| 9701 Matt 26:3, 57 and Luke 3mention Caiaphas; Luke 3briefly mentions Annas; neither name appears in Mark. John may mention both because the Synoptics attest two inquiries (Barrett, John, 529), but this is less probable given John " s independence on the inquiries themselves. 9702 losephus Ant. 18.26. Ananus is a variant Greek rendering of Annas; one may survey the frequent names, both masculine and feminine, cognate to Annas in antiquity (e.g., CIJ1:62, §88; 1:228, §290; 1:244, §310; 1:314–15, §411; 2:127, §907; 2:155, §967; 2:186, §§1013, 1014; 2:195, §1066; CPJ 1:165–66, §24; Acts 9:10; see more fully CPJ 3:169). 9709 Wiles, Gospel, 9, citing Theodore of Mopsuestia 233.23; John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 83.2; Cyril of Alexandria 3.29.26–27 on John 18:15 . Interestingly, Chrysostom (2.1) nevertheless thought that John must have been very poor or his father would not have allowed him to leave fishing to follow Jesus (Wiles, Gospel, 10). Fishermen could make more income if they sold directly to the rich rather than through middlemen (Alciphron Fishermen 9 [Aegialeus to Struthion], 1.9). 9711 Dodd, Tradition, 86–87. Dodd (p. 88) thus suggests that the Fourth Gospel provides information from a Judean disciplés source comparatively neglected by the Synoptics (though they also, he believes, show some Judean supporters of Jesus). 9712 For this disciplés favorable comparison with Peter here, see also Haenchen, John, 2:168; see comment on 13:23–24. 9713 Vicent Cernuda, «Desvaido,» suggests Lazarus, which could be plausible if 12is fictitious, but again, why not name him this late if John knows his identity? 9714 See also Charlesworth, Disciple, 336–59, but his proposal that the disciple was Judas (pp. 342–59) seems unlikely though Judas was probably from Judea and handled Jesus» money (343). John would probably name Judas if he implied him, though it is possible (as ibid., 359) that Judas played this role in John " s tradition but John wished not to name him. 9715 E.g., Ovid Amores 1.6.1–2; Plutarch Cicero 15.1; 36.3; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 19.11; implied in Seneca Controv. 10.4.22. Householders who had porters had no reason to answer the door themselves (Theophrastus Char. 4.9 considers it ignorant behavior); a household member sneaking to answer the door might be suspected of mischief (Tibullus 1.2.7, 15–24, 41, 55–56). Undoubtedly porters screened unwelcome guests, provided safety, and moved the sometimes heavy doors. |
| Jesus tells his disciples about the betrayal beforehand so that, rather than doubting his foresight in choosing Judas, they will recognize him as a prophet and that he controls the situation (13:19; cf. 14:29). 8221 The fulfillment of a prophet " s words attests the prophet " s accuracy ( Deut 18:22 ). 8222 But Jesus» wording in several passages suggests an allusion to the promises of God in the biblical prophets: he foretold the future so that they might recognize his identity as YHWH (Isa 43:9–10). Similarly here, Jesus speaks so that the disciples might realize that «I am,» 8223 alluding to Isaiah " s «I am» formula, which perhaps by this period already appeared in the Passover haggadah. 8224 Likewise, Jesus had «chosen» them (13:18; 6:70; 15:16, 19) and «knew» those he chose. Rabbis rarely chose their own disciples (see comments on 1:38–43), yet in this context «chosen» suggests more than simply an unusually radical rabbi; it suggests that John again portrays Jesus in biblical language traditionally applied to God " s relationship with Israel (see comment on 15:16). Jesus then sounds an ominous warning in 13:20: Jesus is the Father " s agent (see introduction; cf. Matt 10:40); the disciples as Jesus» agents will face the same sort of suffering and betrayal Jesus faced (13:16,18,21). Whereas brokers of patrons could build their own power base in Roman society, the context promises Jesus» agents suffering and the status of servants. 