| Like the Baptist and all other witnesses, she must now decrease so Christ the object of faith may increase (cf. 3:30). 5604 This narrative fits a pattern that includes women " s testimony and faith (2:3–5; 11:27; 12:8; 20:18) and may suggest that John, like Paul ( Rom 16:1–7,12 ; Phil 4:2–3 ), 5605 affirmed the value of women " s testimony to Christ (cf. perhaps further 4:36–37), as much as that affirmation would have run against the grain of parts of their culture. 5606 Some doubt that John is interested in paradigmatic roles for women disciples pro or con, his overriding interest being Christology. 5607 While John " s overriding interest is Christology, that Christology has implications for discipleship that do appear to transcend boundaries of gender in this Gospe1. Many other scholars think that John presents positively the model of women in discipleship or ministry (although a number of the studies are geared more toward application or apologetic concerns). 5608 Some suggest that they provide positive discipleship models but not to the same extent as apostles, the official witnesses; 5609 but this proposal appears to read non-Johannine categories into the Gospel, which nowhere speaks of apostles. The women disciples may, indeed, prove more faithful in their discipleship than «the Twelve» (6:70–71); cf. 16:32; 19:25–27. 9. Fulfilling His Mission (4:31–38) Into the midst of the account of the conversion of the Samaritans (4:28–30, 39) the text interjects a theological interpretation of how this conversion occurred in God " s purposes. Jesus» food, his very life, was to fulfill the Father " s will, a mission he then portrays as an urgent harvest (cf. Matt 9:37–38). Despite his physical weakness (4:6), reaching the Samaritans was more important to him than eating physical food. The disciples urged Jesus to eat, which ancient readers would have judged appropriate behavior for them. 5610 Many stories recounted protagonists who, for grief or other reasons, stubbornly refused to eat and had to be urged by those who cared about them; 5611 the stories probably depict something of the reality of ancient Mediterranean mourning. |
| It is difficult to demonstrate that writers of haggadic midrash would have always considered their writing inspired, but what is relevant is that John purports to report the postresurrection perspective of the Spirit and uses language implying that his work is a witness to divine revelation (20:30–31), perhaps analogous to the prophet-historians who were believed to have authored the OT narratives. If John " s emphasis on the Spirit " s enabling to speak may be compared with prophetic revelation, then it is also likely that his own text is to be understood as prophetically inspired. John may not have drawn the sort of distinction between prophetic and didactic genres we are more apt to draw today (cf. 6:45; 1Cor 14:31 ). But this ministry of the Spirit cannot be limited to the apostolic witness nor to the Fourth Gospel itself (cf. 1 John 2:20–27 ). The presence of the Spirit with them «forever» indicates that this exposition is expected to continue in the community, not to end with the death of the apostles; 8786 the Paraclete would equip the community to confront ever new situations posed by the hostile world " s charges. It is also possible that 14:27 " s promise of «peace» applies to the gift of the Spirit in a hostile world situation (cf. 20:19). Most important, ancients sometimes believed that a text or tradition that was divinely inspired might require divine inspiration to understand (Iamblichus V.P. 1.1; cf. 1Cor 2:12–16 ). Thus those who would misunderstand the Johannine tradition would be those lacking the genuine guidance of the Paraclete (1 John 2:20, 27; 4:2, 6). The Spirit is thus given to the community not only to keep them aware of the continuing presence of Jesus among them but to enable them to continually reapply the teaching of Jesus to ever new situations without becoming dependent upon a system of communal halakah. The Spirit thus was also equipping the Johannine community for the situation that lay before them, enabling them to witness in the context of grave opposition. Encouragement for the Disciples (14:27–31) |
