| E. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City (N. Y.), 1977; Beckwith R. T. St. Luke, The Date of Christmas and the Priestly Courses at Qumran//RevQ. 1977. T. 9. N 33. P. 73-94; Hollenbach P. W. Social Aspects of John the Baptizer " s Preaching Mission in the Context of Palestinian Judaism//ANRW. 1979. R. 2. Bd. 19. H. 1. S. 850-875; idem. The Conversion of Jesus: From Jesus the Baptizer to Jesus the Healer//Ibid. 1982. R. 2. Bd. 25. H. 1. S. 196-219; Badia L. F. The Qumran Baptism and John the Baptist " s Baptism. Lanham, 1980; Faierstein M. M. Why do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must Come First?//JBL. 1981. Vol. 100. N 1. P. 75-86; Smith D. Jewish Proselyte Baptism and the Baptism of John//Restoration Quarterly. Abilene (Tex.), 1982. Vol. 25. N 1. P. 13-32; Davies S. L. John the Baptist and Essene Kashruth//NTS. 1983. Vol. 29. N 4. P. 569-571; Allison D. C. Elijah Must Come First//JBL. 1984. Vol. 103. N 2. P. 256-258; Fleddermann H. John and the Coming One (Matt 3:11-12/Luke 3:16-17)//SBL.SP. 1984. Vol. 23. P. 377-384; Fitzmyer J. A. More About Elijah Coming First//JBL. 1985. Vol. 104. N 2. P. 295-296; Horsley R. A., Hanson J. S. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs. Minneapolis, 1985; Nodet E. Jésus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe//RB. 1985. Vol. 92. N 3. P. 321-348; N 4. P. 497-524; Reicke B. The Historical Setting of John " s Baptism//Jesus, the Gospels and the Church/Ed. E. P. Sanders. Macon, 1987. P. 209-224; Riesner R. Bethany beyond Jordan (John 1. 28): Topography, Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel//Tyndale Bulletin. Camb., 1987. Vol. 38. P. 29-63; Ernst J. Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte. B.; N. Y., 1989; idem. Johannes der Täufer - der Lehrer Jesu? Freiburg i. Br.; Basel; W., 1994; Ottillinger A. Vorläufer, Vorbild oder Zeuge?: Zum Wandel des Täuferbildes im Johannesevangelium. St. Ottilien, 1991; Webb R. L. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A socio-historical study. Sheffield, 1991; idem. John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus//Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research/Ed. |
| 992 Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 10. 35. 229. 1–13; Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 15. 22. 88–99; 17. 33. 75–125; Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam ad Ephesios 12. 24. 20–24. 994 При этом между этими состояниями в данном контексте не сделано никакого различия, см.: Origenes. Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 17. 30. 64–72. 995 Origenes. Exegetica in Psalmos//PG 12. 1096 A: σχεδν τν γηνην ποιτητα μς διδσκων ποτθεσθαι μλλειν μς, το εδους σωζομνου κατ τν νστασιν. Важно отметить, что отцы Церкви неизменно толковали этот стих из Послания Коринфянам не в прямом смысле, понимая под плотью грех и страсти. Так, свт. Ириней Лионский учил, что «Апостол говорил не против самого существа плоти и крови», и только еретики считают, что эти слова сказаны «собственно о плоти, о не о делах плотских», см.: S. Irenaus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses 5. 13, 14. Свт. Иоанн Златоуст вторит: «плотью здесь он (Апостол) называет злые дела», см.: S. Joannes Chrysostomus. In epistulami ad Corinthios (Homiliae 1–44). Vol. 61. 363. 58–59. Преп. Варсануфий Великий «плотью и кровью именует нечистые и скверные желания», см.: S. Barsanuphius anachoreta Paliestlnus. Quaestiones et responsiones ad coenobitas 607. 148–151; преп. Максим Исповедник : «согласно Апостолу… плоть есть похоть, кровь же – гнев», см.: S. Maximus Confessor. Quaestiones et dubia 72. 997 Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei (lib. 12–17). 17. 29. 113–115: οκ κενο μν πολαμβανοσης τ σμα νδυομνης δ αθριντι κα κρεττον. 998 Ibid. 17. 30. 19–22: τν νδρα νδρα πλιν σεσθαι ναστντα ρρενα μρια χοντα, κα τν γυνακα γυνακα ναστσεσθαι σμα γυναικεον περικειμνην; Ibid. 17. 33. 118–119: οδ δι’ σχημνων μερν το σματος. 1003 Fragmenta in Lucam (in catenis) 140. 14–16. Следует отметить, что современный английский перевод очень неточно передает смысл данного текста, фактически подразумевая сохранение земных тел, только прославленных (at the resurrection the bodies of the saints will be far more glorious than the ones they had in this life, but will not be different from them; см.: Homilies on Luke: Fragments on Luke by Origen/Transl. by J. T. Lienhard. Washington, D.C, 1996. P. 181), в то время, как оригинальный текст говорит именно об эйдосе: ν τ ναστσει πολλ νδοξτερον τ περ τος γους εδος σται, παρ’ εχον ν τ β τοτ, οχ τερον δ. |
