| 774 Michaels, John, xvii; Carson, John, 72; Whitacre, John, 21. Surprisingly, Culpepper, John, 31, counts James " s lack of explicit mention as an argument against Johannine authorship, perhaps because one might expect John to mention his brother. But such mention might be difficult without mentioning himself (James never appears independently from John in the Synoptics). Boismard, «Disciple,» argues that the disciple remains one of the anonymous ones of 21:2, hence cannot be a son of Zebedee. But even in that verse, not every anonymous disciple may be the beloved disciple! 777 For Egypt, see Braun, Jean, 69–133 (including Basilides, Clement of Alexandria, Diognetus, and the Bodmer Papyri); for Rome, 135–80; for Asia Minor, 181–289. 783 Nunn, Authorship, 3–4. His point stands for ancient works even if his example from history, from Shakespeare, is not itself beyond dispute. 784 Carson, John, 69, following Kennedy, «Criticism»; cf. Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 141. 786 There is little firm «orthodox» attestation before Irenaeus, as Smalley, John, 72, points out, but what evidence we do have (early gnostic, some reportedly earlier and more subsequent attestation) is fully consistent with Johannine authorship. 787 E.g., Ptolemy, ca. 130–140 c.E. (Irenaeus Haer. 1.8.5); also Heracleon (Origen Comm. Jo. 6.3; Wiles, Gospel 7). 791 E.g., Carson, John, 28. For the fourth-century date, see Gamble, «Canonical Formation,» 189; others have dated it to the late second or third century. 793 Daniel B. Wallace brought this to my attention in a communication of March 7, 2000 (citing Porter, «Variation,» who argues that P 75 and Vaticanus attest the same text type as early as 200). 794 Sanders, Figure, 64–66. He also thinks anonymous works claimed greater authority (66); this thesis is, however, doubtful (cf. the plethora of pseudepigraphic works). 795 Aune, Environment, 18; and Witherington, Wisdom, 11, suggest ca. 125 C.E. Some follow Hengel in suggesting an even earlier date, e.g., Carson, John, 24. |
| 52. Bobrinskoy B. Liturgie et ecclésiologie trinitaire de S. Basile//Eucharisties d " Orient et d " Occident. T. II. Paris, 1970. [Bobrinskoy. Liturgie et ecclésiologie] 53. Bobrinskoy B. The Mystery of the Trinity. NY, 1999. [Bobrinskoy. The Mystery of the Trinity] 54. Boismard M. E. De son ventre couleront des fleuves d " eau//Revue Biblique. 1958. 65. P. 523–546. [Boismard. RB 65] 55. Boismard M. E. Le prologue de S. Jean. Paris: Cerf, 1953. [Boismard. Le prologue de S. Jean] 56. Boismard M. E. Revue Biblique 55, 1948. [Boismard. RB 55] 57. Borgen Peder. Targumic Character of the Prologue of John//New Testament Studies. 1970. P. 291–293. [Borgen. Targumic Character of the Prologue of John] 58. Bornkamm G. Der Paraklet im Johannes evangelium/Festschrift für R. Bultmann. Stuttgart, 1949. [Bornkamm. Der Paraklet im Johannes evangelium] 59. Boulnois M.-O. Le Paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d " Alexandrie. Paris, 1994. [Boulnois. Le Paradoxe trinitaire] 60. Braun F.-M. New Testament Studies 4, 1958. [Braun. NTS 4] 61. Breck John. Spirit of Truth. The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1991. [Breck. Spirit of Truth] 62. Breck John. The Power of the Word. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1986. [Breck. The Power of the Word] 63. Breck John. The shape of biblical languagë chiasmus in the Scriptures and beyond. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1994. [Breck. The shape of biblical language] 64. Brown Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. 1 vol. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1966. [ Brown. John, 1] 65. Brown Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. 2 vol. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1970. [Brown. John, 2] 66. Brown Raymond E. The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel//New Testament Studies. 1966/67. 13. P. 113–132. [Brown. The Paraclete] 67. Büchsel F. Der Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament. Gütersloh, 1926. [Büchsel. Der Geist Gottes] 68. Bultmann R. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. [Bultmann. Das Evangelium des Johannes]. Translation: Bultmann R. The Gospel of John/Tr. G. R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. [ Bultmann. John] |
