| 9859 Yet in the end it is Jesus himself who hands his life over to the Father (παρδωκεν, 19:30), as he had previously announced (10:17–18). 2C. Capital Jurisdiction (18:31b-32) When the Judean leaders respond that they are not permitted to put anyone to death–at least not legally (18:31)–they state accurately the situation not only in John " s day but probably also in that of Jesus as wel1. The local aristocracy would prepare the charges and suggest action, but Pilate had to pronounce sentence. The governor held the power of life and death in a province (Josephus War 2.117; cf. b. Šabb. 108a). Some scholars think that the Sanhédrin could execute capital sentences, 9860 but this proposal does not fit what we know of the way Romans administered their provinces. Against Winter, 9861 Acts 23:1–10 constitutes a preliminary inquiry to formulate a charge (22:30; 23:28–29), not evidence for capital authority, even though profanation of the temple (cf. 21:28–29) was the one charge for which the Romans permitted local executions. 9862 Although Theissen recognizes that the Sanhédrin lacked capital authority in Jesus» time, 9863 he thinks that the Passion Narrative presupposes this jurisdiction and thus that it reads its own milieús circumstances of 41–44 C.E., under Agrippa I, into the narrative. 9864 Others might employ this approach to deny the Passion Narrativés own evidence that some of the high priests tried Jesus, but such a denial faces two major obstacles: First, the logic of the Passion Narrative actually presupposes that the Sanhedrin lacks capital authority; why else would they hand Jesus over to Pilate? 9865 Second, Agrippa I, like Herod the Great, was a client king and had been on personal terms with an emperor–he was not merely the municipal aristocracy. In the last decade of the first century, Johannine tradition still preserves the Sanhedrin " s lack of authority ( John 18:31–32 ). An intermediate position is that Romans rarely delegated capital authority but Roman governors were authorized to do so; 9866 but whatever governors of some provinces may have wished to do, it is inconceivable that Pilate would have shared this authority with the local aristocracy. |
| That some disciples disbelieved (cf. Mark 16:11,13–14 )–some even after seeing (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:37,41)–fits other historical traditions about Jesus» resurrection appearances. That John draws on genuine historical tradition need not deter us, however, from asking what theological capital his first audience might have drawn from his narrative. One might naturally protest something unbelievable, that one could believe only if one saw it for oneself. 10746 In some ancient stories, deities appeared to and healed doubters in spite of their unbelief 10747 (though in some others, a deity enraged with mortals» unbelief might turn them into bats!). 10748 Thomas " s unbelief need not strike an ancient audience as dramatically anti-climactic; rather, it prepares for a higher climax (in this case, a further resurrection appearance). For example, at the climactic moment of Orestes» self-revelation in Aeschylus, his sister Electra initially fails to believe that it is he. 10749 In some ancient Jewish stories, people were punished for unbelief. One student believed R. Johanan only after seeing, whereupon R. Johanan concluded that he scoffed at the words of the sages, and turned him into a pile of bones. 10750 A later tradition contends that fire fell from heaven and consumed Haran because he refused to commit himself before he saw whether Abram would defeat Nimrod " s fiery furnace. 10751 In the biblical exodus narrative, God put up with Israel " s unbelief for a long time but finally grew angry with their unwillingness to believe after seeing a number of signs ( Num 14:11, 22 ). When Thomas is skeptical because he has only the word (20:25), he has available what most of the Johannine Christians have (20:31). 10752 2B. Jesus» Wounds (20:26–27) Jesus comes under the same circumstances (closed doors) and with the same greeting of peace as before (20:19, 26). The eighth day held special significance in some early Christian thought (cf. Barn. 15.8–9), 10753 but here may simply indicate that Jesus came to them again on the first day of the week (20:19), that is, a day when later Christians frequently met (Acts 20:7; 1Cor 16:2 ). This would suggest that the disciples not only stayed for the whole of the Feast of Unleavened Bread 10754 but also somewhat longer, perhaps in anticipation of Pentecost. The parallel between the two paragraphs suggests that something remains incomplete until Thomas " s confession of Jesus with its high Christology (20:28). |