| γινσκω When each passage is investigated, parallels between passages using different terms become obvious, and it becomes clear that the terms are used interchangeably. Allowing for stronger psychological nuances of one term or the other that never become hard-and-fast rules, and ignoring chapters and artificial conceptual divisions, preponderance of one term or the other in random areas (esp. ch. 9) shows that Johns variation was mostly random and unintentiona1. 3B. Johns Emphasis on Knowledge Although Hellenistic knowledge could involve virtue, the moral sensibility of knowledge as defined in terms of keeping the commandments is a particularly Jewish concept, and is recurrent in the Johannine literature, 2103 especially in 1 John. One knows that one knows him because one keeps his commandments (1 John 2:3; 3:6; 5:2, 18), that is, walks in love (3:14; 4:7–8,13; 5:2) rather than hatred (3:15), and adheres to the truth (4:6; 5:13). One lives this way by the indwelling Spirit (3:24; 4:13), and through Johns message (5:13), which his hearers know to be true (3 John 12). Because of the polemical context of the Fourth Gospel, however, the most essential prerequisite for true knowledge is believing the claims of Jesus (e.g., John 14:7,17 ), which is tantamount to believing the Father (e.g., John 7:28–29; 8:19 ). For John, as in the OT and Judaism, God " s historical self-revelation is the basis for knowing him, in acts such as his signs (e.g., 2:11) and in his whole self-revelation, especially in the cross (see comments on 1:14). For John, true faith in and knowledge of God cannot be separated from the historical Jesus (cf. 1 John 4:1–6 ), as the very narrative format he employs suggests. 2104 But those who abide in «the world» responded to, and continue to respond to, the Jesus of history wrongly, because they do not have the Spirit to guide them. Only the person born from above can «see» the kingdom of God (3:3, 5). Knowledge in the Fourth Gospel includes a covenant relationship ( 10:4,14–15), but this relationship is expressed in intimate communication from the Spirit of truth (see comments on 15:13–15; 16:13–15). This is part of John " s polemic: an establishment that prides itself on knowing the Law consistently misinterprets it, but the believers, who do not demonstrate an academic proficiency equal to that of their accusers, nevertheless demonstrate a more direct knowledge of God that none of their opponents even claim for themselves. Thus, Whitacre notes that Jesus» opponents» claim of loyalty to the Law is a claim to knowledge of God; in the same way, John " s repudiation of their claim to interpret the Law faithfully contends that they do not know God. 2105 John " s community lays claim to an experience which it is difficult to criticize–or even acknowledge–from the standpoint of the more (albeit not totally) rationalistic epistemology common to many ancient elites. 2106 |
| 268 Anderson, «4 Maccabees,» 555. Here the freedom is probably that of the author of 4 Maccabees, who appears to expand earlier sources, whereas 2Maccabees probably stays closer to its sources, since it is an abridgement. 270 Cf., e.g., 4Q422, a homiletic paraphrase of Genesis (Elgvin, «Section»); see further below on rewritings of biblical history. 271 Chilton, «Transmission»; idem, «Development,» suggests that Gospel traditions were transmitted and developed in ways similar to targumic traditions. For the view that John developed Jesus» message in a manner analogous to the Targumim, which included interpretive amplification but sought fidelity to the meaning, see Taylor, Formation, 116. 272 The negative use of the criterion of dissimilarity (as applied to Jesus» continuity with early Judaism and early Christianity) has been severely critiqued in recent years: Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 16; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 21; Stanton, Gospels, 161; idem, Gospel Truth, 143; Borg, Conflict, 21; Stein, ««Criteria,»» 242–43; France, «Authenticity,» 110–11; Catchpole, «Tradition History,» 174–76; Young, Theologian, 257; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:173; Brown, Death, 1:19. 273 See Stanton, Jesus, 4–9; Chilton, «Exorcism,» 253, against some earlier scholars, contrasts with modern biography notwithstanding. Skepticism toward traditional form criticism has prevailed especially since Sanders, Tendencies (Theissen, Gospels, 5; Hill, Matthew, 58; Stuhlmacher, «Theme,» 2–12; cf. Gamble, «Literacy,» 646). 276 Cf. Shuler, Genre, 85 (on encomium biography); idem, «Hypothesis.» Shuler asserts that encomium biography is the Greco-Roman pattern to which the gospels are closest; cf. the mild cautions of Talbert, Gospel, 13. Most biography was, of course, somewhat encomiastic (Josephus Life fits this category; see Neyrey, «Encomium»), but writers like Suetonius tend away from this direction (cf. Talbert, Gospel, 17). 278 In favor are Goulder, Midrash, passim; Drury, Design, 45 (on gospel redaction in general); Gundry, Matthew, 628 (citing Jubilees, Josephus, and others who took similar liberties but respected the biblical text as God " s word). Against are authors such as Scott, «Intention»; Cunningham and Bock, «Midrash»; Payne, «Midrash.» See especially the reservations of Chilton, «Midrash,» 27–28 on the narrower and broader senses of «midrash.» |