| The Academy enjoyed a bright period during the Rectorship of Archimandrite Antony (Khrapovitskii) from 1890 to 1895, and weathered the storms of 1905, when “extraneous influences” sought to gain the upper hand. Despite temporary closure, the Academy flowered again under the rectorship of Bishop Feodor (Pozdeyevskii), from 1909 to 1917. The Bolsheviks closed the Academy in 1917. After his graduation from the Moscow Theological Academy as a Candidate of Theology (Master’s Degree) in 1915, the future Bishop Nikolai taught at spiritual and educational institutions, and was a preacher at the Oboyan Monastery in the Kursk Diocese. In 1916, the future Bishop Nikolai took part in the Glorification of Saint John (Maximovich), Metropolitan of Tobolsk. The form of his participation in the Glorification of Saint John of Tobolsk is unknown; it is known that the Glorification touched him deeply, and that he always great venerated Saint John of Tobolsk. Saint John (Maximovich), Archbishop of Shanghai & San Francisco, who shared the Sainted Metropolitan of Tobolsk’s name, was a distant relative of St. John of Tobolsk. Saint John (Maximovich), Metropolitan of Tobolsk, was born in 1651 in Nezhin, Ukraine. His father was Maxim Vasilkovskaia, so called for the city of Vasilkova, where he once lived. He later moved to Kiev and became known for his donations to and construction of many churches in Kiev. John was the first of ten sons in the family. His surname “Maximovich” was derived from his patronymic, meaning “son of Maxim.” His mother’s name was Evfrosinia. John Maximovich was educated at the Kiev Mogila Academy, and after graduation in 1675, was tonsured a monk with the name John, after Saint John Chrysostom. He was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Lazar (Baranovichi, 1620-1693) of Chernigov, and in 1680 was appointed Steward of the Kiev Caves Lavra. Between 1680 and 1690, he made many trips to Moscow on official Church business. In 1695, Saint Feodosy (Polonitskii-Uglich, 1630s-1696) of Chernigov decided that Hieromonk John was to be his successor, and had him transferred to the Yeletskii Monastery of the Dormition in Chernigov. |
| Craig S. Keener The passion. 18:1–19:42 THE «HOUR» JESUS ANNOUNCED as early as 2has arrived; Jesus is the paschal lamb that John announced in 1:29. Peter Ellis suggests that John " s Passion Narrative fits a chiastic structure, as follows: 9506 A Arrested in a garden, bound and led to trial (18:1–12) Β True high priest tried; beloved disciple present (18:13–27) C Jesus, king of Israel, judged by Pilate, rejected by his people (18:28–19:16) B» True high priest carries wood of his own sacrifice (like Isaac); beloved disciple present (19:17–30) Á Bound with burial clothes, buried in a garden (19:31–42) Because many of the features on which he focuses to achieve this structure are so secondary and because the units may be adapted to suit the proposed structure, the suggested chiasmus ultimately proves less than persuasive. It does, however, evidence some patterns that point to the narrative artistry of their designer. More persuasive is the observation by Ellis and others that irony pervades the narrative. Thus Judas who went forth into «the night» in 13now returns in darkness to arrest the light of the world; Pilate the governor questions if Jesus is a king when the readers know that he is; Pilate demands, «What is truth?» when the readers know that Jesus is (14:6); the soldiers hail Jesus as «king of the Jews» in mockery, unaware that Jesus truly is the king of Israel (1:49), whose lifting up on the cross must introduce his reign. 9507 Historical Tradition in the Passion Narrative We must address some preliminary issues concerning John " s narratives and the history behind them (especially as preserved in the Synoptics) before examining the specific texts in John 18–19 . 9508 Where John diverges from the traditions reported in the Synoptics, we do think likely that John adapts rather than contradicts the passion sequence on which they are based, probably at least sometimes on the basis of other traditions and probably at least sometimes for a measure of theological symbolism. Although, on the whole, we think John essentially independent from the Synoptics, the Passion Narrative is different; John " s audience probably already knows the basic passion story from other sources (cf. 1Cor 11:23–25 ). Their prior knowledge would not render John " s version of the story any less intriguing to his audience, however: stories were told repeatedly in the ancient Mediterranean, and a good story could build suspense even if one knew the final outcome. 9509 John " s very adaptations, at least wherever they might diverge from the traditions commonly known among his ideal audience, invite his audiencés special attention. Where theological symbolism guides his adaptations, it is generally in the service of Christology: Jesus is the Passover lamb (cf. 1:29), who lays down his life freely (10:17–18). 1. The Genre of the Passion Narratives |