| Greek δξα often meant honor. Thus δξα, reputation, could provide a basis for praise in an encomium (Theon Progymn. 9.18). 7965 Yet many thinkers warned that such reputation depended on peoplés whims and was not worth expending much effort. 7966 Although some thought the pursuit of honor would lead to noble exploits (in contrast to passions), 7967 many thinkers regarded φιλοδοξα, love of glory, as something to be avoided. 7968 Cynics, of course, went so far as to refuse human commendations altogether. 7969 Stoics could ridicule those concerned with what others thought. 7970 In many Jewish texts the righteous who did exploits could be «honored,» sometimes literally «glorified»; 7971 they could seek to bring honor to their nation. 7972 Other Jewish texts praised those who would not concern themselves with human glory (cf. John 5:41,44 ), 7973 and noted that God would shame those presently honored. 7974 Early Christian writers also adopted this virtue of seeking only divine commendation ( Rom 2:29 ; 1Cor 4:3 ; 2Cor 3:1; 1 Thess 2:6). Thus Jewish thinkers, like some Greek and Roman thinkers, emphasized the importance of transcending concern for honor. At the same time, honor was a dominant social value in the ancient Mediterranean, strongest among the elite. Pressures for conformity could be great, especially conformity in the name of public religion (e.g., Josephus Life 291). 7975 The situation Jesus promised (16:2) and which confronted John " s audience was also more severe than mere loss of reputation; unless confessors of Christ within the synagogue achieved sufficient numbers critical mass, they, too, could be expelled with potentially disastrous consequences (see introduction). These who loved human honor more than God " s honor acted from fear rather than from courage (cf. 3:2); this behavior merited only shame, not honor, before the one who knows all hearts (2:23–25). Meanwhile, Jesus himself is about to become an example of relinquishing onés own honor (13:1–11), following the example of Mary (12:3–8) and setting an example for his disciples (13:14–17). Jesus as God " s Standard of Judgment (12:44–50) |
| At the same time, they ironically draw legitimate implications from Jesus» words: if Abraham and the prophets died physically (cf. 6:49) but Jesus grants eternal life, he must claim to be greater than Abraham and the prophets (8:53). Grammatically, their question expects the answer, «No»; Jesus is assumed not to be greater than Abraham and the prophets. Ironically, however, the informed reader recognizes that Jesus is in fact greater than the prophets. 6921 Historically, Jesus probably made claims to be greater than earlier prophets (Qmaterial in Matt 12:41–42; Luke 11:31–32); 6922 John " s audience may have known of such traditions, but the irony would be sufficient even without them. In contrast to the Samaritan woman who at first assumes that Jesus cannot be greater than Jacob (4:12) but ultimately embraces him as the promised one (4:25–26, 29), Jesus» dialogue partners here become increasingly hostile. Their suggestion that he «makes himself» something (8:53) fits a pattern of accusation throughout the Gospel: he makes himself out to be equal with God (5:18); God (10:33); God " s Son (19:7); or king (19:12). The irony is that Jesus has not made himself anything but, sent by the Father, became flesh (1:14; 3:17). 6923 5B. Witnesses to Jesus» Superiority (8:54–56) Because most people viewed self-boasting negatively, even much lesser claims often demanded adequate justification; 6924 Jesus thus announces that he is not glorifying himself (8:54). Jesus here cites two other authorities who will testify that he is greater than Abraham: God (8:54–55) and Abraham himself (8:56). In contrast to his interlocutors, who appeal to Abraham and God about whom they have studied and from whom they claim descent, Jesus knows Abraham and God personally. If Jesus» interlocutors claim to obey God " s word, the Torah (cf. 5:38), the reader knows that Jesus is the Word (1:1–18); within the story world, Jesus claims to obey his Father " s word (8:55), which likewise summons them to obey his (8:31, 37,43, 51). |