| 1 John 3:17 ); but in the gospels which record the saying, the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus and/or the urgency of serving him while he remains with them, since he was soon to depart. 5. The Danger to Lazarus (12:9–11) The narrative (12:10–11) rings with irony: Jesus went to Judea, risking his life to give life to Lazarus; now Lazarus " s new life may cost him his life. The paradigm for disciples could not be clearer: those who would follow Jesus must be prepared to die (12:25,27), for the world will hate them and wish to kill them (15:18; 16:2). But faith would not be decreased by such martyrdom-producing new life; the sign of Lazarus " s new life brought others to faith (12:11; cf. 11:45,48). 7534 He would also go to Lazarus, who was dead (11:14–15), which Thomas ironically misinterprets–yet inadvertently correctly applies–as lesus going to the realm of death and his disciples following him there (11:16). 7535 Since «friend» applies to all disciples (15:15), there is no reason to find in the cognate «beloved» (11:3) an allusion to the «beloved» disciple (pace Nepper-Christensen, «Discipel,» and others; see our introduction, pp. 84–89) or to one of two such disciples in the Gospel (Vicent Cernuda, «Desvaido»). 7537 There are other exodus parallels (e.g., 3:14), but paralleling the signs and plagues could work at best only at the level of general categories (contrast explicit parallels in Rev 8–9; 16): perhaps darkness for healing the blind (Exod 10:21–22; John 9:5 ), but then why does John mention darkness in 8and 12:35, 46 but mention only «night» in 9:4? Crop-destroying locusts (Exod 10:13–14) could oppose the bread of life, but its exodus background is really manna; likewise, Jesus heals (4:50–53; 5:8–9; 9:7) but the object is not boils (Exod 9:9–11). 7538 Pearce, «Raising»; cf. the caution of Smith, John (1999), 217. A connection with Luke 10:38–39, while unlikely, is more plausible than the allusion to the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:20; the figure in the parable–who is not raised–could as easily derive from the event later reported in John; both stories are quite different, as noted by Streeter, Gospels, 389); Eleazar was a common name (see 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 charge of demonization recalls what we know from the Synoptic tradition ( Mark 3:22 ). 6407 Here it may involve madness (here specifically paranoia). 6408 Greek sources describe madness in terms of divine possession 6409 and employ δαιμνιον and its cognates (though Greek thought typically lacked the pejorative connotations attached in Judaism) to refer to someone insane, often employing the designation as an insult (i.e., «you are crazy»), as here. 6410 But it in this context may also involve an additional component. The claim that Jesus has a «demon» (7:20; cf. 8:48–49; 10:20–21) may associate his works with sorcerers or false prophets, 6411 who were associated with demons or tried to manipulate their spirit-guides through incantations. 6412 Some ancient circles may have revered Moses as a «magician,» necessitating careful nuancing by writers, like Josephus and Philo, who wished to avoid such associations. 6413 Most circles, both Jewish 6414 and Gentile, 6415 regarded magicians as dangerous, 6416 and many sought to avoid the label for themselves or their heroes, 6417 or to charge opponents with the crime. 6418 Some other prophetic figures who acted in a bizarre, antisocial manner seem to have received this label as well (Josephus War 6.303, 305), 6419 including (according to the Q tradition in Matt 11:18; Luke 7:33) John the Baptist. Some contended that false prophets were moved by demons acting as familiar spirits (Irenaeus Haer. 1.13.1, 3). But because sorcery carried a capital sentence in biblical law (Exod 22:18; cf. Rev 21:8; 22:15), 6420 the charge functions ironically: at the very moment they accuse him of having a demon, they profess to be unaware of who might wish to kill him (7:20)! Jesus frequently claims not to act on his own but in obedience to the one who sent him (e.g., 7:16); by treating his father as a «demon,» they are guilty (like the religious leaders in the Markan tradition) of blaspheming against the Spirit ( Mark 3:22, 29–30 ; Matt 12:24, 32; cf. Luke 12:10). Jesus ultimately reverses the charge of de-monization, calling their father the devil ( John 8:41, 44 ). Such references to the devil and possession ( John 13:2, 27 ) suggest that Johns omission of exorcisms reflects his theological emphasis and not necessarily a disagreement with the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus as an exorcist. 6421 |
