| 1653 Hickling, «Attitudes,» 352; P. F. Ellis, John, 5. Thus John restates and reapplies traditions in targumic style; see Howard, Gospel, 229; Goppelt, Theology, 1:15. 1654 Hickling, «Attitudes,» 352, although we disagree with Hickling " s emphasis on discontinuity; cf. also Ellis, Genius, 5. 1655 Herford, Christianity, 365–81, esp. 371–72, shows that they were not always gnostics, although they may have been more often than Herford allows. R. Jose ben Halaftás retort to the «matrona» need not be antignostic (against Agus, «Gnosticism»; Gershenzon and Slomovic, «Debate»), though it could have been, and the creation mysticism has pregnostic roots and need not be initially antignostic (against Thoma, «Reaktionen»). Threats from Christian gnosticism or its Jewish equivalent may well have been real, and mixed with the Jewish-Christian challenge (cf. Basser, «Practices»). 1657 E.g., b. Ber. 29a [of John Hyrcanus!]; Moore, «Canon,» 106–8; Urbach, «Self-Isolation,» 290; Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 103); nevertheless, identifying groups like Essenes in the rabbinic literature (as Lieberman, «Scrolls,» seeks to do) is still more problematic. 1659 In earlier texts they were probably always Jewish (Jocz, People, 52; Abrahams, Studies, 2:63), although some passages could imply otherwise (b. c Abod. Zar. 4a; Sank. 97a [purportedly Tannaitic]; 99a; Song Rab. 2:13, §4 [purportedly Tannaitic]; cf. in Herford, Christianity, 207–10): references to the Roman Empire converting to minuth are necessarily from the later period, after Christians had begun to achieve power in the West. 1660 See Schiffman, «Crossroads,» 149; Kimelman, «Birkath,» 232; Bowman, Gospel, 2; Pritz, Christianity, 103; Abrahams, Studies, 2:63; Herford, Christianity, 365–81; Dalman, Jesus, 36–37; Carroll, «Exclusion,» 22. For archaeological evidence from the late first to mid-second century, cf. Smith, «Sarcophagus.» 1661 See Herford, Christianity, 137–45, 388; Moore, Judaism, 2:250; Dalman, Jesus, 36–37. Falk, Jesus, 70–82, is too speculative here. |
| 9517 See 4 Macc 6:27–30; 9:7, 24; 17:21–22; cf. 1Macc 2:50; 2Macc 7:9, 37; 1QS 8.3–4; T. Mos. 9; Mek Pisha 1.105–113; b. Ber. 62b; Gen. Rab. 44:5; Lev. Rab. 20:12; Song Rab. 1:15, §2; 4:1, §2. On vicarious atonement through other humans» judgment, e.g., Sipre Deut. 333.5.2; without human bloodshed, cf., e.g., Lev 1:4; 4:20, 26, 31, 35 , and passim; Mek. Bah. 7.18–22; Sipre Deut. 1.10.2; p. Hor. 2:7, §1; 3:2, §10; Sebu. 1:6, §6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:17; Ecc1. Rab. 9:7, §1; without mention of any bloodshed, e.g., Prov 16:6 ; Sir 3:14–15 ; Pss. So1. 3:8–10; 1QS 9.4; b. Ber. 17a; Num. Rab. 14:10; Deut. Rab. 3:5. 9518 E.g., Homer 27. 3.69–70, 86–94, 253–255; 7.66–91, 244–273; Apollonius of Rhodes 2.20–21; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 3.12.3–4; Virgil Aen. 10.439–509; 11.115–118,217–221; 12.723–952; Livy 1.24.1–1.25.14; 7.9.8–7.10.14; Aulus Gellius 9.13.10; also in the Hebrew Bible ( 1Sam 17 ; 2Sam 2:14–16 ; cf. Gordon, Civilizations, 262). 9519 Cf., e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 292–93; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:95–97; other references in Keener, Matthew, 487, on 20:28. 9523 Burridge, Gospels, 146–47, 179–80. The rest of the Gospels foreshadow this climax, and this is also the case in some contemporary biographies (p. 199). 9524 Ibid., 198, has 26 percent for Philostratus; Mons Graupius consumes 26 percent of Tacitus Agricola, and the Persian campaign 37 percent of Plutarch Agesilaus (p. 199). 