| My own conclusions are similar to Morris " s (with the special exception of the Passion Narratives). Although my predisposition is more favorable toward the material than that of many scholars to begin with, most of my early work in John involved John " s theology and literary unity, whereas historical tradition in the Gospel seemed to me an untestable matter that was largely irrelevant to the Gospel " s meaning in any case. Despite the interest of my doctoral mentor, D. Moody Smith, in the question of John and the Synoptics, I had not pursued that question in any detail until examining some parallel pericopes in the early stages of preparing this commentary, an examination undertaken merely in an effort to be somewhat thorough. What surprised me was that, where John could be tested against the Synoptics, he recounted earlier traditions in the same basic idiom in which he covered ground otherwise unfamiliar to us. While current historical methods cannot locate John precisely on the continuum of historical reliability, they can demonstrate that, where we can test him, John is both historian and theologian. The focal point of our study must be his theology, but he presupposes the Jewish salvation-historical perspective in which God reveals his character (hence true theology) by his acts in history. Indeed, John " s Palestinian cast and his topographical accuracy–verifiable after 70 only by excavations in the twentieth century–lend a greater degree of credibility to John " s witness in certain regards. 423 He updates some language (such as «Pharisees»; see comment on 1:19,24) but also preserves early traditions (see comment on 7:37–39). Like other ancient writers, John could select and shape events without fabricating them; 424 as in the Jewish exodus tradition upon which he depends, the theological value of the «signs» he reports depend on their historical validity, and his «witness» is valueless if taken any other way (19:35, 20:26–31). Raymond Brown summarizes a challenge to the old consensus: |
| 3721 Kuyper, «Grace,» 14; Pancaro, Law, 541. For a distribution of αλθεια by writer (25 times in John, 20 in Johannine Epistles, 47 in Paul, 1 in Matthew, 3 in Mark, 3 in Luke, etc., and distribution of the adjectival cognate), see Morris, John, 294. 3724 See above. That the Baptist " s voice ends in 1is clear, but Origen Comm. Jo. 6.13 thought it ended in 1(in contrast to Heracleon, who ends it in 1:17). 3725 That John implies temporal precedence (i.e., the Logos " s preexistence) is evident from the context; see Stuart, «Examination,» 318; Hoskyns, Gospel, 151 (contrasting Matt. 3:11); Dodd, Tradition, 272. The logic here resembles the rhetorical form called an νθμημα (enthymeme; see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 44; Vinson, «Enthymemes,» 119). 3729 Fulness of a virtue can mean its epitome ( Sir 1:16 ). Gnostics viewed the Pleroma as the sum of the aeons (Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1; 1.5; cf. Prayer of the Apostle Paul in NHL, 28; Gospel of Truth in NHL, 37); but against the gnostic interpretation of Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 228, cf. Harris, «Origin,» 417–18 (Colossians, John, and gnosticism drew the word from wisdom motifs; cf. Sir 2:16; 35:14–15 ); Overfield, «Pleroma.» Few current commentators find gnosticism here (Schnackenburg, John, 1:275; Sandmel, Judaism, 474 n. 5). See comment on «full» in 1:14. 3730 Against ÓNeill, «Prologue,» 44–45, who thinks that the last phrase of v. 16 and the whole of v. 17 «form a long interpolation,» but admits that no textual evidence supports his hypothesis. Michael, «Prologue,» 278, likewise suggests an accidental change from an original χριν ντ νμου without any textual evidence. 3732 See DeSilva, Honor, 104–5, 116 (citing esp. Sophocles Ajax 522; Seneca Benef. 2.35.1), though not on this passage. Ancients would associate «grace» with patronal generosity or benevolence (DeSilva, Honor, 104–5, citing esp. Aristotle Rhet. 2.7.1, 1385al6–20; idem, «Patronage,» 768; following Danker, Benefactor). 3733 MacGregor, John, 20, citing Philo Posterity 145; Stevens, Theology, 96; Edwards, «Grace»; Brown, John, 1:16; Moloney, Belief, 46–47; cf. Westcott, John, 14 (citing the thought of m. " Abot4:5); Stuart, «Examination,» 321; note Jeremias, Message, 85; Haenchen, John, 1:120. |