| Some later Jewish texts expressed Isaiah " s vision in the language of respectful circumlocution, noting that Isaiah witnessed God " s «glory,» as here. 7954 Isaiah was one of the chief prophets after Moses, 7955 and in the context of the Fourth Gospel, Isaiah becomes a link between Moses and the apostles, who also witnessed Jesus» glory (1:14–18, alluding to Exod 33–34), as did Abraham (8:56). 7956 By contrast, those without spiritual eyes to see could not recognize the glory among them (3:3; 6:30; 9:39–41). The glory revealed to both Moses and Isaiah was rejected by many of their contemporaries; early Christians applied this pattern to many of Jesus» «own» (1:11) rejecting him (cf. Matt 23:31; Luke 11:50; Acts 7:39, 52; 28:25–27; 2Cor 3:13–15; 1 Thess 2:15), though some had seen his glory (1:14–18). 7957 Jewish tradition naturally expanded on Isaiah " s revelations, 7958 and the mystic stream of tradition undoubtedly interpreted Isaiah " s vision as including «a visionary ascent to heaven.» 7959 Some early Hellenistic Jewish texts adapted Hellenistic motifs concerning visionary ascents; thus, for example, a throne-vision may have in some sense deified Moses or at least made him God " s second in command over creation. 7960 Yet Jesus is greater than Moses; as the one who descended from heaven to begin with, he is the supreme revealer (3:11–13). In any case, most of John " s audience would know the biblical accounts to which John has alluded, whereas a smaller part of his audience might know these other traditions. (It is difficult to say how early, popular, or geographically widespread such traditions were, but safe to say that the biblical stories themselves would be most accessible to the broadest range of people.) As in other biblical theophanies, not the visionary but the one beheld is the object of worship. In Isaiah the glory belongs to God; here it belongs to Jesus (12in context). 7961 As Isa 52is contextually implied in the citation of 53:1, Isa 6 relates to Christ " s «glory.» 7962 |
| A survey of Jesus» «works» in the Fourth Gospel will indicate that these may include miraculous signs (5:20, 36; 7:3; 9:3–4; 10:25, 32–33, 37–38; 15:24) but also his mission as a whole (4:34; 17:4). One might also apply the term to Jesus» ethical deeds (3:19–21; 7:7; 8:39, 41). 8505 Thus Jesus might refer to his followers multiplying his righteous acts because there would be more of them to do them; 8506 thus «keeping commandments» in 14may include doing the Father " s «works,» because «works» in this Gospel includes doing God " s wil1. But the ethical nuances, while probably present, are probably not primary here. The «commandments» of 14match more properly the line of thought in 14:21, 23–24, where they function as prerequisites for more fully acquiring or maintaining Jesus» presence, suggesting that 14has more to do with 14:16–17 than with 14:12–14. In John most ethical uses of the term apply to others besides Jesus, who «works» in this context, and the immediate context is probably one of miraculous works (14:10–11), for it echoes 10:32, 37–38, which probably reflects Jesus» recent healing of a man born blind (9:3–4). Jesus had done many signs (20:30), and the world itself could not contain them all (21:25), but somehow his followers could do more works, whether by virtue of their numbers or the new state in salvation history. Thus disciples should do miraculous works through faith (though such signs by themselves cannot produce adequate faith and must be supplemented with proclamation, which remains central; cf. 20:29) as well as continue Jesus» ministry in other respects. This idea is consonant with the disciples joining the Spirit as witnesses (15:26–27) and the Spirit presenting the living Christ through their word (16:7–11); in short, disciples would reflect the life of Jesus present in them the way branches revealed the life of the vine (15:1–8). The reason for «greater» works may be debated. Some contend that the works are greater because Jesus worked in only one land whereas his followers work everywhere; 8507 or that the work would be multiplied because no longer confined to one person " s ministry; 8508 or because the disciples participate in the newer and greater phase of redemptive history after the completion of Jesus» earthly work («because I go to the Father»). 8509 In any case, «greater» works imply greater magnitude than one has seen in Jesus» earthly ministry (for this sense of «greater magnitude,» see the parallel language of 1and 5:20). The promise of «greater works» calls John " s audience to look not only backward but also to the present, where Christ continues to remain active through his presence by the Paraclete and his proclaimed word. 8510 |
