| He elsewhere cites with favor the report of Dionysius, who distinguishes the Gospel from Revelation on the basis of style. Since Revelation explicitly purports to be written by John, the only way to distinguish the apostolic author of the Gospel from a different author of the Apocalypse is to attribute the latter to a different John. 830 It is thus not surprising that, after his discussion of the two Johns in Papias, Eusebius observes that it makes good sense that John the elder, as opposed to John the apostle, wrote the Apocalypse. 831 Eusebius has a clear agenda in propagating this position. 832 If Papias received traditions directly from the apostle, which is not itself inherently improbable, it becomes likely that the distinction between John the elder and John the apostle merely represents a tendency of tradition to overexegete, a characteristic also found in some rabbinic traditions. The name «John» was fairly common in this period as far as Palestinian Jewish names go, 833 but intrinsic probability does not tend to favor a disciple of the Apostle John named John, with whom the former was inadvertently conflated. Ancient writers sometimes confused persons of the same name, but they also sometimes created new persons on the supposition that two persons of the same name had been confused. Thus a story was circulated that the Pythagorean diet was to be attributed to a different Pythagoras, a story which Diogenes Laertius prudently found unpersuasive. 834 In a case not unlike John the elder versus John the apostle, some opined that Pythagoras the philosopher had a student with the same name responsible for the athletic treatises wrongly ascribed to the teacher. 835 Distinctions demanded by divergent traditions yielded more than one heroic Heracles and more than one Dionysus. 836 How then did the tradition arrive at two Johns, both buried in Ephesus? Even on the face of it, two prominent Johns both buried in Ephesus sounds suspicious. Holy sites were important to ancient religion, and competing churches in Ephesus may have wished to lay claim to the apostlés burial site, giving rise to the tradition of two Johns which Eusebius happily exploits. |
| 2.1.2). 843 The connection with Polycarp makes it unlikely that Irenaeus simply is guessing; his lack of clarification concerning a second John makes it likely that he referred to the apostle, son of Zebedee, since the Gospel tradition itself reports only one disciple John. Further, Irenaeus had previously lived in the East and later remained in close touch with the prominent Roman church, so he would likely know if the view he espoused differed from the accepted views of the other churches. But he seems to assume that other churches will support his claims. 844 After Irenaeus, all sources seem agreed on Johannine authorship. This fact, too, suggests that Irenaeus s claim lacked serious challengers in his day, and that it reflected whatever consensus already existed. 845 The date of the anti-Marcionite prologues to the Gospels is disputed, but if these prologues stem from the mid-second century (Marcion was active in Rome ca. 140 C.E.) they also may provide some evidence of early tradition. The anti-Marcionite prologue to John claims that Papias " s own exegetical books (which could still be checked into the Middle Ages) make John the author by dictation, and (according to the most likely interpretation) Papias his amanuensis. Some of the information attributed to Papias " s works here cannot be correct. John might have lived until the end of the first century, but he could not have lived long enough to excommunicate Marcion! If Papias claimed anything of this nature, perhaps it was that John excommunicated people with views like those of Marcion. But Papias " s work is no longer extant, and the anti-Marcionite prologue a weaker support in favor of Johannine authorship. Its primary value is its probable attestation that within the second century orthodox Christians were attributing the Gospel to «John,» without any need to specify which John was in view. 846 The anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke claims that the Apostle John wrote Revelation on Patmos and later added the Gospe1. 