| 3285 Griffiths, «Predicate,» 315. For the more complex situation in Josephus, cf. Shutt, «Concept.» 3287 E.g., Dreams 1.65–66 (recognizing both as «god»); 1.239–240 (the Logos is to God what the parhelion is to the sun). MacGregor, John, xxxvi, acknowledges that Philo personalized the Logos, but thinks it functioned as a divine agent only figuratively. 3288 Dreams 1.228–230, in Hengel, Son, 80; Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 27; Haenchen, John, 1:109; cf. Borgen, «Agent,» 146. 3289 Cf. the practical divinity of Torah–experienced as God " s presence by Israel–in Sandmel, Judaism, 184. Justin likewise distinguishes the Logos from God while calling him God (e.g., 1 Apo1. 63, in Osborn, Justin, 30–31). 3290 Like Michaels, John, 7, we are inclined to accept both reasons for the lack of definite article, without determining which was decisive. 3291 Stuart, «Examination,» 41. Cf. similarly Bernard, John, 1:2; Ellis, John, 21; Brown, Christology, 187–88; perhaps this is also what Painter, John, 57, intends. 3292 Hoskyns, Gospel, 141, contends that John means more than «divine» because the Word is personal; while John " s usage elsewhere indicates a stronger sense of «divine» than many uses (e.g., Philós for Moses), Hoskyns " s argument need not follow logically, especially given Philós Logos. 3293 MacGregor, John, 4. Kenney, John 1:1 , argues that a trinitarian perspective makes more sense of the text than a unitarian one. For Jesus to be fully deity without all deity being identified with Jesus, geometric logic would represent Jesus as a member of the set «God.» 3294 See, e.g., Miller, " Logos»; Bultmann, John, 33; Fennema, «Only Son»; Harner, «Nouns,» 86–87; Griffiths, «Predicate,» 315; Harris, Jesus as God, 51–71,293. 3296 NEB; Bruce, Books, 247. An explanatory note may be needed on whichever side of caution one wishes to err; Harris, Jesus as God, 70, prefers to retain «the Word was God» but to explain that this means the same nature, not the same person. 3297 Irenaeus Haer. 1.1–3. On creation through angelic powers in gnosticism, see «The Apocryphon of John,» NHL 104–16; «On the Origin of the World,» NHL 161–79; Jonas, Religion, 132–36; cf. «The Gospel of the Egyptians,» NHL 195–205. Perhaps the emphasis on God " s creation of evil in Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2:9 may be antignostic. |
| Pryke, «Eschatology» Pryke, John. «Eschatology in the Dead Sea Scrolls.» Pages 45–57 in The Scrolls and Christianity: Historical and Theological Significance. London: SPCK, 1969. Pryke, «John» Pryke, John. «John the Baptist and the Qumran Community.» RevQA (1963–1964): 483–96. Pryke, Style Pryke, E. J. Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Pryor, «Egerton» Pryor, John W. «Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Fourth Gospe1.» ABR 37 (1989): 1–13. Pryor, John Pryor, John W. John–Evangelist of the Covenant People: The Narrative and Themes of the Fourth Gospe1. Foreword by Graham N. Stanton. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1992. Pryor, «lustin Martyr» Pryor, J. W. «Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospe1.» Second Century 9 (1992): 153–69. Pryor, «Relation» Pryor, John W. « John 3.3,5 : A Study in the Relation of John " s Gospel to the Synoptic Tradition.» JSNT41 (1991): 71–95. Pryor, «Thanksgiving» Pryor, John W. «The Great Thanksgiving and the Fourth Gospe1.» BZ 35 (1991): 157–79. Przybylski, Righteousness Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. SNTSMS 41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Pucci Ben Zeev, «Position» Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. «Did the Jews Enjoy a Privileged Position in the Roman World?» Revue des études juives 154, nos. 1–2 (1995): 23–42. Pucci Ben Zeev, «Reliability» Pucci Ben Zeev, M. «The Reliability of Josephus Flavius: The Case of Hecataeus» and Manethós Accounts of Jews and Judaism–Fifteen Years of Contemporary Research (1974–1990).» JSJ 24 (1993): 215–34. Puech, «Apocalypse» Puech, Emile. «Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521).» RevQ 15 (1991–1992): 475–522, plates 1–3. Puech, Croyance Puech, Emile. La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future–immortalité, resurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d " un croyance dans le judaïsme ancien. Vo1. 2: Les données qumraniennes et classiques. École biblique 22. Paris: Gabalda, 1993. |