| The scourging is independently attested by John and the Synoptics, although the sequence differs. 9967 Because John " s scourging occurs earlier in the narrativés sequence, some scholars argue that John represents a lesser form of scourging than the form that took place in the Synoptics, perhaps as an inquisition rather than the first stage of execution. 9968 John " s readers might indeed draw this conclusion, but it is likely that whatever the nuances in the various Gospel writers» reports, the same historical event stands behind them; and the distinctions may well have eluded the Gospel writers» original audiences anyway. 9969 Accustomed to thinking of the scourging as they probably had heard it in other forms of the passion narrative, or simply from what they expected of public beatings before executions, they would recognize its severity. Jesus» abuse fits the criterion of embarrassment; public beatings produced shame as well as physical pain. 9970 Given abundant ancient attestation for the abuse of prisoners coupled with the known tendency of humans to abuse power, the account is not implausible. 9971 Multiple attestation further supports the tradition of Jesus» abuse; not only John and the Synoptics but also Paul seems aware of the tradition of Jesus» abuse ( Rom 15:3 , citing Ps 69:9 ). 9972 John " s sequence is different, 9973 but an audience familiar with the tradition of Jesus» final week would have anticipated resequencing from John " s temple-cleansing scene forward. John may include the beating here so he can retain as his climax the Jewish leaders» demands for Jesus» execution. 2B. The Mocking (19:2–3) The ridicule of Jesus as «king of the Jews» (19:3) reinforces a title this narrative ironically grants Jesus through the mouth ofhis pagan enemies (18:33; 19:14,19); 9974 for John, it is not the high priest alone who can unwittingly prophesy (11:51). Even after Jesus» flogging (19:1), physical abuse continues as part of the mockery: that the soldiers «gave» Jesus «blows» (19:3) connects them with Jesus» Jewish captors (18:22), reminding the reader that Jesus faced rejection from both his own nation and the larger «world» (1:10–11). 9975 The imperfect verb δδοσαν probably suggests repeated blows. 9976 |
| 6615 Rius-Camps, «Origen»; Gourgues, «Mots»; Romaniuk, «Jezus.» 6616 Cf. the vast rabbinic literature collected around the Mishnah tractate Sota. See further Keener, «Adultery,» 7–10. 6617 Ilan, Women, 159–62; cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 178 η. 94, 221. Abrahams, Studies, 1:73, rightly objects that Jewish courts lacked capital jurisdiction in this period; but one suspects that if these «executions» occurred, they were carried out without Romés knowledge and probably without its interest. 6618 Abrahams, Studies, 1:73; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:230; Morris, John, 885. 6619 Morris, John, 885, suggesting that they were all guilty. If her husband was away long enough to allow her to conceive and bear a child by another, sages probably would have allowed her to divorce long before the point of unfaithfulness. 6620 Pace Watson, «Jesus and Adulteress.» This proposal may also misinterpret Jesus» teaching on divorce (Keener, Marries, 21–49). 6621 Maccini, Testimony, 235. 6622 See ÓDay, «John,» 630. 6623 From the Mishnah one might gather that this woman is betrothed rather than married, because they cite stoning as the penalty (m. Sanh. 7:4; 11:1; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:280), but those rules are probably later than this case (MacGregor, John, 212; Barrett, John, 591). 6624 Barrett, John, 591–92; Hunter, John, 200; Witherington, Women, 22. 6625 Cf. Schnackenburg, John, 2:165. 6626 Silencing proud interlocutors was good rhetorical form (e.g., Aulus Gellius 1.2.13; 18.13.7–8; b. B. Bat. 115b), though it sometimes generated lingering enmity (e.g., Philostratus Hrk. 33.8–9). 6627 One could write in the sand when not permitted to speak (Antigonus 18 in Plutarch Sayings of Kings and Commanders, Mor. 183A), but that principle is not applicable here. One was not permitted to write on a sabbath, including the last day of Tabernacles (7:37; Whitacre, John, 206–7, noting comments of Κ. E. Bailey), but if this is an interpolation, we do not know its original setting– nor would it tell us what Jesus wrote or why the accusers reacted with perplexity. |
