| That Jesus «manifested himself» to the disciples (21:1; this provides an inciusio with 21:14) is also Johannine language (1:31; 2:11; 3:21; 7:4; 9:3; 17:6) and, on a theological level, reflects the expectation in 14:21–23 of postresurrection encounters with Christ (albeit normally in the Spirit after the first encounter of 20:19–23). Jesus was, literally, «on the sea» (21:1); this is acceptable language for «beside the sea» ( Mark 4:1; 5:21 ; cf. John 21:4,9–10 ). It might recall Jesus» theophany on the sea (6:19; cf. Mark 6:47–49 ); but this is probably overexegesis (see 6:16). When John concludes the narrative by reminding the reader that this is the «third» time Jesus was revealed to the disciples (21:14), he includes in this count only the two appearances in the upper room (20:19–23,24–29). Like John " s other counts (2:1,11; 4:46, despite the plural «signs» in 3:2), however, his language may indicate only the third time in the narrative, not the third appearance altogether. 10857 That John 21 does not enumerate all the gospels» resurrection appearances but counts only those in this Gospel seems to me a further piece of evidence favoring Johannine authorship of this chapter. 10858 This passage reflects knowledge of the tradition that Peter and at least some of his colleagues (21:3)–here presumably the sons of Zebedee (21:2)–were fishermen, a tradition undoubtedly widely known in the early church (cf. Mark 1:16–20 ). 10859 It has often been argued as well that the passage reflects knowledge of the same tradition as appears in Luke 5:1–10; although the argument depends, to some degree, on the relative paucity of extant traditions available for our modern perusal, it is probably correct. Peter acts in character, taking the lead in 21(13:24; 18:10,15; cf. Mark 14:31, 37 ), as some students in ancient schools were known to do. 10860 He also displays for Jesus his physical prowess in 21and 21:11; this might appeal to heroic or masculine ideals in the ancient Mediterranean world–perhaps acceptable provided it was used to demonstrate loyalty to his Lord (as it was in 21:7, ll). 10861 This might also be in character; at least some ancient people viewed fishermen as «tough,» inured to the labors of their trade. 10862 |
| Some take 21:25 " s comments about many possible books as a reference to the proliferation of other gospels, possibly including one or more of the Synoptics. 10974 While this proposal is certainly possible (we know on other grounds that they did proliferate), 21can be explained easily enough without recourse to it. Epideictic biographies sometimes ended with summary praise; after recounting Alexander " s death, for example, Arrian eulogizes him, both praising him and excusing the faults Arrian has recorded. 10975 The concluding announcement that the writer has provided only a sample of the subject " s works was common in hyperbolic praise of onés subject. 10976 Although John " s Christology (cf. 1:1–3) may diminish the element of hyperbole here, 10977 the text probably speaks of Jesus» incarnate signs (cf. 20:30), not works in creation (1:3). Homer complains hyperbolically that no mortal could recount all the evils that the Achaian leaders suffered, then (slightly less hyperbolically) adds that five or six years would not be enough to recount their sufferings. 10978 Similarly, Diodorus Siculus (16.95.5) observes that it will be difficult, but promises to attempt to include Alexander " s entire career in one book (book 17). Philo points out that Genesis deals with creation but also with ten thousand other matters (Abraham l); 10979 he closes his final volume of Special Laws by noting that human longevity is inadequate to provide an exhaustive treatment of justice (Spec. Laws 4.238; cf. Moses 1.213; Dreams 2.63). Plutarch complains that it would require many books (βιβλων) to fully criticize all of Herodotus " s lies (Plutarch Malice of Herodotus 1, Mor. 854F); Lysias, that even all time would be inadequate for all humanity to declare all the exploits of Athens " s deceased war heroes (Lysias Or. 2.1, §190). 10980 Second Maccabees notes that many possible things could be said but the author abridges them for the sake of readability (2Macc 2:24–25). 10981 First Maccabees claims that the exploits of the Maccabees were simply too numerous to record them all (1Macc 9:22); some later rabbis declared that no one had tried to write all the teachings of the scribes because there would have been no end to the books needing to be written. |