8225 Interpreting the Washing in Light of the Cross (13:21–38) In the context of the betrayal (13:21–30) and another comment on the imminence of the passion (13:31–33), loving and serving as Jesus did demands sacrifice for one another, potentially to the point of death (13:34–35). On the narrative level, however, John emphasizes that such commitment is more easily offered than demonstrated: the most prominent disciple would fall short of even such sacrifice directly for Jesus (13:36–38). 1. The Betrayal Announced (13:21–30) The intimacy of the gathering implied by the seating arrangements (13:23) and perhaps by Jesus» expression of emotion (13:21) provides a model for believers» relationship with Jesus (14:23) and in the immediate context particularly underlines the heinousness of the betrayal (13:18). |
| Consistent with such images, later rabbis taught that signs offered by biblical signs-prophets anticipated the signs that would take place in the messianic era. 2362 Jesus» reported miracles accord well with the Q citation of Isa 35:5–6 (Matt ll:5/Luke 7:22), which could suggest an eschatological interpretation of his miracles as blessings of the future kingdom in the present. 2363 This is not to say that the eschatological interpretation was the only interpretation or even the most obvious one–Sanders rightly points out that Jesus cured the infirmities most prominent in his day, that contemporary Jewish cures provide few parallels, and that the Greco-Roman parallels and those in the Elijah-Elisha cycle are not eschatologica1. 2364 But it was one interpretation quickly placed on Jesus» signs, and one that was consonant with a view of his identity in light of other indicators of his messianic identity. 5. Function of Signs In keeping with the cultural focus of this commentary, we must ask about the general function of signs in antiquity before turning to the question of their function in John, an issue other commentaries on the Gospel have treated more fully. Ancient signs generally functioned especially to authenticate the miracle worker, his teaching, or the one who authorized him. 5A. Signs as Authentication Ancient writers and storytellers often used miraculous works to authenticate deities or, more often, persons. Such signs demonstrated that the person indeed possessed numinous authority to justify his (in the vast majority of cases, they were men) or her claims. When applied to deities, as in the case of the healing list at Epidauros, testimonies of miracles were meant to convince people to trust for themselves to be healed; 2365 this especially applies to Asclepius " s healing of skeptics. 2366 Similarly, Mark " s reports of healings encourage his hearers to trust their risen Lord to do miracles for them; disciples are reproved if their own faith for miracles is inadequate (4:38–40; 8:14–21; 9:18–29; 11:20–25). |
| Commentary on the following poems has been provided by Lydia Sazonova: Епитафион преподобному отцу Епифанию Славинецкому, Епитафион преосвященному Павлу митрополиту Сарскому и Подонскому, Епитафион благородному Георгию Пласковицкому, Мечь, Молитва в скорби сущаго и клевету терпящаго, Молитва плачевная ко Пресвятей Богородице от бывших в напасти, Прилог к преподобной матери Евфросинии, Мера возраста Христова, Мера креста Христова, and Мера деки титлы Христовы. Еммануил . Taken from Faber, in Festo Nativitatis Christi, No. 2 «Tituli Salvatoris nati», sect. 3 «Deus». 11. 1–6 cf Faber: «Docet ergo Isaias Christum esse verum Deum, ilium videlicet, de quo paulo ante c. 7. dixerat: Ecce Virgo concipiet et pariet filium, et vocabitur nomen eius Emmanuel. Quod in Christo impletum esse scribit S. Matt. c. 1. quia Christus révéra fuit nobiscum El, id est, Deus.» 11. 7–14 cf Faber: «Est autem Christus Emmanuel, seu nobiscum Deus. Primo in Sancta Eucharistia, ubi vere adhuc nobiscum est, cum sua divinitate et humanitate, sicut olim fuit in terris, et nunc est in caelis.» 11. 15–22 represent Simeon " s avoidance of the next passage in Faber which expounds the doctrine of Transsubstantiation, quoting from Thomas a Kempis. 