| Tüb., 1919; Schmidt K. L. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung. B., 1919; Bousset W. Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus. Gött., 19212; Bultmann R. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Gött., 1921; idem. Theologie des NT. Tüb., 1948; Dodd Ch. H. The Framework of the Gospel Narrative//The Expository Times. Edinb., 1932. Vol. 43. P. 396-400; Idem.// Idem. NT Studies. Manchester, 1953. P. 1-11; Holmes B. T. Luke " s Description of John Mark//JBL. 1935. Vol. 54. N 2. P. 63-72; Lightfoot R. H. Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels. L., 1938; Taylor V. The Gospel according to St. Mark. L., 1952; Parker P. The Gospel before Mark. Chicago, 1953; Riesenfeld H. Tradition und Redaktion im Markusevangelium//Neutestamentliche Studien für R. Bultmann zu seinem 70. Geburtstag/Hrsg. W. Eltester. B., 1954. S. 157-164 (англ. пер.: idem. On the Composition of the Gospel of Mark// Idem. The Gospel Tradition. Phil., 1970. P. 51-74); Marxsen W. Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums. Gött., 1956; Schreiber J. Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums//ZTK. 1961. Bd. 58. S. 154-183; Bruns J. E. John Mark: A Riddle within the Johannine Enigma//Scripture. L. etc., 1963. Vol. 15. N 31. P. 88-92; idem. The Confusion between John and John Mark in Antiquity//Ibid. 1965. Vol. 17. N 37. P. 23-26; Hahn F. Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum. Gött., 1963; Vielhauer Ph. Erwägungen zur Christologie des Markusevangeliums//Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an R. Bultmann. Tüb., 1964. S. 155-169; Brandon S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. Manchester, 1967; Lohmeyer E. Das Evangelium des Markus. Gött., 196717; Vermès G. The Use of bar nash/bar nasha in Jewish Aramaic// Black M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxf., 19673. P. 310-328; idem. Jesus the Jew: A Historian " s Reading of the Gospels. |
| Mark Eugenikos (1392–1444) was made Metropolitan of Ephesus in the year before the council (1437). In theology, he had studied with Joseph Bryennios, and in philosophy, with Gemistos Pletho; under Pletho, he had received a much more elaborate philosophical training than was customary in monastic circles. Mark " " s view of the Latin West coincided with that of the circle of Cantacuzenos in the preceding century; and he had been willing to recognize the council as ecumenical until he lost hope that what he considered to be the truth would prevail at the assembly. At the beginning of the sessions in Ferrara, prompted by Cardinal Cesarini, Mark delivered to Pope Eugenius a preliminary address in which he called upon the «most holy Father» to receive «his children coming from the East» and «seeking his embrace.» But he also stressed the minimum condition for true unity: the removal of the interpolation introduced unilaterally by the Latins into the common creed. 175 As discussions progressed in quite an opposite direction, his attitude, understandably, grew bitter. In the discussions, he and Bessarion were usually the main Greek spokesmen. His weakest point was a certain inability to go beyond the formal points under discussionpurgatory, Filioque, epiclesisand to reach real issues, such as the juridical Anselmian concept of «justification,» or the difference between the Cappadocian and Augustinian Trinitarian theologies. A lack of historical perspective on both sides and the conviction that all the Fathers must always agree with one another created an impasse: there were no alternatives but to accept or reject the Latin view. When Mark refused to sign, the pope is said to have declared: «We have accomplished nothing.» 176 Obviously, Eugenius IV was aware by then of the real situation in the East and knew that Mark represented much better the prevailing mentality of the East than did the other members of the Greek delegation. Until his death, Mark remained the head of the anti-unionists in Constantinople. He is a saint of the Orthodox Church. |
| 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). |
| 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. |