9526 Mack, Myth, 249; for his arguments, see 249–68. For a critique of Crossan " s approach to the Passion Narrative (depending on the late Gospel of Peter), see Evans, «Passion,» especially analogies with Justin 1 Apo1. 16.9–13 and Mark 16:9–20 (pp. 163–65). 9527 Mack cites Jeremias (a «conservative» scholar, Myth, 254) only three times, and never Blinzler, Hengel, or other more conservative Continental scholars. 9528 Perry, Sources, published as early as 1920; cf. Lietzmann " s skepticism on some points in 1931 («Prozess»). 9529 Dibelius, Tradition, 178–217, thinks that «the Passion story is the only piece of Gospel tradition which in early times gave events in their larger connection.» |
| That Jesus had many brothers is not surprising; families often had many children with a wide range of ages. 6319 Honoring kinship ties was very important, 6320 and brothers were normally the closest and most trustworthy of allies, 6321 which makes the unbelief of Jesus» brothers (7:5) all the more disconcerting. (Intrafamily strife was considered particularly tragic.) 6322 Although Jesus» younger siblings seem to have achieved prominence in the later church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1Cor 15:7 ; Gal 1:19; 2:9,12 ; Jas 1:1; Jude 1), it is not clear that John is polemicizing against them in that later role here (any more than he polemicizes against Peter, a prototypical disciple). They serve a literary function in the narrative, challenging disciples to have deeper faith and to endure rejection by their families, 6323 a common early Christian situation ( 1Cor 7:15–16 ; 1Pet 3:1 ; Matt 10:21). 6324 The statement that «not even his brothers were believing in him» (7:5) follows immediately after the apostasy of many of his disciples (6:66); likewise, believers experienced both tragic defection from their ranks (1 John 2:19) and familial opposition (cf. Matt 10:21, 35–37). If Jesus» brothers serve any function related to their genetic kinship with Jesus, it might be an apologetic purpose, to counter or guard against the charge of nepotism that would allow Jesus» relatives to assume so much rank in the early church. Josephus defends Moses against such a charge regarding Aaron (Josephus Ant. 4.26–28, 34, 58), and John may wish to show that the charge cannot be laid against Jesus. 6325 Or, if John does qualify popular allegiance to Jesus» physical family, it may be in a manner similar to that in which he challenges thoughtless devotion to Peter, ever reminding believers that Jesus alone is the chief shepherd and lord (cf. 13:24, 38; 21:15–22). (That this Gospel would be sensitive to such questions is not surprising. Early eyewitness tradition indicates that John son of Zebedee, with whose tradition, at least, most scholars associate this Gospel, once shared leadership in the conservative Jerusalem church with both Peter and James; Gal 2:9 .) |
| 5885 Sib. Or. frg. 7. 5886 Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.167. 5887 Alexander son of Numenius Rhetores graeci 3.4–6 (Grant, Religions, 166); PGM 13.843; Iamblichus Myst. 7.2. The highest good had to be self-sufficient (Aristotle N.E. 1.7,1097B). 5888 E.g., Aristotle Heav. 1.9, 279a.l l-b.3; Pyth. Sent. 25; Marcus Aurelius 7.16; Plutarch Isis 75, Mor. 381B; Maximus of Tyre Or. 38.6; in Jewish sources, Let. Aris. 211; 3Macc 2:9; Josephus Ant. 8.111; Ag. Ap. 2.190; Philo Creation 100; Acts 17:25. On sources of Philós portrait of God " s transcendence, see Dillon, «Transcendence.» 5889 E.g., 2 Bar. 21:10; Pesiq. Rab. 1:2; «who lives forever» (e.g., Tob 13:1, ζν …); for the " liv-ing God,» cf., e.g., Marmorstein, Names, 72; Rev 7:2; also Deut 5:26 ; Josh 3:10; 1Sam 17:26,36; 2 Kgs 19:4, 16; Ps 42:2; 84:2 ; Isa 37:4,17; Jer 10:10; 23:36 ; Dan 6:20, 26 ; Hos 1:10 ; Matt 16:16; 26:63; Acts 14:15; Rom 9:26 ; 2Cor 3:3; 6:16; 1 Thess 1:9; 1Tim 3:15; 4:10 ; Heb 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22. 