| 701 Plutarch Demosthenes 11.1 regards Demetrius as a reliable source because he learned the information from Demosthenes himself in his old age. 703 Streeter, Gospels, 425–26, doubts that John was an eyewitness because John depends on Mark and Luke (a thesis often disputed; see our discussion of the relation between John and the Synoptics). 704 Xenophon Hel1. 3.1.2 cites an account of the Greek mercenaries» escape from Persia, but, though aware of this source, later composed his own account (Anabasis). 706 Especially, though not exclusively, among many conservative and moderate scholars (some allowing for degrees of subsequent redaction), e.g., Carson, John; Bruce, John; Ellis, «Christology,» 1–6; Blomberg, «Reliable,» 30–37; Milne, Message, 17–19; Munn, «Introduction»; Silva Santos, «Autoria»; Watkins, John, 8–18; Wenham, «View»; tentatively, Temple, Core, viii. 707 E.g., Braun, Jean, 301–30; Munoz Léon, «Discipulo.» Barrett, John, 133, attributes all the canonical Johannine literature to disciples of the apostle; Schnackenburg also suggests dependence on Johannine tradition, while allowing that the «spokesperson who transmitted» and interpreted the tradition need not have been the apostle himself (John, 1:102). 712 So Malatesta, Inferiority, 83; Ellis, World, 13–17; Köstenberger, John, 22–24; Blomberg, Reliability, 26–31; cf. Smalley, John, 77; Nunn, Authorship, 99ff. 716 Beasley-Murray, John, lxxiii. One wonders how immediately the author intended the Gospel to circulate outside the Johannine circle of churches, but this is irrelevant to our case. 717 Rigato, «Apostolo,» and Winandy, «Disciple» both even allowing that the priest of Acts 4may be in view. 718 Admittedly πταλον could bear a specifically priestly sense (in Exod 28:36; 29:6; 39:3, 30; Lev 8:9 , five of its seven LXX uses), but its usage was much broader in Greek and probably simply contributes to the metaphor. It is also not impossible, though it is very unlikely, that Zebedee was of levitic descent; similar names appear among Levites (Neh 11:17; 1 Chr 26:2; 2 Chr 17:8; Ezra 10:20), but were hardly limited to them (Josh 7:1, 17–18; 1 Chr 8:19; 27:27). |
| 5191 Plato Theaet. 191D; Alexander 14 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 180D; Fort. Alex. 1.11, Mor. 333A. The seals leave an imprint in soft wax (Plutarch Educ. 5, Mor. 3F). 5192 Apuleius Metam. 10.10; cf. Lyall, Slaves, 148–52. Seals could indicate approval on a legal document, which is what Brown, John, 1:158, sees here; cf. 21:24–25. 5193 E.g., Esth 8LXX; cf. the letter in Chariton 4.5.8. The keeper of the royal signet-ring played an important role in royal courts (Tob 1:22). 5194 E.g., over a wide chronological range, P.Eleph. 1.16–18; 2.17–18; P.Lond. 1727.68–72; P.Tebt. 104.34–35; Rev 5:1. Witnesses might be recalled to testify to the validity of their seals (P.Oxy. 494.31–43; 156–165 C.E.). Seals were also used to identify the contents of merchandise (Carmon, Inscriptions, 108–9, 230–33; cf. perhaps Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.8). 5195 Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 340, §112D (επισφραγζεται). A rhetor could also apply this term to his crowning touches of praise (Menander Rhetor 2.3, 380.2). 5196 Jewish tradition acknowledged that even those in error would ultimately acknowledge the truth of God and Moses (e.g., Koran " s family in b. B.Bat. 74a; Num. Rab. 18:20). 5198 B. Sanh. 64a; p. Sanh. 1:1, §4; Gen. Rab. 8:5; Deut. Rab. 1:10; Bonsirven, Judaism, 150. 5200 For Jesus» χερ, «hand,» of authority, see also 10:28; for the Father " s hand, see 10:29; contrast perhaps 7:30,44; 10:39. 5201 That the Father gives the Spirit to Jesus here is frequently maintained and is probably the majority view, e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 133; Carson, John, 213; Bruce, John, 97; Turner, Spirit, 59: Whitacre, John, 99; Smith, John (1999), 107. 5202 Lev. Rab. 15:2, noted also by Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 14; Carson, John, 213; Turner, Spirit, 59; Hofius, «Geist ohne Mass»; and Bürge, Community, 84, who also notes that the specific expression κ μτρου is foreign to Greek literature in genera1. Musonius Rufus 18B, p. 116.12, applies μετρα negatively to excess (unlimited gluttony); cf. T. Ab. 14:9; 17:7A. |