| Many private burials employed vertical shaft tombs, but this burial was in a cave, probably oriented horizontally (11:38). 7653 The stone (11:38) would keep animals from the body. 7654 Marthás objection about the stench (11:39) makes sense on natural human assumptions. Spices could cover the stench for a while, 7655 but after four days the stench of decomposition would be intense. 7656 Unlike ancient Egyptians, Jewish people did not embalm the dead to prevent decomposition 7657 but in this period actually encouraged decomposition to allow for secondary burial a year later. 7658 Yet Jesus challenges her to act in faith in his word, contrary to natural expectations. Although throughout the Gospel seeing signs often provokes the most basic level of faith, Jesus calls Martha, who already has confessed her faith (11:21–22, 27), to a deeper level of faith: if she believes, then she will see. Thus she would see God " s glory (11:40) in Jesus» sign (2:11), like Israel in the exodus (Exod 16:7, 10). In this case, the glory was the divine purpose for which Lazarus had died: that Jesus might be glorified (11:4), ultimately by the cross (see comment on 1:14; 11:4). The Gospel emphasizes Jesus» deity, which might be one reason that prayer preceded the miracles recorded to this point in only one case at most (cf. 6:11). 7659 Nevertheless, Jesus» prayer (11:41–42) would not strike an ancient Jewish-Christian audience as too unexpected; prayers often appear in Israelite and early Jewish healing stories. 7660 In earliest Christian literature public healings usually occurred by commands rather than by prayer (e.g., Mark 5:41 ; Acts 3:6), but prayer or a lifestyle of prayer often preceded such commands to be healed ( Mark 9:29 ; Acts 3:1; 9:40; 28:8). 7661 Lifting onés face toward heaven was a known posture for prayer (11:41; cf. 17:1), 7662 and (especially given some charges that Jesus was a magician) many people in the ancient Mediterranean would have distrusted a silent prayer. 7663 |
| 7052 In either case, the works are plainly from the Father (cf. 5:20, 36; 10:25, 32, 37; 14:10–11; 15:24); believers» opponents could not accuse them of diverting God " s glory. That one «must» perform Jesus» works during the light is Johannine language for divine necessity (3:7,14, 30; 4:4, 24; 10:16; 12:34; 20:9). That people could not work after nightfall because it had grown dark was common knowledge (applicable to battles and other activities; 7053 used as an image in 11:10; 12:35); obviously, modern lighting was not available. John applies this image figuratively, as he does light, darkness, and night elsewhere (e.g., 1:4–5; 3:2; 11:10; 12:35; 13:30); but whereas in 11:9–10 the emphasis lies on Jesus» obedience to the Father " s timing, here it lies on Jesus» power as the light to impart sight to the blind, both literally (9:6–7) and figuratively (9:39–41). Jesus parabolically demonstrates that he is the light of the world (9:5; see comment on 1:4), alluding to his announcement earlier that day (8:12), by healing the blind. 1C. Spittle (9:6) The use of spittle appears elsewhere in the Jesus tradition ( Mark 7:33 ), including for healing blindness ( Mark 8:23 ). Many ancient reports of cures mention the use of a curative drug, 7054 even when Asclepius appeared to suppliants in his temple in dreams. 7055 Spittle was sometimes used superstitiously, to avert an ill, 7056 and sometimes associated with curative powers. 7057 That Vespasian reportedly healed blindness with spittle (Tacitus Hist. 4.81; Suetonius Vesp. 7) 7058 may suggest that John contrasts Jesus with the Roman emperor (Vespasian " s son Domitian was then reigning); the account seems to have circulated widely. More likely, however, the stories about both Vespasian and Jesus draw on purportedly curative properties of spittle more widely known. Jewish tradition sometimes reports curing through spittle, 7059 though Jewish custom probably borrowed it from the more widespread ancient custom. 7060 Such usage would have rendered its symbolic effect more comprehensible. |
