John, Volume 36: Revised Edition (36) (Word Biblical Commentary) 9780310522164, 0310522161

Table of contents :
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Contents
Editorial Preface
Author’s Preface
Abbreviations
Commentary Bibliography
General Bibliography
Introduction
The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel
The Origin of the Fourth Gospel
The Relations of the Fourth Gospel With the Synoptic Gospels
The Literary Sources of the Fourth Gospel
The Tradition Behind the Fourth Gospel and Its Development
The Religious Relations of the Fourth Gospel
Hellenistic Traditions
Philo
Gnosticism
The Hermetic Literature
Mandaism
Jewish Traditions
The Old Testament In the Fourth Gospel
Rabbinic Judaism
The Qumran Literature
Samaritan Religion
Conclusion
The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel
The External Evidence
The Internal Evidence
The Date and Place of Writing of the Fourth Gospel
Aspects of the Theology of the Fourth Gospel
Christology
Soteriology
Eschatology
The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel
The Structure of the Fourth Gospel
Editorial Preface to the Revised (1999) Edition
Supplement to the Revised (1999) Edition
Part I
Supplement to the Commentary Bibliography
Supplement to the General Bibliography
Part II
Supplementary Bibliography of Exegetical and Theological Discussions of Sections In the Gospel
Part III
Reviews of Significant Recent Books On the Gospel
The Gospel of John
I. The Prologue (1:1–18)
II. The Public Ministry of Jesus (1:19–12:50)
A. Testimonies to Jesus: The Witness of John the Baptist and the Early Disciples (1:19–51)
B. The Revelation of the New Order In Jesus (2:1–4:24)
1. The Beginning of the Signs: Water Into Wine (2:1–12)
2. The Cleansing of the Temple (2:13–22)
3. The Nicodemus Discourse (2:23–3:36)
4. Jesus and the Samaritans (4:1–42)
C. Jesus the Mediator of Life and Judgment (4:43–5:47)
D. Jesus the Bread of Life (6:1–71)
E. Jesus the Water and the Light of Life (7:1–8:59)
1. Jesus the Water of Life (7:1–52)
2. Jesus the Light of Life (8:12–59)
3. A Woman Caught In Adultery (7:53–8:11)
F. Jesus the Light and Shepherd of Humankind (9:1–10:42)
1. Jesus the Light of the World That Brings Judgment to the World (9:1–41)
2. Jesus the Shepherd and Son of God (10:1–42)
G. Jesus the Resurrection and the Life (11:1–54)
H. Jesus the King, Triumphant Through Death (11:55–12:50)
III. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (13:1–20:31)
A. The Ministry of Jesus to the Disciples In the Upper Room (13:1–17:26)
1. The Footwashing and the Betrayal of Jesus (13:1–30)
2. The Departure and the Return of Jesus (13:31–14:31)
3. Jesus the True Vine—The Hatred of the World for the Church—The Joy That Overcomes Tribulation (15:1–16:33)
4. The Prayer of Consecration (17:1–26)
B. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus (18:1–20:31)
1. The Passion Narrative: The Arrest, Trial, Crucifixion, and Burial of Jesus (18:1–19:42)
2. The Resurrection of Jesus (20:1–31)
IV. Epilogue: The Mission of the Church and Its Chief Apostles (21:1–25)
Indexes
Index of Ancient Authors
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Principal Topics
Index of Biblical Texts

Citation preview

WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY

Editorial Board O ld T estam en t Ed itor: Nancy L deClaissé-W alford (2011 - ) New T estam en t E d itor: P eter H . Davids (2 0 1 3 - )

Past Editors General Editors R alph P. M artin (2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 ) B ru ce M. M etzger (1 9 9 7 - 2 0 0 7 )

David A. H u bb ard (1 9 7 7 - 1 996) G len n W. B ark er (1 9 7 7 - 1 984)

Old Testament Editors: Jo h n D . W. Watts (1 9 7 7 - 2 0 1 1 )

Ja m e s W. W atts (1 9 9 7 - 2 011)

New Testament Editors: R alph P. M artin (1 9 7 7 - 2 0 1 2 )

Lynn Allan Losie (1 9 9 7 - 2013)

Volumes 1 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 7a 7b 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18a 18b 19 20 21 22 23a 23b 24 25 26 27

G enesis 1 - 1 5 ..................G ordon J . W enham G enesis 16 - 5 0 ............... G ordon J . W enham E x od u s......................................... Jo h n I . D urham L e v itic u s ....................................Jo h n E . H artley N u m b e r s .........................................Philip J . B u dd D eu tero n o m y 1:1 - 21:9, 2n d ed. . . D uan e L. Christensen D eu tero n o m y 2 1 :1 0 - 3 4 : 1 2 .............D uan e L. Christensen Jo s h u a 1-12, 2 n d e d ..................T ren t C . B u tler Jo s h u a 13-24, 2 n d e d ............... T ren t C . B u tler J u d g e s ........................................... T ren t C . B u tler R uth - E s th e r ......................... F red eric W. Bush 1 Sam uel, 2n d e d ...................... R alph W. Klein 2 S a m u e l....................................... A. A. A nderson 1 Kings, 2 n d ed Sim o n J . Devries 2 K in gs.................................................... T. R. H obbs 1 C h ron icles Roddy Braun 2 C h ron icles R aym ond B D illard Ezra, N e h e m ia h .............H . G. M . W illiam son J o b 1 - 20 David J . A . Clines J o b 21 - 37 David J . A . Clines J o b 38 - 42 David J . A . Clines Psalm s 1 - 50, 2n d ed P eter C. Craigie, M arvin E Tate Psalm s 51 - 1 0 0 ......................... M arvin E . Tate Psalm s 101 - 150, rev ed L eslie C A llen Proverbs R o la n d E. M urphy E cclesiastes R o lan d E. M urphy So n g o f So n gs/ L am en tations . . . . D uan e H . G arrett, Paul R . H ouse Isaiah 1 - 33, rev ed Jo h n D. W . Watts Isaiah 3 4 - 66, rev e d Jo h n D. W . Watts Je re m ia h 1 - 25 P eter C. Craigie, Page H . Kelley, Jo e l F. D rinkard Jr. Je re m ia h 26 - 52 .................. G erald L. Keown, P am ela J . Scalise, T h o m as G. Sm oth ers

*forthcoming as o f 2014 **in revision as o f 2014

28 29 30 31 32 33a 33b 34a 34b 35a 35b 35c 36 37a 37b 38a 38b 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50 51 52a 52b 52c

Ezekiel 1 - 1 9 .................................L eslie C . Allen Ezekiel 20 - 4 8 .............................. L eslie C . Allen D aniel Jo h n E. Goldingay H o sea - J o n a h * * .......................D ouglas Stu art M icah - M a la c h i* * .................... R alph L. Sm ith M atthew 1 - 1 3 .................... D onald A. H agn er M atthew 14 - 2 8 ..................D onald A. H agn er M ark 1 - 8 :2 6 * * R o b e rt A . G uelich M ark 8 :2 7 - 16:20 .......................C raig A. Evans L u ke 1 - 9 :2 0 J o h n N olland L u ke 9:21 - 1 8 :3 4 ......................... Jo h n N olland L u ke 18:35 - 2 4 :5 3 .......................Jo h n N olland Jo h n , 2n d ed G eorge R . Beasley-M urray Acts 1 - 1 4 * .............................S tep h en J . W alton Acts 15 - 2 8 * S tep h en J W alton R om ans 1 - 8 Ja m e s D. G. D unn R om ans 9 - 1 6 .................... .Jam es D . G. D unn 1 C o rin th ian s* Andrew D. Clarke 2 C o rinthians, rev e d R alph P. M artin G alatians R ich ard N. L o n g e n e ck er E p hesian s Andrew T . L in co ln Philippians, rev ed G erald F. H aw thorne, rev by R alph P. M artin Colossians, P h ile m o n ** . . . P eter T. O ’B rien 1 & 2 T h e s s a lo n ia n s * * .................... F. F. B ru ce Pastoral Epistles W illiam D M oun ce Hebrew s 1 - 8 .............................. W illiam L . L an e Hebrew s 9 - 1 3 ............................W illiam L . L an e Ja m e s R alph P. M artin 1 P eter J . Ram sey M ichaels Ju d e , 2 P e te r * * R ich ard J . B au ckham 1, 2, 3, Jo h n , rev ed S tep h en S. Sm alley R evelation 1 - 5 David E. A une R evelation 6 - 1 6 .......................... David E. A une R evelation 17 - 2 2 .......................David E . A une

63WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY John Revised Edition

GEORGE R. BEASLEY-MURRAY General Editors: Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker Old Testament Editors: John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin, Lynn Allan Losie

ZONDERVAN John, Volume 36 Copyright © 1999 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Previously published as John. Formerly published by Thomas Nelson. Now published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollinsChristian Publishing. Requests for information should be addressed to: Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 This edition: ISBN 978-0-310-52216-4 The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows: Library of Congress Control Number: 2005295211 Scripture quotations in the body of the commentary marked RSV are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. The author’s own translation of the Scripture text appears in italic type under the heading Translation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

To Laurence Cobb whose endurance o f suffering enables him to enter into this Gospel m ore than most

Contents Editorial Preface Author's Preface Abbreviations Commentary Bibliography General Bibliography

ix x xii xxvi xxviii

INTRODUCTION x x x ii xxxii T h e E n ig ma o f t h e F o u r t h G o s pe l xxxv T h e O r ig in o f t h e F o u r t h G o s pe l The Relations of the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptic Gospels xxxv The Literary Sources of the Fourth Gospel xxxviii The Tradition behind the Fourth Gospel and Its Development xliv The Religious Relations of the Fourth Gospel liii Hellenistic Traditions liii Philo liv Gnosticism lv The Herm etic Literature lvi Mandaism lvii Jewish Traditions lviii The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel lix Rabbinic Judaism lx The Qumran Literature lxi Samaritan Religion lxiii Conclusion lxv T h e A u t h o r s h ip o f t h e F o u r t h G o s pe l lxvi The External Evidence lxvi The Internal Evidence lxx T h e Da t e a n d P l a c e o f W r it in g o f t h e F o u r t h G o s pe l lxxv As pe c t s o f t h e T h e o l o g y o f t h e F o u r t h G o s pe l lxxxi Christology lxxxi Soteriology lxxxiv Eschatology lxxxv T h e P u r po s e o f t h e F o u r t h G o s pe l lxxxviii T h e S t r u c t u r e o f t h e F o u r t h G o s pe l xc

Editorial Preface to the Revised (1999) Edition SUPPLEMENT TO TH E REVISED (1999) EDITION Pa r t I Supplement to the Commentary Bibliography

xciii

xcv xcv

Co n t e n t s

viii

Supplement to the General Bibliography II Supplementary Bibliography of Exegetical and Theological Discussions of Sections in the Gospel Part III Reviews of Significant Recent Books on the Gospel Pa r

t

T H E GOSPEL OF JO H N I. The Prologue (1:1-18) II. The Public Ministry o f Jesus (1 :1 9 -1 2 :5 0 ) A. Testimonies to Jesus: The Witness o f Joh n the Baptist and the Early Disciples (1 :1 9 -5 1 ) B. The Revelation of the New O rder in Jesus (2 :1 -4 :2 4 ) 1. The Beginning of the Signs: W ater into Wine (2:1—12) 2. The Cleansing of the Temple (2 :1 3 -2 2 ) 3. The Nicodemus Discourse (2 :2 3 -3 :3 6 ) 4. Jesus and the Samaritans (4 :1 -4 2 ) C. Jesus the Mediator of Life and Judgm ent (4 :4 3 -5 :4 7 ) D. Jesus the Bread of Life (6 :1 -7 1 ) E. Jesus the W ater and the Light o f Life (7 :1 -8 :5 9 ) 1. Jesus the W ater of Life (7 :1 -5 2 ) 2. Jesus the Light of Life (8 :1 2 -5 9 ) 3. A W oman Caught in Adultery (7 :5 3 -8 :1 1 ) F. Jesus the Light and Shepherd of Humankind (9 :1 -1 0 :4 2 ) 1. Jesus the Light of the W orld That Brings Judgm ent to the World (9 :1 -4 1 ) 2. Jesus the Shepherd and Son of God (1 0 :1 -4 2 ) G. Jesus the Resurrection and the Life (1 1 :1 -5 4 ) H. Jesus the King, Trium phant through Death (1 1 :5 5 -1 2 :5 0 ) III. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (1 3 :1 -2 0 :3 1 ) A. The Ministry of Jesus to the Disciples in the U pper Room (1 3 :1 -1 7 :2 6 ) 1. The Footwashing and the Betrayal of Jesus (13:1-30) 2. The Departure and the Return of Jesus (1 3 :3 1 -1 4 :3 1 ) 3. Jesus the True Vine— The Hatred of the World for the Church— The Joy That Overcomes Tribulation (1 5 :1 -1 6 :3 3 ) 4. The Prayer o f Consecration (1 7 :1 -2 6 ) B. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus (1 8 :1 -2 0 :3 1 ) 1. T he Passion Narrative: The Arrest, Trial, Crucifixion, and Burial of Jesus (1 8 :1 -1 9 :4 2 ) 2. The Resurrection o f Jesus (2 0 :1 -3 1 ) IV. Epilogue: The Mission of the Church and Its Chief Apostles (2 1 :1 -2 5 ) Indexes

xcv c c cv cv

1 18 18 31 32 37 43 56 66 81 100 100 123 143 148 149 162 180 201 222 222 227 240

265 291 308 308 364 392 419

Editorial P reface

The launching of the W ord B iblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell. First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to scripture as divine revelation, and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel. Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the W ord B iblical Commentary. Unlike several of our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to a theological understanding of scripture understandable by— and useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister as well as to colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers. Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout in clearly defined sections has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed “Notes.” If the readers’ concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of scripture, then they should turn to the sections on “Bibliography” and “Form/Structure/Setting.” For a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the “Comment” and concluding “Explanation” are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick and use these volumes. If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded. General Editors:

D avid A. H ubbard Glenn W. B arker † Old Testament: Jo h n D. W. Watts New Testament: R alph P. M artin

Author’s Preface

The Gospel of John has been well served by commentators, from Origen in the third century of our era to the present day. It is likely that it claims the attention of more scholars at the present time than any other book of the Bible. In 1967 Eduard Malatesta issued a substantial work, consisting of a classified bibliography of books and periodical literature on our Gospel published during the period 1920-65 (St. John's Gospel, Analecta Biblica 32 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute]). It listed 3120 works, with more than 1800 book reviews that had appeared mainly in the “Elenchus Bibliographic cus,” vols. 1-47. When Hartwig Thyen, in a series of articles in the Theologische Rundschau (1974, 1977, 1978, 1979) reviewed literature on the Fourth Gospel that had appeared in the previous twenty years, his bibliography of books and articles for the five years 1966-71 comprised 34 pages of closely printed small type. That is an indication of the interest, even fascination, that the Fourth Gospel awakes in New Testament scholars. Naturally the Gospel was not written for the benefit of the academic community; couched in the simplest language possible, it was written to provide the Church with an exposition of the Good News of Jesus, the Christ and Son of God, and to show inquirers into the Christian faith the way to life through him (20:30-31). The young believer finds in it an enthralling exposition of the faith that he or she has embraced; the mature Christian receives from it an illuminating revelation of the person of the Redeemer who is the subject of the book; the aged saint gains from it comfort and a glimpse of the glory of God that irradiates life’s eventide; and Christians departing from this world take with them the word of life and peace given by the Shepherd of souls. The very nature of the work as a product of preaching and teaching makes it the preacher’s Gospel par excellence. The writer of this commentary has passed through most of these stages in his own experience (the last is yet to come!). Converted to the Christian faith in his teens, he found this Gospel a thrilling book, though at that time he found the opening sentences quite baffling (how could a Word be God?). As a theological student he discovered unsuspected depths in the book, but found some aspects of the critical treatment of the Gospel difficult to appreciate. On becoming a pastor in the midst of World War 2 he learned the comfort of this book to those who were shattered by the tragedies enacted around them and the power of its presentation of the Good News of Christ for those who had neither faith nor hope. It was as a young pastor that he listened to the crystal-clear exegesis of the Gospel by C. H. Dodd (and incidentally learned to what heights lecturing could attain). At the same time he was guided in his studies by that stern disciplinarian, P. Gardner-Smith, who had a special interest in the Fourth Gospel. Through them he was introduced to the work of E. C. Hoskyns, and from him he learned that a New Testament commentary should both do justice to the theology of the book and withal

Author's Preface

XI

impart something of the spiritual experience that lay behind it. It was Hoskyns who made known to the writer the existence of Adolf Schlatter and led him to explore the writings of that kindred spirit far beyond the Johannine corpus. So he was prepared to engage with Bultmann, and incidentally to understand what it was that those two diametrically opposed exegetes (Schlatter and Bultmann) had in common—a passionate desire to demonstrate that the gospel was not only to be believed but to be lived. Returning to Barrett’s commentary one appreciated its commonsense stance. And it was intriguing to realize that the two most influential recent commentaries on the Gospel are by Roman Catholic scholars—Raymond Brown in the U.S.A. and Rudolf Schnackenburg in Germany: the former work is splendid for the pastor in his preaching; the latter is an unprecedented mine of information (many mines!) and contains a constant flow of insights into the meaning of the text. This personalized description of works on John’s Gospel could continue, lengthily, and might well lead to the question, Why, then, yet another commentary on it? One supreme consideration weighed with the writer in his decision to embark on this work. He knows well that average ministers are far too busily engaged in their diverse responsibilities to attempt to cope with Hoskyns and Bultmann, with Barrett and Dodd, with Schnackenburg and Haenchen, etc.—still less to examine the endless stream of articles and monographs on varied aspects of the Fourth Gospel. It seemed that there was room for an attempt to pass on some of the treasures of modern study of this Gospel and with them to combine one’s own findings and convictions. It has been an immeasurable enrichment of mind and heart to prepare for and write this exposition of the so-called “spiritual Gospel.” To study the book with integrity, openness and with expectation of the guidance of the Paraclete-Spirit can and should be a spiritual adventure for anyone. It will lead the reader to a more profound understanding of him of whom it tells— Jesus, the Christ, the incarnate Son of God, Word of God, Son of Man, and Savior of the World; and, if the purpose of its composition is fulfilled in him, it will lead to a deeper faith in and knowledge of that same Jesus, and a more adequate witness to him before the world. It remains for me to express my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Larry Kreitzer, formerly a student at Louisville and now at Regent’s Park College, Oxford, for his work in compiling the indexes. Ge o r g e R. B e a s l e y -Mu r r a Y Hove, E. Sussex

Abbreviations

A. General Abbreviations Codex Alexandrinus A comment on ad Akkadian Akkad. N Codex Sinaiticus Apocalyptic Literature Ap. Lit. Apoc. Apocrypha Aq. Aquila’s Greek Translation of the Old Testament Arab. Arabic Aramaic Aram. В Codex Vaticanus Codex Ephraemi Syri C c. circa, about confer, compare cf. chap., chaps. chapter, chapters cod., codd. codex, codices contra in contrast to CUP Cambridge University Press Codex Bezae D DSS Dead Sea Scrolls (see F.) edited, edition, editor; ed. editions exempli gratia, for example e .g. Egyptian Egyp. et al. et alii, and others et passim and elsewhere ET English translation EV English Versions of the Bible f., ff. following (verse or verses, pages, etc.) fem. feminine FS Festschrift ft. foot, feet gen. genitive Gr. Greek Heb. Hebrew Hitt. Hittite ibid. ibidem, in the same place id. idem, the same i.e. id est, that is impf. imperfect below infra.

in loc. Jos. Lat. LL. LXX M masc. mg. MS(S) MT n. n.d. Nestle

in loco, in the place cited Josephus Latin Late Latin Septuagint Mishna masculine margin manuscript(s) Masoretic text note no date Nestle (ed.) Novum Testamentum Graece

no. NS NT obs. OL OS ОТ p., pp. pace

par. Pers. Pesh. Phoen. pl. Pseudep. Q q.v. rev. Rom. RVm Samar. sc.