847 By the end of the second century, it is clear that Clement of Alexandria (who called it a «spiritual gospel») and Tertullian accepted Johannine authorship (Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 6.14.7). By this period the only persons to reject it were those stigmatized as the Alogoi, «senseless ones.» 848 Gaius of Rome was considered orthodox except on this point, but may have rejected Johannine authorship partly due to his polemic against the Phrygian Montanists, who made heavy use of Johannine claims. 849 From the end of the second century, the Gospel was unanimously accepted as coming from the apostle John. Although Eusebius focused on discussing the disputed works, he regards this Gospel as undisputedly John " s, and Eusebius knew many works now lost. 850 |
| Yet John " s baptism may be seen in continuity with Christian baptism. Certainly John " s baptism was incomplete without Jesus» gift of the Spirit, but John " s death did not end the practice of baptism, which already had been adopted by the Jesus movement (4:1–3). 4893 The proposal that John 3refers to Christian baptism also has much to commend it. 4894 Like the image of becoming a newborn child, the command to baptism stems from earlier in the Jesus tradition. 4895 Moreover, one can argue that baptism and faith typically occur together in Johannine thought; Potterie contends that faith elsewhere precedes (1 John 5:6), accompanies ( John 19:34–35 ), and here follows Christian baptism. 4896 Unfortunately, the baptismal character of these other references is also disputable, 4897 and it is difficult to see that Christian baptism would be offering Nicodemus an earthly analogy he could grasp (3:10–12). Still, John and his audience clearly do presuppose some information which Nicodemus does not (such as the identification of water with the Spirit in 7:37–39), so it is not impossible that John intends a reference to Christian baptism. Whatever else the water here means, if it alludes to any kind of baptism (and it probably does), it alludes to the public crossing of social boundaries, which would transfer Nicodemus from one community to another. 4898 It is hardly self-evident, however, that John " s audience would presuppose Christian baptism here; even some interpreters who see Christian baptism in this text acknowledge that the Fourth Gospel includes no other clear references to the ritua1. 4899 Further, in the context of his whole water motif, where Jesus frequently supersedes the water of Jewish traditions (see comment on 2:6; 4:10; 5:2; 7:38; 9:6; 19:34), including the water of John " s baptism (1:33), we propose another interpretation as more likely. 4900 One Jewish lustration ritual probably makes the most appropriate sense of the «earthly» analogy (3:12) that Jesus seems to offer Nicodemus: as noted above, converts to Judaism were apparently seen as newborn children, and proselyte baptism seems to have been a vital step in this conversion process. If this is the referent of «water,» it would certainly drive home a stark point: the teacher of Israel (3:10) himself needs to become a true Israelite (1:47), a true child of Abraham (8:39–40), one of the Lord " s sheep (10:14–15). 4901 |