5890 Tob 13:1,6; 1Tim 1:17 ; 1 En. 5:1; 25:3,5; Sib. Or. 1.45,50,53,56,73,122,152,167,232; 3.10, 276, 278, 302, 328, 582, 593, 600–601, 604, 617, 628, 631, 698, 717; 8.428; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.167; Philo Creation 100; Good Person 20; Ps.-Phoc. 17; T. Ab. 15:15A; 2Bar. 21:10; CI] 1:489, §677; cf. Plutarch Isis 1, Mor. 351E; PGM 13.843. 5891 Sib. Or. 3.15–16; cf. Plutarch Ε at Delphi 17, Mor. 392A. 5892 PGM 4.640–645 (Betz, Papyri, 50). 5893 To others God commits temporary, limited political authority (19:11) or the authority to become his children (1:12), but only to Jesus does God entrust authority over all humanity (17:2). 5894 For refutation, see Brown, John, 1:215, whom we follow here. 5895 For the admonition not to marvel along with provision of evidence, cf. 3:7–8; probably 6:61–62; for the principle, see Mark 2:9–11 . 5896 E.g., Apocr. Ezek. introduction. 5897 Also, e.g., Hanson, Gospel 52. 5898 Bailey, Poet, 62, sees a chiastic structure, but if one is present, it is highly asymmetrica1. |
| 6785 As noted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 24; see likewise Cicero Or. Brut. 40.137. Cf. returning the charges in other handbooks: Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442b.6–9; Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.3.6; Hermogenes Issues 39.1–5. 6786 E.g., Xenophon Hel1. 2.3.37. 6787 Thus Cicero Mur. 29.60, dealing softly with Marcus Cato. 6788 E.g., Horace Carm. 4.6. 6789 Dodd, «L " arrière-plan»; idem, More Studies, 46–47; cf. Dozeman, «Sperma» Dodd, More Studies, 41–42, heavily emphasizes the Abraham material here. Contrast Robinson, «Destination,» 123–24 n.1. 6790 For such sarcasm in the face of hostility, see, e.g., Silius Italicus 11.254–255; Matt 23:32; perhaps 1 Kgs 22:15. 6791 Thus Jesus employs parody (see Stibbe, Gospel 118; cf. Rev 13:3, 18; 17:8). Some later philosophers also spoke of hearing and speaking God " s message as if in his presence (Porphyry Marc. 15.258–259, though for him this means undistracted by bodily desires). 6792 See, e.g., Aeschines Timarchus 107; Cicero Pis. 2.3; Verr. 2.2.1.1–2; Agr. 24.63–64; Cat. 1.6.14; perhaps Acts 24:19. 6793 E.g., Rom 4:1 ; Sipre Deut. 311.1.1; 313.1.3; " Abot R. Nat. 23, §46B; 36, §94; b. Ber. 6b; Ned. 32a. Those not his descendants also could greet him with the honorary title «father» (T. Ab. 2:3A; 9:4B); in some sense he was father of the whole world (t. Ber. 1on Gen 17:5 ). Cf. «our fathers» in 6:31. 6794 E.g., Gal 3:7; 4 Macc 6:17, 22; 18:1. Later teachers even emphasized God " s special pre-creation forethought for the patriarchs (Gen. Rab. 1:4, citing Hos 9:10 ). 6795 Many Tannaim probably even denied the use of the phrase to proselytes (m. Bik. 1:4–5; Cohen, «Fathers»). 6796 Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 42.5.2 triumphantly reads the stones in that passage as Gentile Christians. 6797 Schnackenburg, John, 2:210. 6798 E.g., Mek. Pisha 16.165–168 (other opinions in 16.169–172); p. Ta c an. 1:1, §8; Gen. Rab. 55:8; 74:12; 76(Jacob " s merit); 84and 87(Joseph " s merit); Exod. Rab. 2:4; 15:10; 23:5; Lev. Rab. 34:8, bar; Num. Rab. 13:20; Song Rab. 4:4, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 10(in prayer); see further Moore, Judaism, 1:537. Some Tannaim suggested they could have used more merit (Sipre Deut. 2.1.1–4); some Amoraim attributed the exodus to the merit of, or faith in, Moses (Exod. Rab. 15:3; 16:1), to righteous acts (Exod. Rab. 1:28; Lev. Rab. 28:4; Num. Rab. 20:22), to the merits of Israelite women (Exod. Rab. 1:12; Num. Rab. 3:6, bar.), or to various factors, including patriarchal merits (Deut. Rab. 2:23). |
