiterates his dependence on the Father, a frequent Johannine theme; 7664 the Father «always» heard him because of his perfect obedience (8:29), a model for John " s audience (14:12–15; 15:7). That signs provide an opportunity for faith (11:42) 7665 is also a frequent Johannine motif (2:11), though this context illustrates the increased hostility invited by such signs from those who choose to continue in unbelief (11:45–47). Jesus spoke loudly to Lazarus (11:43), presumably partly so the crowd could also hear (cf. 7:37; 11:42). 7666 That he calls his name may recall 10:3: Jesus calls his own sheep by name, and leads them forth; 7667 that he raises him with his voice recalls 5:28–29, the future resurrection to which this points on a temporal, symbolic level (cf. 11:24–26). 7668 Unlike in the Synoptics, there is no emphasis on Jesus touching the impure in John; even Lazarus is raised not by a touch (cf. Mark 5:41 ; Luke 7:14) but by a command. 7669 John would, of course, agree with Mark " s perspective that Jesus» signs sometimes challenge purity customs (2:6); but he illustrates the point differently. |
| 3 . The A to Z of Hinduism by Bruce M. Sullivan, 2001. 4 . The A to Z of Islam by Ludwig W. Adamec, 2002. Out of Print. See No. 123. 5 . The A to Z of Slavery and Abolition by Martin A. Klein, 2002. 6 . Terrorism: Assassins to Zealots by Sean Kendall Anderson and Stephen Sloan, 2003. 7 . The A to Z of the Korean War by Paul M. Edwards, 2005. 8 . The A to Z of the Cold War by Joseph Smith and Simon Davis, 2005. 9 . The A to Z of the Vietnam War by Edwin E. Moise, 2005. 10 . The A to Z of Science Fiction Literature by Brian Stableford, 2005. 11 . The A to Z of the Holocaust by Jack R. Fischel, 2005. 12 . The A to Z of Washington, D.C. by Robert Benedetto, Jane Donovan, and Kathleen DuVall, 2005. 13 . The A to Z of Taoism by Julian F. Pas, 2006. 14 . The A to Z of the Renaissance by Charles G. Nauert, 2006. 15 . The A to Z of Shinto by Stuart D. B. Picken, 2006. 16 . The A to Z of Byzantium by Joh n H. Rosser, 2006. 17 . The A to Z of the Civil War by Terry L. Jones, 2006. 18 . The A to Z of the Friends (Quakers) by Margery Post Abbott, Mary Ellen Chijioke, Pink Dandelion, and Joh n William Oliver Jr., 2006. 19 . The A to Z of Feminism by Janet K. Boles and Diane Long Hoeveler, 2006. 20 . The A to Z of New Religious Movements by George D. Chryssides, 2006. 21 . The A to Z of Multinational Peacekeeping by Terry M. Mays, 2006. 22 . The A to Z of Lutheranism by Gunther Gassmann with Duane H. Larson and Mark W. Oldenburg, 2007. 23 . The A to Z of the French Revolution by Paul R. Hanson, 2007. 24 . The A to Z of the Persian Gulf War 1990–1991 by Clayton R. Newell, 2007. 25 . The A to Z of Revolutionary America by Terry M. Mays, 2007. 26 . The A to Z of the Olympic Movement by Bill Mallon with Ian Buchanan, 2007. 27 . The A to Z of the Discovery and Exploration of Australia by Alan Day, 2009. 28 . The A to Z of the United Nations by Jacques Fomerand, 2009. 29 . The A to Z of the “Dirty Wars” by David Kohut, Olga Vilella, and Beatrice Julian, 2009. 30 . The A to Z of the Vikings by Katherine Holman, 2009. |
| Humphrey, H. M., A Bibliography for the Gospel of Mark, 1954–1980 (New York, 1981). Johns, E. and Major, D., Witness in a Pagan World. A Study of Mark " s Gospel (London, 1980). Juel, D., Messiah and Temple. The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula, 1977). Karavidopoulos, J., «παρχα κκλησιολογας ες τ κατ Μρκον Εαγγλιον, » ΕΕΘΣΠΘ 17 (1972) 45–93. Karavidopoulos, J., «Δο συλλογοα λογιων το Ιησο ες τ κατ Μρκον Εαγγλιον» ΕΕΘΣΠΘ 20 (1975) 89–120. Kazmierski, C. R., Jesus the Son of God. A Study of the Markan Tradition and its Redaction by the Evangelist (Würzburg, 1979). Kealy, S. R, Mark " s Gospel: A History of its Interpretation. From the BeginningUntil 1979 (New York, 1982). Keck, L. E., « Mark 3,7–12 and Mark " s Christology,» JBL 84 (1965) 341–58. Kee, H. C., Community of the New Age. Studies in Mark " s Gospel (Philadelphia, 1977). Kelber, W. H., The Kingdom in Mark. A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia, 1977). Kelber, W. H. (ed.), The Passion in Mark. Studies on Mark 14–16 (Philadelphia, 1976). Kelber, W. H., Mark " s Story of Jesus (Philadelphia, 1979). Kermode, F., The Genesis of Secrecy. On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, 19803). Kertelge, K., Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium (Munich, 1970). Kesich, V., The Gospel Image of Christ (Crestwood, 1972). Kingsbury, J. D., The Christology of Mark " s Gospel (Philadelphia, 1983). Koester, H., Synoptische Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vätern (Berlin, 1957). Koester, H., «History and Development of Mark " s Gospel,» in Colloquy on New Testament Studies, ed. B. Corley (Macon, 1983) 35–85. Kolenkow, A. B., «Healing Controversy as a Tie Between Miracle and Passion Material for a Proto-Gospel,» JBL 95 (1976) 623–38. Kühschelm, R., Jüngerverfolg ung und Geschick Jesu (Klosterneuburg, 1983). Lamarche, P., Christ Vivant (Paris, 1977). Lamarche, P., Révélation de Dieu chez Marc (Paris, 1976). Lemcio, E. E., «The Intention of the Evangelist Mark,» NTS 32 (1986)187–206. Lightfoot, R. H., The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford, 1950). |