| We should remember that whereas John strongly emphasizes realized eschatology, he does not thereby abandon all future eschatology (e.g., 5:28–29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48; 21:22–23). That Jesus was no longer physically present with the Johannine community was obvious, and the Lukan tradition of an ascension was the most obvious spatial solution to the current fact (Luke 24:50; Acts 1:9–11; cf. Mark 16:19 ; Rom 8:34 ; Eph 1:20 ; Col 3:1–2; Heb 1:3). Matthew, Mark, and John close before the point where the event would be described (Mark even before resurrection appearances), but the ascension is presupposed by Jesus» Parousia from heaven, a teaching found in Paul " s earliest letters (e.g., Phil 3:20; 1 Thess 4:16; 2 Thess 1:7). 10627 It appears multiply attested outside the Gospels, at least on a theological level ( Eph 4:8–10 ; 1Tim 3:16 ; Heb 4:14; 7:26; 8:1; 9:24; 1Pet 3:22 ). That the Spirit came as another advocate, standing in for Jesus, suggests that John also understood that Jesus would be absent from the community, while not «in spirit,» yet in body (cf. 1 John 2:1 ). 10628 Jesus would not only go to the Father and return to give them the Spirit; though it is not John " s emphasis, he also implies that Jesus would remain with the Father until the «last day,» when those in the tombs would arise. It is also clear that ancient writers could predict events never recounted in their narratives but that the reader would understand to be fulfilled in the story world; the Greek East " s favorite work, the Iliad, could predict, without recounting, the fall of Troy, which was already known to the Iliad " s tradition and which it reinforced through both subtle allusions and explicit statements in the story. 10629 The book ends with Hector " s burial, but because the book emphasized that Hector was Troy " s last adequate defender, 10630 this conclusion certainly implies the tragic demise of Troy. The Odyssey predicts but does not narrate Odysseus " s final trial, 10631 but in view of the other fulfillments in the story, the reader or hearer is not left with discomfort. The Argonautica will not directly address Medeás unpleasant slaying of Pelias yet hints at that tradition. 10632 Likewise, that Mark probably ends without resurrection appearances ( Mark 16:8 ) hardly means that Mark wanted his readers to doubt that they occurred (cf. Mark 14:28 )! John probably assumes the tradition of the ascension more widely held by his audience, just as he has probably assumed their knowledge of a more widely circulated passion tradition in earlier narratives. |
| 960 Smith, «Gospels,» 12,19. If «scripture» is defined as what a community receives as a message inspired by a deity rather than as specific addenda to a canon, earlier Christians seem to have embraced much apostolic proclamation in this manner (e.g., 1 Thess 2:13; Acts 14:3). 961 Smith, «Gospels,» 15–18. Because the Essenes saw themselves as «recipients of a new covenant,» he suggests they may even have been close to writing their own new testament (17; perhaps in the sense of eventually delimiting their body of authoritative texts). 963 Berg, «Pneumatology,» 72–73, summarizes various distinctions that different scholars have drawn (Swete, Barrett, Braun, Betz). 964 Nagy, «Prologue,» xxx-xxxi (citing Arabic performances in modern Egypt). Studies in India also show poets «possessed» by the hero whose stories they recount (xxxi-xxxii). 965 As also in Hebrew tradition (e.g., Judg 5vs. 4:21); although this should not be overplayed (John is not poetry despite the rhythm and repetition of many of the discourses), a reteller " s homiletical freedom may help explain why he takes more liberty than the Synoptists (cf., e.g., Bruce, John, 6). 966 Kragerund, Lieblingsjünger; he identifies the two especially in ch. 7,113–29. For his view of Peter, cf. ch. 3, 53–66. 968 See Berg, «Pneumatology,» 67,70, who argues that John " s pneumatology is «distinctive» (especially when he personalizes the Spirit in the Paraclete sayings), but that he «does not deviate radically» from early Christian pneumatology. 970 Sasse, «Paraldet»; Boring cites as advocates of such a position also Weinel, Windisch, and Streeter. 971 Hill, Prophecy, 151; Boring, Sayings, 49; Johnston, Paraclete, 131; Bürge, Community, 211. Cf. Philostratus Hrk. 45.7, where prediction of a future poet to announce Achilles» works is fulfilled in Homer. 975 Keener, Matthew, 26–27, 57; see further Hill, «Prophets»; idem, Prophecy; Bauckham, «Apocalypse»; Dunn, «Jesus Tradition»; Aune, Prophecy. 977 Aune, «Matrix»; cf. idem, Prophecy, 197; Hill, Prophecy, 88.1 am less convinced, however, that 11and other texts distinguish prophets from the saints (Aune, Prophecy, 197,206); the community itself is prophetic (19:10), and the parallelism in that case could be either synthetic or synonymous. |
