| 515 Gerhardsson, Memory, 136–48,173; Goulder, Midrash, 64–65. Similar sayings thus could appear in different words (m. Šabb. 9:1; c Abod. Zar. 3:6). 517 P. Sotah 5:6, §1; cf. p. Ketub. 3:1, §4. Of course, the rabbi may have issued several different opinions on a subject in his lifetime; cf. p. B. Qam. 2:6, §3. Sometimes rabbis also seem to have told stories as fictitious homiletic illustrations rather than wishing to be understood as drawing on previous traditions (cf., e.g., Sipre Deut. 40.7.1). 518 Theon Progymn. 1.93–171; cf., e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.23–25 with the Loeb note referring to Plato Apo1. 29C, 28E (LCL 1:70–71). Diodorus Siculus 20.1–2 allowed limited «rhetorical embellishment» in composing speeches for historical works (Aune, Environment, 93). 522 Witherington, Christology, 181, argues that if any historical tradition stands behind the sending of the Twelve, Jesus» disciples were already communicating his teaching during his lifetime. 523 Others before him, such as Dibelius, Tradition, 39, had, however, already drawn less sustained comparisons between rabbinic and gospel traditioning. 524 Smith, «Tradition,» critiques Gerhardsson " s reading of later rabbinic traditioning into the Jesus tradition from three main angles: third-century rabbinic literature cannot represent pre-70 Pharisaism " s transmission techniques; Pharisaism would not represent all of first-century Judaism anyway; and the NT data simply do not fit this kind of traditioning. He is right on all these points, but characteristically overstates his case. Gerhardsson " s own case is overstated, but he does provide more useful evidence than Smith allows (Neusner, «Foreword,» has retracted his earlier severe critique of Gerhardsson, blaming it on Morton Smith " s influence). As many observe (e.g., Hagner, Matthew, l:xlix; Boyd, Sage, 121), the later rabbinic method hardly arose ex nihilo after 70 C.E. 525 Bailey, «Tradition.» Cf., e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 1.2.1 for an example of long informal tra-ditioning by storytelling and song. |
| Jesus withdraws from the intense conflict in Jerusalem (ch. 5) and encounters a different sort of response in Galilee (ch. 6). The «other side» of the lake (6:1) contrasts with Jesus» usual Galilean location on the west side of the lake (e.g., 2:1, 12; 4:45–46), though the exact location is uncertain. 5972 That crowds would flock to Jesus (6:2) fits the rest of the gospel tradition (e.g., Mark 9:15 ; Matt 4:24) and what we know about the response of crowds to popular teachers. 5973 Johns mention of the «mountain» in v. 3 could reflect a minor allusion to the Moses tradition that will dominate the following discourse, especially given the repetition of the mountain in 6:15; probably Matthew had already employed the mountain image to this end (Matt 5:l). 5974 Its primary literary function here, however, appears to be an inclusio with 6:15, 5975 suggesting either that Jesus withdrew on both occasions from overzealous multitudes (6:2) or that Jesus withdrew from militant but uncomprehending followers (cf. 2:23–25) the way he had from active opponents (5:45–6:1). The nearness of the Passover (6:4) explains the flourishing of grass (6:10), which was not always available in much of the «wilderness» (e.g., 1 En. 89:28). The grass already present in the gospel tradition (Matt 14:19)–especially the «green» grass ( Mark 6:39 )–suggests that the nearness of the Passover is a genuine historical reminiscence. 5976 Grass could recall biblical images of abundant provision for livestock sometimes linked with God " s provision for his people ( Deut 11:15 ), but John " s audience would probably not seek biblical allusions in this aspect of the setting. 5977 The primary function of the grass in 6is probably simply to indicate that the ground was easier to sit on (e.g., Virgil Ed. 3.55). The mention of Passover and spring further suggests that at least a year has passed since 2in the story world, developing John " s plot. The language of this verse probably alludes to the language of 2(especially εγγς and «feast of the Jews»; cf. also 11:55; Tabernacles in 7:2), suggesting that one read both passages in light of the impending Passover; Jesus encounters rejection in both passages because he defies traditional expectations of his messianic role. 5978 The most important function of John s mention of Passover is thus that it sets the rest of the chapter in the context of the paschal lamb, and perhaps in the context of the earlier gospel tradition " s passion narrative. Just as Jesus» entire ministry becomes a transfiguration (1:14) and John places the temple cleansing before the public ministry (2:14–22) to bracket the whole, John again invites us to understand Jesus» whole ministry in terms of the passion leading to the cross. (See comments on eucharistic interpretations of the discourse, below.) |