| Peter certainly remains one of the most prominent disciples throughout the Fourth Gospel, as in the other gospels. Given the model for gospel genre found in Matthew and Luke, one most naturally expects report of a commission at the end of the Gospel (which could be and is, to a significant degree, fulfilled in 20but which could also be developed further). Even here Jesus is correcting as well as encouraging Peter (especially if the three questions recall the three denials, 13:38). 10931 The passage is consistent with, but develops, the role of Peter found earlier in the Gospe1. It also may provide a model for other church leaders (cf. 1Pet 5:1–2 ). 2. The Demand of Love Loving Jesus demands fulfilling his commands (14:15), particularly the command to love one another as Jesus did (13:34); in Peter " s case, this general call includes a specific command to care for Jesus» sheep, for whom Jesus cares. The appointed undershepherds of the old covenant scattered when they saw a wolf coming (10:12–13), but Peter was to care for the sheep as Jesus did, ultimately to the point of offering his life (21:18–19, 22), as he had once promised he would (13:36–37). As noted above, Peter is given three opportunities to affirm his love for Jesus (21:15–17)–possibly three in number to balance Peter " s three denials (13:38). Peter was «grieved» by the Lord " s questions (21:17)–a strong term John elsewhere uses of the disciples» sorrow over Jesus» death (16:20). He still felt loyalty for Jesus; but Jesus demands a love that is demonstrated by obedience (14:15), which Peter " s recent behavior failed to demonstrate (18:25–27). Peter is certain that he remains faithful to Jesus–despite his recent lapse in such readily promised fidelity (13:37–38)–and that Jesus must know this, for he knows «all things» (21:17; cf. 16:30; 18:4). That Jesus» knowledge has already led him to refuse to trust untrustworthy believers (2:23–25) might lead the first-time reader– and perhaps Peter–to doubt whether Peter will do any better on this commitment than he did in his first assurance that he would die for Jesus (13:37). Yet Jesus was merely testing and confirming him, for, as Jesus accurately predicted Peter " s betrayal (13:38), he also predicts here that Peter will eventually die for Jesus (21:18). |
| Plate 55 Icon of the myrrh-bearing women at the tomb. By Eileen McGuckin. The Icon Studio: www.sgtt.org the New Testament the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, based on apostolic memories and oral traditions, vary widely in detail. However, the fact and centrality of the resurrection constitute the bedrock of the Christian faith, attested by more than five hundred eyewitnesses ( 1Cor. 15.5–8 ). The gospels indicate that Jesus anticipated his death as blood covenant renewal and viewed his resurrection as God’s vindication of his ministry (e.g., Mk. 8.27–31; 14.22–5, 36, 61–2 ; cf. Acts 3.13–15). Matthew, Luke, and John link Jesus’ resurrection with the gift of the Spirit and the inauguration of the early Christian mission ( Mt. 28.16–20 ; Lk. 24.44–9 ; Jn. 20.19–23 ; cf. Acts 2.32–3). The Gospel ofJohn magnificently integrates the life, death, resurrection, and enthronement of the Son of God as the mutual glorification between the Father and the Son, marking the decisive victory over the power of death and the gift of abundant life through the Spirit, available to believers in the present as well as the future ( Jn. 1.14 ; 5 .24–9; 7.37–9; 12.30–1; 14.15–24; 17.1–5). In this similar rich vein, the Apostle Paul provides the most detailed theological explication of the death and resurrection of the incarnate Son ( Gal. 4.4–6 ; Rom. 1.1–4 ) and Lord of glory ( 1Cor. 2.8; 15.1–4 ). For Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ mark the cosmic shift from the old age of sin, corruption, and death to the new era of grace, life, incorruption, and transformed bodily immortality ( Rom. 3.21–6; 5.12–21; 8.18–39 ; 1Cor. 15.50–7 ). In Paul, as in John, God’s powers of salvation are at work both now and in the future in those who are united with Christ through faith and baptism, and who enact the pattern of Jesus’ death and resurrection by crucifying their sinful passions and offering themselves as living sacrifice to God ( Rom. 6.1–23; 8.9–13; 10.9–13; 12.1–2 ; 2Cor. 4.7–18 ; Gal. 3.16–24 ). |