| Jesus» own teaching provokes a crisis that drives away some and confirms the commitment of others. Sometime in the decade in which this Gospel was written some Johannine communities experienced similar division over what the author of the First Epistle believed was the truth of Jesus» teaching (1 John 2:19–20). For those who heard Jesus through the grid of their cultural presuppositions rather than allowing his parabolic language to challenge their preunderstanding, Jesus» words proved too incompatible with their beliefs. Jesus explains the nature of his metaphor (6:63), but only those who persevere as his disciples will ultimately comprehend his teaching (16:25–30). 1. Too Hard to Accept? (6:59–65) The misunderstanding Jesus» words allow perpetuates John " s misunderstanding motif (cf. comment on 3:4). Jewish sages, like other ancient Mediterranean sages, often spoke in riddles; the historical Jesus, like other Palestinian Jewish sages, employed parables. 6237 His audience in this Gospel, however, proves incapable of understanding, just as those who heard his parables without persevering into his inner circle for the interpretations often failed to understand. The language used for the dispute it provokes as it divides Jesus» hearers (such division being frequent in responses to Jesus–cf. 7:43; 10:19) could even suggest that the disputants came to blows (6:52). 6238 If so, such blows could well préfigure also the times of violent conflict in which John was writing. 1A. Setting (6:59) Although narratives more frequently open with a setting, John concludes Jesus» discourse by informing us of its specific setting (6:59): a synagogue in Capernaum. 6239 While John reports little about Capernaum (2:12; 4:46), members of John " s audience familiar with the Jesus tradition will probably recall that Jesus received a significant hearing in Capernaum (e.g., Mark 2:1–2 )–but may also recall that it proved inadequate for widespread salvation, given the measure of revelation Jesus offered there (Matt 11:23/Luke 10:15). 6240 If some of them recalled the opening scene from the body of Mark " s Gospel, they would also recall that Jesus encountered conflict with a demon in that synagogue ( Mark 1:21–28 ). |
| Pilate interrogates Jesus in 18:33; a hearing could consist of a cognitio, an inquiry to determine the truth of the charges. 9891 In such an inquiry, the official could consult his consilium, composed of his " accessores (junior barristers) and comites (attendants)» who functioned as knowledgeable legal aides (cf. Acts 25:12); but the final decision was his own. 9892 Roman judges should attend to imperial edicts, statutes, and custom (moribus, Justinian Inst. 4.17), but provincial officials were free to follow or disregard prior customs. 9893 3B. Jesus as King of the Jews (18:33–35) Although Pilate repeats the Jewish authorities» charge (18:35), it appears fitting that he, as a representative of the Roman Empire, is the first voice in the trial narrative to announce Jesus as «king of the Jews» (18:33), a title to which the Jewish leaders object (19:21) and which they themselves never offer to Jesus. 9894 On the level of the story world, Pilatés presentation of Jesus to «the Jews» as «king of the Jews» (18:39) may be ridicule (cf. 19:3); 9895 the Gospel " s ideal audience, however, will catch the irony (cf. 1:49). Probably the Johannine Christians find most Roman officials more tolerant of their claims to fidelity to their ancestral faith than the synagogue leaders are (cf. 4:9; 18:35). But as in many other cases in the Gospel, John is preaching from genuine tradition rather than creating it wholesale for his purposes. The charge, «king of the Jews» (18:33), is undoubtedly historica1. 9896 Jesus» triumphal entry (12:13) marked him as a royal aspirant; the priestly aristocracy would arrest, and the Romans execute, anyone who offered the slightest grounds for suspicion of treason against Rome. The title is not a traditional Christian confession; Jesus» «you say» in the tradition ( Mark 15:2 ) suggests that it is not the title Jesus or the tradition would have emphasized, and Romans crucified many self-proclaimed kings and their followers under the Lex Iulia de maiestate (Josephus Ant. 17.285, 295). 9897 Other Jewish rebels apparently hoped for kingship (Josephus War 2.443–444; Ant. 17.285), 9898 but unless they desired repression, Christians would have hardly invented the claim that Jesus was crucified on these grounds (cf. Acts 17:7). 9899 As broadly as «treason» could be defined in Roman law 9900 and especially in Sejanus " s Rome, 9901 the charge of claiming to be a king on the part of an otherwise unimportant provincial might require little investigation to secure condemnation. |