| For Andrew being one of the Baptist " s disciples, we have no other evidence, and Andrew " s commitment to his family " s fishing cooperative with Zebedeés family ( Mark 1:20 ; Luke 5:10) 4153 would not favor the idea that he was a full-time follower of the Baptist. Since one could follow a teacher seasonally (see comment on 1:40–42), perhaps the Baptist could also accept «disciples» who only came and listened to him during the daytime when he was in the area. Whereas the Perean Bethany (1:28) placed the Baptist within range of Judean questioners a few days earlier (1:19), the story world (which probably presupposes some readers familiar with Palestinian topography) may presuppose that he is now nearer the lake of Galilee, for whether the narrative supposes that Jesus still resided in Nazareth (1:45–46; cf. Matt 4:13) or had already settled in Capernaum (2:12; cf. the language of Luke 4:16), his disciples could hardly have followed Jesus home from a Perean Bethany in a single day (1:39). Various details of the narrative cohere with historical data from Jewish Palestine, but these data were also available to the implied audience. The narrative thus makes sense either as history or as the writer " s creation from whole cloth; like most of the Fourth Gospel, it cannot be verified or falsified to a high degree of probability. Like the rest of the Fourth Gospel " s narratives, however, we suspect that it rests on some historical tradition, because the degree of convergence where our other Gospel accounts independently corroborate John indicate that he writes within the general biographical genre and shift the burden of proof to those inclined to read the narrative novelistically. 2. Following Jesus Home (1:37–39) Although the Baptist " s disciples who «followed» Jesus initially did so literally (1:37; cf. 11:31; 20:6), the writer " s usage elsewhere infuses the narrative with the term " s deeper nuances (1:43; cf. 8:12; 10:4; 21:22); 4154 their initial following represents «the precursor of real discipleship.» 4155 The language of following (κολουθω, δετε οπσω, οπσω λθω) represents standard Jewish language for discipleship. 4156 By this period, «disciple» meant not only «learner» but more specifically «adherent,» requiring one to adhere to a great teacher and his schoo1. 4157 |
| The people here are essentially the leaders of the people who bear primary responsibility for leading them to oppose Jesus: hence «the Jews» (18:38; 19:7,12,14) are the «leading priests and officers» (19:6, 15). A flat, composite character, they speak with one voice like a chorus in a Greek tragedy. 9924 1. Preferring a Terrorist (18:38b-40) Pilatés first presentation of Jesus leads to repudiation; the chief priests, who supposedly hand over Jesus for a treason charge (18:33–35) and will claim no king but Caesar (19:15), yet want freedom for an insurgent instead (18:40). 9925 Their real objections to Jesus» claim to be «son of God» may lie elsewhere (19:7; cf. 5:18; 10:33–36), but John " s Asian audience will undoubtedly hear in their claim a support for the emperor cult (19:15), for lack of allegiance to which the Jewish Christians are being betrayed to the Roman authorities. 1A. Pilatés Attempt to Free Jesus (18:38b-39) The conflict between Pilate and the Jewish leaders continues to unfold, emphasizing the responsibility of the leaders of Jesus» own people without denying that of Pilate. 9926 Luke shares with John Pilatés threefold claim to find no guilt in Jesus (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; John 18:38; 19:4, 6 ); if John " s source is not ultimately Luke, then both draw on a common passion tradition here. If Jesus was no threat, Pilate would naturally be inclined to release him (18:39), just as an equally unscrupulous governor a few decades later would release another harmless prophet the chief priests wanted silenced (Josephus War 6.305). 9927 The negative response of the priestly aristocracy is predictable, and one familiar only with this Gospel and not the rest of the gospel tradition (e.g., Mark 15:6–15 ) 9928 might assume that the «Jews» who protest here (18:40) represent the elite with whom Pilate has been dealing (18:28, 35). But the elite often spoke for the masses who trusted and followed them, and John " s audience probably already knows the basic passion story from other sources (cf. |