Sem. sing. Sumer. s.v. Syr.

revised by K. and B. Aland number New Series New Testament obsolete Old Latin Old Syriac Old Testament page, pages with due respect to, but differing from paragraph Persian Peshitta Phoenician plural Pseudepigrapha Quelle (“Sayings” source in the Gospels) quod vide, which see revised, reviser, revision Roman Revised Version margin Samaritan recension scilicet, that is to say Semitic singular Sumerian sub verbo, under the word Syriac

A bbreviations

Symm. Targ. Theod. TR tr. UBS Ugar. u.s.

Symmachus Targum Theodotion Textus Receptus translation, translator, translated The United Bible Societies Greek Text Ugaritic ut supra, as above

viz. vol. v , vv

vs. vg WH

xiii videlicet, namely

volume verse, verses versus Vulgate Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek

X

§

number of times words occur section

B. Abbreviations for Translations and Paraphrases AmT Smith and Goodspeed, The T LB The Living Bible Complete Bible, An American Moffatt J. Moffatt, A New Translation Translation ASV

AV

Beck

American Standard Version, American Revised Version (1901) Authorized Version Beck, The New Testament in die

o f the Bible NAB NASB NEB NIV

Language o f Today BV

Berkeley Version (The Modern Language Bible)

Ph

GNB

Good News Bible

RSV

Testament in Modem English

Wey

Revised Standard Version Revised Version—1881-1885 Today’s English Version R. F. Weymouth, The New

Wms

C. B. Williams, The New

JB

The Jerusalem Bible

RV

JPS

Jewish Publication Society Version o f the Old Testament

TEV

KJV

Knox

King James Version R. A. Knox, The Holy Bible: A

The New American Bible New American Standard Bible The New English Bible The New International Version J. B. Phillips, The New

Testament in Modem Speech

Translation from the Latin Vulgate in die Light o f the Hebrew and Greek Original

Testament: A Translation in the Language o f the People

C. Abbreviations of Commonly Used Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Acta apostolicae sedis antiken Judentums und des AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Urchristentums Research AH F. Rosenthal, An Aramaic AB Handbook Anchor Bible

AAS

ABR AbrN

Australian Biblical Review Abr-Nahram

AHR AHW

ACNT

Augsburg (Commentary on the New Testament

AION

AcOr

Acta orientalia

ACW ADAJ

Ancient Christian Writers Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan

AER

American Ecclesiastical Review African Ecclesiastical Review Archiv fü r Orientforschung

AFER AfO

AJA AJAS AJBA

American Historical Review W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch Annali dell’istituto orientali di Napoli American Journal o f Archaeology American Journal o f Arabic Studies Australian Journal o f Biblical Archaeology

A bbr

XIV AJSL A JT

ALBO ALGHJ ALUOS AnBib AnBoll ANEP

e v ia t io n s

American Journal o f Semitic Languages and Literature American Journal of Theology

ATANT

Analecta lovaniensia biblica et orientalia Arbeiten zur L iteratur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentum s Annual o f Leeds University Oriental Society Analecta bíblica Analecta Bollandiana j . В. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient

ATD

Near East in Pictures A N E ST P

ANET

ATR AU SS

Anglican Theological Review Andrews University Seminary Studies

BA

Biblical Archaeologist

ВАС

Biblioteca de autores cristianos

BAR

Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin o f the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin o f the American Society o f Papyrologists

BASOR

J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East Supplementary Texts and Pictures J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Tetam ents (AThANT) Das Alte Testam ent Deutsch

BASP

BBB

B onner biblische Beiträge

BCSR

Bulletin of the Council on the Study o f Religion

BDB

ANF

T he Ante-Nicene Fathers

Ang

Angelicum

AnOr

Analecta orientalia

E. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and

ANO Anton

Andover Newton Quarterly Antonianum

English Lexicon of the Old Testament

AOAT

Alter O rient und Altes Testam ent American Oriental Series J. Marouzeau (ed.), L'année

AOS AP

BDF

Grammar of the N T

BDR

philologique APOT

ARG

R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament Archiv fü r Reformationsgeschichte

BeO

BEvT

BETL

ARM

Archives royales de Mari

ArOr

Archiv orientální

ARSHLL

Acta Reg. Societatis H um aniorum Litterarum Lundensis

BFCT

ARW

Archiv fü r Religionswissenschaft

BGBE

ASNU

Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis

BCD

A SS AsSeign A SSR

Acta sanctae sedis Assemblies du Seigneur Archives des sciences sociales des religions Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute

A ST I

ATAbh

Alttestamentliche A bhandlungen

F. Blass, A. D ebrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek F. Blass, Á. D ebrunner, and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch Bibbia e oriente

Bibliotheca ephem eridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie (BEvTh) Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie (BFCTh) Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese W. Bauer, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, Greek-English Ijexicon oj the N T

BHH

B. Reicke and L. Rost (eds.).

BH K BH S

Biblisch-Historisches H andwörterbuch R. Kittel, Biblia hebraica Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia

BHT

Beiträge zur historischen Theologie (BHTh)

XV

Abbreviations

Bib

Bíblica

BibB

Biblische Beiträge

BibLeb

Bibel und Leben

BibOr BibS(F)

Biblica et orientalia Biblische Studien (Freiburg, 1895-) (BSt) Biblische Studien (Neukirchen, 1951—) (BibSt)

BibS(N) BibZ BiTod BIES BIFAO BJRL BK

Biblische Zeitschrift Bible Today Bulletin o f the Israel Exploration Society (= Yediot) Bulletin de l'institut fran çais d 'archéologie orientale Bulletin o f the John Rylands University Library o f Manchester Bibel und Kirche

В КAT

Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament

BL BLE

Book List Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique Bibel und Liturgie

BLit

BNTC

Black's New Testament Commentaries (=HNTC)

BO BR BS BSac BSO(A)S

Bibliotheca orientalis Biblical Research Biblische Studien, Freiburg Bibliotheca Sacra Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental (and African) Studies The Bible Translator Biblical Theology Bulletin Bible et terre sainte

ВТ ВТ В BTS

BU

Biblische Untersuchungen

в Vс

Bible et vie chrétienne

BWANT BZ

BZAW BZET BZNW BZRGG

CAT

Commentaire de l’Аnсіеn Testament

CB CBQ

Cultura biblica Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS

Catholic Biblical Quarterly—Monograph Series Corpus Catholicorum Corpus Christianorum

CCath CChr CH CHR

CIG CH CIL CIS CJT ClerRev

CNT ConB

CSCO CSEL СТА CTJ CTM

Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZA W

CurTM DACL DBSup

CAD CAH

The Assyrian Dictionary o f the Oriental Institute o f the University o f Chicago Cambridge Ancient History

Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Coniectanea biblica

Coniectanea neotestamentica ConNT Corp Herrn. Corpus Hermeticum Church Quarterly CQ Church Quarterly Review CQR Comptes rendus de l’Académie CRAIBL des inscriptions et belleslettres Crozier Quarterly CrQ

Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte z. Evangelische Theologie Beihefte zur ZNW Beihefte zur ZRGG

Church History Catholic Historical Review Corpus inscriptionum graecarum Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum Corpus inscriptionum latinarum Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum Canadian Journal of Theology Clergy Review

DISO

Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques Calvin Theological Journal Concordia Theological Monthly Currents in Theology and Mission Dictionnaire d ’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement

C.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l’ouest

xvi DJD DOTT

DS DTC DTT DunRev

EBib EBT EDB

EHAT EKKNT EKL Encjud EnchBib E rjb EstBib ETL ETR EvK EvQ EvT Exp ExpTim

EBBS FC FRLANT FTS GAG

Abbr

e v ia t io n s

Discoveries in the Judean Desert D. W. Thomas (ed.),

GKC

Documents from Old Testament Times

GNT

Denzinger-Schönmetzer,

GOTR

Enchiridion symbolorum Dictionnaire de theologie catholique (DTHC) Dansk teologisk tidsskrift

GRBS

Dunwoodie Review

Greg GThT

Etudes bibliques (EtBib)

GuL

Encyclopedia o f Biblical Theology L. F. Hartman (ed.), Encyclopedic Dictionary o f the Bible

Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

HALAT

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar,

ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament Greek Orthodox Theological Review Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Gregorianum Geformelet Theologisch Tijdschrift Geist und Leben

W. Baumgartner et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament

HAT HDR

Handbuch zum Alten Testament Harvard Dissertations in Religion

Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon Encyclopaedia judaica (1971) Enchiridion biblicum Eranos fahrbuch Estudios bíblicos Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses (E T h lj Etudes theologiques et religieuses (EThR) Evangelische Kommentar The Evangelical (Quarterly Evangelische Theologie (EvTh) The Expositor The Expository Times

HeyJ H ibf

Heythrop J ourna l Hibbert Journal

HKAT

Facet Books, Biblical Series Fathers of the Church Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Frankfurter Theologischen Studien W. von Soden, Grundriss der

HNTC

Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harper’s NT Commentaries

HR

History o f Religions

HSM HTKNT

Harvard Semitic Monographs Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (HThKNT)

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HTS

Harvard Theological Studies

HUCA HUTh

Hebrew Union College Annual Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie

IB IBD

Interpreter’s Bible Illustrated Bible Dictionary,

ICC

ed. I. D. Douglas and N. Hillyer International Critical Commentary G. A. Buttrick (ed.),

HKNT HNT

akkadischen Grammatik

GCS

Griechische christliche Schriftsteller

GeistLeb

Geist und Leben

GKB

Gesenius-KautzschBergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik

IDB

Interpreter’s Dictionary o f the Bible

Abbreviations

XVII

IDBSup

Supplementary volume to

JQRMS

Jewish Quarterly Review Monograph Series

Щ Int ITQ

IDB Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation Irish Theological Quarterly

JR JRAS

Journal o f Religion Journal o f the Royal Asiatic Society Journal o f Religious Ethics Journal o f Religious Studies Journal o f Religious History Journal o f Roman Studies Journal o f Religious Thought Journal fo r the Study o f Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal fo r the Study o f the New Testament Journal fo r the Study o f the Old Testament Journal o f Semitic Studies Journal o f the Scientific Study o f Religion Journal fo r Theology and the Church Journal o f Theological Studies Judaica: Beiträge zum Verständnis . . .

JA JAAR

Journal asiatique Journal o f the American Academy o f Religion

JAC

Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum

JAMA

Journal o f the American Medical Association JANESCU Journal o f the Ancient Near Eastern Society o f Columbia University JAOS Journal o f the American Oriental Society Journal o f Asian Studies JA S A. Jones (ed.), Jerusalem JB Bible JB C R. E. Brown et al. (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary JB L Journal o f Biblical Literature Journal o f Bible and Religion JB R JC S Journal of Cuneiform Studies

JDS

Judean Desert Studies

JEA

Journal o f Egyptian Archaeology Journal o f Ecclesiastical History Jaarbericht. . . ex oriente lux Journal o f Ecumenical Studies Journal o f the Evangelical Theological Society Journal o f Hellenic Studies Journal o f Indian and Buddhist Studies Journal o f Indian Philosophy Journal o f Jewish Studies Journal o f Middle Eastern Studies Journal o f Mithraic Studies Journal o f Near Eastern Studies Journal o f the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Publication Society Version Jewish Quarterly Review

JE H JEO L JE S JE T S JH S JIB S JlP h JJS JM ES JM S JN ES JPOS JPSV JQ R

JR E JR elS JR H JR S JR T JS J JSN T JSO T js s

JSSR JT C JT S Judaica

KAI

H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften

KAT

KB

E. Sellin (ed.), Kommentar zum A. T. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in

KD

Veteris Testamenti libros Kerygma und Dogma

KJV KIT

King James Version Kleine Texte

LCC LCL LD

Library of Christian Classics Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina

Lei LLAVT

Lesonénu

LPGL

LQ LR

LSJ LTK

E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae Veteris Testamenti G. W. H. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon Lutheran Quarterly Lutherische Rundschau Liddell-Scott-Jones, GreekEnglish Lexicon Lexikon fü r Theologie und Kirche (LThK)

хѵш l u

Å

Abbr

e v ia t io n s

Lunds universitets årsskrift

LW

Lutheran World

McCQ

McCormick Quarterly

MDOG

Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft H. A. W. Meyer, Kritischexegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament

MeyerK

MGWJ

Monatsschrift Jur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums

MM

J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary o f the Greek Testament

MNTC

Moffatt NT Commentary

MPAIBL

Mémoires présenté a l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres Patrología Graeca, ed. J. P.

MPG

Migne, 1844 ff. MScRel MTZ MUSJ

MVAG

NAB NAG

NCB NCCHS

Mélanges de science religieuse Münchener theologische Zeitschrift (MThZ) Mélanges de l’université SamtJoseph

Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft New American Bible Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen

New Century Bible (new edit.) R. C. Fuller et al. (eds).,

NC1B NEB NedTTs Neot

NFT NHS NICNT

NKZ NorTT NovT

NovTSup

C. Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary o f New Testament Theology Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift (NTT) Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplement

New Docs New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, A Review of Greek Inscriptions etc. ed. G. H. R. Horsley. North Ryde, NSW, Australia NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers NRT NTA

NTAbh NTD NTF

La nouvelle revue théologique (NRTh) New Testament Abstracts

Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Neue Testament Deutsch Neutestamentliche Forschungen

NTS

New Testament Studies

NTSR

The New Testament for Spiritual Reading New Testament Tools and Studies

NTTS Numen

Numen: International Review fo r the History o f Religious

OCD

Oxford Classical Dictionary

OIP

Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia lovaniensia periodica

OLP

Encyclopedia

OLZ Or OrAnt OrChr OrSyr

Orientalische Literaturzeitung Orientalia (Rome) Oriens antiquus Oriens christianus L’orient syrien

New Clarendon Bible

ÖTKNT

Ökumenische TaschenbuchKommentar zum NT Oxford Theological Monographs Oudtestamentische Studiën

New Catholk Commentary on Holy Scripture NCE

NIDNTT

M. R. P. McGuire et al. (eds.), New Catholic New English Bible Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift (NedThTs) Neotestamentica

New Frontiers in Theology Nag Hammadi Studies New International Commentary on the New Testament

OTM OTS PAAJR PC

Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Proclamation Commentaries

XIX

Abbreviations

PCB

M. Black and Η. H. Rowley (eds.), Peake's Commentary on

RevExp RevistB RevScRel RevSém RevThom RGG

Review and Expositor Revista biblica Revue des sciences religieuses Revue sémitique Revue thomiste Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique Revue d'histoire et de Philosophie religieuses (RHPhR)

PEQ PG

the Bible Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Patrologia graeca, ed. J. P.

Migne K. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri

RHE

PGM

graecae magicae Philosophy East and West Philosophical Review Palästina-Jahrbuch Patrología Latina, J. P.

RHPR RHR

Revue de l’histoire des religions

Migne Pelican New Testament Commentaries Patrología orientalis

RivB

Rivista biblica

RNT

Regensburger Neues Testament Revue de Qumrân Review o f Religion Rivista degli studi orientali Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques (RSPhTh) Recherches de science religieuse (RechSR) Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques

PEFQS

PhEW PhRev

PJ

PL

PNTC PRU PSTJ

Le Palais royal d'Ugarit Perkins (School o f Theology) Journal

RQ RR RSO RSPT

PVTG

Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti graece Pauly-Wissowa, Real-

RSR

Encyklopädie der klassischen Altertums-wissenschaft

RscPhTh

Ю

PW PWSup

Supplement to PW

QDAP

Quarterly o f the Department o f Antiquities in Palestine

RA

Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale Reallexikon fü r Antike und Christentum Revue archéologique Revue biblique Revue bénédictme Revista de cultura biblica Realencyklopädie fü r protestantische Theologie und Kirche

RSV

Revised Standard Version

RTL

Revue théologique de Louvain (RThL) Revue de théologie et de Philosophie (RThPh) The Reformed Theological Review Revue de l'université Ottawa

RTP RAC RArch RB RBén RCB RE

RTR RUO

RV

Revised Version

SacPag

Sacra Pagina Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften (phil.-hist. Klasse), 1910 ff.

SAH

RechBib

Recherches bibliques

SANT

REg R EJ

Revue d'égyptologie Revue des étudesjuives

SAQ

RelArts

Religion and the Arts

RelS RelSoc RelSRev RES

Religious Studies Religion and Society Religious Studies Review Repertoire d'épigraphie sémitique Restoration Quarterly

RestQ

SB SBFLA SBJ

Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften Sources bibliques Studii biblici franciscani liber annuus La sainte bible de J érusalem

Abbr

XX

SBLASP SBLDS SBLMasS SBLMS SBLSBS SBLSCS SBLTT SBM SBS SBT

sc

ScEs SCR Scr ScrB

SD SE

SEÅ Sef SeinSend Sem

SHAW SHT SHVL

SJLA

e v ia t io n s

Society of Biblical Literature Abstracts and Seminar Papers SBL Dissertation Series SBL Masoretic Studies SBL Monograph Series SBL Sources for Biblical Study SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBL Texts and Translations Stuttgarter biblische Monographien Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Sources chrétiennes

SPAW

Science et esprit Studies in Comparative Religion Scripture Scripture Bulletin

StudNeot

Studies and Documents Studia Evangelica I, II, III (= TU 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88 [1964], etc.)

SVTP

Semitic Study Series Studia theologica (StTh) Svensk teologisk årsskrift Studia Biblica et Theologica

STDJ

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

STK

Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift

Str-B

[H. Strack and] P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

StudOr SUNT

Studia neotestamentica, Studia Studia orientalia Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha

(StEv) Svensk exegetisk årsbok Sefarad Sein Sendung Semitica

SymBU

Symbolae biblicae upsalienses (SyBU)

ТАРА

Transactions of the American Philological Association

Sitzungsberichte heidelbergen Akademie der Wissenschaften Studies in Historical Theology Skrifter Utgivna Av Kungl. Humanistika Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

TBC

Torch Bible Commentaries Theologische Blätter (ThBl) Theologische Bücherei (ThBü)

SNT

Studien zum Neuen Testament (StNT) Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Symbolae osloenses Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series

SPap

SSS ST STÅ StBibT

Southwestern Journal of Theology

Scottish Journal o f Theology Studi e materiali di storia delie religioni

SO SOTSMS

Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses

SW JT

SJT SMSR

SNTSMS

SPB SR

Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Studia postbiblica

Studia papyrologica

TBI

TBü твт

TD TDNT

The Bible Today Theology Digest

G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament

TextsS

Texts and Studies

TF

Theologische Forschung (ThF) Theologie und Glaube (ThGI) Theology Theologische Arbeiten Theologische Berichte

TGI Th ThA ThBer

THKNT

Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament (ThHKNT)

TLZ

Theologische Literaturzeitung (ThLZ)

XXI

Abbreviations

TNTC

Tyndale New Testament Commentary

VoxEv

Vox Evangelica

VS

Verbum salutis

TP

Theologie und Philosophie (ThPh) Theologisch-Praktische Quartalschrift Theologische Quartalschrift (ThQ) Theologische Revue Theologische Rundschau (ThR) Theological Studies Theologische Studien und Kritiken (ThStK) Teologisk Tidsskrift Tidsskrift fo r Teologi og Kirke Theology Today

VSpir VT

Vie spirituelle Vetus Testamentum

TPQ TQ TRev TRu TS TSK TT TTKi TToday

M. Luther, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (= “Weimar” edition) Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Commentary

WBC WC WDB WHAB

Westminster Dictionary o f the Bible Westminster Historical Atlas of the Bible

WO WTJ

Die Welt des Orients Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT

sches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (ThWAT)

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

WZKM

G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theologisches

WZKSO

Wiener Zeitschrift fü r die Kunde des Morgenlandes Wiener Zeitschrift fü r die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens

TTZ

Trierer theologische Zeitschrift (TThZ)

TU

Texte und Untersuchungen

TynB TWAT

Tyndale Bulletin

G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologi-

Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ThWNT) Theologische Zeitschrift (ThZ)

UBSGNT

United Bible Societies Greek New Testament

UF

Ugaritische Forschungen

UNT

Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

US USQR

Una Sancta Union Seminary Quarterly Review C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook

UT

WA

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

Trierer Theologische Studien

TZ

Vetus Testamentum, Supplements

WMANT

TTS

TWNT

VTSup

UUÄ

Uppsala universitetsårsskrift

VC VCaro VD VF VKGNT

Vigiliae christianae Verbum caro Verbum domini Verkündigung und Forschung К. Aland (ed.), Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament

ZA ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZEE ZHT ZKG ZKNT ZKT ZMR ZNW