11. 23–28 cf Faber: «Secundo, per gratiam, illuminationem, consolationem et corroborationem. Hanc enim gratiam et benevolentiam suam vel reipsa nobis confert, cum extra statum peccati sumus: vel assiduo nobis offert, cum in statu peccati sumus; siquidem variis modis quaerit, vocat, urget, excimam peccatores, ut resipiscant.» 11. 29–32 cf Faber: «Tertio, per singularem protectionem et custodiam, qua tuetur Ecclesiam suam et membra eius.» Епископ. Taken from Faber, in Festo S. Nicolai, No. 5 «Quid debeant liberi parentibus», sect. 1 «Honorem et reverentiam ... 3 Eorum vitia occultando»: «Constantinus Magnus dixit, si Episcopi alicuius stuprum videret, facinus illud suo se paludamento obtecturum, uti refert Theodoret. lib. 1. hist.» Епископ 2. Taken from Faber, ibid., immediately following: «Dum in concilio Nicaeno libellos quorumdam Episcoporum litigiosos combussisset.» Faber does not record the Emperor " s words. |
| Тропарь на вечерне Великого Пятка, и вместе с тем воскресный тропарь 2–го гласа. Это и есть основная тема «Огласительного слова» Златоуста. 74 Святитель Афанасий Великий. De incarn., 26, PG 25, 141. 75 Святитель Кирилл Иерусалимский. Catech. 14, 19, PG 33, 848–849; Святитель Кирилл Александрийский. De recta fide ad Theod., 22, PG 76, 1165; Homil. paschal. VII, PG 77, 552; Святитель Иоанн Златоуст. In Matt., hom. 27, 3: «Как стерты врата медные и сокрушены вереи железные? — через тело Его… Тогда впервые явилось бессмертное тело и разрушило засилие смерти. Оно явило, что сила смерти сломлена. Но не то, что разрешены грехи умерших до Его пришествия» (PG 62, 416); Преподобный Иоанн Дамаскин. De fide orth. III, 29, PG 94, 1101. Из западных см. Блаж. Августин. Epist. 164, ad Evodium, nn. 12, 13, 16, 21, PL 33, 714–715, 718. — См. Turmel J. La descente du Christ aux Enfers. Paris, 1905; Monnier J. La descente aux Enfers. Paris, 1905; Quillet H. Descente de Jйsus aux Enfers//Dictionnaire de Thйologie catholique. T. IV; Cabrol F. et Meester A. de. Descente de Jesus aux Enfers//Dictionnaire d’Archйologie chrйmienne et de liturgie. T. IV.1 (1916); Орлин Н. Сошествие Господа нашего Иисуса Христа во ад и Его проповедь мертвым//Православное обозрение. 1889, апрель, сс. 744–766. — Особого рассмотрения требуют отеческие мысли о «борьбе» и особенно о выкупе диаволу — в связи с вопросом о сошествии во ад. Подробный свод текстов смотреть у Riviure. Le dogme de la redemption. Essai d’йmude historique. Paris, 1905, весь отдел «La question de droit des dйmons» (pp. 373–445). Анализ текстов должен быть повторен заново. 76 Пасхальный канон, ирмос шестой песни. Ср. во вторник Светлой седмицы, восточен, на Господи, воззвах. 77 Пасхальная вечерня, на Господи, воззвах, восточен. 78 В понедельник Светлой седмицы, Богородичны Феофила и Иосифа, песнь 6. 79 Святитель Иоанн Златоуст. In acta apost., hom. 7 (PG 60, 57). Златоуст имеет в виду выражение кн. Деяний. 80 Стихира самогласна Дамаскинова, глас 1–й, в последовании над скончавшимся иереем. 81 |
| 8872 Pass, Glory, 165; he suggests, as an unproved but useful working hypothesis, that Jesus delivered this discourse in the temple (Pass, Glory, 174). Cf. Hunter, John, 148, though he emphasizes especially the connection with Israe1. 8876 Ibid., 1:276; 2:3. Porton, «Grape-Cluster,» notes that the symbol becomes most prominent on these coins only in the Bar Kokhba period; but for other probable plant symbolism as early as Maccabean coins, see Wirgin, Jubilees, 22–26. 8880 The comparison with Greek philosophy " s contrast between spiritual reality and mere appearance (e.g., Scott, Gospel, 253) is strained. 8881 Robinson, «Destination,» 121–22; also see Painter, John, 97–98, likewise emphasizing the Jewishness of John " s community. 8882 Neighbors of other occupations might help during the harvest or vintage (Longus 2.1; Matt 20:2–4) or at least lend baskets for gathering (Alciphron Farmers 12 [Cotinus to Trygodorus], 3.15). The designation might reflect low status from an urban or mercantile perspective (Philostratus Hrk. 4.11), but not to rural people (4.12). 