| Walter Bauer, for instance, divined that Papias either ‘expressed himself in an unfavorable manner [about John], or he kept silent also with respect to this gospel’. If he kept silent it was because John’s Gospel ‘apparently belonged to the long-winded prattle in which the great masses took pleasure... the Fourth Gospel [was suspect], no doubt, because of its content, origin, and the friends it had made.’ 288 Bauer is the main source of the popular but recendy debunked theory mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 8, which states that the Gospel of John was for a long time avoided or rejected by the orthodox (who suffered from what we might call ‘orthodox Johannophobia’) but was loved by the heretics (‘heterodox Johannophilia’). Bauer thus leaves us with a choice of two possible conspiracies: either it was Papias who suppressed the Gospel according to John, because it was entirely suspect and was popular with the wrong sorts of people; or Papias said something negative about John and it was Eusebius who edited out Papias’ embarrassing testimony. It is the second of these conspiracy theories which has been preferred by a few more recent scholars. In contrast to Bauer, these scholars suppose that Papias had a quite positive view of John, but they still propose that Eusebius purposely censored Papias’ testimony because Papias had, as Bauer suggested, ‘expressed himself in an unfavorable manner’ about it. What these scholars believe Papias said about John that was unfavourable was that its author was not the apostle John but the mysterious ‘Elder John’ mentioned above (yes, John was a quite common Jewish name). This would mean that Eusebius was intentionally concealing from his readers a very crucial fact. Now, I have to say, a lot of people are quite prepared to believe that Eusebius was fully capable of this kind of duplicitous censorship. It would certainly not be the only time Eusebius could be accused of reporting things in a way most favourable to his own position. Yet, it should not be forgotten that copies of Papias’ writings were in existence when Eusebius wrote, and he seems not the least threatened by the possibility that others will read Papias’ books and learn the ‘truth’ themselves. In fact, he recommends it (EH 3.39.14, ‘to which [i.e. Papias’ books] we refer those interested’). Moreover, the deception in this case cannot be confined to Eusebius. Other ‘interested’ people clearly had read Papias’ books, including Irenaeus and a number of other second- and third-century writers, yet neither they nor any one else ever reports the opinion that the Gospel according to John had been written by John the Elder. If Papias reported that the true author of the Fourth Gospel was not John the apostle but John the Elder, this would mean that a host of people in different times and places were involved in the same cover-up. In my opinion, this conspiracy theory more than stretches credulity. |
| 1026 E.g., the schismatics» abuse of Johannine pneumatology (see ibid., 138–44); 1 John introduces discussion of the spirit of error (1 John 4:1–6). 1027 E.g., Brown " s own retraction of his earlier identification of the beloved disciple with John, son of Zebedee (Brown, Community, 33). 1031 Thus while it is true that 1–3 John are less theologically profound than the Gospel (Braun, Jean, 39), this is not significant for authorship. 1032 Bonnard, «Épître,» notes that the Gospel and 1 John incontestably share the same style and vocabulary, but that the concepts are developed differently for a different setting («mutation sémantique»). 1034 Sanders, Figure, 66, thinks that anonymous works claimed greater authority (66); the plethora of pseudepigraphic works in antiquity, however, challenges the probability of his thesis. 