| Jewish ethics in general, like John " s, emphasized righteous works; 5123 Wisdom would lead one to works acceptable before God (Wis 9:12). Greek and Roman writers 5124 and Jewish tradition (e.g., Wis 1:16) concurred that people should act in accordance with their teaching, not simply speak; they also recognized that, despite pretense, onés true nature would come out in the end (Livy 3.36.1). In John, people demonstrate their character, either as part of the world or as those born anew from above, by their «works.» Works appear in a variety of senses: evil works (3:19–20; 7:7; cf. 2 John 11 ; φαλα in John 5:29 ) or good works, works of truth (3:21; 8:39); the creative works of the Father and Jesus (5:17, 20, 36), and Jesus» works, which often refer to signs (7:3, 21; 9:3–4; 10:25, 32–33, 37–38; 14:10–12; perhaps 15:24). As signs, such works should elicit faith (10:37–38; 14:11); those who embrace Jesus» works by faith will also do works (14:12). For John, the central «work» yielding the new, eternal life is faith (6:27–30), but for Jesus, God " s «work» is also obedience to his will and mission (4:34, 38; 17:4). Once one is truly in the light, one will keep God " s other commandments (14:15,23–24), especially the central one, loving onés fellow disciples (13:34–35). One does the works of the one whose nature one shares (8:39, 41), hence birth from God " s Spirit remains necessary for genuinely good works (3:6). Thus for John, the emphasis on works does not allow salvation outside of obedient faith in Christ. The Greater and the Lesser (3:22–36) In this passage John the Baptist again testifies for Jesus, as in the opening of the Gospel (1:6–9,15,19–36), framing encounters with prospective disciples like Nathanael (1:45–51) and Nicodemus (3:1–21); it also contrasts John " s wilderness witness with elite Nicodemus " s incomprehension. 5125 The passage opens with a contrast between Jesus» baptism and Johns (3:22–23, 26), and becomes a discourse full of Johannine Christology but which, unlike most Johannine discourses, appears in the mouth of the Baptist rather than of Jesus. This passage may address those who exalt John the Baptist too highly (3:26); 5126 it may also address those in the synagogue community who reject Jesus» deity but accept John as a prophet. 1. Setting for the Discourse (3:22–26) |
| 6676 Brown, John, 1:349, thinks that 8:21–22 preserves another form of the scene reported in 7:33–36. The debate structure in 8:25–35 also bears resemblances to 6:30–40; 10:24–28 (Von Wahlde, «Structure,» 576–77); such parallels may, however, stem from Johannine editing. 6677 Jesus would not have been the first to apply the image of «going away» to suicide (see Appian R.H. 12.9.60). 6678 Also, e.g., Brown, John, 1:349; Haenchen, John, 2:27. 6679 Acts 16:27; Sophocles Track 721–722; Demosthenes 3 Philippic62; Diodorus Siculus 2.6.10; 12.19.2; 16.45.4–5; 20.71.4; 25.17.1; Tacitus Ann. 1.61; 3.42; 4.25; 6.23–26,38–40; 11.37–38; 12.8,22; 13.1,25,30; 15.57,63–64,69; 16.11,14–15,17; Suetonius Aug. 27,53,67; Tib. 45,61; Nero 49; Otho 9, 11 ; Dio Cassius R.H. 17.15.4; 18.4.6; 19, frg. in Zonaras 9.21 ; 48.44.1 ; 51.15.3; 57.18.10; Appian C. W 1.8.74; 1.10.94; 2.14.98–99; Livy 26.15.13–15; 41.11.4–6; Cornelius Nepos 20 (Timoleon), 1.6; 23 (Hannibal), 12.5; Epictetus Diatr. 2.1.19; 3.8.6; Pausanias 9.17.1–2; 9.25.1; Apuleius Metam. 1.16; Philo Names 62; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.236. 6680 4 Macc 17:1; Josephus Life 137; the Sicarii at Masada (Josephus War 7.320–406); cf. Goodblatt, «Suicide.» 6681 So Seneca Controv. 2.3.10. 6682 Schnackenburg, John, 2:198. Beasley-Murray, John, 130, provides some evidence for the Jewish expectation of judgment on those who committed suicide. 6683 Barrett, John, 341, citing m. Hag. 2:1; b. Hag. 14b, bar. 6684 See our discussion of vertical dualism in our introduction. The attribution of vertical dualism to gnostic redaction (Westermann, John, 87) reflects inadequate sensitivity to its presence in apocalyptic. Antithesis was also a standard category in rhetoric (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 14). 6685 E.g., Homer II. 3.276–278; Virgil Aen. 12.199; Livy 31.31.3; Pausanias 2.2.8; Chariton 5.7.10; PGM 1.264, 315–316; 17a.2–3; 117.frg. 14; PDM Sup. 131–134; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.240; cf. the subterranean dead in Hesiod Op. 141; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 11.37.6. The Jewish worldview also could accommodate a three-tiered universe (Pr. Jos. 11; " Abot R. Nat. 2A; Phil 2:10 ; Rev 5:13). |