| Sheffield, 1984; Hengel M. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. L., 1985; The Interpretation of Mark/Ed. W. Telford. Phil.; L., 1985; Lührmann D. Das Markusevangelium. Tüb., 1987; Yarbro Collins A. The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as Son of Man//HarvTR. 1987. Vol. 80. N 4. P. 391-407; eadem. Daniel 7 and the Historical Jesus//Of Scribes and Scrolls/Ed. H. W. Attridge e. a. Lanham (MD), 1990. P. 187-193; Crossan J. D. The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San Francisco, 1988; Mack B. L. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Phil., 1988; Edwards J. R. Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives//NTIQ. 1989. Vol. 31. N 3. P. 193-216; Kingsbury J. D. The Christology of Mark " s Gospel. Phil., 19892; Tolbert M. A. Sowing the Gospel: Mark " s World in Literary-Historical Perspective. Minneapolis, 1989; Blackburn B. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Aner Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark. Tüb., 1991; Fowler R. M. Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis, 1991; Head P. M. A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1. 1: «The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ»//NTS. 1991. Vol. 37. N 4. P. 621-629; idem. Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority. N. Y., 1997; idem. The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations//TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. Atlanta, 2008. Vol. 13. P. 1-38 (var. pag.); Wenham J. W. Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. L., 1991; Camery-Hoggatt J. Irony in Mark " s Gospel: Text and Subtext. Camb., 1992; Collins J. J. The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism//NTS. 1992. Vol. 38. N 3. P. 448-466; Neirynck F. The Gospel of Mark: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1990. Leuven, 1992 [Библиогр.]; Marcus J. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the OT in the Gospel of Mark. |
| Linnemann, E., Studien zur Passionsgeschichte (Göttingen, 1970). Longstaff, T. R. W., Evidence of Conflation in Mark? (Missoula, 1977). Lührmann, D., «Biographie des Gerechten als Evangelium,» Wort und Dienst, N. F. (1977) 25–50. Luz, U., «Das Geheimnismotiv und die markinische Christologie,» ZNW 56 (1965) 9–30. Malbon, E. S., «Galilee and Jerusalem: History and Literature in Marcan Interpretation,» CBQ 44 (1982) 242–55. Malbon, E. S., «Disciples/Crowds/Whoever: Markan Characters and Readers,» NovT 28 (1986) 104–30. Marxsen, W., Der Evangelist Markus (Gottingen, 19592). English trans. Mark the Evangelist (Nashville, 1969). Matera, F. J., The Kingship of Jesus: Compositiori and, Theology in Mark 15 (Chico, 1982). Matera, F. J., Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies (New York, 1986). Maloney, E. C., Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (Chico, 1981). Martin, R. R, Mark: Evangelist and Theobgian (Exeter, 1972). Marcus, Г, « Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology,» JBL 103 (1984) 557–74. Marcus, J., The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (Atlanta, 1986). McCowen, A., Personal Mark (New York, 1985). Meagher, J. C., Clumsy Construction in Mark " s Gospel (New York, 1979). Meye, R. V., Jesus and the Twelve. Discipleship and Revelation in Mark " s Gospel (Grand Rapids, 1968). Minette de Tillesse, C., Le secret messianique dans l " evangile de Marc (Paris, 1968). Neirynck, F., Evangelica. Gospel Studies. Collected Essays, ed. F. van Segbroeck (Leuven, 1982). Nickelsberg, C., «The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative,» HTR 73 (1980) 153–84. O " Grady, J. F., Mark: The Sorrowful Gospel. An Intmduction to the Second Gospel (New York, 1981). Peabody, D. B., Mark as Composer (Macon, 1987). Perrin, N., «Towards an Interpretation of the Cospel of Mark,» in Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage, ed. H. D. Betz (SBL, 1973). Perrin, N., «The Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark, Interpretation 30 (1976) 115–24. Pesch, R., Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13 (Düsseldorf, 1968). |