| 5876 L.A.E. 51:1–2; 2 En. 33:1–2 J; Mek. Šabb. 1.38ff.; cf. T. Ab. 19:7A; 7:16B; Barn. 15.8; Bacchiocchi, «Typologies»; Johnston, «Sabbath»; perhaps (but probably not) Jub. 50:9. Some commentators cite this tradition here (Hunter, John, 56; Pancaro, Law, 508). 5877 This need not narrow down John " s audience; not only Palestinian but much of Diaspora Judaism seems to have accepted future eschatology (e.g., in Rome, CIJ Lcxxxix). 5878 E.g., 1 En. 103:4; probably Pss. So1. 3:12; see further Osborne, «Resurrection,» 931–33. Later rabbis provided exegetical defenses (e.g., Sipre Deut. 329.2.1; b. Pesah. 68a; Sanh. 90b); 2 Bar. 30places the resurrection at the Messiah " s coming, but the wording may suggest Christian influence. Even Philo affirmed future eschatology in terms of Israel " s restoration (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 86, cites Philo Rewards 162–172). 5879 See Michaels, John, 75; Smith, John (1999), 138; Ridderbos, John, 199 (rightly questioning the interpolation view that denies any futurist eschatology in John). 5880 Cf. Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 20:15/18 for God " s dead-reviving thunder at Sinai, and the earlier references cited by the commentators there. In Deut 4:33; 5:24,26 , Israel «lived» even though it heard God " s voice–at the giving of Torah. It is not clear whether John merely reflects such language unconsciously or whether he might engage in an implicit midrash; but the voice of the Lord also raises the dead in 1 Thess 4:16, a passage heavily imbued with Jesus tradition (see Marshall, Thessalonians, 130). 5881 Cf. Sanders, John, 168–69; Fenton, John, 72. 5882 By itself the phrase could imply simply being alive (animals have «in themselves» the breath of «life " –Gen 1LXX), but this is hardly what is meant here. 5883 Sib. Or. 1.20; 3.12; cf. Apoc. Ab. 17(«self-originate,» OTP 1:697); Sib. Or. 3.33 («the existing God,» τν εντα θεν). Also the Christian material in Sib. Or. 8.428 (ατογενητος) and Sent. Sext. 26 (self-moving). 5884 E.g., PGM 1.342–343 calls Apollo (1.298) the «elder-born, self-generating god» (Betz, Papyri, 12); 13.62; Boring et a1., Commentary, 240, cites Iamblichus On the Mysteries 8.2. The «great god» brought himself into being (Book of the Dead spell 17a, part S-2; see further Currid, Ancient Egypt, 36, 99–100). Cf. God " s self-existence in some African traditional religions (Mbiti, Religions, 42–43). |
| Dodd regards the vision of God as Greek, contending that the motif has little importance in the OT and Judaism. 2147 He is partly right: Johns language in this case reflects Greek motifs, albeit especially by way of hellenized Judaism. But on another level, the Greek motif is insufficient by itself to explain Johns usage, expecially given his biblical allusions (e.g., 12:40). John never means abstract contemplation of a metaphysical reality; 2148 if anything, the frequency with which he employs vision on the literal level suggests encounter with the incarnate Jesus of history. 2149 Although John does not draw the vision analogy explicitly, his comparison of Jesus with Moses» serpent in John 3may identify faith in the historical Jesus with God " s promise: «Whoever looks will live» ( Num 21:8–9 ). Further, the motif of spiritual sight and blindness in the Jesus tradition (e.g., Mark 4:12; 8:18 ; Matt 13:13–16; 15:14; 23:16; cf. Acts 28:27; Eph 4:18 ) was rooted in the OT images. 2150 The motifs of eschatological vision, 2151 spiritual blindness and sight representing straying from or following God " s way, 2152 and spiritual sight representing spiritual insight into God " s character and mysteries, 2153 persisted in «intertestamental» Palestinian Judaism. Most strands of Judaism continued to apply this language, 2154 often even to revelations of God himself. The rabbis had to explain biblical passages referring to Israel seeing God; 2155 they commented on the rare persons who in some sense «beheld» his presence in the present time 2156 but especially focused on the eschatological vision of God. 2157 According to some later rabbis, obedience to the Law produced nearness to, and in some sense vision of, God; 2158 Merkabah literature stressed the mystical vision of God. 2159 John may use the imagery of heavenly ascents (cf. comment on 3:3, 13; cf. Rev 1:10), but usually he uses the term more figuratively: spiritual perception of the true character of Jesus and the realm «above,» insight which enabled an intimate relationship with (not merely a mystical experience of) God. Given John " s predominantly realized eschatology, it is also possible that he implies a realization of the eschatological vision of God in Jesus (cf. 3:3, 36; 8:51, 56; 12:41; Heb 11:13; 12:14; 1 John 3:2 ; Rev 1:7). 2160 4. Vision of God in the Fourth Gospel |