| Many have taken Jesus» words here as a promise of his future coming. Irenaeus read John 14as a promise of future mansions: those who had performed the greatest works would have the largest mansions; those who produced fruit one hundredfold would live in the heavens; those who produced sixtyfold, in paradise; and those who produced thirtyfold, in the city. 8421 Thus some scholars read this text as a promise of Jesus» future coming. 8422 Holwerda argues this because Jesus will take the disciples to be with him where he is; 8423 his argument falters, however, if «where Jesus is» means simply «in the Father " s presence» (cf. 12:26; 16:28; 17:24; Rev 14:4), the only meaning one would need to derive from the context. He argues that «if His coming is fulfilled in the resurrection appearances, the disciples would again be orphans after the ascension,» 8424 but this assumes that the impartation of the Spirit does not continue Jesus» presence in the same measure as it was experienced in the resurrection appearances, a position John appears to refute (14:16, 23; 20:19–23). Ridderbos suggests that scholars find realized eschatology here only because they deny future eschatology in John " s Gospe1. 8425 This objection cannot apply to all scholars. I do recognize some future eschatology in John " s Gospel (5:28; 6:39–40,44, 54; 12:48), but there is also much realized eschatology (4:23; 5:25; 11:24–26); the question must thus be decided by the immediate context. Others think that the language was originally eschatological but has here been adjusted toward the later Johannine perspective; " 8426 others feel that this is a Johannine double entendre, retaining an eschatological sense while emphasizing the present; 8427 still others believe Jesus is going to the cross and the point is entirely personal communion with Jesus in the present age. 8428 Given the context, one of the two latter views must be correct. Dodd 8429 and Bult-mann 8430 are probably right that John here treats Jesus» death and resurrection as eschatological events, in which case the eschatological language that may be present should be construed in this instance (not everywhere in John) as focusing on Jesus» coming after the resurrection 8431 to impart the Spirit who will continue his presence. 8432 Jesus» return to the Father is how the place is prepared; 8433 the «place prepared» may be connected to Rev 12:8, 8434 developing the Johannine new-exodus motif in which the present age is portrayed as the wilderness ( John 1:23; 3:14; 6:31; 11:54 ). |
| John " s primary purpose in emphasizing her witness is undoubtedly less apologetic (cf. 1Cor 15:5–8 ) than didactic. The faith of Jesus» mother births his public ministry in 2:3–5; more critically as a parallel here, the Samaritan woman " s testimony brings her whole town to meet Jesus for themselves (4:39–42). This sort of testimony and invitation is the same method of witness John recommends for male disciples (1:46). Further, Mary " s message (20:18) is precisely that of the male disciples after her (20:25), the sort of witness on which the Spirit would summon subsequent generations to faith (20:30–31). Appearances to the Disciples (20:19–29) Jesus» first appearance to the disciples (20:19–23) provides the pneumatological climax to the Gospel, the fulfillment of the Paraclete sayings and much of the rest of the final discourse; here Jesus «comes again» to them. But Jesus» second appearance (20:24–29) demonstrates the futility of discipleship without the requisite Christology; Thomas " s skepticism illustrates what disciples would be like without hope in the resurrection. This second appearance to the gathered disciples provides the central climax for the Gospel because it climaxes John " s Christology and his faith motif, defining the basis for sufficient, persevering faith; the Gospel " s primary conclusion, 20:30–31, flows directly out of 20:24–29. 1. Appearance to the Ten (20:19–23) The two major aspects of John " s pneumatology (rebirth and prophetic empowerment) 10639 are fulfilled together in Jesus» «return» to give the disciples the Holy Spirit. One may also note the recurrent context of persecution; although the closed door may allow John to communicate something about the resurrection body (see below and in 20:26), its most explicit function in 20is to indicate that the disciples were afraid of persecution until Jesus came to them, just as John " s audience experiences persecution and requires the empowerment of the Paraclete for boldness to confess Christ. They require an adequate Christology as a foundation for boldness, and boldness to maintain such an offensive Christology. |