| 4121 The arguments for this position are summarized in Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 327; Marshall argues (pp. 327–32) that υις is origina1. 4124 On Acts 13:32–33 (interpreting the psalm concerning Jesus» resurrection/enthronement), cf. Dahl, «Abraham,» 148; Goulder, Acts, 53; Hengel, Son, 23. Cf. Midr. Pss. 2, §9 (messianic, after the woes). 4125 See, e.g., Longenecker, Exegesis, 177. The emphasis of Lindars, Apologetic, 211, on the metaphysical as over against the resurrection interpretation of Heb 1:5, appears to me mistaken. Ps 2:7–8 and 110are also linked in 1 Clem. 36.3–5 (ANF 1:15), but Clement is probably dependent on Hebrews here, citing Heb 1:3–4 and also Ps 104 (Heb 1:7). 4126 E.g., Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 332–33; but this is also the view of nearly all the commentators below. 4127 See Bright, History, 225–26; Harrelson, Cult, 86–87; cf. De Vaux, Israel, 109, for comparison with ancient coronations. Later Judaism generally regarded the psalm as specifically messianic (e.g., b. Sukkah 52a; Longenecker, Christology, 113). 4130 Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 335; Jeremias, Theology, 53–54; Kingsbury, Christology, 40, 65; Bruce, History, 168; Hurtado, Mark, 6; Schweizer, Matthew, 37; Robinson, Studies, 162; Taylor, Mark, 162 (with Isa 44:2); Bürge, Community, 61. We do not here contest the possibility of influence by the language («echoes»; Robinson, Taylor), but doubt that the phrasing here is intended to evoke the picture of the Servant (in contrast to Matthew). 4137 Pace Rodd, «Spirit.» Matthew changes the more Semitic «finger» to fit his own context, perhaps as midrash on Isa 42 just cited; Luke includes the Spirit whenever he can, suggesting it was there missing from his source (cf. also Schweizer, Matthew, 287; Gundry, Matthew, 235). 4138 Best, Mark, 81. Others admit it as probable (e.g., Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 335; Kingsbury, Christology, 65) or find echoes (Taylor, Mark, 162). 4141 Matthew and Luke seem to have followed the standard biographical procedure of following one primary (Mark) and another secondary source (presumably Q) before weaving in material around it, whereas John goes his own way. See introduction. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| The Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles was established by the Orthodox Church to indicate the equal honor of each of the Seventy. They were sent two by two by the Lord Jesus Christ to go before Him into the cities He would visit (Luke 10:1). Besides the celebration of the Synaxis of the Holy Disciples, the Church celebrates the memory of each of them during the course of the year: St. James the Brother of the Lord (October 23); Mark the Evangelist (April 25); Luke the Evangelist (October 18); Cleopas (October 30), brother of St. Joseph the Betrothed , and Simeon his son (April 27); Barnabas (June 11); Joses, or Joseph, named Barsabas or Justus (October 30); Thaddeus (August 21); Ananias (October 1); Protomartyr Stephen the Archdeacon (December 27); Philip the Deacon (October 11); Prochorus the Deacon (28 July); Nicanor the Deacon (July 28 and December 28); Timon the Deacon (July 28 and December 30); Parmenas the Deacon (July 28); Timothy (January 22); Titus (August 25); Philemon (November 22 and February 19); Onesimus (February 15); Epaphras and Archippus (November 22 and February 19); Silas, Silvanus, Crescens or Criscus (July 30); Crispus and Epaenetos (July 30); Andronicus (May 17 and July 30); Stachys, Amplias, Urban, Narcissus, Apelles (October 31); Aristobulus (October 31 and March 16); Herodion or Rodion (April 8 and November 10); Agabus, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon (April 8); Hermas (November 5, November 30 and May 31); Patrobas (November 5); Hermes (April 8); Linus, Gaius, Philologus (November 5); Lucius (September 10); Jason (April 28); Sosipater (April 28 and November 10); Olympas or Olympanus (November 10 ); Tertius (October 30 and November 10); Erastos (November 30), Quartus (November 10); Euodius (September 7); Onesiphorus (September 7 and December 8); Clement (November 25); Sosthenes (December 8); Apollos (March 30 and December 8); Tychicus, Epaphroditus (December 8); Carpus (May 26); Quadratus (September 21); Mark (September 27), called John, Zeno (September 27); Aristarchus (April 15 and September 27); Pudens and Trophimus (April 15); Mark nephew of Barnabas, Artemas (October 30); Aquila (July 14); Fortunatus (June 15) and Achaicus (January 4). |
|
|