| 8851 If later tradition is relevant, the vinés usefulness in a sukkah was quite limited (cf. b. Sukkah 11a, 22b). 8852 Cadman, Heaven, 175. More pervasive are connections with the «branch»; see, e.g., Isa 11:1; cf. Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5; 33:15 ; Zech 3:8; 6:12; 1QH 6.15; 7.19; 8.6,8,10; 4Q174,3.12; cf. T. Jud. 24:4, if not an interpolation. 8854 Painter, John, 48; Feuillet, Studies, 88–89; Culpepper, John, 214; Wisdom is identified with the law in 24:23. 8855 Samian Hera had a vine branch in her hair (Callimachus Aetia 4.101; the Diegesis associates this with her conflicts with Dionysus). Perhaps Philo allegorized Ganymede, Zeus " s wine pourer, as God " s forth-flowing Logos (Dillon, «Ganymede»; idem, «Logos»). 8856 Diodorus Siculus 1.15.8, who also reports, however, that the Egyptians (who link him with Osiris) believe that he prefers ivy (Diodorus Siculus 1.17.5). 8861 Caragounis, «Vineyard,» argues that μπελος became «vineyard» and κλματα «vines» in pre-Christian Koine. Given the description of pruning, «vine» is a better translation in John 15 than «vineyard,» but the semantic overlap illustrates the importance of both vine and vineyard data. 8862 On the Qumran interpretation of Isa 5:1–7, see 4Q500, in Baumgarten, «Vineyard.» The vine image is also consistent with the Jesus tradition " s use of «fruit»; see comment below. 8863 E.g., Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 80.1.2 (citing Jer 2and Isa 5:4); Köstenberger, John, 159; Strachan, Gospel, 176; Hunter, Message, 78; idem, John, 148; Barrett, «Old Testament,» 164; idem, John, 472; Hoskyns, Gospel, 474; Sanders, John, 337; Richardson, Israel, 187; Fenton, John, 158; Morris, John, 668; van der Waal, «Gospel,» 36; Hickling, «Attitudes,» 353; Ellis, Genius, 225; Painter, John, 48; Carson, Discourse, 91. 8864 E.g., 3 Bar. 1:2; Exod. Rab. 30:17; 34:3; SongRab. 2:16, §1; 7:13, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:9. Some texts explicitly conjoin this image with God " s flock as well (e.g., Mek. Pisha 1.162; Sipre Deut. 15.1.1; cf. John 10:1 ). |
| 7318 Thus «voice» here refers not to the «tone» as opposed to the «contents» (the word; Lenski, John, 753), but to covenant language (Betz, «φων,» 278). 7321 On prophetic inspiration in early Judaism, see Keener, Spirit, 10–26 and sources cited there; on the heavenly voice, see comment on 12:28. 7322 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:4; Pesiq. Rab. 3:3. God " s voice sounded gentle to Adam before his sin but harsh afterward (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3; Pesiq. Rab. 15:3). God " s voice sometimes appears as a surrogate for God (T. Ab. 14–16; 20:13A; Rev 1:12), which some have even regarded as hypostatic (Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 128–30; idem, «Voice»; but on Rev 1:12, cf. Exod 20:18). 7324 Robinson, «Parable,» 235; Dschulnigg, «Hirt.» Käsemann, Testament, 40, opines that John regarded the church as «exclusively … the community under the Word,» those who embrace Jesus» message. 7326 At least in 5:37; 6:45; 8:47, as Jesus hears the Father (5:30; 8:26, 40; 15:15; cf. 8:38) and the Spirit hears him (16:13). Hearing Jesus is hearing the Father (e.g., 14:24). 7327 Cf. Philós acceptance of the Greek view that God speaks inside rather than to humans (Amir, «Philo»). 7329 Cf. conceptions of innate law (Plutarch Uned. R. 3, Mor. 780C; Apuleius Metam. 3.8), the related idea of innate virtue (Philo Abraham 5–6), innate knowledge (Plato Phaedo 75CD, 76A; Cicero Topica 7.31), and innate knowledge of God (Cicero Leg. 1.22.58–59; Dio Chrysostom Or. 12, Olympic Discourse, §§27–28). 7331 Even in the forests of Corsica, grazing sheep would flee from strangers but gather when their shepherd signaled (Polybius 12.4.2–4). 7332 Longus 1.27. Yet presumably in Johannine theology, even an impostor remains identifiable by his voice (Rev 13:11). 7335 Herdsmen might also use caves in times of emergency, like heavy winter snows (Babrius 45.2–3). 7344 Cf. also Whitacre, John, 255. We base this on the textual contrast; in the culture itself, shepherds were frequently employed by others (MacMullen, Relations, 3; e.g., Polybius 9.17.6). |