| Gossip networks were common, so it is not surprising that matters thought to be of interest were often reported to teachers. 5155 The Fourth Gospel recounts the disciples» report to John the Baptist, however, to provide the setting for John " s ready acknowledgment that Jesus holds the supreme authority (3:27–36). 2. Jesus Is Greater Than John (3:27–30) Ancient literature reports numerous rivalries, for instance among philosophical schools, dramatic poets, and politicians (see comment on 17:21–23); rivalries also appeared among first-century Christian workers ( 1Cor 1:11–12 ; Phil 1:15–17; 4:2–3 ; cf. Matt 24:45–51). But once past figures had attained the status of public heroes, the tendency was often to reduce the tensions between the schools. Thus Seneca the Stoic could explain that Epicurus was not so bad as Epicureans. 5156 Likewise, Aulus Gellius could point out that, despite the common belief that Plato and Xenophon were rivals, in reality their followers, out of zeal for their heroes, were rivals. Plato and Xenophon worked together, but their followers tried to show one or the other to be greater. 5157 It would not be surprising if some had made Jesus and the Baptist rivals, especially among the latter " s disciples who did not become part of the Jesus movement (see comment on 1:6–8); 5158 but John lays such suspicions to rest as in 1:19–36. John " s ambition was to fulfill God " s purpose as Jesus» forerunner, not to seek his own glory. 5159 (Just how pervasive this Johannine emphasis is may be surmised from the contrast with Q: whereas John in prison later sends disciples to confirm Jesus» identity, here he confirms it in response to his disciples» information.) 5160 He acknowledges that any significance in his own role is nothing but a matter of divine gift, hence not a cause for boasting (3:27). That a divine gift was not appropriate grounds for self-boasting was often recognized (cf. 1Cor 4:7 ). 5161 «Heaven» was a Jewish surrogate title for God, 5162 but like «above» (3:5), again reiterates John " s vertical dualism, which emphasizes in turn the infinite distance between God and humanity crossed only in Christ (1:51). In contrast to John, Jesus not only receives from heaven but is from heaven (3:12–13); the rest of the Gospel indicates that what the Father gave Jesus, in fact, was authority over all (3:35; 5:27; 13:3; 17:2), especially those the Father had «given» to him (6:39; 10:29; 17:2, 9; 18:9). John reiterates his earlier claim (1:20–27; see comment there) that he was merely sent before the Messiah (3:28). |
| 3486 In a negative example, cf. T. So1. 18(πντα νθρωπον), though the demon " s power is limited. Torah " s message is free to all who enter the world (Mek. Bah. 5.100–1). 3490 Glasson, « John 1 9» (citing mainly late sources: b. Nid. 30b; Lev. Rab. 14:2; 31:1,6, 8 [but light in the mothers womb here refers to physical light vs. darkness]; his earlier citation of 4 Ezra 7supports the view no more clearly than does John 1by itself). On prenatal sin, see comment on John 9:2 : but Judah ha-Nasi (ca. 200 C.E.) taught that the tempter ruled only from birth (b. Sanh. 91b). 3493 Morris, John, 94; MacGregor, John, 11; Schnackenburg, John,:253, 255; Stuart, «Examination,» 293. The rabbinic phrase «everyone coming into the world» is not irrelevant because it lacks explicit statement of «person» (Stuart, «Examination,» 293) nor simply because John " s usage elsewhere is more important (Morris, John, 93–94), true as the latter argument may be; the rabbinic phrase applies to individuals entering the world (e.g., t. c Ed. 1:15; Sipre Deut. 311.1; 312.1.1; 313.1.3) as well as to «everyone,» hence could apply to Jesus as well as anyone else. 3495 Cf. the rhetorical practice of distributio (Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.47; Anderson, Glossary, 32–33; cf. Rowe, «Style,» 134), though it is normally more elaborate. 