| 274 Graham N. Stanton, ‘Matthew: BIBΛΟΣ, EY AΓΓEΛION, or BIOΣ?’ in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, BETL 2 (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 1187 – 1201, at 1192. 275 See in particular, H. van de Sandt (ed.), Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005). The relevant bibliography can be found in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, or Christopher M. Tuckett, ‘The Didache and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament’, RNTAF 83 – 127. 278 Gregory, ‘ 1 Clement’ ,131. Speaking of the string of teachings attributed to Jesus in 1 Clem. 13, Gregory says, ‘the material may depend on Matthew and Luke (and perhaps also on Mark), either direcdy or indirectly, or on some of the sources and/or traditions on which the evangelists drew’. 281 See the brief discussion in Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd edn. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 724 – 7. 282 Scholars debate whether Papias’ words mean that Matthew’s Gospel was composed in Hebrew (Aramaic) and later translated into its present Greek form, or simply that he wrote in Greek but in a Hebrew style. Most seem to favour the former, though the latter would seem to fit better the Gospel of Matthew as we know it. 284 See C. E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 385 – 6. 286 F. Siegert, ‘Unbeachtete Papiaszitate bei armenischen Schriftstellem’, New Testament Studies, 27 (1981), 605 – 14. 287 This is fragment 24 in Holmes’s edition of The Apostolic Fathers, fragment 23 in J. Kiirzinger, Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments (Regensburg: Pustet, 1983). 288 Walter Bauer, Rechtglaubigkeit und Ketzerei im altesten Christentum (Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1934), translated as Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 186 – 7. 289 C. E. Hill, ‘What Papias Said About John (and Luke): A “New” Papian Fragment’, Journal of Theological Studies, ns 49 (1998); id., JCEC 385 – 94; 409 – 16. |
| Unfortunately, the Gospel of Christmas is once again proclaimed to a world where the racket of weapons is heard, where unprovoked violence against individuals and peoples is enacted, and where inequality and social justice prevail. It is unbearable to witness the state of countless children, victims of military conflict, irregular situations, manifold exploitations, persecutions and discriminations, as well as hunger, poverty and painful dispossession. Last April, we had the opportunity in Lesbos to witness with our own eyes—together with His Holiness Pope Francis of Rome and His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and All Greece—the tragic circumstances of refugees and immigrants, and especially the acute problems of the suffering children, innocents and defenseless victims of military violence, as well as the racial and religious discrimination and injustice, all of which are constantly increasing. The feast of God’s Word, who became an infant—the child Jesus, whose disappearance is pursued by worldly authority, according to the Evangelist Matthew (Matt 2:13)—is a reminder and invitation for us to care for children, to protect these vulnerable victims and to respect the sacredness of childhood. Of course, children and sensitive souls are also threatened in economically developed and politically stable countries of the world, whether by the immense crisis of marriage and family, or by diverse interventions as well as the use of physical or spiritual force. A child’s soul is altered by the influential consumption of electronic media, especially television and the internet, and by the radical transformation of communication. Unbridled economics transfigures them from a young age into consumers, while the pursuit of pleasure rapidly vanishes their innocence. In light of these dangers, the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church addressed children and young people “with particular love and affection” (Prov. 8) by including the following in its Encyclical: Amid the medley of mutually contradictory definitions of childhood, our most holy Church presents the words of our Lord: Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt 18:3) and whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it (Luke 18:17), as well as what our Savior says about those who “prevent” (Luke 18:16) children from approaching Him and about those who “scandalize” them (Matt 18:6). |