| Most scholars today acknowledge the weakness of the stylistic argument against authenticity. D. Moody Smith regards the chapter as «unquestionably a later addition, whether by the original author or a later hand»; 10810 nevertheless he acknowledges that it does not show «a divergent style or vocabulary,» that it remains debated whether the theological perspective differs from the rest of the Gospel, and therefore that it may stem from within the community. 10811 Margaret Davies thinks that this chapter was added after the completion of the body of the Gospel, but notes that this view is not clear on stylistic grounds; the style and most of the vocabulary and themes fit the rest of the Gospe1. 10812 «Whether by the same author or another,» she concludes, John 21 «provides a fitting conclusion.» 10813 Fuller admits, «There is nothing in the style of John 21 to suggest a different hand,» but he doubts that it derives from the same author as the rest of the Gospel, because John does not prepare the reader for this section with cross-references, as he has prepared the reader for other sections. 10814 But the many connections between John 21 and the rest of the Gospel (see commentary below) call into question Fuller " s approach. The Gospel provides few explicit announcements of narratives in the Gospel apart from ch. 20 (e.g., about a chapter on eating Jesus» flesh, John 6 ); but similar themes connect the material, and ch. 21 is no exception. As even Bultmann admits, no manuscript evidence, vocabulary, or stylistic evidence shows that the chapter is secondary; further, it is not clear that the thematic conclusion of 20:30–31 must close the Gospel, and one could argue that John 2 l " s ecclesial focus is a necessary supplement to the conclusions of John 20 . 10815 Some use the repetition of the colophon in 21:30–31 and 21:24–25 to suggest that this is a later appendix. 10816 But the inclusio could constitute a mark of original literary composition as easily as one of redaction (cf. 1:1,18; 20:28; Matt 5:3,10; Luke 15:24, 32). |
| The anticlimactic character of the chapter cannot count against authenticity if the style does not. Granted, John 20 may be «a complète presentation» of the resurrection appearances, 10817 but John 2l " s focus is not confirming the resurrection but tying up the Gospel " s loose ends concerning the continuing call of the church (cf. 20:21–23). Some complain that the author of ch. 21 «could manage the Johannine style reasonably well» but his interests lie «outside the main scope of the Gospel»; 10818 unless one thinks of the author " s interest in fishing, however, this objection is debatable. The matter of call has been stressed throughout the Gospel, and images such as sheep, spiritual food, demonstrating love by obedience, and the witness of the beloved disciple hardly appear here for this first time. John 21 provides a different kind of closure than the conclusion of 20:30–31, showing that the story will continue after the Gospel " s completion. 10819 This ending is anticlimactic, but other works could close the main body of the work yet include a substantial epilogue. 10820 Indeed, 1 John continues seven verses after its conclusion in 1 John 5:13 . 10821 Whitacre, who thinks this chapter may be «the intended conclusion and not an epilogue,» also points to other «summary conclusions» appearing «before the actual end of the material» in Johannine texts (12:36–37; Rev 22:5). 10822 Most significantly, the most widely read work in the Greek East was the Iliad, which would therefore provide a standard literary mode1. 10823 Yet the closing book of the Iliad (book 24), recounting Priam " s rescue of Hector " s body, is completely anticlimactic to the action of the plot; its importance is for characterization, not for action. To reject as secondary any endings that are anticlimactic is to ignore the primary literary model of Mediterranean antiquity. 10824 Ancient editors sometimes did add endings that spoiled a book " s cohesive unity, but when we have clear examples, they are clear because they reverse the author " s views. |