3497 If John envisions chronological specificity, perhaps 1implies his birth (or préexistence?), but 1the beginning of his public ministry later in this chapter (Luther, 5th Sermon on John i), though this is unclear. Westermann, John, 7, thinks 1:11–12 outlines John " s story (coming to his own in 1–6, rejected by them in 7–12, empowering those who received him in 13–17). 3501 See Boccaccini, Judaism, 251–65; Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 52–74; in Let. Aris., see Boccaccini, Judaism, 176–79. 3502 E.g., 1Macc 5; Jub. 1:9; 15:34; 22:16–18, 20–22; 23:24; 24:25–33; LA.B. 7:3; 12(OTP also cites 4 Ezra 6:56; 2 Bar. 82here); 1Q27 1.9–11; 4QpNah. 1.1; m. c Abod. Zar. 2:1; Ter. 8:12; Sipre Deut. 213.1.1; Gen. Rab. 80:7; Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3. Texts such as p. Ter. 1:1; 3:8; Pesiq. Rab. 48address Gentiles» sacrifices. |
| 6467 So also Holwerda, Spirit, 17–24; Hunter, John, 82. 6468 So also, e.g., Hunter, John, 83. 6469 Fenton, John, 93, cites Isa 55:6; cf. also Ezek 7:25–26 ; Hos 5:6 ; Amos 8:12; contrast Deut 4:29 ; Jer 29:13 ; Whitacre, John, 191, adds Prov 1:28–31 . 6470 Hunter, John, 83; Köstenberger, John, 137. 6471 Cf. Robinson, Trust, 88; idem, «Destination.» 6472 E.g., Isocrates Nic. 50, Or. 3.37; Paneg. 108, Or. 4; Helen 67–68, Or. 10; Plato Alc. 2, 141C; Theaet. 175A; Laws 9.870AB; Strabo Geog. 6.1.2; 13.1.1; 15.3.23; Plutarch Agesilaus 10.3; Timoleon 28.2; Eumenes 16.3; Bride 21, Mor. 141A; Dio Chrysostom Or. 1, On Kingship 1, §14; Or. 9, Isthmian Discourse, §12; Or. 12, Olympic Discourse, §§11, 27–28; Or. 31.20; Or. 32.35; Or. 36.43; Sextus Empiricus Eth. 1.15; Diogenes Laertius 6.1.2; Athenaeus Deipn. 11.461b; Tatian 1,21,29. 6473 E.g., Josephus War 5.17; Ant. 1.107; 15.136; 18.20; Ag. Ap. 1.201; 2.39; Philo Cherubim 91; Drunkenness 193; Abraham 267; Moses 2.20; Decalogue 153; Spec. Laws 2.18,20,44,165; 4.120; Good Person 94, 98; Contemp1. Life 21; Embassy 145,292. 6474 E.g., Bar 2:13 ; Tob 13:3; Pss. Sol 8:28; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.33; Jas 1:1. John also applies the expression to the scattering of believers (10:12; 16:32; cf. Acts 8:1,4; 11:19; 1Pet l:l;perhaps Jas 1:1). 6475 Cf. Brown, John, 1:349. 6476 Talbert, John, 145 (following Lindars). Cf. the repetition some scholars find in the discourses of chs. 6, 14–16. 6477 E.g., Westcott, John, 123; Grigsby, «Thirsts.» 6478 The public part of the procession was in the court of women (Safrai, «Temple,» 866–67, 894–95; for women " s participation, Safrai, «Relations,» 198); processions were also central to pagan religious festivals (Grant, Gods, 53; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 151; SEG 11.923 in Sherk, Empire, 58, §32; Xenophon Eph. 5.11; Chariton 1.1.4–5; Dunand, Religion en Egypte, 96,103; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 52–53; Bleeker, Festivals), including carrying sacred objects (Xenophon Eph. 1.2; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.20.602). |
| 6920 T. Ab. 8:9A. Cf. Homer Il. 21.107, where Achilles reminds Lycaon that Patroclus was a better man than he and died anyway (then slays him, 21.115–119). 6921 Commonly noted, e.g., Barrett, John, 351; Morris, John, 469. 6922 Q also polemicizes against false claims to descent from «Abraham our father» (Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8). 6923 See further comments by Neyrey, «Shame of Cross,» 126–27; our comments on 5:18. 6924 Publilius Syrus 597; Plutarch Praising, Mor. 539A-547F (esp. 15, Mor. 544D); 2Cor 12:11 ; see our introductory comment on John 5:31–47 . 6925 Also Bar 2:35 . 6926 Some later Jewish traditions allowed him to share it with Israel (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:2); see further the comment on 5:44. 