| John further emphasizes here the inseparable relationship between the Father and the Son, repeatedly emphasized and clarified throughout the Gospel (e.g., 1:1–2). The Spirit «proceeds» from the Father (cf. Rev 22:1) 9148 but is sent by the Son (15:26; 16:7; cf. Luke 24:49) as well as by the Father (14:16,26); yet even in sending the Spirit, Jesus first receives the Spirit from the Father (15:26; Acts 2:33; cf. Rom 8:11 ). John attempts no precise disinction between the roles of the Father and the Son here except in acknowledging the Father " s superior rank; the Father often delegates his own roles to the Son in the Gospel (5:20–29). Various other early Christian texts likewise appear unconcerned to make stark differentiations between the roles of Father and Son here; some portray the Spirit as from the Father (e.g., Acts 2:17; 5:32; cf. Eph 1:17 ; Phil 3:3 ; 1Pet 1:12 ), others perhaps from the Son (cf. Rom 8:2, 9 ; Phil 1:19 ; 1Pet 1:11 ). Early Christians probably regarded the alternatives as complementary rather than contradictory (see esp. Gal 4:6 ). On the title «Spirit of truth,» see comment on 14:17. 3A. The Spirit Testifies against the World Certainly the Spirit " s witness is not limited to prosecuting the world as in 16:8–11; the Spirit can witness to believers to confirm their relationship with God, as both the Johannine tradition (1 John 5:6–8, 10) and other early Christian tradition ( Rom 8:16 ; cf. 9:1; Acts 15:8) concurs. But in this context the emphasis lies on prophetic witness to the world (cf. Rev 19:10). Certainly «witness» appears in a forensic sense in some Jesus tradition reported in Mark 13 : believers will be brought before authorities for a witness to (or against) them ( Mark 13:9 ), which will be empowered by the Holy Spirit ( Mark 13:11 ). Although the world could not receive the Spirit (14:26), the Spirit could witness to it (15:26–16:11), just as Jesus testifies but no one receives his witness (3:11,32; 1:10–11). The Spirit of truth and the disciples would both testify concerning Jesus. It is possible that this Paraclete saying is a general statement that summarizes the next two: when the Spirit comes, he will bear witness both to the world (16:8–11) and to the community (16:13–15); both of these sayings are introduced in a manner similar to the ταν ελθη of 15:26, and in each instance the Spirit comes to believers (15:26; 16:7,12–13). 9149 |
| 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). |
| 10172 4 Macc 15:30; Aristotle Po1. 3.2.10, 1277b; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 4.82.3; 6.92.6; Diodorus Siculus 5.32.2; 10.24.2; Livy 2.13.6; 28.19.13; Appian R.H. 2.5.3; 7.5.29; Iamblichus V.P. 31.194. Some philosophers held that women were capable of courage (Musonius Rufus 4, p. 48.8 and that philosophy improved women " s courage (3, p. 40.33–35). 10173 2Macc 7:21; 4 Macc 15:23; 16:14; Diodorus Siculus 17.77.1; 32.10.9; Apuleius Metam. 5.22. «Courage» is literally «manliness» (e.g., 1Macc 2:64; Aristotle E.E. 3.1.2–4, 1228ab; Dio Cassius 58.4.6; Diodorus Siculus 17.45.6; 40.3.6; Theon Progymn. 9.22; Crates Ep. 19; Chariton 7.1.8). 10174 E.g., Homer I1. 7.96; 8.163; 11.389; 16.7–8; Virgil Aen. 9.617; 12.52–53; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 9.7.2; 10.28.3; Diodorus Siculus 12.16.1; 34/35.2.22; Aulus Gellius 17.21.33; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.46; cf. an unarmed man in Homer I1. 22.124–125; an effeminate man in Aristophanes Lys. 98. 10176 Mothers (Homer I1. 22.79–90,405–407; Euripides Supp1. 1114–1164) mourned sons; see especially a mother " s mourning the death of the son who would have solaced her in old age (e.g., Virgil Aen. 9.481–484; Luke 7:12–13). 10177 It may support an identification with the disciple of 18:15–16. The disciple perhaps departs in 19:27, «to his own» (Michaels, John, 319). 10178 Hoskyns, «Genesis,» 211–13; Ellis, Genius, 271; cf. Peretto, «Maria.» The specific meaning in Rev 12 is clearer, but even there the mariological reading is unclear unless one resorts to subsequent tradition; cf., e.g., Keener, Revelation, 313–14, 325–27. 10180 Cf. Moloney, «Mary.» Boguslawski, «Mother,» sees this new «eschatological family» confirmed by the coming of the Spirit in 19:30. 10183 Witherington, Women, 95. Cf. Jesus» mother as an example of discipleship also in Seckel, «Mère.» 10184 For care of parents in their old age, see P.Enteux. 26 (220 B.C.E.); Hierocles Parents 4.25.53; Diogenes Laertius 1.37; Quintilian 7.6.5; Sir 3:16 ; Gen. Rab. 100:2. Some texts view such care as «repayment» of parents (Homer Ii. 4.477–478; 17.302; 1Tim 5:4 ; possibly Christian interpolation in Sib. Or. 2.273–275). More generally on honor of parents, see comment on 2:4. |
|
|