Zeitschrift fü r Assyriologie Zeitschrift fü r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina- Vereins Zeitschrift fü r evangelische Ethik Zeitschrift fü r historische Theologie (ZHTh) Zeitschrift fü r Kirchengeschichte Zahn's Kommentar zum NT Zeitschrifft fü r katholische Theologie (ZKTh) Zeitschrifft fü r Missions-kunde und Religions-wissenschaft Zeitschrift fü r die neutestamentliehe Wissenscheft

Abbr

XXII ZRGG ZST

e v ia t io n s

Zeitschrift fü r Religions-und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschrift fü r systematische Theologie (ZSTh)

Zeitschrift fü r Theologie und Kirche (ZThK) Zeitschrift fü r wissenschaftliche Theologie (Z W T h )

ZTK ZW T

D. A bbreviations fo r Books o f the Bible· the A pocryp ha, and the P seu depigrapha

NEW TEÍSTAMENT 1 Tim Matt 2 Tim Mark Titus Luke Philem John Heb Acts James Rom 1 Peter 1 Cor 2 Peter 2 Cor 1 John Gal 2 John Eph Phil 3 John Jude Col Rev 1 Thess 2 Thess

OLD TESTAM ENT 2 Chr Dan Gen Hos Ezra Exod Neh Joel Lev Esth Amos Num Obad Job Deut Ps(Pss) Jonah Josh Prov Mic Judg Nah Eccl Ruth Hab Cant 1 Sam Zeph Isa 2 Sam Jer Hag 1 Kgs Lam Zech 2 Kgs Ezek Mal 1 Chr

1 Esd 2 Esd Tob Jud Add Esth Wisd Sol Sir Bar

APOCRYPHA Ep Jer 1 Esdras S Th Ch 2 Esdras Tobit Sus Judith Bel Additions to Esther Pr Man Wisdom of Solomon 1 Масс Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of 2 Масс Jesus the Son of Sirach) Baruch

Epistle of Jeremy Song of the Three Children (or Young Men) Susanna Bel and the Dragon Prayer of Manasseh 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees

E . A bbreviations o f the N am es o f P seu d ep igrap h ical and Early P atristic Books

Adam and Eve Books of Adam and Eve 2-3 Apoc. Bar. Syriac, Greek Apocalypse Apoc. Abr. Apoc. Mos. Ase. Isa. As. Mos. Bib. Ant. 1 - 2 - 3 Enoch Ep. Arist. Ep. Diognetus Jub. Mart. Isa. Odes Sol. Pss. Sol. Sib. Or. T. Abr.

of Baruch Apocalypse of Abraham Apocalypse of Moses Ascension of Isaiah Assumption of Moses Ps.-Philo, Biblical Antiquities Ethiopic, Slavonic, Hebrew Enoch Epistle of Aristeas Epistle to Diognetus Jubilees Martyrdom of Isaiah Odes of Solomon Psalms of Solomon Sibylline Oracles Testament of Abraham

T. 12 Patr. T. Benj. T. Levi Acts Pil. Apoc. Pet. Gos. Eb. Gos. Eg. Gos. Heb. Gos. Naass. Gos. Pet. Gos. Thom. Prot. Jas. Bam . 1 -2 Clem. Did. Diogn.

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Benjamin, etc. Testament of Levi, etc. Acts of Pilate Apocalypse of Peter Gospel of the Ebionites Gospel of the Egyptians Gospel of the Hebrews Gospel of the Naassenes Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thomas Protevangelium of James Barnabas 1-2 Clement Didache Diognetus

Abbreviations Herrn. Man. Sim. Vis. Ign. Eph. Magn. Phld. Pol. Rom.

Hermas, Mandates Similitudes Visions Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp Ignatius, Letter to the Romans

Smyrn. Trail. M art Pol. Pol. Phil. Adv. Haer. De Praesc. Haer.

x x iii

Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians Martyrdom o f Polycarp Polycarp to the Philippians Irenaeus, Against All Heresies Tertullian, On the Proscribing of Heretics

F . A bbreviations o f N am es o f Dead Sea S crolls and R elated T exts

CD Hev Mas Mird Mur P

Q 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, etc.

QL lQ apG en 1QH lQIsaa,b lQ pH ab

Cairo (Genizah text of the) Damascus (Document) Nahal Hever texts Masada texts Khirbet Mird texts Wadi Murabbacat texts Pesher (commentary) Q um ran Num bered caves of Q um ran, yielding written material; followed by abbreviation of biblical or apocryphal book Q um ran literature Genesis Apocryphon of Q um ran Cave 1

1QM IQS lQSa lQSb 3Q 15 4QFlor

Milhamah (War Scroll) Serek hayyahad (Rule of the Community, Manual of Discipline) Appendix A (Rule of the Congregation) to 1QS Appendix В (Blessings) to

1QS Copper Scroll from Q um ran Cave 3 Florilegium (or Eschatological Midrashim)

4QMess ar 4QPrNab 4QTestim

Hödäyöt (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Q um ran

4QTLevi

Cave 1 First o r second copy of Isaiah from Q um ran Cave I Pesher on Habakkuk from Q um ran Cave 1

4QPhyl 1lQMelch

11QtgJob

from Q um ran Cave 4 Aramaic “Messianic” text from Q um ran Cave 4 Prayer of Nabonidus from Q um ran Cave 4 Testimonia text from Q um ran Cave 4 Testament of Levi from Q um ran Cave 4 Phylacteries from Q um ran Cave 4 Melchizedek text from Q um ran Cave 11 Targum of Job from Q um ran Cave 11

G. A bbreviations o f T argu m ic M aterial

Tg. Onq. Tg. Neb. Tg. Ket. Frg. Tg. Sam. Tg. Tg. Isa. Pal. Tgs. Tg. Neof.

Targum Onqelos Targum of the Prophets Targum of the Writings Fragmentary Targum Samaritan Targum Targum o f Isaiah Palestinian Tar gums Targum Neofiti I

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Tg. Ps.-J. Tg. Ver. 1 Targum Yerusalmi I * Tg. Yer. 11 Targum Yerusalmi II * Yemenite Targum Yem. Tg. Tg. Esth I, First or Second Targum of Esther II

*o ptional title

xxiv

Abbr

e v ia t io n s

H . A bbreviations o f O th er R abbinic W orks

'Abot 'Ag. Ber. Bab. Bar. Der. Er. Rob. Der. Er. Zut. Gem. K a lb Mek. M idr.

'Abot de Rabbi N athan 5Aggadat Beresit Babylonian Baraita Derek Eres Rabba Derek Eres Zuta Gemara Kalla M ekilta M idras; cited with usual

abbreviation for biblical book; but M idr. Qoh. = Pal. Pesiq. R.

M idras Qohelet Palestinian Pesiqta Rabbati

Pesia. Rob Kah. Pesiqta de Rob Kahana Pvrqe R . El. P irqe Rabbi Eliezer Rabbah (following Rob.

abbreviation for biblical book: Gen. Rab. [with periods] = Genesis Sem. Sipra Sipre Sop. S. 'Olат Rab. Talm. Yal.

Rabbah) Semahot Sipra Sipre Soperim Seder 'Olат Rabbah Talmud Yalqut

I. A bbreviations o f O rd ers and T ractates in M ishnaic and R elated L iteratu re

'Abot cArak. cAbod. Zar. В. Bat. Bek. Ber. Besa Bik. В. Mes. В. Qam. Dem. Έ d. cErub. Git. Hag. Hal. Ноr. H ul. Kelim Ker. Ketub. Kil. M a cas. Мак. Maks. Meg. M e 'il. M enah. M id. Miqw. M oced M oced Qat. M a cas. S. Nasim

Pirqe 'Abot cArakin cAboda Zara Baba Batra Bekorot Berakot Besa (= Yom Tob) Bikkurim Baba Mesi ca Baba Qamma Demai cEduyyot cErubin Gittin Hagiga H alla Horayot H ullin Kelim Kerit ot Ketubot K il'ayim M a caserot M akkot Maksirin (= M asqin ) M egilla M e 'ila M enahot M iddot M iqwa'ot M oced M oced Qatan M a caser Seni Nasim

N azir Ned. Neg. Nez. N id. Ohol. ‘Or. Para Pe ' a Pesah. Qi nnim Qidd. Qod. Ros. H as. Sanh. Sabb. Seb. Sebu. Seqal. Sota Sukk. Та can. Tamid Tem. Ter. Tohar. T. Yom 'U q. Yad. Yebam. Yoma Zabim Zebah Zer.

N azir Nedarim Nega 'im Neziqin Niddah Oholot 'Orlа Para Pe ’a Pesahim Qinnim Qtddusin Qpdasin Ros Hassana Sanhedrin Sabbat Sebi 'it Sebu cot Seqalim Sota Sukka Та canit Tamid Temura Terumot Toharot Tebul Yom 'U qsin Yadayim Yebamot Yoma (= Kippurim) Zabim Zebahim Zera 'im

A b b revia tio n s

XXV

J . A bbreviations o f N ag H am m adi T ractates

Apost.

Acts o f Peter and the Twelve Apostles A llogenes A llogenes A p.Jas. Apocryphon o fJames Apocryphon o f John Ap. John Apoc. Adam Apocalypse o f Adam 1 Apoc. Jos. First Apocalypse o f James 2 Apoc. Jas. Second Apocalypse o f James Apoc. P aul Apocalypse o f P aul Apoc. Pet. Apocalypse o f Peter Ascleptus Ascleptus 21—2 9 Auth. Teach. Authoritative Teaching Dial. Sav. Dialogue o f the Savior Disc. 8 -9 Discourse on the Eighth and N inth Ep. Pet. Phil. Letter o f Peter to Philip Eugnostos the Blessed Eugnostos Exeg. Soul Exegesis on the Soul Gos. Eg. Gospel o f the Egyptians Gospel o f Philip Gos. Phil. Gos. Thom. Gospel o f Thomas Gos. Truth Gospel o f Truth Great Pow. Concept o f our Great Power Hyp. Arch. Hypostasis o f the Archons Hypsiph. Hypsiphrone Interp. Know. Interpretation o f Knowledge Marsanes, Marsanes

Norea On Bap. A On Bap. В On Bap. C On Euch. A On Euch. В Orig. World Paraph. Shem Pr. Paul Pr. Thanks Prot. Jos. Sent. Sextus Soph. Jes. Chr. Steles Seth Teach. Stlv. Testim. Truth Thom. Cont. Thund. Treat. Res. Treat. Seth Tri. Trac. Trim. Prot. Val. Exp. Zost.

Thought o f Norea On Baptism A On Baptism В On Baptism C On the Eucharist A On the Eucharist В On the Origin o f the World Paraphrase o f Shem Prayer o f the Apostle Paul Prayer o f Thanksgiving Protevangelium o fJames Sentences o f Sextus Sophia o f Jesus Christ Three Steles o f Seth Teachings o f Silvanus Testimony o f Truth Book o f Thomas the Contender Thunder, Perfect M ind Treatise on Resurrection Second Treatise o f the Great Seth Triparite Tractate Trimorphic Protennoia A Valentinian Exposition Zostrianos

N ote: The text upon which this volume is based is that of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 31975. The textual notes and numbers used to indicate individual· manuscripts are those found in the apparatus criticus of that work.

Commentary Bibliography

Barclay, W. The Gospel o f John. 2 vols. Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1956. Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. London: SPCK, 2 1978. Bauer, W. Das Johannesevangelium. HNT 6. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1925. Becker, J. Das Evangelium des Johannes. 2 vols. OTKNT 4/1, 2. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1979, 1981. Bernard, J. H. The Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. Ed. A. H. McNeile. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928. Blank, J. The Gospel According to St. John , vols. 2-3. NTSR 8-9. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Boice, J. M. The Gospel o f John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979. Boismard, Μ. E., and Lamouille, A. L ’évangile de Jean. Paris: Cerf, 1977. Bouyer, L. The Fourth Gospel. Tr. P. Byrne. Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1964. Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John. 2 vols. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1966 and 1970. Bruce, F. F. The Gospel o f John. Basingstoke: Pickering & Inglis, 1983. Büchsei, F. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. NTD 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51949. Bultmann, R. The Gospel o f John. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation o f the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: CUP, 1953. 289-453. Edwards, R. A. The Gospel According to St. John : Its Criticism and Interpretation. London: J. Clarke, 1954. Fenton, J. C. The Gospel According to John. NCIB. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. Findlay, J. A. The Fourth Gospel: An Expository Commentary. London: Epworth, 1956. Gnilka, J . Johannesevangelium. Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1983. Godet, F. Commentary on the Gospel o f St.John. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899-1900. Grundmann, W. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968. Haenchen, E. Das Johannesevangelium. Ed. U. Busse. Tübingen: Mohr, 1980. ET: A Commentary on the Gospel o f John. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Heitmüller, W. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Die Schriften des NT 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1908. Hendriksen, W. Exposition o f the Gospel According to John. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954. Hobbs, H. H. An Exposition o f the Gospel o f John. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968. Hoskyns, E. C. The Fourth Gospel. Ed. F. N. Davey. London: Faber & Faber, 2 1947. Howard, W. F. The Gospel According to John. IB 8. Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1952. Huckle, J. and P. Visokay. The Gospel According to St. John. NTSR 1. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Hull, W, E .John. Broadman Bible Commentary 9. Nashville: Broadman, 1970. Hunter, A. M. The Gospel According to John. CBC. Cambridge: CUP, 1965. Kysar, R. John. ACNT. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986. Lagrange, M. J. Évangile selon Saint Jean. Paris: Gabalda, 8 1948. Lightfoot, R. H. St. John's Gospel: A Commentary. Oxford: OUP, 1956. Lindare, B. The Gospel o f John. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1972. Loisy, A. Le quatrieme évangile. Paris: Nourry, 21921. MacGregor, G. H. C. The Gospel o f John. MNTC. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928. MacRae, G. W. Invitation to John : A Commentary on the Gospel o f John. New York: Doubleday, 1978. Marsh, J. The Gospel o f St.John. PNTC. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968. Morris, L. The Gospel According to John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. Newbigin, L. The Light Has Come: An Exposition o f the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Richardson, A. The Gospel According to Saint John. TBC. London: SCM, 1959. Sanders, J. N·, and B. A. Mastin. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. BNTC. London: A. Sc C. Black, 1968. Schlatter, A. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament, pt. 3. Stuttgart: Calwer, 4 1928.-------- . Der Evangelist Johannes: Wie er spricht, denkt und glaubt: Ein Kommen-

Commentary Bibliography

xxvii

tar. Stuttgart: Calwer, 21948. Schnackenburg, R. The Gospel According to St. John. 3 vols. HTCNT. London: Bums & Oates, 1968, 1980,1982. Schneider, J. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. NTD 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Smith, D. M. John. PC. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Strachan, R. H. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment. London: SCM, 31941. Strathmann, H. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. NTD 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel According to St. John. TNTC. London: Tyndale Press, 1960. Temple, W. Readings in St. John's Gospel. 2 vols. London: Macmillan, 1939, 1940. Tenney, M. C. John : The Gospel o f Belief. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948. Wellhausen, J . Das Evangelium Johannes. Berlin: Reimer, 1908. Westcott, B. The Gospel According to St.John. London: Murray, 21881. -------- . The Gospel According to St. John : The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. 2 vols. London: Murray, 1908. Wikenhauser, A. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 6 1961. Zahn, T. Das Evangelium des Johannes ausgelegt.

Leipzig: Deichert, 5 1921.

General Bibliography

Abbott, E. A. The Son o f Man. Cambridge: CUP, 1910. Barrett, C. K. “The Theological Vocabulary of the Fourth Gospel and the Gospel of Truth.” Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation. FS O. A, Piper. Ed. W. Klassen & G. F. Snyder. London: SCM, 1962. 111-23.-------- . “John and the Synoptic Gospels.” ExpTim 85 (1974) 228-33. —------ . The Gospel o f John and Judaism. Tr. D. M. Smith. London: SPCK, 1975. Blank, J . Krisis. Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie. Freiburg: Lambertus, 1964. Borgen, P. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study o f the Concept o f Manna in the Gospel o f John and the Writings o f Philo. NovTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1965.-------- . “Some Jewish Exegetical Traditions in the Fourth Gospel.” L*Evangile de Jean : Sources, rédaction, théologie. BETL 44, 1977. 243-58. Bowker, J. W. “The Origin and Purpose of St. John’s Gospel.” NTS 11 (1964-65) 398-408.-------- . The Targums and Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge: CUP, 1969. Bowman, J . “Samaritan Studies.” BJRL 40 (1958) 298-327. Brown, R. E. The Community o f the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. Brownlee, W. H. “Whence the Gospel according to John T* John and Qumran. Ed. J. H. Charlesworth. London: Chapman, 1972. 166-94. Bruns, J . E. The Art and Thought o f John. New York: Herder & Herder, 1969. Buchanan, G. W. “The Samaritan Origin of the Gospel of John.” Religions in Antiquity. Ed. J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1968. 149-75. Carson, D. A. “Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions.” JB L 97 (1978) 411-29. -------- . “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?” Gospel Perspectives, Studies o f History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, II. Ed. R. T. France & D. Wenham. Sheffield: JSNT Press, 1981. 8 3 -1 4 5 .-------- . “Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel.” TynB 33 (1982) 59-91. Charlesworth, J . H. “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS iii, 13-14, 26 and the ’Dualism’ Contained in the Fourth Gospel.” NTS 15 (1968-69) 389-418; also in John and Qumran. Ed. J. H. Charlesworth. London: Chapman, 1972. 107-36. Coipe, C. “Gnosis, I. Religionsgeschichtlich.” RGG 3d. ed. Tübingen: Mohr, 1958. II, 1648-52. Cribbs, F. L. “A Reassessment of the Date of Origin and Destination of the Gospel of John.” 89 (1970) 38-55. Cullmann, О. The Johannine Circle. Tr. J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1976. Culpepper, R. A. The Johannine School: An Evaluation o f the Johannine School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation o f the Nature o f Ancient Schools. SBLDS 26. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975.-------- . “The Pivot of John’s Prologue.” NTS 27 (1980) 1 -3 1 .-------- . Anatomy o f the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Foundations and Facets: New Testament. Ed. R. W. Funk. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Dahl, N. A. “The Johannine Church and History.” Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation. FS O. A. Piper. Ed. W. Klassen & G. F. Snyder. London: SCM 1962. 124-42. Demke, C. “Der sogenannte Logos Hymnus im johanneische Prolog.” ZNW 58 (1967) 45-58. Dodd, С. H. The Interpretation o f the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: CUP, 1953.-------- . “The Prophecy of Caiaphas: John xi. 47-53.” Neotestamentica et Patristica. FS O. Cullmann. Ed. W. C. van Unnik & B. Reicke. Leiden: Brill, 1962. 134—43; also in More New Testament Studies. Manchester: Univ. Press, 1968. 58 -6 8 .-------- . Historical Tradition in (he Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: CUP, 1963.-------- . “The Portrait of Jesus in John and in the Synoptics.” Christian History and Interpretation. FS John Knox. Ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, R. R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: CUP, 1967. 183-88.-------- . “А l'аrrі èге plan d’un dialogue johannique.” RHPR (1957) 5 -1 7 .-------- . “Behind a Johannine Dialogue.” More New Testament Studies. 41-57.-------- . “A Hidden Parable in the Fourth Gospel.” More New Testament Studies. 30-40. Filson, F. V. “The Gos-