1036 Way, «Introduction,» xii. Contrast also Cornelius Nepos 8 (Thrasybulus), 1.3 (where Thrasybulus often won without Alcibiades» help), with 7 (Alcibiades), passim (mentioning Thrasybulus only at 5.4; 6.3; 7.1). This reflects the commitment to praise the subject of the particular biography. 1039 If Apocalypse of Elijah reflects early tradition, it may be significant that both 1 John and Revelation appear to be cited in the work; but its antiquity is questionable. My own impression of the work (differing respectfully from the comments of O. S. Wintermute in its OTP introduction) is that it is a Jewish-Christian work from around the third century. 1040 E.g., Braun, Jean, 43–59; Beasley-Murray, John, xliv; Smith, John (1999), 13; Cothenet, «Communautés.» 1041 Smalley, «Revelation.» He believes that Revelation was composed by the Apostle John in the 70s. 1046 Fiorenza, Revelation, 101,107; Aune, Revelation, liv-lvi. Koester, «Ephesos,» 138, thinks John of Ephesus wrote Revelation, but Irenaeus attributed the Gospel to him merely to make it more authoritative, and (139) the late second-century Acts of John simply accepts this fiction. 1047 Howard, Fourth Gospel, 123–24. Dionysius " s view, however, was far from the most common one in his era (Origen Comm. Jo. 2.42). |
| 4883 M. «Abot 3:1; »Abot R. Nat. 16, 19A; b. c Abod. Zar. 20a; Gen. Rab. 63:8; Lev. Rab. 14:2, 5–6; 18:1; other texts in Urbach, Sages, 1:232. More helpfully regarding date, Michaels, John, 38, cites 1QH 1.21; 3.24; 12.25; 13.15. Cf. probably also PGM 4.645–648 (though it could perhaps imply natural birth as well). 4884 It represents saliva in Lev. Rab. 16:4. Rain itself can represent life for the (agricultural) world (e.g., p. Ta c an. 1:1, §2). 4885 Cf. Seneca Ep. Luci1. 29.2; 38.2; Philo Heir 119; 4Ezra 9:31,33; b. Ber. 63a. Seed, admittedly, refers also more broadly to divine conception of the soul (Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.4; Maximus of Tyre Or. 10.4; Philo Moses 1.279; Alleg. Interp. 3.40; Posterity 171), which language John might reapply to spiritual rebirth (cf. comment on John 3:13 ); but the metaphor had various uses (e.g., Plutarch Cor. 16.2). 4890 Against this, Belleville, «Born,» 126–27, notes that «water» and «Spirit» are coordinated, not opposed; but the objection would not stand if Spirit baptism replaces proselyte baptism yet retains the image of water in a positive sense, as we argue below. 4891 Bürge, Community, 162–63; Beasley-Murray, John, 48–49; Ridderbos, John, 128. John " s baptism in this connection is also mentioned, though not fully endorsed, by Howard, Gospel, 206; Morris, John, 215. 4892 Bürge, Community, 164–65, thinks baptism as Nicodemus would have understood it here refers to John " s lustrations in 3:22–30. 4894 Many hold this view or variations on it, e.g., Vermes, Religion, 150; Gabriel, «Faith»; Evans, John, 31; Moloney, Belief, 113; Quast, Reading, 26; Brown, Essays, 127–30. Cf. also Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 11.1.2 (baptism in the true church vs. the schismatics); Luther, 22d and 23d Sermons on John, on John 3 ; 2d Sermon on John 4 (baptismal water becoming efficacious through the Spirit and the Word; citing Tit 3:5 ). 4900 Cf. also Robinson, «Baptism,» 20–21, addressing a contrast between traditional Jewish ritual and birth by the Spirit. |
| Barrett, Jesus Barrett, C. K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. London: SPCK, 1967. Barrett, John Barrett, C. K. The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. Barrett, John and Judaism Barrett, C. K. The Gospel of John and Judaism. Translated from the German by D. Moody Smith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Barrett, «John and Judaism» Barrett, C. K. «John and Judaism.» Pages 401–17 in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000. Edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001. Barrett, «Katelaben» Barrett, C. K. «Katelaben in John i.5.» ExpTim 53 (1941–1942): 297. Barrett, «Lamb» Barrett, C. K. «The Lamb of God.» NTS 1 (1954–1955): 210–18. Barrett, «Old Testament» Barrett, C. K. «The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospe1.» JTS 48/191–92 (July 1947): 155–69. Barrett, «Parallels» Barrett, C. K. «The Parallels between Acts and John.» Pages 163–78 in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Barrett, Spirit Barrett, C. K. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition. London: SPCK, 1966. Barrett, «Spirit» Barrett, C. K. «The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospe1.» JTS NS 1 (1950): 1–15. Barrett, «Synoptic Gospels» Barrett, C. K. «John and the Synoptic Gospels.» ExpTim 85 (1973–1974): 228–33. Barrett, «Vocabulary» Barrett, C. K. «The Theological Vocabulary of the Fourth Gospel and the Gospel of Truth.» Pages 210–23 in Current Issues in NT Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper. Edited by William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Barry, «Aristocrats» Barry, W. D. «Aristocrats, Orators, and the " Mob»: Dio Chrysostom and the World of the Alexandrians.» Historia 42 (1993): 82–103. Barth, Ephesians Barth, Markus. Ephesians. 2 vols. AB 34, 34A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974. |
| 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. |
| Although his theological complexity is undoubtedly deliberate, however, some obscure features of his grammar prove more surprising. He often includes δ where we would expect κα and vice-versa, supplies neither where we would expect a conjunction (see comment on 1:17); 451 and includes ον in unexpected locations. This pattern, along with often oscillating verb tenses, may reflect a loose storytelling style due to repeated retelling of the Johannine tradition. Otherwise it could resemble a deliberately abrasive κακοφωνα, unexpected syntax meant to hold attention in the forceful style of some rhetoric. 452 Johns distinctiveness is most evident to the majority of readers, however, at the theological leve1. Commentators regularly cite the verdict of Clement of Alexandria, preserved in Eusebius, that John differs from the Synoptics as a more «spiritual» gospel, that is, a more theologically interpretive one. 453 While this verdict is probably correct, we should note that not all early Christian writers would have concurred to the same degree. Origen regarded John " s portrait of Jesus as sometimes only symbolic (although he also allegorized the Synoptics to a lesser degree); but other early Christian commentators did not agree. 454 Origen noted disagreements between John and the Synoptics but often resolved them by arguing that John made spiritual points by these divergences; 455 Theodore of Mopsuestia sometimes harmonized but sometimes treated the divergences as a sign that John was an eyewitness more accurate than the Synoptics; 456 Cyril focused on John " s theology, claiming that John addressed the deeper spiritual significance of events, but also harmonized at times. 457 Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Augustine worked especially hard to harmonize John and the Synoptics; 458 the emphasis on harmonization is hardly surprising given the apologetic needs of early Christians. With his philosophic penchant for allegory, Origen clearly overstated the case, but in some sense John did engage in more theological exposition than the other gospels; 459 his great number of asides testify to considerable explanation, though much of it is historica1. Certainly John " s Christology invites more than historical treatment: a Gospel that speaks of «eating» and «drinking» Jesus the way other works described consuming divine Wisdom may invite mystical contemplation of the divine such as appeared in both Platonist and merkabah mysticism. 460 Citing examples such as the anointing story (12:1–8), which shows that John followed his sources but employed them creatively, 461 Lindars compares this Gospel with a historical play of Shakespeare that conveys real issues and character yet exhibits freedom in details. 462 Conservative scholar Bruce puts it similarly, comparing Shakespeares interpretive paraphrase of Mark Antony " s eulogy with a source like Caesar in Plutarch " s Life of Brutus: |