| 5568 See Scott, Spirit, 54, contrasting the Stoics and John. Tatian 4 accepts the Stoic understanding of «spirit» but subordinates this to God " s Spirit. For the materialistic sense of πνεμα in Stoicism, see Long, Philosophy, 155–58; Chevallier, Souffle, 41–42; Keener, Spirit, 7–8. 5569 E.g., Philo Sacrifices 95. For Philós heavy stripping of anthropomorphism, cf., e.g.. Marmorstein, Anthropomorphism, 4–6. 5571 «When he comes» (4:25) is also language John applies to the other Paraclete (15:26; 16:8, 13). He will also «announce all things» (16:15). 5573 Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 13, derives Μεσσας not from the Hebrew mashiach but from the Aramaic meshicha, also found in the Palestinian Syriac Bible. Samaritans did not adopt the title «Messiah» before the sixteenth century C.E. (Meeks, «Jew,» 178; Jonge, Jesus, 104–5). 5574 Regularly observed, e.g., Klausner, Paul, 295; Cullmann, Christology, 19; Teeple, Prophet, 63–64; MacDonald, Samaritans, 362–63; Bruce, History, 37–38; Longenecker, Christology, 34; Olsson, Structure, 191; Appold, Motif, 72. The Mosaic Taheb was the fifth article of the Samaritan creed (Brown, John, 1:172) and appears in Memar Marqah 2.40.28; 4(Boring et a1., Commentary, 264–65). 5576 MacDonald, Samaritans, 15; Bruce, Books, 131–32. Bowman, Documents, 263–83, collects materials on the Taheb, but our sources are unfortunately quite late (nineteenth century). Purvis, «Samaritans,» 183, adds that the Taheb would also be like Joshua. 5577 Bowman, Documents, 21; Boring et a1., Commentary, 264–65. For the emphasis on Moses in the third- to fourth-century C.E. Samaritan Memar Marqah, see Bowman, Documents, 253. 5585 ÓDay, Word, 45–46. Stauffer, Jesus, 186–88, finds a theophanic formula here even on the level of the story world, but a messianic revelation is more likely (Witherington, Women, 60; cf. 167 η. 70). 5587 Commentators often recognize the custom presupposed here (e.g., Barrett, John, 240; Brown, John, 1:173). 5588 Liefeld, «Preacher,» 240; he illustrates on pp. 239–41 with Irenaeus Haer. 1.13.1,3; 1.23.2,4; Lucian Runaways 18. |
| 62 E.g., Phaedrus 4.pro1.l7–19. The wealthy might also have their own readers (Cicero Fam. 7.1.3). 63 On public literacy, see, e.g., Lewis, Life, 61–62, 81–82. It is usually estimated around 10 percent (Meeks, Moral World, " 62; Botha, «Literacy»), but for a higher estimate (especially relevant for urban settings), see Curchin, «Literacy.» 67 Cornelius Nepos 15 (Epamindondas), 4.6, claims that he had to stop his account of Epaminondas " s integrity to provide enough space for his other biographies. 69 Burridge, Gospels, 118,199. John falls in the center of this range, the approximate length of Cato Minor (ibid., 225–26). 72 Shuler, Genre, 15–20; cf. Talbert, Gospel, 12–13. A proposal of aretalogical biographies (Wills, Quest) would be more reasonable. 73 Burridge, Gospels, 18–19. Talbert, Gospel, 43, cites biographies of immortals (mainly from the second and third centuries), but, as he admits, the religious or mythical dimension does not affect genre (cf. Shuler, Genre, 21); his evidence for specific cultic biographies (Gospel, 91–113) is mainly inferential (Aune, «Problem,» 37–42). 75 Although writers like Apuleius and Achilles Tatius are a century or more after our period, the nineteenth-century view of Greek novels as late (fifth or sixth centuries) is no longer tenable (Aune, Environment, 150). Thus elements in Chariton Chaereas and Callirhoe, (Pseudo-) Plutarch Love Stories (Mor. 771E-775E, five brief stories; the heroine of 774E-775B is named Callirhoë, but apart from the suitors the story bears little resemblance to Chariton " s work), Petronius Satyricon, Joseph and Aseneth, Judith, and other works suggest that the general genre was already established in the NT period. 