6927 The claim is ad hominem (so Michaels, John, 144; Barrett, John, 351), but it does not strictly reject their physical ancestry here; rather, he exhorts them to function as children of Abraham ought (cf. 1Cor 6:6–11 ). 6928 Cf. revelation on the «Lord " s Day,» possibly an eschatological double entendre (cf. Shepherd, Liturgy, 78), in Rev 1(on the noneschatological aspect of the phrase, see Did. 14.1; Deissmann, East, 358–59; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 65; perhaps also Ign. Magn. 9.1, but cf. Lewis, «Ignatius»). 6929 So Schnackenburg, John, 2:221, citing Jub. 15:17; Targum Onqelos; Philo Names 154, 161, 175; cf. Haenchen, John, 2:29. In Genesis, however, Abraham " s laughter undoubtedly functions as Sarah " s would (18:12–15; cf. 21:6). 6930 Hanson, Gospel, 126–28. 6931 4 Ezra 3:14; 2 Bar. 4:4; L.A.B. 23:6; Apoc. Ab. 9–32; Gen. Rab. 44:12. In Philo, Abraham encounters the Logos (Migration 174, in Argyle, «Philo,» 38; on Philo here, cf. more fully On the Change of Names in Urban and Henry, «Abraham»). 6932 E.g., Hunter, John, 94; Cadman, Heaven, 115; Morris, Studies, 221; Brown, John, 1:360; Bell, I Am, 197. Contrast McNamara, Targum, 144–45. 6933 E.g., b. B. Bat. 16b-17a, bar. Others also receive such visions; e.g., Adam (2 Bar. 4:3; " Abot R. Nat. 31A; 42, §116B; b. Sanh. 38b; Gen. Rab. 21:9; 24:2; Pesiq. Rab. 23:1); Joseph (Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 45:14 ); Amram (4Q544 lines 10–12; 4Q547 line 7); Moses (Sipre Deut. 357.5.11); and R. Meir (Num. Rab. 9:20). |
| 8296 E.g., 1Pet. 5:5 ; t. Meg. 3:24; c Abod. Zar. 1:19; 4 Bar. 5:20; Ps.-Phoc. 220–222; Syr. Men. 11–14, 76–93 (but cf. 170–172); Homer II. 1.259; 23.616–623; Aulus Gellius 2.15; Diodorus Siculus 1.1.4; 2.58.6; Pythagoras in Diogenes Laertius 8.1.22–23. 8300 Among philosophers, cf. Epicurus (Culpepper, School, 107, cites Lucretius Nat. 3.9); Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.82; Nock, Christianity, 30. 8302 E.g., Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.490; 1.25.536, 537; Iamblichus V.P. 35.250; 2 Kgs 2:12; 4 Bar. 2:4, 6, 8; 5:5; t. Sanh. 7:9; Matt 23:9; cf. Gen. Rab. 12(Simeon b. Yohai of the sages of Beth Hillel and Shammai); for Christian usage from the second to fifth centuries, see Hall, Scripture, 50. 8303 E.g., Ahiqar 96 (saying 14A); Sir 2:1 ; Did. 5.2; 1 John 2:1; cf. Babrius pro1.2; Babrius 18.15. This included astronomical and other revelatory wisdom (1 En. 79[esp. MS B]; 81:5; 82:1–2; 83:1; 85:2; 91:3–4; 92:1). 8304 E.g., Jub. 21:21; Tob 4:3,4, 5,12; 1Macc 2:50, 64; 1 En. 92:1; T. Job 1:6; 5:1; 6:1; T. Jud. 17:1; T. Reu. 1:3; T. Naph. 4:1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:6. 8305 E.g., m. B. Mesía 2:11; Ker. 6:9; Sipre Deut. 32.5.12; p. Hag. 2:1, §10; among Gentiles, Theon Progymn. 3. 93–97. 8307 Malina, Windows, 55. One may compare the frequent topic of unity in Greek speeches (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.53.1; Livy 24.22.17). Some characterized loving one another (φιλλληλους) as more naturally a rural phenomenon that could include sharing resources (Alciphron Farmers 29 [Comarchides to Euchaetes], 3.73, par. 2). 8308 Though Segovia, Relationships, 179, is correct that the Gospel, unlike 1 John, is involved in polemic with the synagogue rather than «intra-church.» 8309 «Commandment(s)» appears frequently in the Johannine Epistles (1 John 2:3–4, 7–8; 3:22–24; 4:21; 5:2–3; 2 John 4–6 ; cf. also Rev 12:17; 14:12); the commandment specifically concerns love (1 John 3:23; 4:21) and accurate faith (1 John 3:23). 8310 It was new in the sense of realized eschatology (1 John 2:8). The Johannine Epistles may employ «from the beginning» meaning «from the beginning of the gospel tradition,» however (1 John 2:24; 3:11; 2 John 6 ), perhaps as a double entendre with the beginning of creation (1 John 1:1; 2:13–14; 3:8). |
|
|