| Calloud, J., «Toward a Structural Analysis of the Gospel of Mark,» Semeia 16 (1979) 133–65. Cangh, J. M. van, «La Galilee dans l " évangile de Marc: un Heu théologique?,» RB 79 (1972) 59–75. Cancik, H., Markus-Philologie (Tübingen, 1984). Caroll, W. D., «The Jesus of Mark " s Gospel,» BT 103 (1979) 2105–12. Carlston, C. E., The Parables of the Triple Tradition (Philadelphia, 1975). Casey, M., Son of Man. The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London, 1979). Chordat, J. L., Jésus devant sa mort dans l " évangile De Marc (Paris, 1970). Church, I. F., A Study of the Marean Gospel (New York, 1976). Cook, M. J., Mark " s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (Leiden, 1978). Cousar, C. B., «Eschatology and Mark " s Theologia Crucis,» Interpretation 24 (1970) 321–35. Crossan, J. D., «Empty Tomb and Absent Lord,» The Passion in Mark, ed. W. H. Kelber (Philadelphia, 1976) 135–52. D " Arc, J., Évangile selon Marc (Paris, 1986). Danker, F. W., «The Demonie Secret in Mark: A Reexamination of the Cry of Dereliction,» ZNW 61 (1970) 48–69. Delling, C., Der Kreuzestod Jesu in der Urchlistlichen Verkündigung (Göttingen, 1972). Delorme, J., «Lecture de l " Évangile selon saint Marc,» Cahiers EvangilebA (1973) 3–123. Derrett, J. D. M., The Making of Mark (Shipston, 1985) Dewey, Joanna, Markan Public Debate (Chico, 1980). Donahue, J. R., «Are you the Christ?» The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula, 1973). Donahue, J. R., The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Milwaukee, 1983). Dormeyer, D., Der Sinn des Leidens Jesu (Stuttgart, 1979). Doughty, D. J., «The Authority of the Son of Man ( Mk 2 :l–3:6),» ZNW 74 (1983) 161–81. Dschulnigg, P., Sprache, Redaktion und Intention des Markus-Evangeliums (Stuttgart, 1986). Duling, D. C., «Interpreting the Markan Hodology,» Nexus 17 (1974) 2–11. Dumitriu, P., Comment nepas l " aimer! Une lecture de lÉvangile selon saint Marc (Baris, 1981). Dungan, D. L., «The Purpose and Provenance of the Gospel of Mark According to the " Two Gospels» Hypothesis,» in Colloquy on New Testament Studies, ed. B. Corley (Macon, 1983) 133–79. |
| Pesch, R., Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverständnis (Freiburg, 1978). Petersen, N. R., «When is the End not the End? Reflections on the Ending of Mark " s Narrative,» Interpretation 34 (1980) 151–66. Pryke, E. J, Redactional Style in the Markan Gospel (Cambridge, 1978). Quesnel, M., Comment lire un évangile. Saint Marc (Paris, 1984). Quesnell, Q., The Mind of Mark. Interpretation and Method through the Exegesis of Mark 6,52 (Rome, 1969). Räisänen, H., Das Messiasgeheimnis im Markusevangelium. Ein Redaktionskritischer Versuch (Helsinki, 1976). Reardon, P. H., «Kenotic Ecclesiology in Mark,» BT 70 (1974) 1476–1482. Roads, D. and Michie, D., Markos Story (Philadelphia, 1982). Robbins, V. K., «Summons and Outline in Mark: The Three-Step Progression,» NovT 23 (1981) 97–114. Robbins, V., Jesus the Teacher, (Philadelphia, 1984). Robinson, J. M., The Problem of History in Mark (London, 19714). Sabbe, M. (ed.), LÉvangile selon Marc. Tradition et rédaction (Gembloux, 1974). Schenk, W., Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Gütersloh, 1974). Schenke, L., Der gekreuzigte Christus (Stuttgart, 1974). Schenke, L., Die wunderbare Brotvermehrung (Würzburg, 1983). Schille, G., Offen für alle Menschen. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur Thaeologie des Markus-Evangeliums (Stuttgart, 1974). Schlier, H., Die Markuspassion (Einsiedeln, 1974). Schlosser, J., Le régne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus (Paris, 1980). Schmidt, K. L., Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchung zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung (Darmstadt, 1964repr). Schweizer, E., «Towards a Christology of Mark,» God " s Christ and His People, Festschr. N. A. Dahl (Oslo, 1977) 29–42. Senior, D., The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Wilmington, 1984). Senior, D., «The Struggle to be Universal: Mission as Vantage Point for New Testament Investigation,» CBQ 46 (1984) 63–81. Smith, M., The Secret Gospel. The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark (New York, 1973). Smith, M., Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge, 1973). |