General Bibliography

XXIX

pel of Life: A Study of the Gospel of John.” Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation. FS O. A. Piper. 111—23. Fortna, R. T. The Gospel o f Signs: A Reconstruction o f the Narrative Source underlying the Fourth Gospel. SNTSMS 11. Cambridge: CUP, 1970. Freed, E. D. “Did John Write His Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts?” NovT 12 (1970) 241-56. Gardner-Smith, P. Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels. Cambridge: CUP, 1938. Green-Armytage, A. H. N.John Who Saw: A Layman's Essay on the Authorship o f the Fourth Gospel. London: Faber, 1952. Haenchen, E. “Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium 1928-1956.” TRu 23 (1955) 295-335.-------- . “Gnosis und Neues Testament.” RGG 3d. ed. Vol. 2. 1653-56. Hare, D. R. A. The Theme o f Jewish Persecution o f Christians in the Gospel According to St Matthew. SNTSMS 6. Cambridge: CUP, 1967. Hartingsveld, L. van· Die Eschatologie des Johannesevangeliums. Assen: van Gorcum, 1962. Holland, H. S. The Fourth Gospel. Ed. W. J. Richmond. London: Murray, 1923. Hegermann, H. “Er kam in sein Eigentum: Zur Bedeutung des Erdenwirkens Jesu im vierten Evangelium.” Der R uf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. FS J. Jeremias. Ed. E. Lohse, C. Burchard, B. Schalter. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. 112—31. Howard, W. F. The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation. London: Epworth, 31945; revised by С. К. Barrett, 1955.-------- . Christianity according to St. John. London: Duckworth, 1943. Hunter, A. M. According to John : A New Look at the Fourth Gospel. London: SCM, 1968. Jaubert, A. Approches de l'Evangile de Jean. Paris: Seuil, 1976.-------- . “The Calendar of Qumran and the Passion Narrative.”John and Qpmran. Ed. J. H. Charlesworth. 62-75. Jeremias, J. “The Revealing Word.” The Central Message o f the New Testament. London: SCM, 1965. 71-90. Jocz, J. The Jewish People and Jesus Christ. London: SPCK, 1954. Jonge, M. de, ed. L'évangile de Jean : Sources, rédaction, théologie. BETL 44. Louvain: University Press, 1977.-------- .Jesu s: Stranger from Heaven and Son o f God. Tr. J. E. Steely. SBLSBS 2. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Käsemann, E. “Ketzer und Zeuge, zumjohanneischen Verfasserproblem.” ZThK 48 (1951) 292-311.-------- . The Testament of Jesus: А Study o f the Gospel o f John in the Light o f Chapter 17. London: SCM, 1968. --------. “The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John’s Gospel.” New Testament (Questions o f Today. London: SCM, 1969. 138-67. Kilpatrick, G. D. “The Religious Background of the Fourth Gospel.” Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Ed. F. L. Cross. London: Mowbray, 1957. 3 6 -4 4 .-------- . “What John Tells Us about John.” Studies in John. FS J. N. Sevenster. Leiden: Brill, 1970. 75—87. Kragerud, A. Der Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium. Oslo: Universitäts Verlag, 1959. Kümmel, W. G. Introduction to the New Testament. Tr. H. C. Kee. London: SCM, 1975.-------- . Theology o f the New Testament. Tr. J. E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. Kysar, R. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975.-------- .Joh n , The Maverick Gospel. Atlanta: Knox, 1976.-------- . “The Source Analysis of the Fourth Gospel—a Growing Consensus?” NovT 15 (1973) 134—52. Léon-Dufour, X. “Le mystère du pain de vie (Jean VI).” RSR 46 (1958) 481-523.-------- . “Towards a Symbolic Understanding of the Fourth Gospel.” NTS 27 (1981) 439-56. Lindars, B. Behind the Fourth Gospel. London: SPCK, 1971.--------. “Traditions behind the Fourth Gospel.” L'Evangile de jean , Sources, rédaction, théologie. Ed. M. de Jonge. 107-24. Lohmeyer, E. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. HNT. Tübingen: Mohr, 1953. Lorenzen, T. Der Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1971. Macdonald, J. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: SCM, 1964. Macdonald, J. & Higgins, A. J. B. “The Beginnings of Christianity according to the Samaritans: Introduction, Text, Translation, Notes and Commentary.” NTS 18 (1971) 54-80. MacRae,G. W. “The Ego-Proclamation in Gnostic Sources.” The Trial of Jesus. FS C. F. D. Moule. Ed. E. Bammel. SBT, 2d ser. 13. London: SCM, 1970. 122-34. Malatesta, E· St.John's Gospel: 1920-1963: Accumulative and Classified Bibliography o f Books and Periodical Literature on the Fourth Gospel. AnBib 32. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967. Manson, T. W. “The Fourth Gospel.” BJRL 30 (1946-47) 312-29. -------- . On Paul and John : Some Selected Theological

XXX

Ge n e r

al

B ib l io g r

a ph y

Themes. Ed. M. Black. SBT 38. London: SCM 1963. Martyn, J . L. “Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community.“ L'Evangile de Jean , Sources, redaction, théologie. Ed. M. de Jonge. 149-75.-------- . History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. Nashville: Abingdon, 21979. Meeks, W. A. The Prophet-King. Leiden: Brill, 1967.-------- . “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.” JB L 91 (1972) 44-72. Michaelis, W. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Bern: Berchtold Haller, 1954. Miranda, J . P. Die Sendung Jesu im vierten Evangelium: Religions-und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Sendungsformeln. SBM 87. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. Moffatt, J . An Introduction to the New Testament.3 Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1918. Mottle, C. F. D. “A Neglected Factor in the Interpretation of Johannine Eschatology.” Studies in John. FS J. N. Sevenster. Leiden: Brill, 1970.-------- . “The Individualism of the Fourth Gospel.” NovT 5 (1962) 171-90. Munck, J . “The New Testament and Gnosticism.” Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation. FS O. A. Piper. 224-38. Mussner, F. The Historical Jesus in the Gospel o f St. John. Quaestiones Disputatae no. 19. London: Bums and Oates, 1967. Neirynck, F . Jean et les Synoptiques: Examen critique de l'exégèse de M.-E. Boismard. Leuven: 1979. Nicol, W. The Semeia in the Fourth Gospel. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Odeberg, H. The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World. Uppsala: 1929. Pancaro, S. “ ‘People of God’ in St. John’s Gospel.” NTS 16 (1969-70) 114-129.------- “The Relationship of the Church to Israel in the Fourth Gospel.” NTS 21 (1975) 396405. Pollard, T. E. Johannine Christology and the Early Church. SNTSMS 13. Cambridge: CUP, 1970. Porsch, F. Pneuma und Wort. Ein exegetischer Beitrag zur Pneumatologiedes Johannesevangeliums. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1974. Robinson, J . A. The Historical Character o f St. John's Gospel. London: Longmans-Green, 1908. Robinson, J . A. T. Twelve New Testament Studies. SBT 34. London: SCM, 1962.-------- . “The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St.John.” NTS 9 (1962-63) 120-29.--------. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM, 1976.-------- . “The Place of the Fourth Gospel.” The Roads Converge. Ed. P. Gardner-Smith. London: Arnold, 1963. 49-74. -------- . The Priority o f John.

Ed. J. F. Coakley. London: SCM, 1985. Roloff, J . “Der johanneische ‘Lieblingsjünger’ und der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit.” NTS 15 (1968-69) 129-51. Ruckstuhl, E. Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums. Freiburg: Paulus, 1951.-------- . Chronology o f die Last Supper. New. York: Desclée, 1965. Sanders, J . N· The Fourth Gospel and the Early Church. Cambridge: CUP, 1943.-------- . “St. John on Patmos.” NTS 9 (196263) 75-85. Sanders, J. T. The New Testament Christological Hymns. SNTSMS 15. Cambridge: CUP, 1971. Schottroff, L. Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung fü r Paulus und das Johannesevangelium. WMANT. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Schweizer, E. Ego Eimi. Göttin-

gen: Vandenhoeck, 1939.-------- . “Jesus der Zeuge Gottes. Zum Problem des Doketismus im Johannesevangelium.” Studies in John. FS J. N. Sevenster. 161-86. Scobie, C. H. H. “The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity.” NTS 19 (197273) 390-414. Sevenster, G. “Remarks on the Humanity of Jesus in the Gospel and Letters of John.” Studies in John. FS J. N . Sevenster. Leiden: Brill, 1970. 185-93. Smalley, S. S. John : Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978. Smith, D. M., Jr. The Composition and Order o f the Fourth Gospel: Bultmann's Literary Theory. Yale Publications in Religion 10. Ed. D. Heme. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965.-------- . “The Sources of the Gospel of John: An Assessment of the Present State of the Problem.” NTS 10 (1964) 336-51. Solages, B. d e. Jean et les Synoptiques. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Thyen, T. “Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium.” TRu 39 (1975) 1-69, 22252, 289-330; 42 ( 1977) 211-70; 44 (1979) 97-134.-------- . “Entwicklungen innerhalb der johanneischer Theologie und Kirche im Spiegel von Joh 21 und der Lieblingsjünger Texte des Evangeliums.” L'Evangile de Jean : Sources, redaction, théologie. Ed. M. de Jonge. 259-99. Teeple, Η. M. “Methodology in Source Analysis of the Fourth Gospel.” JB L 81 (1962) 271Í-86. -------- . The Literary Origin o f the Gospel o f John. Evanston:

G eneral Bibliography

XXXI

Religion and Ethics Institute, 1974. Thüsing, W. Die Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu in Johannesevangelium. NTAbh 21/1-2. Münster: Aschendorff, 1960. Titus, E. L. “The Identity of the Beloved Disciple.” JB L 49 (1950) 323-28. Torrey, С. C. “The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel.” HTR 16 (1923) 305-44. Uunik, W. C. van. “The Purpose of St. John’s Gospel.” The Gospels Reconsidered. Papers read at the Congress on the Four Gospels in 1957. Oxford: OUP, 1960. 167-96. Wiles, M. F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation o f the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: CUP, 1960. Wilkens, W. Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums. Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1958. Wilson, R. McL. Gnosis and the New Testament. Oxford: Blackwell, 1968. Windisch, H. Johannes und die Synoptiker. Leipzig: 1926.-------- . The Spirit-Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Yamauchi, E. PreChristian Gnosticism: A Survey o f the Proposed Evidence. London: Tyndale, 1973.

Introduction

I. T h e E n ig ma

of t he

Fo u r t h Go s pe l

The last of the four Gospels appears among the rest in a manner reminiscent of the appearance of Melchizedek to Abraham: “without father, without mother, without genealogy” (Heb 7:3). Everything we want to know about this book is uncertain, and everything about it that is apparently knowable is matter of dispute. The Gospel is anonymous; argument about its traditional ascription to the apostle John has almost exhausted itself. We cannot be sure where it was written, or when. We are uncertain of its antecedents, its sources, and its relationships. This includes its relations with the synoptic Gospels and with the religious movements of its day. Whereas many scholars have spoken of it as the gospel for the Greek world, others have seen it as firmly rooted in Judaism by upholding the good news of Christ among Christians from the Synagogue. Issues of this kind admittedly are problems for the academic community, and they provide wonderful subjects for Ph.D. dissertations. But the question of how to square the presentation of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel with those provided by the other three is a very serious one, and it concerns every preacher of the gospel and every student of the life of Jesus. The elements of contrast are well known and do not require detailed description here. Let it suffice to mention the opening of the Gospel and its subsequent narrative matter and teaching (the passion narrative is significantly closer to those of the synoptics). The prologue to the Gospel provides a theological statement about the activity of the Logos in the universe that would magnificently open an epistle; set as it is at the beginning of the Gospel, it provides an interpretation of the story of Jesus before the story is told. This “story” unfolds almost entirely in Judea, chiefly in Jerusalem (Jesus operates in Galilee only in 2 :1 1 2 , 4 :4 3 -5 4 , and chap. 6; in most of chap. 4 he is in Samaria). This complicates the picture of the ministry considerably. Whereas the synoptic account of the Galilean ministry of Jesus begins after John the Baptist is imprisoned, in the Fourth Gospel Jesus and the Baptist exercise concurrent ministries in Judea. The feasts in the temple of Jerusalem feature prominently in John; no less than three Passovers are mentioned, which entail a ministry of at least two years and are consonant with a longer one, in contrast to the synoptic account of the work of Jesus in Galilee, which could be comprised of less than a year. The teaching of Jesus in the synoptics is characterized by his parables and collections of sayings, nearly all of which are related to the theme of the kingdom of God. In John there is little parabolic teaching (it has to be uncovered by the scholars), but there are many discourses, with dialogues and monologues, largely relating to the overarching theme of the transcendent significance of the mission of Jesus, and all are stamped with the style of the Evangelist.

in trodu ction

ХХХШ

How to account for these phenomena constitutes the major problem o f the Fourth Gospel. Earlier apologetic emphasized the historical nature o f the synoptic presentations o f Jesus, in contrast to the theological interpretation provided by Joh n. That distinction can no longer be maintained. We now realize that the synoptic Evangelists are also theologians, and that each presents Jesus from the vantage point o f his own theological interests and in the light o f the needs o f his community. It is particularly instructive to compare Mark with John. Early in his career C. H. Dodd pointed out that Mark and Jo h n have one basic feature in common: both concentrate on presenting Jesus in the kerygma, without diverting into the “didache” (instruction) which Matthew and Luke provide (The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments,2 [1944], 54-55). Kähler’s famous definition o f a gospel as a passion narrative with an introduction applies particularly well to Mark and Joh n, although both seek to set forth the eschatological significance o f the total messianic ministry o f Jesus, and both view the whole as illuminated by the Resurrection (without the Easter illumination, a gospel would be inconceivable). There is, however, ground for affirming that the process o f interpretation and clarification o f the kerygma which Mark began in relation to his own church’s situation was carried to its logical conclusion in the Fourth Gospel. It was the merit o f two English scholars earlier in this century, J . Armitage Robinson (The Study o f the Gospels, 128-131; The H istorical Character o f S t John's Gospel, 14-18) and H. Scott Holland (The Fourth Gospel, 1-27) to emphasize how sorely this process o f elucidation was needed. Holland was especially trenchant in his exposition o f this theme. T o him the enigma was attached less to the Fourth Gospel than to the three synoptics. He affirmed, “They raise problems for which they offer no solution. They provoke questions which they never attempt to answer. They leave off at a point where it is impossible to stop” (2). They make known, for example, Jesus’ proclamation o f the kingdom o f God and the necessity o f his death, but they offer little indication o f the link between them. Nor is it entirely clear why Jesus is so emphatic that he will be seized by the Jewish leaders and handed over to death when he goes to Jerusalem; nor why, when he is there, he does not preach the kingdom o f God. Rather he weeps over the city and declares the impending day o f the Lord on the city and its temple and its people. On this Holland comments: “He does not go to offer his gospel to Jerusalem, to give it its chance o f salvation. All that is over. The decision has been taken. Jerusalem has given its verdict. It was pronounced irrevocably against him. If he challenges them, he knows what it will be.” When was the offer made and the verdict given? “Th e synoptics cannot tell. Apparently they do not know” (30-31). What the synoptics do not know or tell is a major theme o f the Fourth Gospel, from its prologue to its end: the tragedy o f the rejection o f the Christ by his own people, in his own place. Jesus had ministered in Jerusalem time and again, and the result was a decision that “one man must die for the people that the whole nation should not perish” (John 11:50). This is but one aspect o f the wider context in which the story o f Jesus is set in the Fourth Gospel. The real enigma, as Holland confessed, was not the incompleteness o f the synoptic Evangelists nor the special interpretation in the Fourth Gospel, but Jesus himself. Who could hope to explain him

XXXIV

In

t r o d u c t io n

adequately? What we find in the Fourth Gospel is a development o f earlier lines o f understanding which seem to be demanded by the traditions themselves. I f Mark’s Gospel be viewed as a passion narrative provided with an introduction, it may be said that Jo h n ’s is all passion narrative. And we do not forget that a passion narrative includes the resurrection o f the crucified. Accordingly, in Jo h n the lifting up o f the Son o f Man on his cross reaches to the throne o f heaven; and as the shadow o f the cross marks the entire story o f Jesus, so the glory o f the Resurrection event suffuses every hour o f his ministry, and even reaches back to the morning o f creation. Th e eschatological glory for which creation was made was brought to actuality in the deeds and words o f Jesus. Now, while no synoptic evangelist unequivocally makes that claim, the teaching that each presents points in that direction. The tension between Jesus’ proclamation o f the presence o f the kingdom and its revelation in the future was scarcely appreciated before the present century, and some o f the most influential New Testament scholars even o f our time have persisted in denying it. Schweitzer, Bultmann, and Conzelmann, for example, undeviatingly rejected the view that Jesus declared the presence o f the kingdom in and through his ministry, despite the apparently plain meaning o f such passages as Matt 11:5; 11:12; 12:28. Not even they, however, could mistake it in the Fourth Gospel; there the eschatological hope has become reality in the deeds and words o f the Word made flesh. While the kingdom o f God is hardly mentioned at all, every line o f the Fourth Gospel is informed by it. But a “translation” has taken place. In accordance with the Evangelist's emphasis on the personal nature o f faith and appropriation o f salvation, the key term is life, or eternal life, and that, o f course, denotes life in the kingdom o f God. And as the resurrection glory o f the Christ suffuses the whole Gospel, so the resurrection life which Christ bestows through his Spirit is a present reality for every believer. T h e implications o f such teaching for the understanding o f him through whom eternal life is gained are evident, and they are the supreme theme o f Jo h n ’s Gospel. These will occupy our attention, alike in the further introduction and in the exegesis o f the text. Th e Church through the ages has believed that Jo h n ’s interpretation is not an imposition o f a view foreign to the earlier traditions, but one that is implicit in them. Th e uncovering o f the creedal statements and Christological hymns in the N T letters (e.g., Phil 2 :6 -1 1 ; Col 1:15-20), may be said to vindicate this conviction. Not infrequently the same admission is made from a quite different viewpoint. There are scholars who believe that the Christological titles accorded to Jesus in the synoptic Gospels reflect early church terminology rather than his own language, but they go on to affirm that the “implicit Christology” o f Jesus was bound to produce such thoughts, for it went even beyond them. So, for example, Reginald H. Fuller writes: “An examination o f Jesus’ words . . . forces upon us the conclusion that underlying his word and work is an implicit Christology. In Jesus as he understood him self, there is an immediate confrontation with ‘God’s presen ce and his very self,’ offering judgment and salvation” (Foundations o f New Testament Christology, 106). T o pursue the study o f the Gospel that seeks to make that plain is one o f the most rewarding exercises a Christian believer

Introdu ction

XXXV

can undertake. And not only Christians. The instinct which leads Christians to hand on a copy o f this Gospel to those who do not share the Christian faith is related to that o f the dying believer who turns to it in his latest hours, and that o f the Christian preacher who expounds it in order to deepen the experience and understanding o f Christ among his or her congregation. The power o f this Gospel’s testimony to Christ is an experienced fact. Archbishop Frederick Temple attested this from his own experience; writing to his son, who was finding philosophic difficulties in his attempts to grasp the Christian faith, he stated: “I am obliged to confess that from seventeen to five and twenty I indulged largely in such speculations. But I felt all along like a swimmer who sees no shore before him after long swimming, and at last allows himself to be picked up by a ship that seems to be going his way. . . . My passing ship was St. Jo h n ” (cited by J . A. Robinson, Historical Character o f St. Jo h n ’s Gospel, 27). It would appear that son William was picked up by the same boat! II. Th e O r ig in

ok t h e

Fo u r

th

G o s pe l

There was a time when the subject indicated by the above title would have been considered superfluous; for the tradition was unquestioned that the Gospel was composed by the apostle John on the basis o f his own memories, with no other assistance than the prompting o f his friends and colleagues to set down in writing his recollections of Jesus. The question o f authorship, however, is not so simple; the answer has to take into account evidence relating to other sources o f information about Jesus and considerations that arise from the book itself. We shall therefore postpone discussion on the authorship o f the Gospel till we have considered the wider questions o f relationships to other writings and traditions about Jesus, the religious thought o f the Evangelist’s time, and the circumstances o f the church or churches to which he belonged, which may have prompted and determined the nature of the writing of this Gospel. 1. T

he

Rel

a t io n s o f t h e

Fo u r

th

G o s pe l

w it h t h e

S y n o pt ic : G o s pe l

s

It has been almost universally believed that our Gospel is the latest of the four canonical Gospels; since Mark has been generally dated shortly after the deaths o f Peter and Paul, possibly during the Jewish war with Rome in the late sixties o f the first Christian century, it was assumed that the Fourth Evangelist must have known it, and that he probably knew Matthew and Luke also. When the relationships o f the synoptic Gospels were critically investigated and it was concluded that Matthew and Luke used Mark, it was natural to ask whether John did the same. The general consensus o f critical opinion was that he did. C. K. Barrett states the case as follows: “The facts which have convinced most students o f the synoptic problem that Mark (or a document closely resembling it) was used by Matthew and Luke are the occurrence in Matthew and Luke of Marcan episodes in the Marcan order, and the use by Matthew and Luke of Marcan language. Analogous facts may, to a smaller extent, be observed in regard to Jo h n ” (Joh n , 45). Barrett