8883 Some had others working under them (Ptolemy Tefr. 4.4.179; Philostratus Hrk. 1.6). Socrates considered γεωργα an honorable occupation (Xenophon Oec. 6.11), but vinedressing could be arduous (cf. Sir 7:15 ). 8884 Though it remains possible, that 20does not reapply the wording of this text decreases the likelihood of an intentional allusion that would parallel Jesus and the Father there. 8885 For the gardener image from Greco-Roman philosophy onward, see Thurn, «Gartner»; cf. a semidivine hero as a vinedresser in Philostratus Hrk. 17.2; and another " s mortal advocate in Hrk. 1.1 and passim (cf. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxviii, xxxvii-xxxviii). 8886 On care for vines, see, e.g., Virgil Georg. 2.273–419. Vineyards had to be guarded from animals such as foxes ( Song 2:15 ; Alciphron Farmers 19 [Polyalsus to Eustaphylus], 3.22, par. 1) and thieves (CPJ§21, 1:157–58). 8888 Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 111. The most expensive wines came especially from Campania and some Aegean islands. |
| 4077 The dove could represent Aphrodite (Plutarch Isis, Mor. 379D; Ovid Metam. 13.673–674; Statius Thebaid 5.58,63; Helen or her daughters in Lycophron Alex. 86–87,103; for Athene disguising herself as a bird, see Homer Od. 3.371–372; 22.239–240), was sacred in some Syrian religion (Lucian Syr. d. 54, in Grant, Religions, 119), and in artwork often symbolized the realm of a goddess, which was transferred to wisdom and hence to the Spirit in later Christian art (Schroer, «Geist»). For a survey of uses in pagan art, see Goodenough, Symbols, 8:27–37; for Christian material, 8:37–41, and other Jewish material, 8:41–46. 4078 4 Ezra 5:26; LA.B. 39(23:7); b. Šabb. 49a, 130a; Exod. Rab. 20:6; Song Rab. 2:14, §§1–2. Johnston, Parables, 595, cites Mek. BeS. 3:86ff.; 7:27ff. but notes that it is not frequent enough to constitute a standard metaphor. Although Augustine applied it to the Spirit (Tract. Ev. Jo. 6.13.1), he noted some applied it to the church (6.11.2). 4079 B. Ber. 3a; cf. Abrahams, Studies, 1:47. One may compare the prophetic doves of Dodona (alluded to in Sib. Or. 1.242–252; the term is different from here). 4080 Abrahams, Studies, 1:48–49 (followed by Barrett, Spirit, 38; cf. Taylor, Mark, 160–61), cites only Gen. Rab. 2 and Ya1. Gen. 1(where the interpretation seems dominated more by exegetical principles than by standard tradition); Lachs, Commentary, 47, adds b. Hag. 15a (or the Spirit as an eagle in t. Hag. 2:5). A link with the Spirit naturally became common in early post-Synoptic Christian tradition, however (Odes So1. 24:1; 28:1; and the interpolation in T. Levi 18). The Hebrew Bible does sometimes portray God as a bird (e.g., Ps 91:3–4 ). 4081 E.g., Lane, Mark, 57. 4082 Against the arguments of Odeberg, Gospel, 33–36; Lightfoot, Gospel, 104; Dahl, «History,» 136, which effectively assume that the Johannine community would more readily read the Jacob narrative through late rabbinic tradition on the Hebrew than through the LXX. 4083 Gen 8:8–12 ; cf. 4 Bar. 7(which develops from Gen 8 the image of messenger-birds); Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 6.19.2–4; pace Bürge, Community, 57. Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 20, suggests a combination of Gen 8:8–9 and Isa 11:1–2. Writing on Mark 1:10 , Garnet, «Baptism,» connects the dove with Noah, Noah with Enoch, and Enoch with the Son of Man; but this scheme of associations is too complex, and the last two links are particularly tenuous. In early Christian literature, see 1Pet 3:20–21 ; cf. 2Pet 3:6 ; Matt 24:38. For a connection with Gen 1and its eschatological interpretation in the DSS, see Allison, «Baptism.» |
| 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). |