| The final verses of the section wrap it up, again emphasizing the division among the people (7:43; 9:16). John writes not to an audience alienated from its Jewish heritage, but to one Jewish group alienated from other Jewish groups. Some wished to seize Jesus (10:39); others believed him because of his works and the Baptist " s witness (10:41–42), as Jesus had requested (10:38). This concluding cap to the section also provides a geographical transition (10:40), allowing John to move into ch. 11 and the following passion materia1. Jesus returned to the area where John had been preparing the way (1:23), especially in Perea (10:40), 7531 and Jesus «remained» there (10:40; cf. 1:39; 11:6) safe from his opponents (10:39) until it was time for him to return to Judea to face death there (11:7–10). This passage attests the effectiveness of Johns «witness» so heavily emphasized in the Gospel (1:6–8, 15); here, where John had been preaching, Jesus was temporarily safe from his Judean opposition, and many believed him through John s earlier testimony (10:41–42). (This was a region controlled by Herod Antipas, but Antipas apparently interfered with John only when he became a political threat, 7532 and Antipas does not figure in the Fourth Gospe1.) Although the crowds must have known some of Johns testimony about Jesus (5:33), most of Johns denials and confessions in 1:19–36 and 3:27–36 were only to his inquirers or to the disciples; nevertheless, these texts probably functionally supply the reader with what the author wishes to emphasize as the substance of the Baptists testimony. Again, however, the author contrasts the forerunner and Jesus: John did no signs, but properly attested Jesus» identity (10:41). That many believed in Jesus in Perea (10:42) is a positive note, but previous texts supply an ominous warning that such faith must be proved through perseverance (2:23–25; 8:30–31). 7449 The Greek term here (εγκανια) means «renewal» and appears in the LXX for rededications; it also vaguely resembles the sound of «Hanukkah,» «dedication,» also used of consecration in the MT (Brown, John, 1:402; Moore, Judaism, 2:49). |
| 886 Cf. also comments on «proto-gospels» on p. 6, though these comments address primarily prepublication stages of revision. 888 Such criticisms have also been voiced by others, e.g., King, «Brown.» Watson, «Reading,» compares some redaction critics» speculative reconstructions with allegory, practiced by earlier academic elites. 904 Mowinckel, «Remarks,» 276, is among those who suggest that the Hodayot may have been authored by the Teacher of Righteousness. 905 As many scholars (e.g., Aune, Prophecy, 132) note, it is not even clear that there was only one Teacher of Righteousness; cf. CD 6.10–11 and the view of later documents in Buchanan, «Teacher.» 911 Contrast Smith, «Tradition,» 174, who does not think that the NT offers evidence that early Christians established rabbinic-style schools. 913 Ibid., passim; on Philós «school,» cf. 199–209 and Mack and Murphy, «Literature,» 391; for the Johannine school and Jewish schools, see Tiwald, «Jünger.» Many characteristics of ancient schools fit the Johannine community (Culpepper, School, 287–89), but many of these fit early Syro-Palestinian Christian communities in general, and some (like the communal meal) must be read into the Fourth Gospel on the analogy of early church practice in genera1. 914 Culpepper, John, 30. That the Gospel was edited after the original evangelist " s death «to preserve traditions that had been circulating in the Johannine communities» (Perkins, Reading, 244–45, summarizing a view) is not implausible. 915 E.g., Epictetus Diatr. 2.19.29; cf. also academic scriptoria in cultic settings (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 239–41). Meeks, Moral World, 41, warns, however, that philosophical schools were usually just «a lecturer and his pupils who met in whatever place they found convenient.» Because early Christian groups concerned themselves more with ethics than ritual, however, they probably appeared to outsiders as schools (Meeks, Moral World, 114; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 229; Wilken, «Collegia,» 277; idem, «Christians as Romans Saw Them,» 107–10; in Justin, Wilken, «Social Interpretation,» 444–48). |
|
|