XXXVI

In

t r o d u c t io n

gives a lengthy list o f such episodes, which convinced him that the Fourth Evangelist did, in fact, use Mark as a source for his own Gospel; it appears to him likely that Joh n also used Luke’s Gospel, though to a lesser degree. This critical consensus was challenged by P. Gardner-Smith, in a little volume devoted to the issue (Saint Joh n and the Synoptic Gospels). He drew attention to the neglect o f two factors in this discussion: first, the existence o f continuing oral tradition at the time when the Gospel was written, which renders the argument for Jo h n ’s dependence on the synoptics less compelling; second, the concentration o f critics on points o f agreement between the Fourth Gospel and the synoptics and their overlooking o f the significance o f the differences. Examples o f the latter, discussed by Gardner-Smith, include the call o f the disciples, which has no point o f contact in Joh n with the synoptic narratives; Peter’s confession o f Jesus as the Holy One o f God (John 6 :6 6 71; contrast Mark 8:27-29); the report o f the trial o f Jesus, which describes his appearance before Annas, but not before Caiaphas (John 18:13-24); the lengthy account o f the trial by Pilate (18:28-19:16); and the Resurrection scenes, notably the bestowal o f the Holy Spirit, set in the Easter narratives rather than at Pentecost (chap. 20). Gardner-Smith’s point was that in these and many other narratives there can be no question o f the Evangelist deliberately changing the representations o f the synoptic writers for his own purposes; it is far more likely that he was reflecting independent sources o f information. T h e effect o f this little work on the academic world was startling. It converted to his viewpoint Gardner-Smith’s more famous colleague at Jesus College, Cambridge, C. H. Dodd, and a good many others too. Robert Kysar, writing in 1975, speaks o f “the near demise o f the proposition that the Fourth Evangelist was dependent upon one or more synoptic gospels” in the decade prior to his own writing (The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel, 45). This conviction o f Jo h n ’s independence o f the synoptics is reflected in most recent commentaries, e.g., those o f R. Bultmann, R. E. Brown, R. Schnackenburg, L. Morris, J . N. Sanders & B. Ä. Mastín, В. Lindars. The most notable treatment o f the issue is that o f С. H. Dodd (in H istorical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel). As the title indicates, Dodd was especially concerned to investigate the historicity o f the Fourth Gospel, but for him this was bound up with the nature of the traditions that lay behind it. He had long been convinced that the period o f oral tradition did not subside when written gospels began to appear, but rather that the oral tradition continued to be an important factor through and beyond the New Testament period. The question he raised was whether we can recover a tradition lying behind the Fourth Gospel which is distinctive and independent o f other traditions known to us. T o this end he examined the Gospel meticulously, beginning with the passion narrative and working backwards to the beginning o f the Gospel. His conclusion at the end o f the investigation was: “Behind the fourth gospel lies an ancient tradition independent o f the other gospels, and meriting serious consideration as a contribution to our knowledge o f the historical facts concerning Jesus Christ” (423). Great as Dodd’s contribution is, the discussion o f the issue has by no means abated. Since the appearance o f Kysar’s review o f Johannine studies, the “near demise” o f the view that Joh n was dependent upon the synoptics has

Introdu ction

x x x v ii

been followed by a resurrection. Barrett, in the second edition o f his commentary, has reaffirmed and elaborated his earlier convictions. He urges that there is repeated evidence in the Gospel that the Evangelist knew traditional material that was either Mark, or something much like Mark, and he adds: “Anyone who after an interval o f nineteen centuries feels himself in a position to distinguish nicely between ‘Mark’ and ‘something much like Mark’ is at liberty to do so. The simpler hypothesis, which does not involve the postulation o f otherwise unknown entities, is not without attractiveness” (45). The Belgian scholar F. Neirynck energetically pursues the advocacy o f Jo h n ’s dependence on all three synoptic Gospels (Jean et les Synoptiques). What may be described as a mediating view has been advocated by some recent writers. Sanders and Mastín agreed that the evidence does not compel us to believe that Mark is a source for Joh n, but they suggested that John must have known Mark, and may have had it in mind as he wrote his own Gospel. “But knowing Mark, and using it as a source, are two different things” (10). De Solages has elaborated that view in a full scale monograph, urging that while Jo h n knew the synoptics he did not use them as sources; he did, however, take them into account, and in his writings he confirmed them, completed them, illuminated them, and rectified them (Jea n et les Synoptiques). Similarly D. Moody Smith, in a review o f the problem, admitted that while it appeared to him simpler to assume that Joh n did not know the synoptics, he was beginning to be able to conceive a scenario in which Joh n knew, or knew o f the synoptics, and yet still could produce his very different Gospel. This “scenario” was one in which an independent tradition o f the miracle stories circulated in Jo h n ’s community along with a collection of sayings of Jesus, which had become greatly modified through use in preaching and in controversies. Meanwhile the Gospels o f Mark, Luke, and Matthew (in that order) became known to the members o f Jo h n ’s church, but they had not yet been fully absorbed by them. Since Jo h n ’s concerns were different from those o f the synoptics, his Gospel does not reflect the others in a manner comparable to the use o f Mark by Matthew and Luke. Nevertheless while the Fourth Evangelist did not use any o f the synoptics as his sources, neither did his Gospel take shape in isolation from them. If it be asked what difference this view makes for understanding the Gospel over against the postulate o f Jo h n ’s independence o f the synoptics, Smith answers frankly, “Not much”! But he adds: In neither case does one simply assume that the base-line or material which John employs and from which he takes his departure is the synoptics as such. In either case, the direction or development of his gospel is taken to be relatively independent of the synoptics. The Johannine gospel would then reflect a distinct set of circumstances and perspective on them. In neither case is there warrant for treating any divergence from the synoptics as prima facie a deliberate and intentional departure. On the other hand, in neither case will it be possible to ignore the content of the synoptics in interpreting John, particularly in the parallel pericopes. This means in effect that on either side the question of the mode of the relationship should remain open in principle. (John and the Synoptics, 443-44) This may be as wise a solution as any in the present stage of the debate.

хххѵш 2. T

he

In L it

er a r y

So u r

t r o d u c t io n

c es o f t h e

Fo

urt h

G o s pe l

T h e search for sources behind the Fourth Gospel has been intensified in recent years as belief in the independence o f the Gospel in relation to the synoptics has increased. Earlier attempts to solve the problem concentrated on the endeavor to unearth a foundation document within the Gospel which could have been extended by successive writers (for an account o f such attempts see Howard, Fourth Gospel, 74—83, 258-63). These efforts found their culmination in Bultmann’s analysis o f the literary strata o f the Gospel. He was encouraged in this undertaking by the structure o f the prologue (1:1-18), which appeared to be based on a poetic source in vv 1-5, 9—12, interrupted by the prose section o f vv 6 -8 . He postulated that the prologue originally introduced a source o f revelation-discourses, composed in poetic style in Aramaic, which came from a group o f adherents o f Jo h n the Baptist. Their ultimate origin was a form o f Gnosticism such as that adopted by the Baptist sect. Along with the revelation-discourses was a signs source; this was a propaganda document drawn up by former disciples o f the Baptist, now disciples o f Jesus, through whom the Evangelist was converted. It had a naive understanding o f miracles, which attested Jesus as a theios aner, a divine-man o f the kind known in the Hellenistic world; this concept the Evangelist rejected, for he viewed the signs as symbolic representations o f Jesus as the Revealer, and the signs as calling for decision regarding Jesus. A passion source, independent o f the passion narratives o f the synoptic Gospels, was further distinguished, and other lesser sources and traditions, which included such narratives as the temple cleansing, the entry into Jerusalem, and the footwashing. Finally Bultmann proposed a main redactor o f the Gospel, termed by him the Ecclesiastical Reductor, since his modifications o f and additions to the text were especially characterized by ecclesiastical interests; chief among these additions were sacramental interpolations (e.g., e£ ύδατος καί in 3:5; 6 :5 lb -5 8 ; 19:34b35), others reflecting apocalyptic eschatology (e.g. 5 :2 8 -2 9 , and references to resurrection in the last day in 6:39, 40, 44, 54), and certain representations o f the Beloved Disciple, whom the Evangelist had created as an ideal figure, but who was regarded as an historical person by the redactor (the references to him in 19:35 and the whole o f chap. 21 were viewed as composed by the redactor). Not the least achievement o f the redactor, in Bultmann’s view, was his rearrangement o f the Gospel, which is to be regarded as a disarrangement, and which requires fresh sorting out by the student o f the Gospel. (A brief summary o f these views is provided by W. Schmithals in the English version o f Bultmann’s commentary on the Gospel, 6 -7 , 10-11; they are fully described and evaluated by D. M. Smith in his Composition and Order o f the Fourth Gospel.) All subsequent discussions o f the sources o f the Fourth Gospel have to relate to Bultmann’s proposals, whether positively or negatively. J . Becker, a pupil o f Bultmann, is one o f the comparatively few scholars who have adopted, with little modification, Bultmann’s view o f the sources (NTS 16, 130-48), and Η. M. Teeple expounded a theory o f the sources akin to that o f Bultmann (Literary Origin o f the Gospel o f John ). The majority o f scholars

Introdu ction

XXXIX

have been skeptical of the proposed Revelation-Discourses source. It is regarded as misleading to make the prologue a starting point for such source criticism, since it is a unique composition in relation to the Gospel, and in all probability is based on a hymn which has been enlarged for the purpose o f introducing the Gospel; nothing comparable to it can be found in the rest o f the work. The idea that the foundation o f the Gospel’s teaching is a pagan Gnostic work is a difficult notion to accept in the light o f the actual teaching o f the Gospel. Bultmann viewed the same document as lying behind 1 Jo h n ; Käsemann pointed out that that suggestion involves the incredible notion that the doctrine o f justification by faith o f one who is at once righteous and a sinner originated in pagan Gnosis (ZTK 48 [1951] 306 n. 2; see Smith’s discussion, 57-63). It is especially in the area o f language and style that the debate on the sources has been prolonged. Before Bultmann’s commentary was published, E. Schweizer tested partition theories o f earlier critics in the light o f the characteristics o f speech and style in the Johannine literature. He found that these characteristics are scattered throughout the proposed sources and redactional elements o f the Gospel. Schweizer did not conclude on that account that the Evangelist could not have used sources, but he affirmed that any such sources could not be recovered on stylistic grounds (Ego Eimi, 82-112). E. Ruckstuhl followed up Schweizers work in an examination o f Bultmann’s source analysis. He maintained that whereas Bultmann had established stylistic criteria for the Evangelist, those o f his alleged sources do not adequately distinguish themselves from those o f the Evangelist. He took Schweizer’s list o f thirty-three characteristics o f the Evangelist’s style and increased their number to fifty; applying these to Bultmann’s sources he again found them distributed through the sources, and drew the conclusion that all such theories were untenable (Einheit des Joh-E v., 203-19). While Bultmann’s attempt to disentangle a Revelation-Discourse source suffered a battering from the critics, his postulate o f a Signs-Source has fared better. R. T . Fortna and W. Nichol independently sought to set the existence of such a source on a firm foundation. Fortna laid great stress on the “aporiai” o f the Gospel, i.e., apparent points o f disagreement with other elements of the context (see, e.g., 3:26 and 4 :1 -2 ); these he saw as the key to the sources, on the ground that they betrayed different hands in the writing o f the Gospel. He claimed that Ruckstuhl’s stylistic tests actually support the existence o f a signs-source, since they are less frequent in that stratum than elsewhere in the Gospel. He further proposed to extend the source to include the ministry of Joh n the Baptist and the call o f the first disciples, and also the passion narrative, thereby producing a complete gospel, a kind o f Proto-John. This early form o f the Gospel had affinity with the synoptic Gospels; in it Jesus was presented as a “divine-man,” working miracles o f the order o f Elijah and Elisha. The purpose o f the source was to present Jesus as the Messiah (see The Gospel o f Signs, esp. 204-32). By contrast Nichol rejected the idea that the signs-source included the Passion, as also that the Hellenistic notion o f the “divine-man” was applied in it to Jesus; in his view the fundamental typology of the source was Moses and the salvation from Egypt; it was as a second Moses, working signs as Moses did in the achievement o f a second

xl

In

t r o d u c t io n

exodus, that the source presented the Messiah Jesus (Semeia in the Fourth Gospel, 48-91). Not a few scholars view this proposal o f a signs-source with a sympathetic eye, and some advocate it with enthusiasm. It has the advantage o f explaining the tension in the Gospel between the emphasis on signs as revelations o f the messiahship o f Jesus (e.g., 2:11) and the apparent devaluation o f faith in Jesus based on signs (e.g., 2 :2 3 -2 5 ); the statement o f purpose in 2 0 :3 0 31 is then understood as relating to the signs document, and not to the Gospel as a whole. Nevertheless, resistance to the hypothesis remains widespread, especially on the European scene. Ruckstuhl examined in detail Fortna’s endeavor to utilize his stylistic data to establish the signs-source, and he concluded that the attempt gives “a strong impression o f a poor result.” He maintained: “Almost all o f the usages are distributed throughout both strata o f the gospel, or are confined to the source because o f subject matter. In the latter case they are characteristic o f the source but do not point to an author different from the Evangelist” ( “Johannine Language and Style” L ’évangile de Jea n , ed. M. de Jonge [Louvain: University Press, 1977] 141). Other scholars are impressed with the way some at least o f the signs and discourses are woven together; they are so closely related they can hardly be viewed as two independent sources. In this connection it is noteworthy that along with the term “sign” the term “work” occurs in a related sense; but the latter embraces not only the miraculous deeds o f Jesus, but the entire ministry o f deed and word which God had commissioned him to achieve (cf. 4:34; 9:4; 14:10; 17:4); such “works” extend to power to raise the dead and to exercise judgment over mankind (5:17, 19-23). In harmony with this we find some discourses introduced by significant miraculous acts (so chaps. 5, 6, 9, 11), whereas the discourse o f chap. 12 is introduced by two significant non-miraculous acts (the Anointing o f Jesus and the Entry into Jerusalem); the discourses o f chaps. 3 -4 are introduced by one significant miracle (the Changing o f Water into Wine) together with one significant non-miraculous event (the Cleansing o f the Temple); the lengthy discourse o f chaps. 7 -8 to no small degree is conditioned by the presence o f Jesus at the Feast o f Tabernacles and its significant rituals, akin to which is the discourse given in chap. 10 at the Feast o f Dedication. All this raises the question whether the setting o f the ministry o f Jesus under the rubric o f “signs” (12:37 and 20:30) may have a more extensive significance than that commonly attributed to it, and whether therefore the separation from the rest o f the Gospel o f a source consisting o f miracles only accords with the mind o f the Evangelist and with the structure o f his Gospel. T h e conjecture o f an independent source for the passion narrative in our Gospel does not raise the same objections as the notions o f Revelation-Discourse and a signs-source, since it has long been believed that accounts o f the Passion must have been compiled from a very early time in the Church’s life. Moreover, the broad outline o f Jo h n ’s passion narrative is remarkably close to that o f the synoptics. There are, o f course, marked divergences from the synoptic accounts, notably the date o f the Last Supper and the death o f Jesus, and their relation to the Passover; the absence o f mention o f the eucharistic actions in the meal is striking, yet there is a lengthy elaboration o f con-

Introdu ction

xli

versations within it, introduced by the description o f the footwashing; the trial narrative, wherein the brief appearance before Annas (not Caiaphas!) serves merely to formulate a charge to Pilate; the trial before Pilate is recounted in detail and centers on the kingship o f Jesus, reflecting the charge that Jesus claimed to be king o f the Jews; the account o f the crucifixion has various independent elements, above all the piercing o f his side (19:31-37); and the Resurrection narratives have contacts with the synoptics, yet appear to reflect independent traditions (above all in the bestowal o f the Spirit in 20:22). The suggestion that an “Ecclesiastical Redactor” has extensively edited the Evangelist’s work is a more debatable matter. T h e sacramental element o f the Gospel cannot be eliminated by the excision o f a phrase from John 3:5 (“o f water and”) and o f 6:51b -58. T h e interest in baptism is pervasive in the first three chapters o f the Gospel, whatever may be thought about the rest o f the book; and there is strong reason for seeing in the entire material of 6 :3 1 -5 8 reflections o f a Jewish exegetical tradition, which continues without a break into vv 5 lb -5 8 (see P. Borgen, Bread from H eaven, 2 0 26, 33—35, 4 1 -42). The excision o f “apocalyptic” elements from the Gospel so as to leave a purely realized eschatology is equally questionable, since the tension between “realized” and “futurist” eschatology applies to all the elements o f eschatological hope in the Gospel. The belief that an editor has been at work on the text o f the Gospel is not an unreasonable one, and is accepted by most students o f the Gospel in recent years. It is not plausible, however, to ascribe to such an individual major changes which seriously modify the teaching o f the Gospel and its presentation o f the ministry o f Jesus, least o f all when the supposed modifications create an inconsistent picture o f the instruction and labors o f Jesus. It is the conviction o f not a few that we do well to think in terms of traditions available to the Evangelist rather than literary sources. Barrett summarily affirmed that, beyond the Evangelist’s use o f the synoptics, “all source criticism o f Joh n is guesswork” (17). A comparison o f attempts to delineate the supposed sources tends to bear out that judgment. It led D. A. Carson to appeal for a “probing agnosticism regarding sources o f the Fourth Gospel” (JB L [97] 428). T o surmise the existence o f traditions about Jesus, both oral and written, can hardly be viewed as guesswork in light o f the synoptic Gospels and the epistles o f the New Testament; it is their precise identification and delimitation in given texts that involves speculation, especially when supported by tenuous proof. By contrast, Dodd’s work on the Historical Traditions o f the Fourth Gospel is an impressive and sober attempt to trace traditions behind the Gospel. The existence o f distinctive Johannine traditions is increasingly accepted by contemporary scholars. Some, indeed, stress the distinctiveness to the point of viewing the community from which it came as an isolated conventicle, critical o f the rest of the Church. Cullmann’s suggestion is more justifiable, that in this Gospel there are reflected traditions common to all branches o f Christianity, together with a separate tradition that was handed on in the circle known to the Evangelist (The Johannine Circle, 7). A helpful approach to the composition o f the Gospel, having a great measure o f plausibility, postulates that the organizing o f the traditions to form the Gospel took place through preaching, especially the preaching o f the

xlü

In

t r o d u c t io n

Evangelist. T h e suggestion appears to have occurred spontaneously to a number o f students o f the Gospel. T h e thought came to me when, as a student, I listened to Dodd expound his understanding o f the structure o f Jo h n ’s “Book o f Signs” (chaps. 2-12). He believed that each episode o f this part o f the Gospel consists o f sign(s) plus discourse and that each presents the Gospel in its wholeness, namely, Christ manifested, crucified, risen, exalted, and communicating life (see Dodd, Interpretation, 383-86). T o me this was as scales falling from the eyes, for this arrangement o f the evangelic material was in all probability due to the Evangelist’s use o f it in his preaching, as he presented the episodes o f the ministry in the light o f their end in the redemptive death and resurrection o f the Lord. No doubt the synoptic Gospels reflect a like process, but the Fourth Gospel is supremely the preacher’s gospel—every episode in the book shouts out to be preached— and it is so because it is the product o f a highly effective preacher’s proclamation o f Christ in the Gospel. R. H. Strachan, who labored through most o f his years to elucidate this Gospel, was convinced that the Upper Room discourses were formed from meditations uttered by the Evangelist at celebrations o f the Lord’s Supper (The Fourth Gospel, 274-77). Comparable views regarding preaching and the Gospel have been expressed by various critics and exegetes in recent years, including Michaelis (Einleitung, 111), Nichol (Semeia, 5), Barrett (26), Brown ( 1:xxxiv-v), Martyn (“History o f the Johannine Community,” 151), and notably Lindars (Behind the Fourth Gospel, 2 7 -4 2 , and “Traditions Behind the Fourth Gospel,” 107-24). Brown’s view o f the evolution o f the Gospel is o f particular interest in the context o f our discussion. He posits the prior existence o f an independent tradition o f the words and works o f Jesus; this was developed into Johannine patterns through preaching and teaching over several decades; the material at length was organized by the Evangelist into a gospel; subsequently the Gospel was revised by the Evangelist himself to meet different needs o f the churches (e.g., the excommunication o f Christians from the synagogues, reflected in 9 :2 2 -2 3 ); a final edition was made by a redactor, who incorporated all available Johannine material that had not been previously used in the Gospel ( 1:xxxiv-ix). T h e significant features o f this reconstruction is the suggestion that the chief redactor o f the Gospel was none other than the Evangelist, and that the final redactor incorporated authentic Johannine material (including 6 :5 1b-58). The difficulty about it is how confident we can be that the Evangelist’s additions to the Gospel took place in a specific subsequent revision, rather than that they represent reflections at various stages during which the Gospel was composed. It illustrates the inherent difficulties in all reconstructions o f the process o f composition o f the Gospel. Related to the discussion o f the sources o f the Gospel is the problem o f the original order o f its material. Many students o f our Gospel have been struck by the unexpectedness o f certain sequences in its narrative; it has led them to conclude that the Gospel at an early date became disarranged, possibly through leaves o f the manuscript becoming displaced before being sewn together. T h e most comprehensive attempt to put the elements o f the Gospel into “logical” order is that o f Bultmann, whose rearrangement includes not merely page lengths o f text but sentences and short paragraphs. The “disor-