| Crucifixion victims often had wounds, and those who had been wounded often showed their wounds to make a point (see comment on 20:20); that Jesus did so stems from pre-Johannine tradition (Luke 24:39–40, though 24is textually uncertain). Soldiers who carried out crucifixions often used rope 10755 but also used nails through the wrists, 10756 which seem to have been used for Jesus (20:25, 27). Dibelius, noting that Matthew and Mark omit the piercing of hands and/or feet, which appears only as hints in the Easter narratives of Luke (24:39) and John (20:20,25,27), thinks the hints of piercing stem from Ps 22rather than historical recollection. 10757 But Dibelius " s skepticism on this point is unwarranted for several reasons: all four extant first-century gospels omit it in descriptions of the crucifixion (as well as many other explicit details, such as the height of the cross, shape of the cross, and other variables we must reconstruct secondhand); Mark and Matthew include the briefest resurrection narratives, Mark without any appearances, so one would not expect them to recount it there; and finally, Luke and John probably supply independent attestation of a tradition that predates both of them, yet neither allude clearly to Ps 22:17 . 10758 Putting hands into Jesus» wounds would convince Thomas that this was the same Jesus (see comment on 20:20); no trickery would be possible. 10759 John omits another tradition in which Jesus confirms his bodily resurrection by eating with the disciples (Luke 24:41–43), preferring the stronger proof of his corporal resurrection. 10760 In the third-century Vita Apollonii by Philostratus, Apollonius invites two of his disciples to grasp him to confirm that he has not, in fact, been executed; 10761 but the Christian resurrection narratives were widespread in the Roman Empire by the time Philostratus dictated his stories. 10762 2C. The Climactic Christological Confession (20:28–29) Ancient writers often used characterization to communicate points about «kinds» of people. Nicodemus was slow to believe (3:2; cf. 7:50) but eventually proved a faithful disciple (19:38–42). Likewise, Thomas had missed the first corporate resurrection appearance, which convinced most of his fellow disciples; given the problem with secessionists in some Johannine communities (1 John 2:19), his missing might provide a warning to continue in fellowship with fellow believers (to whatever extent Thomas " s fellow disciples had already been disciples and believers when Jesus first appeared at that point!) Nevertheless, Thomas becomes the chief spokesman for full christological faith here (20:28–29)–and the foil by which John calls his readers to a faith deeper than the initial resurrection faith of any of the twelve disciples (20:29). |
| Many ancient biographies pass quickly over the subject " s youth or background, focusing on his public career and sometimes at length on his death. 3793 Thus Josephus covers the first thirty years of his life in an opening section that constitutes less than 5 percent of his autobiography; even some of this introductory material specifically prepares the reader for Josephus " s role in the war (see Life 13–16). The Fourth Gospel, in contrast to Matthew and Luke but like Mark, turns very quickly to the Baptists proclamation and Jesus» ministry. The prologués comments about John bearing witness to the light give way naturally to the narrative of 1:19–37, where John points priests and Lévites (1:19–28) and his own disciples (1:35–37; possibly also 1:29–34) to Jesus. This section about John " s witness fits neatly into the whole narrative concerning Jesus» first disciples (1:19–51), 3794 and introduces various christological titles, some of which the Gospel will develop in more detai1. 3795 Different days become the occasion for different confessions: John confesses the coming king on one day (1:19–28), acknowledges that Jesus is that king on the next day (1:29–34), and sends his own disciples after Jesus on the next day (1:35–39). 3796 In the same way, new disciples witness to Jesus, making other disciples, in both 1:40–42 and (on the next day) 1:43–47, in both cases a self-revelatory encounter with Jesus himself being the converting factor (as in 4:42). The climactic confession of this section on discipleship comes in 1:43–47: Jesus is both Son of God and king of Israel (Messiah), and will further reveal more of heaven to the world. In Johannine ecclesiology, discipleship involves witness, and witness introduces open hearts to the Person whose power to address the truest issues of their hearts convinces them. Because much of this material about John " s witness is also attested in the Synoptic tradition, it is clear that the author of the Fourth Gospel does not fabricate John " s witness from whole cloth, but adapts existing traditions. 3797 As promised in the introduction, we will explore questions of tradition in this Gospel where it is most easily discerned, namely, in passages that overlap with the Synoptics. That much of this material is paralleled in substance elsewhere in extant sources suggests that other material in the narrative may derive from historical tradition as well, whether or not the other traditions remain extant. (The differences from the Synoptic tradition need not require an independent tradition–paraphrase was a common enough exercise and verbatim recitation was not essential 3798 –but other sources besides the Synoptics and Q existed then [cf. Luke 1:1], and the writer would not have selected only those texts now extant as if he knew which texts would remain extant and wished to impress only later generations.) |