| 5724 Manns, «Fête.» 5725 Bruce, Documents, 49; cf. Fenton, John, 67. On rabbinic development of that feast, see, e.g., Adler, «Rosh Hashanah.» 5726 Jub. 16:27; m. Git. 3:8; b. B. Mesi c a 28a (Tannaitic attribution); Sukkah 33b; Pesah. 34b (in 36a it is Pesach, but this is clear from the context); p. Git. 3:8, §4; Gen. Rab. 6:5, 35:3; Safrai, «Temple,» 894. Tabernacles was one of the most prominent feasts (Josephus Ant. 8.100). 5727 Brown, John, 1:206; cf. Yee, «Sabbath.» If John added the Sabbath to the original story (Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:681), the emphasis becomes all the clearer. 5728 See Yee, Feasts, 46–47. 5729 On John " s topographic accuracy, see, e.g., Hunter, «Trends»; Dunn, «John,» 299. 5730 Perkins, «John,» 959. 5731 βραστ is a typically Johannine way of citing Hebrew (5:2; 19:13,17,20; 20:16; Rev 9:11; 16:16; cf. John 1:38 ); Luke and Paul prefer βρας (Acts 6:1; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; 2Cor 11:22 ; Phil 3:5 ; cf. also 4 Macc 12:7; 16:15). 5732 On the probability of this reading, see Wieand, «Bethesda,» 394–95; Vardaman, «Bethesda,» 29; Cullmann, Worship, 84–85 n. 2; Finegan, Archeology, 143; Wolters, «Copper Scroll» (citing 3Q15 11.12). Cf. the site near the temple in Josephus War 2.328. For the meaning, related to «pools,» see Görg, «Beckenhausen.» 5733 Cf. similarly Selkin, «Exegesis,» 188–89. 5734 For problems with the St. Annés site (as well as other proposed sites), see Selkin, «Exegesis,» 175–79. 5735 Wieand, «Bethesda,» 396–97; Vardaman, «Bethesda,» 28; Cornfeld, Josephus, 338,364; Finegan, Archeology, 145. An allegorical connection between the sheep pool and Jesus» «sheep» (10:1) is unlikely, given the proximity of the pool to Bethesda; on the sheep pool, Finegan, Archeology, 142–43. 5736 Yamauchi, Stones, 104. The term κολυμβθρα suggests a deep pool (Bernard, John, 1:226). 5737 Vardaman, «Bethesda,» 28. The view of some (e.g., Bruns, Art, 65; Ellis, Genius, 88; more skillfully, Selkin, «Exegesis,» 196) that they symbolize the five books of the Law seems to allegorize unnecessarily, despite references to the Law later in the chapter. |
| Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, vol. 3 (tr. K.Smyth; New York: Crossroad, 1982) 375–388 [также изменение прежней точки зрения: The Gospel according to St. John, vol. 1 (tr. K.Smyth; London: Burns and Oates, 1968) chapter 5]; D.E.H.Whiteley, «Was John Written by a Sadducee?» in W. Haase, ed., Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rômischen Welt II.25.3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985) 2481–2505; G. R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC 36; Wacö Word, 1987) lxx-lxxv; M. Hengel, The Johannine Question (tr. J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1989) 76–80; idem, Die johanneische Frage (WUNT 67; Tübingen: Mohr, 1993) 210–219; J.W. Pryor, John: Evangelist of the Covenant People (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1992) 3; J.A.Grassi, The Secret Identity of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1992); R.A.Culpepper, John the Son of Zebedeë The Life of a Legend (Columbiä University of South Carolina Press, 1994) 84–85; B. Witherington, John " " s Wisdom (Louisvillë Westminster John Knox, 1995) 14–15. Так же считают и те, кто отождествляет Любимого Ученика с Лазарем: см. обзор трудов этих ученых у: J. Н. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciplë Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of (Valley Forgë Trinity, 1995) 185–192. 1036 Например, J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John (ed. J. F. Coakley; London: SCM, 1985) 93–122; D.A.Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 68–81; H. N. Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary (tr. J.Vriend; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 672–683 (он считает, что Иоанн, сын Зеведеев, в Евангелии сознательно скрыл свою личность); A.J. Kôstenberger, Encountering John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999) 22–25; C. L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of Johns Gospel (Downers Grovë InterVarsity, 2001) 22–41; CS. Keener, The Gospel of John, vol. 1 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003) 82–104; С. G. Kruse, John (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 24–30. Среди более старых трудов стоит обратить внимание на: B.F.Westcott, The Gospel according to St. |
|
|