Introdu ction

x liii

der” which compels such dealing, in his view, was the work o f the ecclesiastical redactor; Bultmann attempted to redress the wrong, and his commentary on the Gospel is an exposition o f the Gospel according to his rearrangement o f the text (the fresh ordering o f the segments o f the Gospel is indicated on p. xiii o f his commentary; the justification for each transposition is given in the introduction to each section). Few have followed Bultmann in his elaborate reconstruction o f the Gospel, but many scholars have considered that some reordering o f the text is necessary. While their suggestions are often plausible, the fact remains that the text as it stands appears to have reason for its order at all times. This may be illustrated from the most popular o f all suggested changes o f order in the Gospel, namely the inversion o f chaps. 5 and 6. In 4:54 Jesus is located in Galilee; in 5 :1 he goes up to Jerusalem, and in 6:1 he crosses the sea o f Galilee, though no mention is made o f his leaving Jerusalem; in 7:1 it is said that Jesus went about in Galilee, because the Jews in Judea were seeking to kill him. The narrative would be eased considerably if chap. 6 were placed before chap. 5; we would then read o f Jesus in Galilee (4:54), who crosses the sea (6:1), then goes up to Jerusalem (5:1), and departs again to Galilee for safety (7:1). Now while that makes admirable sense as a narrative, it has problematic effects on the teaching material in the text; for the discourse o f 5 :1 0 -2 9 most plausibly develops the significance o f both the healing o f the officer’s son (4:46-54) and the healing o f the paralytic beside the pool (5 :1 -9 ); moreover, Moody Smith considers that the discussion o f the works o f the Father and the Son in chap. 5 forms the proper background for the interpretation o f 6 :2 8 -2 9 (Composition, 130). From the viewpoint o f content the present order o f text is comprehensible, and it would seem best to leave it as it is. Similar observations can be made about most o f the transpositions o f text suggested by advocates for reordering. There are, however, some features o f the text which lend plausibility to a suggestion, frequently put forward, that the Gospel was left by the Evangelist in an unfinished state. The outstanding example o f such a possibility is the Upper Room discourses, with their repetitions o f thought in chaps. 14-16, and above all the conclusion in 14:25-31 (on this see Moody Smith, 239). Where this possibility appears in the text we shall recall it in our exposition, but on the whole the Gospel is a remarkably unified and well integrated document. It is well to bear in mind Dodd’s judgment when commencing his exposition o f the thought o f the Fourth Gospel: I conceived it to be the duty of an interpreter at least to see what can be done with the document as it has come down to us before attempting to improve upon it. . . . If the attempt to discover any intelligible thread of argument should fail, then we may be compelled to confess that we do not know how the work was originally intended to run. If on the other hand it should appear that the structure of the gospel as we have it has been shaped in most of its details by the ideas which seem to dominate the author’s thought, then it would appear not improbable that we have his work before us substantially in the form which he designed. (Interpretation, 290) That procedure we ourselves shall follow in the commentary on the text.

xliv 3. T

In he

T

r a d it io n b e h i n d t h e

t r o d u c t io n

Fo

urt h

Go

s pe l a n d

It

s

De v e l

o pm e n t

It is evident that the fundamental tradition o f the Fourth Gospel is the kerygma o f the Church, not simply that o f the Johannine community (or communities). This is apparent not only from Jo h n 3:16, but from the relationship between Jo h n and the synoptic Gospels and the records o f the kerygma recoverable from the Acts and Epistles (see C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments). Yet 3:16 itself, in the context o f the Gospel, has overtones which go beyond the primitive kerygma o f the churches, and it is these features o f the Fourth Gospel which it is our task to investigate. Earlier in this century it was common to view the Fourth Gospel as the gospel for the Greeks, and so emanating from a center o f contemporary Hellenistic culture. By contrast, a strong movement today seeks to relate the Gospel with Judaism and Jewish communities; the work is viewed as the product o f an isolated Jewish-Christian church, oppressed by hostile policies o f the Jewish community o f which it formed part. T h e experiences o f this community are believed to have strongly influenced the presentation o f Jesus in the Gospel. This view is most plausibly expounded in the writings o f J . L. Martyn (especially History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel and “Glimpses into the History o f the Johannine Community”) and o f W. A. Meeks (The Prophet-King and “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism”). In the latter article Meeks calls attention to the social significance o f the Jewish myths in the Johannine church; the Gospel, he maintains, was written to provide reinforcement for the community’s social identity in its isolation from society; this is observable in the descent-ascent concept, which is applied exclusively to Jesus as the Stranger: “Wherever it occurs, it is in contexts where the inability o f men o f this world to understand and accept Jesus is in mind” (58). So also “above” and “below” relate exclusively to the Son of Man, and to the disciples as God’s gift to him. “T h e Fourth Gospel functions for its readers in the same way as the epiphany o f its hero functions in narratives and dialogues” (68-69). Now while there is truth in these contentions, their significance has surely been exaggerated. The Evangelist and his community were not so isolated as has been suggested, and their view o f Jesus does not betray a beleaguered sectarian group reacting negatively to the society in which it is set. T h e Christology characteristic o f the Gospel has affinity with that o f churches o f both Palestinian and Hellenistic provenance, as the Christological confessions and hymns o f the Epistles show (e.g., 1 Tim 3:16; Phil 2 :6 -1 1 ; Col 1:15-20; Heb 1:1-3), and the prologue has affinities to the contemporary religious scene generally. Moreover the relation o f the Gospel to the Book o f Revelation should be accorded adequate recognition. While there is no question o f the two works having a common author, the contacts between them, alike in terminology and certain theological concepts, are such that one must postulate contact between the authors, probably as fellow members o f a Johannine “school”; this demands as a corollary a relationship between the Johannine community (or communities) and the churches o f Roman Asia to which the Revelation was addressed. Not the least significance o f this observation is the likelihood that by the end o f the first Christian century, with the eclipse

Introdu ction

xlv

o f the church o f Jerusalem, the center o f the primitive Church moved to Asia Minor, which was the most strongly Christianized province o f the Roman empire, “the Christian country наг έξρχ ψ ” (Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 43). The author o f Revelation, while addressing his work to Seven Churches, will have had in view also other churches in Roman Asia (cf. the repeated refrain “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches”), and almost certainly he will have desired that the book be heeded by the churches o f Christendom generally. Will the author of the Fourth Gospel, while having in view the needs o f his own constituency, have wished for a less audience? His consciousness o f the unity o f the Church, possessing a universal destiny and calling, counterbalances the dualism manifest in the Gospel and makes difficult the notion that the work was the product of a little community burdened with an inferiority complex. In writing thus we are conscious o f leaping ahead in the discussion, for the root o f the Gospel would appear to be in traditions emanating from Palestine. The prominence in the Gospel o f Judea, and o f Jerusalem in particular, suggests a tradition linked with the city. But if the tradition was Judean, it was not Judaistic. While the Galilean ministry is given little space in the Fourth Gospel, its significance is acknowledged: unlike the Judeans, the Galileans welcomed Jesus, and the first two significant miracles recorded by Joh n were performed in Galilee; the movement from Galilee to Jerusalem, the city that rejects its King, is as important to Joh n as to the synoptics (see Dodd, Fourth Gospel, 384-85). Similarly there is acknowledgment o f the relation between Jerusalem and Samaria, which is given a prominence approached among the other Gospels only in Luke. Meeks has drawn attention to the suggestion o f K. Kundsin, that the topographical notes in the Fourth Gospel were the product o f local traditions maintained by Palestinian communities; while Jerusalem undoubtedly dominates the Gospel, many o f the Johannine traditions were shaped in communities in Samaria and Galilee (Topologische Überlieferungsstoffe im Johannesevangelium , 1925). Meeks himself concludes, “The peculiarities o f the Johannine material result from a period o f consolidation o f Palestinian Christianity, with an accompanying juxtaposition and partial assimilation to one another o f several stands o f tradition” (Prophet-King, 318). We should further recall that the church at Jerusalem from its beginning included Hellenist Christians (Acts 6). When account is taken o f the links in the Gospel with the outlook characteristic o f the Qumran community, and the tendency o f Judea to despise Galilee and Samaria, there is much to be said for Cullmann’s view that the Jewish heritage that lay back o f the Fourth Gospel reflects “nonconformist” elements in Judaism, and that the Hellenist Christians in Jerusalem, who had sympathy with the Samaritans (cf. Acts 8), had a major influence on the Johannine traditions (The Johannine Circle, 3 0 53). There will, o f course, have been not a few non-Hellenist Jews who had sympathies with the Qumran outlook and joined the Church; converts from the followers o f Joh n the Baptist will probably have been among such. The presentation o f Jesus in this Gospel was evidently formulated in Palestine among Christians maintaining traditions about Jesus, drawn from a variety of areas, with elements o f Judaism alien to the prevailing religious establishment. Judging from the glimpses in Acts o f Palestinian churches maintaining

xlvi

In

t r o d u c t io n

close relations with institutional Judaism (cf. above all Acts 21:20-24), it is likely that the Johannine church(es) also remained in fellowship with the synagogue, viewing themselves as people o f God who confessed Jesus as their promised Messiah, but developing independently the theology which such a confession entailed. As with all Christian churches in Palestine, this created tensions between believers in Jesus and their fellow Jews who were not Christians, and such tensions will have oscillated in severity from time to time. The Jewish war with Rome will have caused as much upheaval for the Christian communities as for the rest o f Jews in Palestine. It is probable that the Evangelist migrated to Roman Asia about that time, and with him a number o f Christians o f his group. In their new surroundings they will have sought to maintain relations with their fellow Jews who were not believers in Jesus as Messiah. In this post-war period, however, wherein Pharisaic Ju daism came to ascendancy, the relations between synagogue and church became increasingly strained, even in the Dispersion. We see a glimpse o f such a situation in the Gospel o f Matthew, which is likely to have emanated from Syria, a Gentile country adjacent to Israel’s territory and having many Jews among its populace. Matthew’s Gospel is notable for its maintenance o f a continuing sense o f responsibility for witness to Jews as well as mission to the nations. In the discourse o f chap. 10 there is reflected a clear consciousness o f continuing mission to Israel (in vv 5 -1 5 , 17-23, especially v 23), maintained in conditions o f acute opposition (see especially vv 16, 24—31, 32-38). Matthew’s church may well have experienced the effects o f the policies determined by the Pharisaic decision-making in Jam nia. Foremost among these was the inclusion o f Christians among heretics on whom damnation was called in the twelfth o f the Eighteen Benedictions. These prayers were to be said, in full or abbreviated, by every Jew each day, and in every synagogue service. No Christian could utter benediction no. 12: For apostates let there be no hope, and the dominion of arrogance do thou speedily root out in our days; and let the Nazarenes and heretics perish as in a moment, let them be blotted out of the book of the living and let them not be written with the righteous. Blessed art thou, О Lord, who humblest the arrogant. The date when this form o f the benediction was promulgated is uncertain, but it illustrates the hostility o f Pharisaic Judaism to the Christians. Matthew’s Gospel may well have been written with the revision o f Judaism that was going on in Jam nia in mind (see W. D. Davies, The Setting o f the Sermon on the Mount [Cambridge: CUP, 1964] 256-315). Two interesting examples o f the increasing hostility o f Jews toward Christians occur in the Book o f Revelation, addressed to churches in the area wherein the Fourth Gospel emanated. T h e church at Smyrna is addressed as hard-pressed and poor, though rich in the spiritual sphere. T h e Lord o f the church continues, “I know how you are slandered by those who claim to be Jews but are not—they are Satan’s synagogue. Do not be afraid o f the suffering to come. . . . Only be faithful to death and I will give you the crown o f life” (Rev 2:9-10).

in trodu ction

xlvii

Yet more pertinent is the letter to the church at Philadelphia (Rev 3 :7 13). The Christ who speaks is described as he “who holds the key o f David; when he opens none may shut, when he shuts none may open.” The key of David is the key that opens the door into the kingdom o f God, and so to life in that kingdom. When the Christ opens for his followers the door to the kingdom, none can shut them out, and when he shuts the door on those who oppose, none can open the door and enter. This is the “open door, which no one can shut,” which the Lord has set before the members o f the Philadelphia church; in all probability the allusion here is to the denial by Jews o f their right to the kingdom o f God; their doom is to be blotted out o f the book o f the living and not be written with the righteous! But the message to the church goes on to announce an unexpected reversal of prophecy: “I will make those o f Satan’s synagogue, who claim to be Jews but are lying frauds, come and fall down at your feet”; the homage which these Jews expected Gentiles to pay them (Isa 60:14) they will pay to the Christians, to whom they denied a place in the kingdom. Significantly, it is added: “they shall know that you are my beloved people”; the Christians are the real people o f the Messiah! By the time that the Fourth Gospel was finally composed it is likely that a situation akin to those reflected in Matthew and in Revelation had come about. In Matthew’s area, doors of conversation between Christians and nonChristian Jews were probably still open; the call could still be made to Jews to rise to the fulfillment of their divine vocation through Jesus, the Son of David and Son of God. In the Book of Revelation the doors may well have been locked, though of this we cannot be sure; there is no further polemic against the Jews in the book, and the “synagogues o f Satan” may have been viewed by the Seer as exceptional. In Joh n there is reflection of debates between church and synagogue; it is possible that such discussions were continued in the period of the Gospel’s composition, despite the implications of John 16:1-4; violence against Christians in the name o f the Lord was known from the time of Stephen, but the witness went on, till at length the Church itself changed its attitude. We are not persuaded that that stage had been reached when the Gospel was composed. The presentation o f Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, then, was adapted for the guidance and encouragement of the Church within its concrete situation. Its theological understanding o f Jesus will occupy us later. Here we draw attention to a feature o f the Gospel which more than any other gives it its unique form. The Evangelist sets the historical ministry o f Jesus in Palestine in indissoluble relation to the ministry o f the risen Lord in the world. The continuity o f the ministry o f Jesus with that o f the Risen Lord will have been assumed by the synoptists. The Book o f Acts has been termed “the Acts o f the Risen L o rd ” Various recent writers, however, have pointed out an instructive difference between Luke and Joh n: whereas Luke wrote an account o f the origins o f the Christian Church in (wo volumes, the first, o f Jesus at work with his disciples in Palestine and the second, of the risen Christ at work through the disciples in the world, John writes one book, wherein Jesus after the flesh and Jesus the risen Lord are presented together in a single perspective (so Cullmann, Circle, 14; Martyn, History and Theology, 129; D. M. Smith,

x lv iii

In

t r o d u c t io n

Joh n , Proclamation Commentaries, 55-56). This could be thought to be a highly contrived way o f presenting the story o f Jesus, and one difficult to accomplish. From the Evangelist’s viewpoint it is comprehensible that he should endeavor to carry it through, since for him the relations o f Jesus with his disciples and his people during his ministry were continuous with the relations o f the Lord with his Church and nation after the Resurrection. They were determined by the unity o f Jesus in the flesh and the risen Christ, the unity o f the mission o f Jesus to his people and the mission o f the risen Lord to the nation and the wider world, and the fact that in both eras he is the focal point o f faith and o f opposition. T h e disciples are inextricably linked with Jesus in his destiny; if his mission in the days o f his flesh provoked faith and fury, the Church likewise received converts to Jesus as Christ and Lord and opposition from those who rejected their testimony. Now this is no novel insight. It was set forth long ago by E. F. Scott, though he was inclined to speak o f two revelations— of the Jesus o f history and the Christ o f religious experience—an interpretation strictly inharmonious with the Paraclete doctrine (The Fourth Gospel, 358-59). When, however, Scott came to deal with the discourses o f the Gospel he could see only the Church in the debate with the synagogue: The writer is carrying back into the Gospel period the discussion of his own age. He is thinking not of the actual opposition which scribes and Pharisees offered to Jesus, but of the attacks directed in the present against the Christian Church (6870). Since Scott’s time this position has become virtually axiomatic in Johannine studies; New Testament scholars generally assume it as self-evident that the controversies in the Fourth Gospel reflect the tensions that prevailed between the Johannine community and the synagogue in the period when the Gospel was written. T h e contention is undoubtedly correct, but to state it without qualification is to deny the unity o f perspective maintained in the Gospel relating to Jesus at work in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee and to the risen Lord at work through the Spirit. In Scott’s view, indeed, the actual assailants o f Jesus had been forgotten by the time the Gospel was written; only the fact remained that Jesus had been opposed by his countrymen and that they had brought about his death (68-70). Such a suggestion seems to us the height o f improbability. That traditions o f hostile encounters o f Jesus with Pharisees and Sadducees were kept alive in the churches is seen in the records o f the other three Gospels, the latest o f which will have been written about the same time as the Fourth Gospel. The preservation o f this element o f the Jesus tradition was inevitable. The Palestinian churches were constantly faced with problems similar to those which Jesus encountered, for their lives were passed in Jewish communities which centered in the synagogues, and they were as truly part o f the synagogue as their non-Christian compatriots. No aspect o f the ministry o f Jesus was more pertinent, more “actual” to them than this one. How Jesus dealt with his opponents regarding the interpretation o f the Torah was o f crucial importance to them, even as it was to know how the chief priests came to the decision that he must be put to

In trodu ction

x lix

death. Our real concern, however, is to stress that the fundamental issue that determined the form o f the Fourth Gospel is the theological one, namely, the unity o f Christ’s action in the flesh and in the Spirit. It calls for recognition o f both components o f the Lord’s work and their mutual relations. In Jo h n ’s thought and writing their unity and distinctiveness are held in balance. Various writers have sought to elucidate this understanding o f the Gospel. X. Léon-Dufour approached the subject from the point o f view o f symbolism. He observed that the ambivalence o f language in the Fourth Gospel is due to its coming from two different origins, that o f the Jewish cultural milieu in which Jesus lived and the Christian cultural milieu o f Jo h n ’s time and area. Both have their own means o f symbolic representation; e.g., among the Jews bread is symbolic o f heavenly food, among the Christians it becomes linked on another level with the Eucharist. Since Jo h n sought to unite the two milieux in one written text, we should not look for two different readings in his text but a unified one: “The only viable reading is . . . the one which, from the Christian point o f view, discovers the relationship between the present reality o f the Spirit arid the times past o f Jesus o f Nazareth.” T he acknowledgment o f this relationship then demands that “the singularity and the proper weight o f the one and o f the other” be respected. According to LéonDufour the main obstacle in the way o f doing this is the exegete’s temptation to bring the Easter perspective prematurely into play, a temptation which must be resisted. In Joh n, as well as in the synoptics, Jesus proposes a revelation which must have a meaning from the Jewish point o f view. “Jo h n wants to show how Jesus came to offer to his contemporaries the fulfillment o f their beliefs and o f their traditions by showing that they were indeed fulfilled in his person.” It is therefore incumbent on the exegete to discover the coherence o f the dialogues and the relevance o f the speeches to the particular Jewish context described by the Evangelist: “If we end up failing to recognise all this, it is because we allow ourselves to be dazzled by the light o f Easter. The Christian present would contribute to erasing the roots o f the Christian faith in that unique event which was the encounter o f Jesus with men.” Along with this we must acknowledge that Joh n has actualized the past o f Jesus by showing its relevance for the present time; the reading o f the Gospel, accordingly, consists not o f bringing the past into the present, but in developing a deeper understanding o f the present in the light o f the past (“Towards a Symbolic Reading o f the Fourth Gospel,” 440-46). J. Louis Martyn seeks to elucidate this combination o f the history o f Jesus with the activity o f the risen Lord by adducing the idea o f a drama presented on a two-level stage (in History and Theology o f the Fourth Gospel). The narrative o f the healing o f the man born blind in Joh n 9 provides an ideal test case for the thesis. Martyn sees in vv 1-7 a typical miracle story, which sets forth the “einm alig” or single, non-recurring event, while in vv 8-41 Jesus represents the Christian preacher; the two sections are not rigidly divided between past and present, the whole chapter participates in the two-level drama. Martyn comments: “Confronted by a blind beggar near the Temple, Jesus takes the initiative to heal him. However, the work o f him who is the Light o f the world (8:12, etc.) is not terminated in that deed. Through a faithful witness in the Johannine church, the healing power o f Jesus touches a poor Jew,