| The various resurrection narratives vary considerably in length, focus, and detai1. If Q included a resurrection narrative (a thesis that would probably be greeted with skepticism, since most of it is held to be sayings, but for which we lack concrete evidence either way), most of the Gospel writers treated it as one among many; given the many witnesses of the risen Christ ( 1Cor 15:6 ), it is hardly surprising that numerous accounts would exist and different Gospel writers would draw on different accounts. The four gospels differ in detail, but in all four the women become the first witnesses, and Mary Magdalene is explicitly named as one witness among them (also Gos. Pet. 12:50–13:57). 10388 The variation in length of the Gospels» resurrection narratives (Luke 24 is long though recapitulated briefly in Acts 1; Mark 16:1–8 and Matt 28 are quite brief; John includes both Judean and Galilean appearances) may represent the desire to make optimum use of the scroll length instead of leaving a blank space at the end (as sometimes happened, Diogenes Laertius 6.2.38). Josephus seems once caught unexpectedly by the end of his scroll (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.320); Matthew, approaching the length limit of his standardized scroll (see introduction, p. 7), may hasten to his conclusion; Luke may have sufficient space remaining to provide further detail before his closing. John " s «second» conclusion (ch. 21) fits the Gospel if John employed a scroll of standardized length, but by early in ch. 20 it would be clear to either the Fourth Gospel " s author or a later disciple how much space would remain at ch. 20 " s completion. 2. Pagan Origins for the Christian Resurrection Doctrine? Supposed pagan parallels to the resurrection stories are weak; Aune even declares that «no parallel to them is found in Graeco-Roman biography.» 10389 Whether any «parallels» exist depends on what we mean by a «parallel»; but plainly none of the alleged parallels involves a resurrected person, probably in part because resurrection in its strict sense was an almost exclusively Jewish belief. Most pagans would have preferred to play down a savior " s human death (cf. Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 7.14). 10390 Ancients commonly reported apparitions of deceased persons (e.g., Apuleius Metam. 8.8; 9.31; " Abot R. Nat. 40A) 10391 or deities, and hence occasionally those of persons who had become immortal (e.g., Plutarch " s reports of Romulus more than half a millennium earlier), 10392 but these are not resurrection appearances. |
| 12 Tertullianus. De praescriptione haereticorum , XIX, 3. [Русский перевод А. А. Столярова. Общ. ред. и сост. А. А. Столярова: Тертуллиан. О прескрипции [против] еретиков Избранные сочинения. — М.: Прогресс-Культура, 1994. — С. 114). 13 Cf. E. Flesseman-van-Leer . Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church . — Assen, 1954. — P. 145—185; Damien van den Eynde. Les Normes de l " Enseignment Chrétien dans la littérature patristique des trois premiers siècles . — Gembloux-Paris, 1933. — P. 197—212; J. K. Stirniman. Die Praescriptio Tertullians im Lichte des römischen Rechts und der Theologie . — Freiburg, 1949; а также введение и примечания Р.Ф. Рёфуле (R. F. Refoulé) в издании De praescriptione haereticorum, in: «Sources Chrétiennes», 46. — Paris, 1957. 14 Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Ibid . I. 8, 1. 15 Центон (от лат . cento, centonis — платье из разноцветных лоскутов; от греч . %Г [к?%Г [ntrwn, %Г [к?%Г [ntwn) — стихотворное или прозаическое произведение, составленное из строк разных произведений. Здесь, произведения, составленные из стихов Гомера (гомероцентоны). — Прим. перев. 16 В первой публикации статьи (The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church, in: The Greek Orthodox Theological Review. — Vol. IX. Winter, 1963. — P. 181—200.) в этом месте сноска на энциклопедическую статью о центонах: Cf. Crusius. s.v. «Centones», in: Pauly-Wissowa R.E. — Bd. III. — 1899. s. 1929—1932. — Прим. перев . 17 Op. cit . I. 9, 4. 18 Tertullianus. Op. cit . XXXIX. [Там же. С. 126). 19 Corpusculum veritatis ( лат .) — «тельце истины» . — Прим. перев. 20 Деминутив (от лат . deminutus — уменьшенный). Существительные с общим словообразовательным значением «уменьшительность». Основные способы словообразования — аффиксальный и безаффиксный. %Г [Swm?%Г [tion ( греч .) — деминутив от существительного %Г [s?%Г [ma. %Г [S?%Г [ma — тело как нечто воспринимаемое; противоположность другому древнегреческому слову %Г [s?%Г [r_ks — плоть как нечто воспринимающее). — Прим. перев. 21 Corpus ( лат. ) — тело, как материальная субстанция (прот. anima, animus ). — Прим. перев. |