| The closing paragraph of this section, 12:44–50, suggests that, on the story level, Jesus has come out of hiding for one remaining public discourse. This passage is extremely significant, but not because it introduces many new conceptions. Essentially it repeats in typically Johannine language Jesus» teachings from previous discourses, summarizing and epitomizing the message of Jesus in the Gospel to that point. 7976 Although some scholars dissent, applying 12:44–50 only to the triumphal entry, 7977 most see it as a summary of Jesus» preceding discourses. 7978 Whitacre suggests that 12:44–50 emphasizes his words as 12:37–41 emphasized his deeds. 7979 Although the summary suits John " s theological purposes, he likely draws from traditional materials. 7980 Positioned at the end of the narratives that precede the passion and immediately preceding the prologue to the farewell disourse, this unit recapitulates the themes that have preceded and prepares the reader for their fulfillment in the Passion Narrative which follows. Ancient writers frequently recapitulated or summarized themes at the conclusion of a work or, in many cases, a section. 7981 This strategic location before the Paraclete sayings and passion may also suggest that the historic elements of Jesus» mission noted in this pericope are continued in the present by the Paraclete, who continues to mediate Jesus» presence (14:16–17,26; 15:26–27; 16:7–15). First, Jesus is God " s agent (see introduction); believing in him is believing in the Father and is essential to genuine faith in the Father (12:44; cf. 14:1). 7982 In this context, the link between believing in Jesus and believing in the Father (again in 14:1) functions as a summons to secret «believers» in the synagogue (12:42): just as one dare not be ashamed to confess God in the Shema, one dare not be ashamed to confess Jesus. The kind of belief Jesus demands pleases God who sent him rather than humans (12:43), hence is not the inoffensive private faith of those unwilling to suffer expulsion from the synagogue or the possibly comcomitant trouble with Roman authorities. Thus, playing on the different levels of faith in his Gospel, John asks of Israel in the language of Isaiah, «Who has [genuinely] believed our report?» (12:38). |
| Jacobi (Scndschreiben an Fichte, 1799), while its broader, popular use was established by Turgenev in his novel Fathers and Sons (1862). In the field of philosophy, however, nihilism is associated mainly with Nietzsche. In his book Der Wille zur Macht – Versuch einer Umweriung alter Werte (The Will to Power, 1887), Nietzsche explains nihilism as the inevitable outcome of the conventional rationalist theory of values, found in western metaphysics: what does nihilism mean? That all lofty ideas have gone bankrupt. What is missing is purpose, the response to what for. " 17 Cf. P. Kondylis’ exceptionally enlightening treatise, (The Critique of Metaphysics in Modem Thought), Athens: Ekdoseis Gnosi, 1983. 18 Apophaticism: to negate, to deny, its opposite being: to affirm, to say yes. ‘The negation of being white is not being white’ (Aristotle, Prior Analytics I. 46, 51b9); ‘Affirmation means to say what belongs to something, as, for example, he is noble, negation to say what does not belong to something, for example, he is not noble’ (John Damascene, Dialectica 41 (58), (ed.) B. Kotter, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969, p. 125). As an epistemological category used philosophically, negation means the denial, on the one hand, of the existent in general or, on the other hand, the privation of an existing entity of its properties. Hence, Aristotle draws a distinction between apophatic and privative negations (cf. Melaphysics T 1004a 10–16) in order to indicate the possible designation of a being or nature, independently of its subordination to different genera. It is in the latter sense, i.e., of the privative negation, that apophaticism has been used as an epistemological standpoint or procedure in philosophy. In the case of the Greek philosophical tradition, from Herakleitos up to Gregory Palamas, we may characterize apophaticism as the denial that we can exhaust truth in any formulation, the recourse, in other words, to the symbolic-iconological manner of expressing the truth, as well as the adoption of the dynamics of relatedness (in the sense of Herakleitean ‘being in communion’) as the criterion for the verification of knowledge. |
|
|