| Index scriptorum laudatorum, 1815–20 Index rerum, 1611–78 APOSTOLIUS. Vide ARISTOBULUS et MICHAEL A. ARCHÆUS AFRICANUS ep., s. II, 5. De Paschate in die dominica celebrando, fg. latine (M,), 1489–90 (est Irenæi). ARETHAS CÆS. Capp. ep., s, X, 106. Commentarius in Apocalypsin (Cramer collatus), 487–786. Oratio de SS.Guria,Samona et Abibo, latine (Surius), 787–98. Oratio de translatione S. Euthymii, arch. CP (Lipomanus), 797–806. scholion,, 97, 1595–8. Hentenii Judicium de Joannis relegations in Patmum, 106, 487–94. Notitia FH., 485–86. Index analyticus, 1411–14. ARGYROPULUS. Vide JOANNES A. ARGYRUS. Vide ISAAC A. ARISTENUS. Vide ALEXIUS A. ARISTIDES, s. II, 5. Notitia Lumper, 1267–68. ARISTO PELLÆUS, s. II, 5. Disputationis Jasonis et Papisci fg. 1–6, 1277–86. Notitia G., 1277–8. ARISTOBULUS APOSTOLIUS, s. XV. Epistola, 162. PGLT., 81, 637–8. ARNOBIUS junior s. V. Vetus interpretatio hom. paschalis 17e Cyrilli Ale-xandrini (M), 77, 789–800. ARSENIUS AUTORIANUS СР., 1273, 140. Versus in Dominicam Resurrectionis, 937–40. Monitum Matranga, 935–6. Synodales sententiæ et acta, 939–48 et 119, 765–6. Testamentum, 947–58. ARSENIUS ELASSONIS, a. 1558, La bores et iter humilis Arsenii scu narratio institutionis patriar-chatus moscovitici. (Pasini). 162, 1561, PGLT., 81, 885–910. ARSENIUS, eremite, seu MAGNUS, s. IV-V, 66. Doctrina et exhortatio, 1617–22. Ad nomicum tentatorem, 1621–26. Notitia G., 1615–8. ARSENIUS MONACHUS, s. XII, 133. Epitome canonum, 9–62. ASTERIUS AMASENUS ep., s. IV-V , 40. HOMILIÆ, ex ed. Combefis. 1 . De divite et Lazaro, 163–80. 2 . De o_economo iniquitalis, 179–94. 3 . Adversus avaritiam, 193–216. 4 . Adversus Kalendarum festum, 215–26. 5 . In illud An liceat dimittere uxorem (Matt., XIX, 3), 226–40. 6 . In Danielem et Susannam, 239–50. 7 . In caecum a nativitate, 249–64. 8 . In SS. Petrum et Paulum, 2(13–300. 9 . In S. Phocam, martyrem, 299–314. 10 .In SS. martyres, 313–334. 11 .In laudem S. Euphemiæ, 333–38. 12 .In laudem S. Stephani, 337–52: |
| 4375 Further, although early Christianity in general (e.g., Matt 22:2; perhaps Luke 12:36) and the Johannine community in particular (cf. Rev 19:7) did employ the image of a wedding banquet for eschatological blessing, it also can function as a simple metaphor for joy (cf. perhaps John 3:29 ). In the context of this story, wine may simply represent what is necessary for a wedding feast, and, in contrast to a discourse expounding the bread sign in John 6 , no discourse in the Gospel interprets the wine symbolically. Although a first-time reader would therefore probaly not catch any symbolism unless she were looking for it, one who approached the nuptial comparison of 3in light of the eschatological banquet tradition might see a connection between Jesus» provision at another " s wedding and the eschatological abundance of his own. In any case a symbolic reading of the wine may be possible but is not explicitly marked. The primary significance of wine in this story seems to lie mainly in the changing of water into wine, hence both Jesus» benevolence and his lack of attachment to religious tradition. The specific milieu and thus intent of the miracle is also in question. Although similar imagery occurs in the Jesus tradition ( Mark 2:18–22 ), 4376 and especially Jesus» attitude to ward ritual purification ( Mark 7:1–23 ), wine miracles were often associated with Dionysiac fertility in the Hellenistic world, 4377 and many have thus read John 2:1–11 against a Dionysiac background. 4378 Koester is right that Dionysus legends «probably tell us little about how the story of the first Cana miracle originated, but they do help us understand how the story could communicate the significance of Jesus to Greeks as well as Jews.» 4379 Conversely, whatever their own source, Jewish texts also can report wine miracles, 4380 though these were rare, 4381 and it is possible that there are benevolent echoes of Moses» first sign in Exodus in Jesus» first sign in John. 4382 For our purposes, however, the source of the tradition or subsequent influences on it are far less important than the issue it addresses in its Johannine context, namely, Jewish ritual purification (2:6). |
|
|