| Because many christological motifs recur frequently in the Fourth Gospel, we survey the background for some of John " s terms in this introduction. 2420 We will address in more detail the motifs themselves, including John " s distinctive adaptation of terms that were used more broadly in other streams of early Judaism and Jewish Christianity, at relevant points in the commentary. The Thrust of John " s Christology Christology is John " s central focus, as both the proem (1:1–18) and summary thesis statement (20:30–31) testify. Both of these passages emphasize the highest, most complete Johannine Christology: Jesus is deity (1:1,18; 20:28–31). John advocates multiple christological models, but especially emphasizes the most complete existing model, namely, that Jesus is Torah or Wisdom. No other conception available in his Jewish vocabulary better conveyed the thought of one who was divine yet distinct from the Father. The proem leads us to expect Jesus as divine Wisdom or Word to overshadow a great deal of the Fourth Gospel (without erasing other important christological motifs or historical traditions). Jesus is far greater than Moses the agent of revelation, for he is the «Word,» the content of revelation (1:17–18). Like Torah or Wisdom, Jesus is the agent of creation in the beginning (1:1–3) and is life and light (1:4–9; cf. 8:12; 9:5; 12:35–36, 46; 15:6). Throughout the Gospel as in the proem, John compares Jesus» mission to that of Torah or Wisdom sent to Israel: the world did not know him, his own did not receive him, but those who did receive him by believing him could become God " s children (1:10–13). These verses build John " s soteriology on the model of God " s earlier revelation to Moses: his people must «know,» «believe,» and «receive» God " s revelation (cf. also 3:36; 5:38,47; 12:48; 17:3). In short, John summarizes Jesus» ministry by declaring that the disciples, like Moses, «beheld his glory» (1:14). Thus the whole Gospel becomes a theophany like Sinai, but in this case John the Baptist (1:6–8, 15) and disciples perform the function of witnesses like Moses. Jesus is one greater than Moses, the Torah in flesh, and the Gospel as a whole develops this paralle1. In such a context, even the image of the «uniquely beloved (son)» (1:14, 18), which could otherwise recall Israel or the Messiah, may also recall traditional Jewish imagery for Torah here. |
| This announcement signals to us that the Fourth Gospel " s passion chronology differs from that of the Synoptic tradition, probably already popular in John " s day ( Mark 15:25 ). We could read John " s «sixth hour» in terms of the rare reckoning of civil days from midnight, so that Jesus» condemnation would be at 6 a.m.; 10054 but this reckoning also contradicts the Synoptics, allows too little time from sunrise (near 18:28) for the events preceding the condemnation, relies on a rare calculation of time that would have been in no way obvious to most ancient readers, and confuses the other references to specific hours in the Gospe1. Others have tried to harmonize Mark and John by claiming that Mark " s «third hour» refers to the quarter day from ca. 9 a.m. to noon whereas John " s «sixth hour» means «about» noon; 10055 but such «approximations» invite us to suppose a margin of factual error so great as to render the approximations effectively worthless. Brown thus notes that one may regard either Mark (9 a.m.) or John (noon) as theological symbolism but one cannot reconcile them both as literally accurate chronologically. 10056 Given John " s Jiterary method elsewhere, we incline toward reading John symbolically rather than Mark. 10057 Members of John " s audience familiar with the traditional passion story presumably behind the Synoptics and Paul would have already noticed the difference at 18:28, a difference linking Jesus more directly with Passover. No longer do the symbolic bread and wine of the Last Supper represent Passover, but the death of Jesus itself does so directly (6:51–58). Biographies could exercise a degree of chronological freedom (see introduction, ch. 1), and John may adapt the chronology to infuse it with his symbolic message. In this Gospel Jesus is delivered over for crucifixion on the day the Passover lambs are being slaughtered (18:28). Many scholars also explain the «sixth hour» in light of Passover, though the case, while intriguing, is difficult to prove. |