76 Cf., e.g., Lindenberger, «Ahiqar.» Yet even historical novels from the Hellenistic era often exhibited some measure of historical accuracy (cf. Anderson, «3Maccabees»; Miller, «Introduction,» viii), though it varied considerably (e.g., Tobit exhibits anachronisms, but none as serious as Jdt 4:3). Even a pure novel like Apuleius " s Metamorphoses may include some autobiographical hints (e.g., 11.30). |
| Moses is frequently the object of faith in the LXX of the Pentateuch (Exod 4:1,8,9,31; 14:31; 19:9); most often, however, Moses leads the people to «believe» in God (Exod 4:5; 14:31; Num 14:11; 20:12 ; Deut 9:23; 32:20 ). Just as God " s people should believe in both God and his prophet Moses (Exod 14:31), they should believe in both God and Jesus ( John 14:1 ). As noted in our section on signs in the previous chapter, the Fourth Gospel emphasizes Jesus as the one greater than Moses. Faith is a common motif in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., 4:21; 14:1); the world (16:9), even the world closest to Jesus (7:5), is characterized by unbelief, but such unbelief serves as a foil for faith. 2810 Faith is sometimes related to witness (never pejoratively, 1:7; 4:39; 19:35; cf. 9:18), including the witness of Scripture (2:22; 5:38, 46–47; cf. 20:9), but especially to signs (1:50; 2:11, 23; 4:39; 10:41–42; 11:15, 42; 12:11; 13:19; 14:29; 17:21; 20:8, 25, 27). Signs-faith is one possible stage of faith, but although it is better than no faith (10:37–38; 12:37; 14:10–11) its status remains ambiguous throughout the Fourth Gospel, because it remains inadequate of itself, short of the ultimate stage of faith (4:41–42, 48, 50, 53; 6:30, 36; 7:31; 11:40; 16:30–31; 20:29–31). 2811 «Signs faith» must develop further to become «mature faith.» 2812 Even at their initial occurrence, signs can provoke either faith or rebellion ( 11:45–46, 48; cf. 12:10–11, where unbelievers also dread the witness). A true believer must also become a witness, a confessor (12:42). John " s narrative, like the narratives of the exodus story and Mark, chronicle the epic of faith: in the exodus story, Israel continues in unbelief despite many signs; in Mark and John, the disciples» faith grows from initial acceptance toward full understanding, allegiance, and confession (cf. 2:11; 6:69; 16:30–33). 2813 «Believe» thus refers to the proper response to God " s revelation, 2814 a faithful embracing of his truth, as in OT «faithfulness»; it is a conviction of truth on which one stakes onés life and actions, not merely passive assent to a fact. 2815 |
| That the beloved disciple outruns Peter may be significant; 10523 it is one of several comparisons of the two figures in the Gospel (13:22–25; 21:7, 20). Argument by comparison was a standard rhetorical technique, 10524 and rhetorical principles suggested that narrative employ comparison of characters in ways useful to the point. A narrative extolling a person could include a statement of his physical prowess (e.g., Josephus outswimming others, Life 15) as part of the praise. 10525 The beloved disciple becomes the first, hence a paradigmatic, believer (20:8), for he believes before a resurrection appearance, merely on the less substantial basis of the empty tomb (cf. 20:29–31). 