1

In

t r o d u c t io n

afflicted many years with blindness” (30). Whether, on the contemporary level, the blindness is to be thought o f as physical as well as spiritual, Martyn leaves open, citing 2 Cor 3 :1 2 -1 8 . T h e important issue is the twofold relation o f the event as described: “Presented as a formal drama, and allowed to mount its actors, so to speak, on a two-level stage so that each is actually a pair o f actors playing two parts simultaneously, Jo h n 9 impresses upon us its immediacy in such a way as strongly to suggest that some o f its elements reflect actual experiences o f the Johannine community” (37). Martyn acknowledges that it is a bold step that Jo h n takes in “doubling” Jesus with the figures o f Christian witnesses in his own community, but this is how the Evangelist avoids a two-volume work o f Jesus and his Church such as Luke has given, and shows instead the unity o f the present activity o f the risen Christ with the ministry o f Jesus in the flesh. T h e key to the procedure is the doctrine o f the Paraclete: the paradox o f Jesus’ promise that his work on earth will be continued because he is going to the Father is solved by his return in the person o f the Paraclete. “It is therefore precisely the Paraclete who creates the two-level drama” (148). This approach to the Fourth Gospel is ingenious and illuminating, even if at times one may wish to apply the principle differently from Martyn. It is hardly necessary, for example, to see at all times individual counterparts in the second level to those o f the first. Narratives like the healing o f the son o f the king’s officer, the paralytic o f Bethesda, the man bom blind, and the raising o f Lazarus can be compared in a more general way with the activities o f the post-Pentecostal Church and the controversies into which they were drawn. Hoskyns expressed precisely such a view: “By a natural and unconscious symbolism the traditional narratives o f his miraculous actions were related in such a way as to identify the converts with those who had originally been healed, and the later opponents o f Christianity with the original opponents o f Jesus. T h e earlier narratives tended to become more and more clearly symbolical o f the later experiences o f the Christians, the original history providing the framework within which reference was made to contemporary history, and the materials out o f which narratives and discourses could be constructed” (362). This accords with the understanding o f the Gospel by Léon-Dufour, and especially with the concept embodied in Jo h n 14 :1 2 13: the works o f Jesus in his ministry are to be continued by his disciples after his death, and yet greater things achieved, since Jesus will be with the Father. “Jesus with his Father” signifies not absence from the earth scene, but Jesus occupying the place o f power and glory, so that when the disciples pray in his name, he will act. The disciples thus become agents o f the risen Lord for performing “greater things” than he did in the days o f his flesh. In the Resurrection era and the presence o f the Spirit, the spiritual realities signified by the “signs” become available to men. They may take bread o f life, not simply bread that perishes, and the life o f the eternal kingdom, o f which recovery from sickness or even resuscitation from the grave are but reflections. F. Mussner made yet another approach to the dual form o f the Fourth Gospel, o f which we must take note (The H istorical Jesus in the Gospel o f St. Joh n ). Mussner examined the nature o f Jo h n ’s “historical knowledge” o f Jesus

Introdu ction

Η

through an analysis o f his “gnoseological terminology”; this indicates that the terms for seeing, hearing, coming to know, knowing, testifying, and remembering all relate to the seeing, hearing, knowing, etc., o f apostolic witnesses in the past, transposed kerygmatically into the present (cf., e.g., the “we have seen” o f Jo h n 1:14; 1:34; 4:42; 6:40; 20:29). T h e Johannine mode o f vision is that o f a believing and informed witness who “sees” his subject in such a way that the hidden mystery o f the latter becomes “visible” and expressible for the Church in the kerygma. In the act o f vision the time horizons merge, but in the merging, the past is not annulled, and the questions o f the present provide the angles from which the historical material is focused. “T o put it concretely, Jesus o f Nazareth is so expressed by Joh n in his act o f vision, that the history o f Christ projected and presented by him simultaneously gives an answer to the Christological questions o f the time o f its composition” (46). Hearing his words, the Church shares in the Evangelist’s “act o f vision.” The Lord himself comes before them in the words o f the Gospel and speaks to them through the Paraclete, and the latter through the Evangelist. So the Evangelist becomes the inspired mouthpiece o f the glorified Christ; he lends him his tongue, so that the Christ speaks to the Christian community in Johannine language. The key to this process lies in the Paraclete doctrine. Here Joh n 14:26 is especially significant: “The Paraclete . . . will teach you all things, and will call to mind all that 1 have told you.” In this Gospel διδάσκειv, “teach,” nearly always denotes “reveal” (cf. 8:28); the teaching, like the recalling which immediately follows, is a rendering present that at the same time implies interpretation. The Paraclete thus is the instrument o f the glorified Christ; he preserves Jesus’ words and work for the Church, renders them present, and interprets them. This is stated yet more plainly in 16:12-15: “I have many things still to say to you, but you cannot endure them now. But when he, the Spirit o f truth comes, he will guide you in the entire truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but will tell only what he hears. . . .” T h e fullness o f truth into which the Spirit guides is the word o f Jesus, continuing in the word o f the glorified Christ in an unbroken process o f instruction. “The word transmitted through the Spirit is no other than the word o f the Lord himself, and as a consequence in the Gospel o f Joh n the word o f the earthly and o f the exalted Christ can no longer be distinguished at all; for the Spirit . . . operates particularly in the inspired word o f the Evangelist, who presents to the Church Jesus’ words as the words o f the glorified Christ” (63). Thus the Johannine mode o f vision and the work o f the Paraclete belong inseparably together. Mussner’s exposition o f this theme may be said to complement those o f Léon-Dufour and Martyn, although his work antedated their publications. In one respect, however, Mussner appears to have overstated his case, namely, in claiming that “the word o f the earthly and o f the exalted Christ can no longer be distinguished at a l l ” The researches o f C. H. Dodd (in H istorical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel) are a massive attempt to do precisely the opposite, namely, to lay bare words o f the earthly Jesus in this Gospel. A notable example o f the possibility, and desirability, o f doing this may be seen in Joh n 1:29. It is likely that the

lii

In

t r o d u c t io n

original testimony o f Joh n the Baptist is that recorded in 1:36, “Look, the Lamb o f God!” In v 29 the continuation o f the saying “who takes away the sin of the world” is the Evangelist’s interpretative addition to ensure that readers understand that Jesus is not simply the leader o f God’s flock who came to exercise judgment and rule (the apocalyptic concept, which Jo h n the Baptist would have shared), but the One who fulfills the hope o f a second Exodus by carrying out the function o f God’s passover Lamb, so achieving a universal redemption for the world. A more complex procedure is observable in chap. 3 o f the Gospel. Nicodemus comes to Jesus by night for a conversation. Where does the conversation end? It is generally (and rightly) acknowledged that vv 16-21 are a group o f sayings brought together by the Evangelist which look back on the completed life, death, and resurrection o f Jesus and incorporate the kerygma o f the churches. Possibly we must go back further and recognize vv 14-15 as set by the Evangelist in this context (it is the first “lifting up” saying) to indicate how the birth from above becomes possible, and v 13 as a comment upon v 12. We now move in an area where Mussner’s dictum holds good! Similar observations may be made as to the latter half o f the chapter: vv 3 1 -3 6 have been set after the final testimony o f Jo h n the Baptist to Jesus; while there is no indication that Jo h n has ceased to speak, it is transparently clear that his testimony ends with the climactic word o f v 30 and that vv 3 1 -3 6 are the Evangelist’s reflections, setting forth the ultimacy o f the word o f God through Jesus. A further example o f this procedure is seen in 12:36b-43, where the Evangelist looks back on the public ministry of Jesus as he draws his record o f it to a close. Admittedly chap. 3 is unique in the Gospel as to its form, but it perfectly illustrates the point we are seeking to make and that from another perspective: the whole narrative o f the chapter and its accompanying teaching form a presentation o f the kerygma o f the Incarnate Christ with a view to the production o f faith. W. Wilkens seized on this characteristic o f the Fourth Gospel as a whole in his treatment o f the raising o f Lazarus, which he saw as written with that same end in view. It led him to speak o f the Johannine portrayal o f history as “kerygmatic history.” It is kerygma in the form of history, but a history in no way to be distinguished from historical event, “for Jesus and Christ cannot be torn asunder, because the Word has become flesh and is attested to the world ever and again in concrete historical situations as the One become flesh.” From this Wilkens proceeds to affirm the viewpoint we have been expounding: The kerygmatic historical declaration in the Fourth Gospel therefore bears a double character: it is directed to the saving event at a specific time in the past and testifies to the Word of God become flesh; at the same time it turns to man here and now and leads him into the discipleship of Christ. This double character of the Johannine representation of history is ultimately grounded in the presence of the exalted Lord, who is identical with the Word of God become flesh (“Die Erweckung des Lazarus,“ ThZ 15 [1959] 38-39). This reminder that the Gospel in all its parts is written “that you may believe” is o f fundamental importance, and o f course is stated by the Evangelist himself (20:30-31).

In trodu ction

liii

This conception o f the nature o f the Fourth Gospel inevitably raises a question: can we take its testimony to Jesus seriously? Mussner affirmed: “The word transmitted through the Spirit is no other than the word of the Lord himself,” and he added, “The Spirit operates in the inspired word o f the Evangelist.” He appears to answer our question with a resounding “yes.” His response contrasts with the tendency o f some scholars to discuss the contents o f the Gospel as they would archaeological exhibits in a museum o f anthropological antiquities. It is, o f course, possible to treat the “theory” of the Paraclete-Spirit in the Fourth Gospel, as some in fact do, just as one may discuss Paul’s “theory” o f justification by faith and the primitive Church’s “opinion” that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, and that he has been raised from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4). Such language is comprehensible on the lips of people standing outside the Christian faith, or in discussions o f the phenomenology o f religion, but in expounding the Word o f God some elements o f faith may be assumed as given points o f departure for the journey o f understanding the Word through Christ. One o f these cherished by the Church is that the Fourth Gospel is a supreme example o f the truth and application o f the Paraclete doctrine which it contains. It is a disturbing fact that the effect o f more than a little contemporary scholarly discussion on the Fourth Gospel is to confuse both laity and clergy; it leads some to disregard the Gospel’s significance for life and for ministry and others to reject the insights o f scholarship in a desperate endeavor to save the message o f the Gospel. Both these reactions are unfortunate. The patient labors o f scholars have enabled us to perceive more clearly than ever before the intention o f the Evangelist in writing his Gospel, his mode of interpretation, and his message for his own contemporaries and for our times. O f this result the great commentaries on the Gospel in the past fifty years bear eloquent testimony, some o f which are among the greatest expositions o f the Word o f God that have ever appeared. We may with confidence seek the guidance o f the Spirit in our own endeavors to understand the Gospel. 4. T

he

Rel

ig io u s

Re l

a t io n s o f t h e

Fo

urth

G o s pe l

The term “relations” is preferable to “background,” since it is likely that the Evangelist may have wished to relate the Gospel to groups with religious concepts and traditions other than his own. It is desirable, accordingly, to distinguish among traditions common to Jo h n and religious groups in the Jewish and Hellenistic world o f his time—those which were fundamental to his thought and those which he used as vehicles o f address in the service of the Gospel. (1) Hellenistic Traditions Since the Gospel was written in Greek for Greek-speaking people, we consider first its relationship to the religious traditions o f the Hellenistic world. It may be noted at the outset that the significance o f the fact that the Fourth

liv

In

t r o d u c t io n

Gospel was written in Greek is an ambivalent factor. T h e Septuagint was also written in Greek! G. D. Kilpatrick observed that while the rendering o f the Old Testament into Greek represented the migration o f a religion and theology from one language to another, the effect o f the Jewish scriptures on the Greek language was even more notable than the effect o f the Greek language and culture on Judaism. He was prepared to affirm the like o f the Fourth Gospel: “Jo h n represents a stage in the invasion o f Hellenistic paganism by Judaism and later by Christianity, and not an invasion o f the Biblical religion by the pagan world” (“T h e Religious Background o f the Fourth Gospel,” 40-41). Our task is to weigh the extent o f the influences upon and from the Fourth Gospel. (i) Philo This writer has long been viewed, and rightly so, as the supreme example o f a Jew seeking to understand his faith in the light o f Hellenistic culture and to explain it to the Gentile world. Both aspects are observable in his writings— the comprehension and the proclamation. Philo treated the Old Testament in a manner similar to the treatment o f Homer by Greek teachers— he allegorized the Scriptures. In this respect he differed from Jo h n , whose treatment o f the О Т is more in line with Palestinian traditions o f exegesis. Philo’s use o f symbolism is more significant for his relations with the Fourth Evangelist; Dodd cites three features o f special importance in this area; namely, God as Light, as Shepherd, and as the Fountain o f living water, all o f which', o f course, feature in the О Т Scriptures (Interpretation, 53-58). The most significant point o f contact between Philo and Jo h n lies in their use o f the concept o f the Logos. Philo borrowed from the Stoics the notion o f Logos as the principle o f reality. He interpreted the concept in the light o f God as Creator; the Logos, like wisdom, was viewed as God’s medium o f creation and governance o f the world and o f revelation to the world. As such the Logos is termed the image o f God and the First-born Son o f God. Since he is the medium through which the world approaches God, he is also termed the High Priest, the Paraclete f o r the forgiveness o f sins and the bestowal o f God’s blessings on man (De Vita Mos. 2:134). Philo also conjoins with the Logos the Platonic notion o f the archetypal man, who is contrasted with the earthly man o f Gen 2, in whom nous is mingled with earth (Leg. All. 1:3 1-32). Some see in this concept o f the archetypal man a close approach to the treatment o f the Son o f Man in the Fourth Gospel (so, for example, Dodd, Interpretation, 69-71). T h e links between Philo and Jo h n are undoubtedly remarkable and extend beyond these examples. They are the more significant when it is recognized that Philo was not an isolated phenomenon, but a spokesman for other likeminded men o f his race, whose thoughts he appears to have utilized. There is no evidence that Jo h n had ever studied Philo’s writings. T h e declaration o f Joh n 1:14 and the function o f the prologue to the Gospel as introducing the revelation and redemption o f the Logos within the concrete situations o f a local history were beyond Philo’s horizon. Nevertheless, it is entirely plausible that the Evangelist’s formulations o f this story will have been made with people in view who shared the convictions o f the man who sought to

Introdu ction

lv

bridge the world o f the Bible with the religious thought o f the Hellenistic world. (ii) Gnosticism The relations between the Fourth Gospel and Gnosticism are still in debate and are far from settled. It will be recalled that in Bultmann’s view a major source o f the Gospel was the Revelation-Discourses, which were derived from a Baptist Gnostic sect and which embodied the Gnostic Redeemer myth. The fundamental elements o f this system are cosmic dualism, redemption from the demonic powers o f earth, and Gnosis from the Revealer, by which the way o f salvation is known. These determine the form o f the Redeemer and the nature o f redemption. The cosmic dualism forbids him to belong to the inferior creation; he is an Envoy sent down from heaven, commonly in disguise that the Hostile powers may not recognize him, and he returns thither after achieving his redemptive task; since his ascension concludes his work, eschatological hope is drastically modified. All this is thought to be utilized and adapted in the Fourth Gospel. It is urged that the dualism is marked (cf. 8:23, “You are from below [έκ των κάτω], I am from above [έκ των άνω]”); the Redeemer descends from heaven to bring the revelation of the truth (3:13), and ascends to heaven from his cross (12:31-32); the future eschatology o f the Church is transformed to a wholly realized eschatology (5:24); the Christ is the Logos-Redeemer, God walking about the earth in the guise o f a man. Käsemann, interpreting the Gospel on this basis, maintains that the Evangelist presents a Christology o f glory with which the Passion is hardly reconcilable; hence the Gospel has no real theology o f the cross and exemplifies a naive docetism (Testament o f Jesus, 27 ; cf. 7 and 51). In like vein L. Schottrof describes the Fourth Gospel as “the first system known in detail to us o f a Gnosticism which adapts the Christian tradition” (Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt, 295). Most Johannine scholars consider that this judgment overshoots the mark. That the Gospel employs a dualism is evident—its nature and origin we may for a moment leave in abeyance; the descent and ascent o f the Redeemer is undoubtedly o f primary significance—though it may not be overlooked that the Redeemer ascends via his grave; the subordination of futurist eschatology to one of present realization is also o f major importance, and we may not minimize the fact that the Christ is presented as the Logos “walking about the earth.” But all this gives no warrant for playing down the significance o f the enfleshment o f the Word in 1:14, or for diminishing the importance to the Evangelist o f the death o f Jesus, or for denying the genuine eschatology o f hope in the Gospel, and for representing the Christology o f the Gospel as docetic. The thoroughgoing Gnostic interpretation o f the Fourth Gospel is in no small degree due to a scholarly minimizing o f the Jewish relations that it exhibits, and that we must shortly consider. Setting aside for a moment leading themes in the Gospel that are not common in Gnostic thought, such as the second Exodus motif, why do enthusiasts for the Gnostic relations o f the Fourth Gospel have to be so exclusive, dismissing, for example, the importance o f Ezekiel 34 and other related О Т passages about God as the Shepherd o f his people when citing the Hellenistic parallels to the discourse o f John

Ivi

In

t r o d u c t io n

10? Why are the precedents o f the “I am” sayings in Deutero-Isaiah relegated to a buried past in favor o f parallels in the Nag Hammadi literature, when the former tradition is so plainly alive in the Book o f Revelation, which emanates from a group closely related to that which produced the Fourth Gospel? And how does one relate the fiercely anti-Gnostic document, 1 Joh n, to the allegedly Gnostic Fourth Gospel, which also emanates from the circle that produced the Gospel, and which seeks to expound the thought o f the Gospel? There are sober scholars who are ready to acknowledge positive relations o f the Fourth Gospel to the contemporary religious movements that inspired the Gnosticism o f the second century without the one-sided emphasis some enthusiasts for Gnosticism are making. C. K. Barrett’s comment, concluding a study o f the theological vocabulary o f the Fourth Gospel and the Gospel o f Truth, is worthy o f note: “It is difficult to doubt that Jo h n detected real theological appropriateness in the words he used, that in fact he was giving a Christianized—and that meant often an inverted—and always historicized version o f a way o f thinking that was not simply too popular but also too near to and too far from the truth to be ignored. Gnosticism raised questions that the theologian could not ignore” (“The Theological Vocabulary o f the Fourth Gospel and the Gospel o f Truth,” 223). In reality, the conviction has become increasingly adopted that the Evangelist, by his use o f Gnostic categories, gave the completest answer to Gnosticism. He had defeated the Gnostics with their own weapons (so Barrett, Commentary, 134). (iii) The Hermetic Literature The writings purporting to convey the instruction o f Hermes Trismegistos (= the Egyptian God Thoth) are in the Gnostic tradition (some o f them are in the Nag Hammadi library), and are generally dated in the second and third century a . d . While the dualism that is characteristic o f Gnosticism is found in these writings also, it is modified by their belief that the cosmos is related to God, and may be called the Son o f God, and that man knows God through its agency. Significantly, man is also represented as the image o f God in so far as he partakes o f nous, which is the soul o f God. The man o f nous is тёКеως άνθρωπος, “perfect man,” sent down by God into the world to adorn it: because he has received nous he is one with God and immortal; knowing for what purpose he has come from God, he also knows that he will ascend to God. C. H. Dodd, comparing such ideas with what is said about the Son o f Man in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., Joh n 13:3; 1:32-34; 10:30; 20:17) considers that the latter figure has more in common with the Anthropos o f Poimandres than with the Son o f Man o f Jewish Apocalyptic (Interpretation, 43-44). The Logos doctrine is not so prominent in the Hermetic literature as it is in some Gnostic writings. As the thought o f God it is a cosmological principle, but in man it is a psychological faculty o f hearing and seeing, and is the offspring o f God (Poimandres 1.6). Dodd considered that the conception of Christ in the Fourth Gospel has combined the roles assigned in the Poimandres tractate to four distinct beings: the divine Revealer (Poimandres), the prophet himself, the heavenly Anthropos, and the Logos (Interpretation, 33). A further point o f contact with this same tractate concerns its teaching