| 9284 Kuyper, «Grace,» 3–13; Dahl, «History,» 132; Epp, «Wisdom,» 138; Westcott, John, 13; Stuart, «Examination,» 316; Dodd, Studies, 141–42; Dodd, Bible, 75; Dodd, Interpretation, 82; Boismard, Prologue, 54–56; Barrett, John, 167; Hoskyns, Gospel, 150; Lee, Thought, 40; Schnackenburg, John, 1:272; Gaston, Stone, 209; Ladd, Theology, 230. 9287 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 247. Contrast Bammel, «Paraklet,» 205–6, who regards ν as a clarification or explanation of εις. 9289 Cf. Bultmann, John, 574–75, and notes by some of the older commentators, such as Westcott, John, 230; Tholuck, John, 377–78. Contrast Harrison, «Ministry,» 194. 9290 That is, not «on his own authority» (T, Ab. 15:8; 19:4A; Philostratus Hrk. 8.2). This is also characteristic of the role of prophets ( 2Pet 1:21 ; cf. Num. Rab. 18:12); disciples should also speak what they hear (Socrates Ep. 20). See comment on 8:28. 9291 For a similar apologetic (albeit not experiential) chain, cf. Josh 11:15, where God commanded Moses, who commanded Joshua; or Rev 1:1. 9294 If the false prophets of Rev 2–3 advocate compromise with the imperial cult or with non-Christian Judaism and took John the Baptist as one of their models (as suggested above in comment on John 1:6–8 ), ecstatic experience could have been substituted for the objectivity of the Jesus tradition. The Paraclete passages lack any indications of ecstatic activity (Boring, Sayings, 85–86, citing as an analogy of nonecstatic inspiration Herm. Mand. 11.2–9). 9296 Potterie, «Paraklet,» 95, denies that this is simply «une proclamation kérygmatique» and associates it rather with a nuance found in apocalyptic literature, «révéler, dévoiler,» often in Danie1. On p. 96 he observes that this is not always a new revelation but, as in Daniel and elsewhere, it can mean «to give the interpretation of earlier revelation that is obscure and mysterious.» Young, «Isaiah,» 224, roots the term in Isaiah LXX (where it appears fifty-seven times). 9297 Godet, Commentary, 184, argues for their equivalence through the asyndeton between 16and 16:14. |
| 4. Johns Purpose in This Setting Although some have used the summary statement of John 20to suggest that John " s purpose is to evangelize unbelievers, 1812 it is unlikely that John expected many non-Christian Jews to read his work, which is not worded toward their popular leaders in the most irenic manner (contrast perhaps Acts 3:17; 13:27). The different levels of belief in John suggest that the passage instead is meant to confirm believers in their faith, that they would «continue» in Jesus» message and thus be his disciples «indeed» (see 8:31–32). 1813 As we have been arguing, it is likely that John addresses especially believers in Jesus, many of whom are Jewish. (See further comment on 20:31.) Given the life-setting we have postulated above, following the lead of many other scholars, it is not difficult to suppose that John " s readers needed strong confirmation. They needed special assurance that they remained faithful to their ancestral or adopted Jewish faith, regardless of the charges that others raised against them. John thus reinforces their picture of Christianity as the true form of Judaism, and Jesus» followers as true heirs of the covenant promises of Israel–a teaching that should be understood as a remnant theology, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the context of a late first-century conflict, rather than in light of the use to which many Christians have put this theology in subsequent centuries. John " s generally negative use of the term «Jews» for Jesus» opposition in the Fourth Gospel could challenge this interpretation, but, if read in view of John " s whole Gospel, may instead confirm it. To this discussion we now turn. «The Jews» and Johannine Irony Scholars have long debated whether it is appropriate to call John anti-Jewish. The answer to the question depends largely on whether the document " s polemic is intra-Jewish or from Gentiles condemning Judaism. Some regard John " s portrayal of «the Jews» as anti-Jewish, the foundation for medieval and modern Christian anti-Semitism, 1814 and it is true that Nazi propaganda 1815 and anti-Semitic tracts in general 1816 have made abundant use of the Fourth Gospe1. |
|
|