| The same Prophet Hosea, proclaiming the name of God and addressing the chosen people, says: “for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee” (Hosea 11:9). God defines Himself as such, which means that holiness is one of the most important definitions of God (Cf., Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:3, 7, 26; 21:8; 22:2, 32. Jesus of Navi [Joshua] 24:15, 19. 1 Kings Samuel] 2:2, 10; 6:20; 2 Kings Samuel] 22:7; 4 Kings Kings] 19:22. 1 Paralipomena Chronicles] 16:10, 27, 35; 29:16. 2 Paralipomena Chronicles] 6:2; 30. 27. Tobit 3:11; 8:5, 15; 12:12, 15. Judith 9:13; Job 6:10; Psalms 2:6; 3:5; 5:8; 10 14 15 17 19 21 23 26 27 32 42 45 46 47 50 64 67 70 76 77 54; 78 88 97 98 5, 9; 101 102 104 42; 105 110 137 144 21; Proverbs 9:10; Wisdom of Solomon 1:5; 9:8, 10, 17; 10:20. Wisdom of Sirach 4:15; 17:8; 23:9–10; 43:11; 47:9, 12; 48:23. Esaias [Isaiah] 1:4; 5:16, 19, 24; 6:3; 8:13; 10:17, 20; 11:9; 12:6; 17:7; 29:19, 23; 30:11–12, 15; 31:1; 37:23; 40:25; 41:14, 16, 20; 43:3, 14–15; 45:11; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7; 52:19; 54:5; 55:5; 56:7; 57:13, 15; 58:13; 60:9, 14; 63:10–11; 65:11, 25; 66:20. Jeremias [Jeremiah] 23:9; 31:23; 50:29; 51:5. Baruch 2:16; 4:22, 37; 5:5; 20:39–40; 28: 14; 36:20–22; 39:7, 25. Ezekiel 43:7–8; Daniel 3:52–53; 4:5–6, 10, 14–15, 20; 5:11; 9:16, 20, 24. Joel 2:1; 3:17; Amos 2:7. Abidias 1:16. Jonas 2:5, 8; Michaias [Micah] 1:2; Abbacum [Habbakuk] 1:12; 2:20; 3:3; Sophonias [Zephaniah] 3: 11–12; Zacharias [Zechariah] 2:13; 2 Maccabees 8:15; 14:36; 15:32; 3 Maccabees 2:2, 11, 16; 5:8; 6:1–2, 4, 17, 26; 7:8; 2 Esdras 14:22; Matthew 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:32; 28:19. Mark 1:8, 24, 29; 12:36; 13:11; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 49, 67, 72; 2:25–26; 3:16, 22; 4: 1, 34; 11:13; 12:10, 12. John 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 17:11; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33, 38; 3:14; 4:8, 25, 27, 30–31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17–19, 39; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44–45, 47; 11:15–16, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 35, 52; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25. 1 Peter 1:12, 15–16; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 John 2:20; 5:7. Jude 1:20; Romans 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 3:17; 6:19; 12:3; 2 Corinthians 6:6; 13:13. Ephesians 3:5; 4: 30; 1 Thessalonians 1:5–6; 4:8; 2 Timothy 1:14; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 3:7; 6: 4; 9:8, 14; 10: 15; Revelation 3:7; 4:8; 6:10; 15:3–4; 16:5). |
| That’s why we can say that every icon is miraculous, above all witnessing to the true miracle–the miracle of the possibility of man communing with God. Q. One of the most amazing Orthodox miracles is the incorrupt relics of the Saints. What are holy relics? When did the veneration of icons arise? Do we know whose relics were the first to be venerated? A. As we already said, Christianity highly values human nature. Clear proof of this is the tradition of venerating the holy relics of Saints. The holy Fathers point out that the main reason for the veneration of holy relics in the Church of Christ is the Incarnation. The Son of God, having assumed human nature in all its fullness in the Incarnation, excluding sin, shows thereby its importance and dignity. The holy Apostle Paul calls upon Christians to glorify God not only in soul, but in our bodies, which are also God’s creation and the temple of the Holy Spirit (cf., 1 Corinthians 6:19-20), and therefore even death is incapable of depriving man of this prerogative. Saint John of Damascus, speaking about the veneration of holy relics, writes, “The Lord Christ gave us saving sources: the relics of Saints, pouring out diverse blessings, exuding the sweet smell of myrrh…Under the Law, anyone coming into contact with the dead becomes unclean (cf., Numbers 19:11); but they are not dead. For since that time that He Who is Life itself, the Reason for Life, was numbered among the dead, we don’t call dead those who have reposed in the hope or resurrection and with faith in Him…Through holy relics, demons are repelled, the infirm are healed, the blind see the light, lepers are cleansed, temptations and woes cease, and every good and perfect gift descends from above, from the Father of Lights (St. James 1:17) through them for those who ask with undoubting faith. Regarding the practice of venerating holy relics, we should note that in the Old Testament there is already mention of the miraculous remains old departed Saints. 4 Kings speak about how touching the bones of the Prophet Elisha revived the dead (cf. 4 Kings 13:21). |
|
|