10526 Yet if the γρ of 20retains its customary force, this verse may be claiming that although the beloved disciplés faith is a paradigm, it is still signs-faith, faith based on seeing (20:8), not the ultimate level of faith (cf. 2:23; 6:30). Better would have been faith in advance that Jesus must rise, based on understanding the word in Scripture (20:9; cf. 2:22). Scripture remains the necessary means for interpreting the event or witness, just as Nathanael understood Jesus» identity both in light of Jesus» revelation and Philip " s earlier appeal to scriptural categories (cf. 1:45,48). 10527 The Scripture to which John refers is unclear here; none of the other explicit references to «Scripture» in this Gospel (7:42; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36–37) speak of a resurrection, though some may be taken to imply it and could be recalled after his resurrection (2:22; 7:38). 10528 Granted, many Pharisaic exegetical defenses of the resurrection, ingenious though they are, were hardly obvious by themselves, 10529 but at least they usually provided their texts. Instead of first appealing primarily to texts supporting the general resurrection, early Christian apologists made significant use of what their contemporaries would accept as specifically Davidic material in Ps 2 (Acts 13:33), Ps 16 (Acts 2:25–28; 13:35), Ps 110 (Acts 2:34–35), and, by means of gezerah sheva (linking together texts on the basis of common key terms), 10530 probably material about the Davidic covenant, as in Isa 55(Acts 13:34). But they seem to have often drawn from a broader base of texts than these alone (e.g., Luke 24:44–47). |
| 6360 Cf. Germanicus " s praise in Dio Cassius 57.18.6; cf. Anderson, Glossary, 125 (citing Rhet. Ad Herenn. 4.63). 6361 E.g., Apollonius of Rhodes 1.307–311 ; 3.443–444. 6362 E.g., Pythagoras (Aulus Gellius 1.9.2; Iamblichus V.P. 17.71); 4Q185 1 2.7–8; 4Q186 1 1.5–6; 2 1.3–4; 4Q561. 6363 Homer I1. 3.167; Od. 1.207, 301; 3.199; 9.508; 10.396; Aristotle Rhet. 1.5.13, 1361b; Arrian Alex. 5.19.1; Plutarch Lycurgus 17.4; Chariton 2.5.2; Herodian 4.9.3; 6.4.4; Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27.37. If the Shroud of Turin should prove authentic, however (see Borkan, «Authenticity»), it would testify that Jesus was, after all, perhaps a head taller than his contemporaries. 6364 Homer Od. 13.289; 15.418; 18.195; Plutarch D.V33, Mor. 568A; Longus 2.23; Achilles Tatius 1.4.5; Jos. Asen. 1:4–5/6–8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 17:6. 6365 Agamemnon was a head taller than Odysseus, but the latter had a broader chest (Homer 17. 3.193–194) and is «tall» in Homer Od. 6.276; 8.19–20. Cf. Cornelius Nepos 17 (Agesilaus), 8.1. 6366 Malherbe, «Description,» comparing Augustus, Heracles, and Agathion. Some of the apparently unflattering features become conventional as early as Homer " s depictions of Odysseus; the «small of stature» observation (Acts Paul 3:3; Paul and Thecla 3) fits his Latin name (Paulus, small). 6367 Drury, Design, 29. 6368 Aristotle Po1. 3.7.3, 1282b; Rhet. 1.6.10, 1362b; Theon Progymn. 9.20; Jdt 8:7; 10:7; cf., e.g., Plato Charm. 158C; Chariton 2.1.5; 3.2.14; 5.5.3; 5.5.9; 6.1.9–12; 6.6.4; Athenaeus Deipn. 13.608F; Sir 36:22 ; t. Ber. 6:4; but cf. Plutarch Bride 24–25, Mor. 141CD; Prov 6:25; 31:30 ; Sir 9:8; 11:2; 25:21 . 6369 Sextus Empiricus Eth. 3.43 recognizes that various peoples defined beauty according to their own cultures. 6370 Homer Il. 1.197; Euripides E1. 515, 521–523; Hipp. 220, 1343; Iph. au1. 758, 1366; Here. fur. 993; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.1084; 3.829; 4.1303, 1407; Virgil Aen. 4.590; 10.138; Ovid Metam. 9.715. 6371 Homer Il. 19.282; Od. 4.14; Aristophanes BirdslU; Apollonius of Rhodes 2.676; Virgil Aen. 4.558; Ovid Metam. 11.165; Apuleius Metam. 5.22. |
|
|