| Whatever the source of his realized eschatology, John " s eschatological motifs clearly focus on the present. 2769 This need not imply, however, that John would therefore exclude future eschatology. If Aune is correct in his understanding of realized eschatology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2770 it is noteworthy that realized and future eschatology coexisted in the Qumran community without conscious tension. The same could have been true of the Johannine community. Documents like the Fourth Gospel and the Qumran Hymns might stress realized eschatology without much emphasis on future eschatology, yet be employed without contradiction by communities that also used Revelation and the War Scrol1. If the communities envisioned no contradiction, it is likewise possible that the authors themselves envisioned no contradiction. Even a Jewish writer as thoroughly influenced by Hellenistic philosophy as Philo, who rarely indicates his futurist eschatology, had one: Sanders traces Philós hope for Israels future restoration. 2771 Although future eschatology is hardly Johns emphasis, there are clearly futurist passages in his Gospel, 2772 as many scholars recognize. 2773 As in 1 John 2:18 , the author seems to begin with the community " s futurist expectation and establishes the present reality from it (cf. esp. the language in 5:25–29; 11:23–26; 14:2–7). As Bürge comments, «unless we join Bultmann and excise a considerable portion of futurist expectation in John (notably 5:28–29; 6:39–40, 44, 54; 12:48), there is no denying that John expects a future consummation.» 2774 Brown correctly points out that the Pharisees and Christians shared futurist eschatology; it was far more important for John to stress realized eschatology in a Gospel addressed to conflict with Jewish authorities who denied, not future hope, but the inauguration of that hope in Jesus. In 1 John, conversely, the author addresses secessionists whose eschatology is wholly realized, and thus focuses more on future hope than the Gospel had. 2775 |
| Another text, however, has received some (though less) attention in this connection, namely Gen 22:2 . 4138 The differences between this text and the Markan acclamation are considerably less pronounced. Although γαπητς could conceivably reflect a variant of κλεκτς (cf. Luke 9:35; other manuscripts of John 1:34 ), 4139 in the LXX it sometimes is used to translate yahid (an only son), including in Gen 22 , 4140 where it adds to the pathos of God " s call to a father to sacrifice His son; for Mark, in which Jesus» Sonship is defined in terms of the cross (14:36; 15:39), this makes good sense. That the Fourth Gospel would draw on such a tradition also makes sense, given the prevalence of the «only, that is, beloved» son motif of 1:14,18. New Disciples (1:35–42) The Baptist " s general testimony to the reader (1:29–34) gives way to a specific testimony to his disciples (1:35–36), who trust his witness (contrast 1:19–28) and experience Jesus for themselves (1:37–39; cf. 3:25–30). These disciples in turn become witnesses themselves (1:40–42). John weaves his sources into a theology of witness here, and emphasizes that even those who tentatively accept another " s witness must also experience Jesus for themselves to be fully convinced (1:39,46). On 1:36, see comment on 1:29. 1. Historical Plausibility In contrast to the previous paragraphs of the Fourth Gospel, we lack corroboration from the Synoptic accounts here (a matter which seems not to trouble the writer, in whose day perhaps numerous other sources besides the Synoptics and his own eyewitness traditions were extant; cf. already Luke 1:1). 4141 Although the Fourth Gospel is well aware of the historical tradition of the Twelve (6), 4142 he shows no interest in recounting the occasion of their call ( Mark 3:13–19 ; Matt 10:1–4; Luke 6:12–16) or the Synoptic call stories of the fishermen ( Mark 1:16–20 ; Matt 4:18–22; Luke 5:1–11; although the writer is well aware that some are fishermen and may know the Lukan tradition– John 21:3–6 ). The readiness of those disciples to abandon their livelihoods on the occasion depicted in Markan tradition (or to lend Jesus use of their boat in Luke) may actually make more sense historically if they had encountered Jesus on a prior occasion, as this narrative in John would suggest. 4143 |
|
|