| But more specific evidence than this favors the substantial reliability of the passion narratives. Theissen argues for the most part (and sufficiently) persuasively that the pre-Markan passion narrative as a whole was in use by 40 C.E. in Jerusalem and Judea. 9534 Thus, for example, Mark preserves names (such as those of the sons who identify the second Mary and Simon, Mark 15:21,40,47; 16:1 ) that serve no recognizable function in his own narrative– but that may well have been recognizable to those who passed on the traditions behind his early Jerusalem source ( Mark 15:40, 43 ). 9535 Place names such as Nazareth, Magdala, and Arimathea would mean nothing to audiences outside Palestine 9536 (we should add here that the Galilean names may have meant little to most of the Jerusalem church as well, who may have preserved them for the same reasons that Mark did). Although one normally identifies local persons through their father " s name, most persons in the Passion Narrative (which identifies more people «than elsewhere in the synoptic tradition») are identified by their place of origin instead. This practice makes the most sense in the church " s first generation in Jerusalem, when (and where) it consisted of people from elsewhere. 9537 Mark presumes his audiencés prior knowledge of Pilate and (more significantly) Barabbas and other insurrectionists. That Barabbas " s name is preserved when Pilate had numerous confrontations with such revolutionaries whose names are lost to us suggests that this particular insurrectionist " s name was preserved in connection with the Passion Narrative. 9538 Finally, some central characters in the account remain anonymous, probably to protect living persons who could face criminal charges in Jerusalem, fitting other ancient examples of protective anonymity. 9539 Taken together, these arguments seem persuasive. 9540 Evidence does suggest that Mark edited his Passion Narrative, 9541 but this no more denies the authenticity of the prior tradition than frequent rewriting of sources by any other ancient author, including other writers of the Gospels; thus, for example, the Passion Narrative in Matthew and Luke may agree against Mark at points (e.g., Mark 14:72 ). 9542 Independent tradition drawn on by Matthew, Luke, and John preserves the name of the high priest, but Mark may follow the oldest passion account in omitting his name for political prudence, though Pilate, now deposed and despised, could easily be named in this period. 9543 Brown suspects that Mark may have acquired some of his style from frequent recitation of the passion narrative; 9544 further, Mark may have rephrased the narrative in his own words, especially where his sources were ora1. One should see most fully the 1994 essay by Marion Soards, 9545 who makes a strong case both that Mark uses a source and that we probably cannot separate the tradition from the redaction. |
| Louisville, 1992; VanderKam J. C. Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37-71//The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity/Ed. J. H. Charlesworth e. a. Minneapolis, 1992. P. 161-191; Amphoux C.-B. La Finale longue de Marc: Un épilogue des quatre évangiles//The Synoptic Gospels: Source, Criticism and the New Literary Criticism/Ed. C. Focant. Louvain, 1993. P. 548-555; Bryan Chr. A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in Its Literary and Cultural Settings. N. Y.; Oxf., 1993; Henaut B. Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4. Sheffield, 1993; Bibliographies for Biblical Research/Ed. W. E. Mills. N. Y., 1994. Vol. 2: The Gospel of Mark [Библиогр.]; Black C. C. Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. Columbia, 1994; Brown R. E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Comment. on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. N. Y., 1994. 2 vol.; Kahl W. NT Miracle Stories in their Religious Historical Setting: A Religionsgeschichtliche Comparison from a Structural Perspective. Gött., 1994; Neville D. J. Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique. Macon, 1994; idem. Mark " s Gospel - Prior Or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order. L.; N. Y., 2002; Fitzmyer J. A. The Palestinian Background of «Son of God» as a Title for Jesus//Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in honor of L. Hartman/Ed. T. Fornberg, D. Hellholm. Oslo, 1995. P. 567-577; Schmidt T. E. Mark 15. 16-32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession//NTS. 1995. Vol. 41. N 1. P. 1-18; Toit D. S., du. Theios anthropos: Zur Verwendung von θεος νθρωπος und sinnverwandten Ausdrücken in der Literatur der Kaiserzeit. Tüb., 1997; Casey M. Aramaic Sources of Mark " s Gospel. Camb., 1998; Iersel B. M. F., van. Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary. Sheffield, 1998; The Composition of Mark " s Gospel: Selected Studies from «Novum Testamentum»/Ed. |
|
|