| 5118 E.g., T. Ab. 11:1, 3B (Enoch is the heavenly prosecutor, ελγξων τς αμαρτας); 2 Bar. 19(the law as light). The sense of «prosecute» would fit the «judgment» of 3:18–19 (cf. 16:8–11) 5120 E.g., Tobit went in the ways of αληθεας and righteousness (Tob 1:3); Israel is summoned to ποισαι … λθειαν (Tob 13:6). Usually in the LXX «do the truth» means «to act loyally,» «to keep faith» (Brown, John, 1:135), though some later texts may apply it to specific practices (Grayston, Epistles, 49). Westcott, John, 57, remarks that «doing the truth» appears in rabbinic texts. As many early observers of the Scrolls noted (e.g., Albright, «Discoveries,» 169; Sanders, John, 131), it is also familiar in Essene-type circles (e.g., Jub. 36:3), especially from Qumran (e.g., 1QS 1.5– ; cf. also 5.3; 8.2; 9.17). 5121 lQpHab. 7.10–11; cf. 12.4–5. God will punish evildoers, distinguishing them from those who do good (4Q417 frg. 2,1.7–8,17–18, with 4Q418, in Wise, Scrolls, 381). 5124 E.g., Isocrates Demon. 17, 48, Or. 1; Demosthenes 3 Olynthiac 14; 2 Philippic 1; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.28; 6.2.64; Quintilian 1.pref.14; Epictetus Diatr. 1.25.11; 2.9.13; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 20.2; Dia1. 4.28.6–8; Juvenal Sat. 2.9–10,20–21; 14.38–40; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.33.3; 9.10.3; 9.47.4; 11.1.4; 11.58.3; Diodorus Siculus 9.9.1; Cornelius Nepos frg. 3.1; Aulus Gellius 17.19; Herodian 1.2.4; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.169, 292. 5125 Cf. Smith, John (1999), 108. The passage recapitulates some themes from 1:19–36 (Quast, Reading, 26). Source criticism on 3:22–36, as on the rest of the Gospel, seems unlikely to yield any consensus; but for one suggestion, see Klaiber, «Zeuge.» 5126 So, e.g., White, Initiation, 250; Longenecker, Ministry, 70. See esp. Rensberger, Faith, 52–61; and comment on 1:6–8. 5127 Pace Ellis, World, 62, the «Jew» of 3:25, and not the disciples of John, represents common Judean Judaism. 5129 See Talbert, John, 105, who suggests the chiastic frame for 3:22–4in Jesus» relation to Judea (3:22a; 4:3); Jesus baptizing (3:22b; 4:2) and the partial competition between John " s disciples and those of Jesus (3:26; 4). |
| 2795 Morris, Studies, 293–319; Nicholson, Death, 135. His overall stylistic simplicity could also be viewed as fitting some rhetorical practice before the Second Sophistic (see, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Isoc. 2, 3,12; Demosth. 5–6,18). 2796 Richardson, Theology, 287. 2797 Cf. Manson, Paul and John, 96–97,102–3. 2798 E.g., Ladd, Theology, 271; McPolin, John, 72. 2799 Painter, John, 100. «Believe» appears seventy-six times in John 1–12 , and twenty-two times in John 13–21 (Painter, John, 77). 2800 Ladd, Theology, 271. 2801 Painter, John, 77. 2802 Jeremias, Theology, 160, arguing that the Synoptics betray little tampering. 2803 As is widely agreed, e.g., Schnackenburg, John, 1:558–75; Filson, «Life,» 112. 2804 Ladd, Theology, 271–72. 2805 Ibid., 272. 2806 Because the gardener knows (γινσκων) he can help the man believe (8.1). 2807 Inscriptions demonstrate the use of faith language in patronal relationships; see, e.g., Seneca Benef. 3.14.2; Marshall, Enmity, 21–24; DeSilva, Honor, 115–16,145; idem, «Patronage,» 768 (following Danker, Benefactor). 2808 E.g., Ovid Metam. 3.513–518. To disbelieve (πιστων) is to act unjustly (δικσεις, Philostratus Hrk. 17.1). 2809 E.g., b. B. Bat. 75a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5. 2810 Jonge, Jesus, 52. On unbelief in John, cf. Brandie, «Vida.» 2811 Cf. Pesiq. Rab. 32:3/4, where God judged a man who believed only because he saw. 2812 The terms are from Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 72. Koester, «Hearing,» distinguishes those who «hear» about Jesus and proceed to true faith, from those who «see» Jesus and do not (the categories are not airtight). 2813 This need not imply that the confessions of faith progress from lesser to greater, though 20is certainly climactic (cf. Baron, «Progression»). 2814 Painter, John, 77. 2815 On the sense of the Hebrew term (whose semantic range was extensive), cf. Bromiley, «Faith» 270; Michel, «Faith,» 595–97; Jepsen, «» 2816 Brown, John, 2:620. 2817 Coetzee,«Life,»51. 2818 Elsewhere in the nt at 2Cor 9:9 ; Heb 7:24; 1Pet 1:25 . Cf. Sophocles Ant 456–457, where the divine unwritten laws «live forever.» |
|
|