In trodu ction

lvii

on regeneration: a man who gains the knowledge o f God becomes divine and is declared to have been born again; he becomes one with God through the indwelling o f the Logos and passes from the realm o f the physical to that o f nous. As so often in discussions relating to Gnosticism, the age at which this thinking circulated in these groups is uncertain. The writings in their present form are generally dated in the second to the fourth centuries. Dodd, who would place the Poimandres tractate early in the second century, or even before, nevertheless is cautious in his judgment on the relation o f this literature to the Fourth Gospel: “It seems clear that as a whole they (the Hermetic writings) represent a type o f religious thought akin to one side o f Johannine thought, without any substantial borrowing on one side or the other” (Interpretation, 53). At most we would be justified in affirming that the Evangelist is concerned to convey the gospel o f the Word made flesh to the kind o f pagan reader who is acquainted with thought embodied in the Hermetic writings (so Schnackenburg, 1:138). (iv) Mandaism In no area o f the investigation o f the religious relationships o f the Fourth Gospel is the confusion so great and difficult to disentangle as in discussions relating to Mandaism. The origin o f the Mandaic traditions is still disputed. Bultmann considered that the Mandaic literature exhibited a form o f the Redeemer myth prior to the rise o f Christianity, and Cullmann has supported this view throughout his career. The English-speaking world has tended to be skeptical o f this estimate. H. E. W. Turner wrote in 1954, “The attempt to derive the Fourth Gospel from Mandaean sources is already a curiosity o f scholarship” (The Pattern o f Christian Truth, 113). In the light of publications that appeared shortly after that date, W. Schmithals affirmed to the contrary in 1969, “The early dating o f the beginnings o f the Mandaean literature in the pre-Christian and early Christian period is less disputed today than ever” (The Office o f Apostle in the Early Church, 185). The lateness o f the present form o f the texts is admitted; there are references to Mohammed in the Haran Gawaita, which lead some to date the Mandaic canon ca. a .d . 700 (so Dodd, Interpretation, 115). The oldest extant manuscript o f the Mandaic scriptures comes from the sixteenth century, and most o f the rest belong to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. On the other hand, there is a colophon in the canonical Mandaean Prayer-book, published in 1959, which lists the copyists o f the manuscript; if genuine, it would lead us to date its composition in the second half o f the third century a .d . The account given in the Haran Gawaita o f the history o f the Mandaeans is quite fantastic; R. Macuch, who takes the work with seriousness, admits that it may be 95 percent legendary (Anfänge der M andäer, 117, cited by E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, 127). The question arises as to what truth there may be in the connection claimed with Jo h n the Baptist and his ministry. Contrary to Bultmann, there is a strong tendency to view this as a late development in the sect’s progress. There is ground for believing that the Mandaeans began as one o f the many baptizing sects in the Jordan valley in the first century o f our era and that they developed their peculiar beliefs after migrating to Mesopotamia.

Iviii

In

t r o d u c t io n

Yamauchi postulated the following evolution o f the sect: the Mandaeans were non-Jews who were superficially acquainted with the Old Testament and spoke an Aramaic dialect; they probably lived in Transjordan and worshiped the god o f the Hauran range east o f Galilee; they had no firsthand knowledge o f Christ or Christianity; the attacks o f the Jews on Gentiles on the eve o f the war with Rome (a .d . 66) may have forced them to the area o f Antioch, where they may have accepted the Gnostic views o f Menander, attracted by his teaching on achieving immortality through baptism; seeking a place where they could be free from domination, they departed east to the region o f Adiabene, but owing to the influence o f Christians and Jews there they moved on to southern Mesopotamia, where they converted the indigenous Aramaean population; the Mesopotamian tradition had no hope for life after death, so immortality through Gnosis would have been good news to the people. “It was this fruitful union o f the vitality o f Gnosticism and the tenacity o f Mesopotamian cult and magic that resulted in the birth o f a hardy new religion, perhaps by the end o f the second century a .d .” (Pre-Christian Gnosticism, 141— 42). Mandaism presents a radical dualism o f light and darkness, o f the heavenly and earthly realms. Escape from the latter is possible for those who carry out the Mandate ritual, the chief element of which is baptism (frequently repeated). Baptism entails the re-enactment of the myth o f the descent o f Manda d 'Hayye (= “knowledge o f life”) and ascent to the realm o f light and reunion with the Great Life and heaven. In the elaboration o f the doctrine a polemic against Judaism and Christianity, and even Mohammedanism, is apparent. The realm o f darkness is ruled over by the Holy Spirit; Adonai is an evil power which brought the Jews out o f Egypt and gave the Law; Christ is identified with Hermes, a planet that deceives men by calling himself Jesus, Savior, and Son o f God; and Mohammed is yet another deceiver. Th e true deliverer is Enosh-Uthra, who is identified with Jo h n the Baptist, but this identification appears to be a secondary adaptation o f the myth in the light o f the Christian proclamation o f Jesus. G. Quispel wrote, “The Gospel o f Joh n, more than any other writing o f the NT, has stylistic and conceptual parallels with Mandaean literature. Even if Mandaeism turns out to be neither so old nor o f Palestinian origin, obligatory reading o f Mandaean writings could serve students o f the N T as good preparation for the right understanding o f the Fourth Gospel” (“Gnosticism and the New Testament,” The Bible and M odem Scholarship, 266). (2) Jew ish Traditions Th e Jewish cast o f the Evangelist’s mind and his Jewish training were expounded long ago by B. F. Westcott. He instanced familiarity with Jewish thought and religious observance, the Hebraic style o f the writer, the acknowledgment o f Judaism as the divine starting point o f the Christian faith (“salvation is o f the Jew s,” 4:22), the Evangelist’s knowledge o f Palestine and o f festival customs belonging to the Temple worship, agreements with the Hebrew Old Testament as against the LX X , and Hebraic ideas behind the Logos doctrine (x-xxxix). We should speak now of the Semitic rather than simply Hebraic style o f the Evangelist, for both Aramaic and Hebrew are reflected

In trodu ction

lix

in the Gospel. Whether the Semitisms are due to sources or to the writer’s thinking in terms o f Semitic idiom while writing in Greek (an issue not necessarily requiring an either/or pronouncement, as with the Book o f Revelation), the evidence for an underlying Semitic idiom, as Dodd pointed out, is irresistible: “This in itself brings the gospel back into a Jewish environment” (Interpretation, 75). (t) The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel There is little in Jo h n ’s Gospel to compare with Matthew’s abundant citation o f О Т testimonies to Christ. Doubtless Joh n would have acclaimed the principle enshrined in Matt 5:17—Jesus came not to destroy but to fulfill Law and Prophets; and since his overriding interest was Christological, his use o f the О Т, like Matthew’s, is chiefly in Christological texts, but more particularly in their typological application. This may be instanced in his citation from the О Т in Jo h n 19:37: it would seem that Exod 12:46 is primarily in view, hence that Jesus in his death is viewed as God’s Passover Lamb; if the Evangelist was at the same time conscious o f the echo o f Ps 34:20, then he recognized that it is the Christ who fulfills the role o f the Righteous Man of the Psalms who by his death brings about the second Exodus. A great deal o f the О Т language employed in the Gospel is bound up with the concept o f Jesus as One greater than Moses, who achieved the redemption anticipated in the second Exodus. T h e theme is alluded to even in 1:14, where the language used of the incarnation of the Logos is reminiscent o f the dwelling o f the Shekinah among the people o f God in the wilderness (έσκή o x j€v έν ήμν), and in 1:17 (the Law came through Moses, grace and truth through Jesus Christ). The Lamb o f God theme is announced in 1:29, doubtless in relation to the concept o f the Warrior Lamb who delivers the flock o f God and establishes his kingdom, but modified by the concept o f the death that is exaltation to sovereignty, as in 3:14 and 12:31. Ju st as the Son o f Man brings a revelation beyond that vouchsafed to Moses, 3:13, so his “lifting up” on the cross is the means o f a more complete healing and gift o f life than that given through the lifting up o f the snake in the desert (3:14 f.). Similarly the discourse on the bread o f life sets out from a reference to the gift o f manna in the time o f Moses to expound the realization of hope o f its return in the gift o f “true” manna through Christ, which results in eternal life in the kingdom o f God (6:30-59). With this theme is linked the representation o f Jesus as the fulfiller o f the meaning o f the Feasts o f Israel— Passover (chap. 6), Tabernacles (chap. 7), and Dedication (chap. 10). There are various elements o f imagery and modes o f speech in the Gospel for which Hellenistic parallels can be adduced as well as from the О Т, but in view o f the importance o f the О Т to the writer, the latter must be given due weight, without excluding consciousness o f the former. One thinks o f the discourse o f the shepherd and the sheep in Jo h n 10, and the allegory o f the vine in chap. 15, as also the “I am” sayings o f the Gospel, which could scarcely have been penned without reference to such passages as Isa 41:4; 4 3 :1 0 -1 3 (cf. Deut 32:39). T h e like must be said o f the concept o f wisdom, which runs through the Gospel as a kind o f ground bass. Doubtless in the first century o f our era, wisdom had already been influenced by Helle-

lx

In

t r o d u c t io n

nistic thought, as is apparent from the so-called Wisdom o f Solomon, but its basic Semitic root should be acknowledged (a root that reaches back beyond the beginnings o f Israel). While in early Israel wisdom was primarily concerned with the laws o f life and o f the world, in post-exilic Israel it came to be a kind o f umbrella concept beneath which the centralities o f faith were brought. Von Rad pointed out that while this is a comparatively late development in Israel, “the conviction that perfect wisdom is with God alone was certainly inherent in Jahwism from the beginning” (Old Testament Theology 1:441-42). When Prov 3:19 states that God founded the earth “by wisdom,” and the heavens “by understanding . . . ,” it approaches the concept o f wisdom as the instrument o f creation, which is spelled out in later writings, e.g., Wisd Sol 9 :1 -4 . In the praise o f wisdom in Wisd Sol 7 :2 2 -8 :1 , we see a coalescence o f Semitic and Greek thought, wherein the principle o f creation becomes the expression o f the glory o f the Almighty, pervading the whole creation and the souls o f men. This concept plays a major part in the formulation o f the hymn within the prologue, but it also is a major constituent in the Christology o f the Gospel as a whole. All in all, it is difficult to challenge the propriety o f Schnackenburg’s summary o f his discussion on the О Т in the Fourth Gospel: “ This gospel would be unthinkable without the О Т basis which supports it” (1:124). (ii) Rabbinic Judaism T h e clearest evidence o f the Evangelist’s acquaintance with Rabbinic thought is seen in his reflection o f rabbinic understanding o f some o f the О Т texts he has cited. For fuller exposition o f such sayings the reader is referred to the present commentary, and still more to that o f Strack-Billerbeck. Here we content ourselves with brief mention o f some examples o f the Evangelist’s knowledge o f rabbinic interpretation o f the Scriptures. T h e key saying o f Jo h n 1:51, which anticipates the whole course o f the ministry o f Jesus, rests on a resolution o f the ambiguity in the statement as to whether the angels ascend and descend oq the ladder or on Jacob. T h e Hebrew term n7O (sûllām), “ladder,” is masculine, so 13 (bô) can mean either “on him” or “on it.” T h e LX X decides for the latter rendering 13 as éw' αντής agreeing with κλΐμαξ, ladder. T h e rabbis discussed the matter and differed in their judgm ent o f it. In stating that the angels will be seen ascending and descending on the Son o f M an, Jo h n 1:51 represents the Son o f Man as replacing Jacob , and as becoming the place o f mediation to man o f the revelation and redeeming powers o f the kingdom o f God. Jo h n 5:17 entails two extraordinary claims: that God still works though it is his Sabbath, and that Jesus as the Son o f God likewise works on the Sabbath. According to the rabbis, the works o f God after creation, when God entered upon his Sabbath, are restricted to anticipating his judgm ent on the wicked in the future, and the rewards he will give to the righteous. So also, reports the Evangelist, the Son, like the Father, gives lif e to whom he will and has authority to ex ercise judgm ent (vv 21-22). Th e dialogue is related to the healing o f a paralytic on the Sabbath (5 :1 -9 ). T h e same event is referred to in 7:21— 23, where the healing o f a man on the Sabbath is justified by the custom o f carrying out circumcision on the Sabbath. T h e rabbis explicitly required that

In trodu ction

lxi

eighth day circumcision be performed on the Sabbath, even though it broke the law o f Sabbath rest. The contrast between circumcision and a whole man reminds one o f the saying o f R. Eleazar (ca. a .d . 100): “I f circumcision, which concerns one o f man’s 248 members, overrides the Sabbath, how much more must his whole body override the Sabbath?” But o f course Jesus carried the principle beyond the point to which the rabbis were prepared to go. Jo h n 8:56 reflects a rabbinic interpretation o f the clause in Gen 24:1, “Abraham entered into the days” (= Abraham was advanced in years), as meaning that Abraham in vision entered the future, and so enjoyed a vision o f the days o f the Messiah (so R. Akiba, in opposition to Johanan ben Zakkai). The employment o f the term “law” in the Gospel is characteristic o f its use among rabbis, including the narrower use to denote the Mosaic law (1:17) and its extension to include the Scriptures as a whole (12:34). The observation in 5:39 is a perfect mirror o f the conviction o f the rabbis as to the duty of man to be occupied with the law, and the reward that such study brings (“life!”). By contrast, the contempt o f the learned for the common people, who were ignorant o f contemporary expositions o f the law, is equally well expressed in 7:49. In the light o f our earlier observations on the twofold relation o f the Gospel record to the ministry o f Jesus and to the time o f the Evangelist it will be seen that these reflections on the reference o f the words and acts o f Jesus to Pharisaic and rabbinic views will have been o f great significance to the earliest readers o f the Gospel, as the divide between Christians and the synagogue deepened. (iii) The Qumran Literature That close contacts exist between the literature of the Qumran sect and the Fourth Gospel is common knowledge, but how to evaluate them is variously estimated. A. M. Hunter said o f these writings, “For the first time they give us a body of thought which may provide an actual background for the fourth gospel, both in date and place (southern Palestine in the first century b .c ./a .d .) and in basic theological affinity” (According to Joh n , 27). A similar assessment o f the evidence is given by R. Brown (lxiii-iv). On the other hand W. G. Kümmel concluded, “Jo h n and Qumran presuppose a common background, but the thought world o f Qumran cannot be the native soil o f the Johannine thought forms” (Introduction, 158). The elements within this “common background” are numerous and striking. The differences between a group awaiting the messianic deliverance and one for whom the Messiah has come and wrought redemption are bound to be also considerable. (a) Stress is laid in the Qumran writings on the importance o f the community itself. The penitent who has received understanding o f the truth is cleansed and made holy “that he may be joined with thy sons o f truth and with the lot o f thy saints” (1QH 11:16-12). Characteristic o f the life of the community are the daily ablutions, the first o f which appears to have the significance o f baptism into the Covenant and the community ( 1QS 3:1-12), and participation in its sacred meals. (b) Highly significant for comparison with the Fourth Gospel is the critical attitude o f the sect to the Temple and its priesthood, which led to the view

lxii

In

t r o d u c t io n

o f the community as the true temple o f God; the concept is frequently expressed, but most succinctly in 1QS 9:6: “. . . the men o f the community shall separate themselves as a sanctuary for Aaron, to be united as a holy o f holies and a house o f the community for those in Israel who walk in perfection” (cf. Jo h n 2:19-21). (c) While the community is characterized by a vivid eschatological hope, it appears that its members viewed themselves as possessing the blessings of the kingdom in advance o f its full revelation. This finds expression in the Hymns o f Thanksgiving, wherein H.-W. Kuhn traced the following elements o f salvation: rescue from death and introduction into eternal life; cleansing from sins and the concept o f new creation; entry into the inheritance o f God’s people and the “lot o f the angels”; the gift o f the Holy Spirit o f the last days; the possession o f knowledge which is the experience o f salvation (see, e.g., 1QH 3 :1 9 -2 3 ; 11:7-14; 16:8-12; and 1QS 11:2-9). These passages fall short o f the realized eschatology o f the Fourth Gospel, but they are a unique anticipation within Judaism o f that teaching. (d) Reference has already been made to the Holy Spirit as the gift o f the kingdom, given in advance to the people o f the Covenant. Concerning the frequent mention o f this theme we may cite 1QS 3 :6 -8 by way o f example: “By this Spirit o f true counsel concerning the ways o f man shall all his sins be atoned when he beholds the light o f life. By the Holy Spirit o f the community, in his truth, shall he be cleansed o f all his sins; and by the Spirit o f uprightness and humility shall his iniquity be atoned.” Or again, 1QH 16:11— 12: “I know that no man beside thee can be just. And I therefore entreat thee, through the Spirit which thou didst put in me, to bring unto fulfillment the lovingkindness thou hast shown unto thy servant. . . .” Since the Spirit is also called “the Spirit o f truth” and is named in parallelism with the Prince o f Light and the Angel o f Truth ( 1QS 3:2 1 -2 4 ), it is often considered that the Paraclete doctrine o f Joh n is rooted in the Qumran teaching. “Rooted” is probably too strong a term; “related” is more fitting, for the notion of witness-bearing to the first Paraclete, Jesus the Messiah, is far removed from the horizon o f the scrolls. (e) Most important o f all is the dualism in the Qumran literature. The teaching is expounded at length in 1QS 3 :1 5 -4 :2 6 . It begins with an affirmation which rules out an absolute dualism: “From the God o f Knowledge comes all that is and shall be.” Then follows a description o f the two Spirits apportioned to man: “He allotted unto man two Spirits that he should walk in them until the time o f his visitation; they are the Spirits o f truth and perversity. The origin o f truth is in a fountain o f light, and the origin o f perversity is from a fountain o f darkness. Dominion over all the sons of righteousness is in the hand o f the Prince o f light; they walk in the ways of light. All dominion over the sons o f perversity is in the hand o f the Angel o f darkness; they walk in the ways o f darkness.” It is explained that while the sons o f righteousness go astray because o f the Angel o f darkness and the spirits o f his lot, “the God o f Israel and his Angel o f truth succour all the sons o f light.” It is precisely in this passage that some of the most characteristic linguistic parallels between the Qumran writings and the Fourth Gospel occur. On these J . H. Charlesworth observed, “These similarities are not dose

Introdu ction

lxiii

enough nor numerous enough to prove that Joh n directly copied from 1QS. But on the other hand they are much too close to conclude that Joh n and 1QS merely evolved out o f the same milieu” (“Dualism,” 103). (f ) It is known that the Qumran sect, with certain other Jews o f their time, uniformly celebrated Passover on a Tuesday evening— Wednesday, on the basis o f a solar calendar. A. Jaubert has suggested that Jo h n ’s account o f the Last Supper and the events leading to the death o f Jesus indicates that the Evangelist represented Jesus as observing the Passover according to the Qumran calendar (for a brief statement o f her thesis see “The Calendar o f Qumran and the Passion Narrative in Jo h n ,” 6 2 -7 5 ; its cogency is strongly contested). The deductions to be drawn from this evidence are variously stated by students o f the Fourth Gospel, but there is little doubt that associations between the thought o f the Qumran Community and that o f the Evangelist must be taken into account in the explanation of the Gospel. (iv) Samaritan Religion Awareness of connections between the Fourth Gospel and Samaritan religious traditions is a comparatively recent development in Johannine studies. The Evangelist’s interest in the Samaritans is evident as soon as the attention that he gives them is compared with that which appears in the synoptic Gospels: Mark does not so much as mention Samaritans; Matthew reproduces Jesus’ command to his disciples on their mission to Israel not to be(deflected into Samaria (10:5); Luke is sympathetic to the Samaritans, so while recording the hostility o f a Samaritan village toward Jesus and his followers he notes the rebuke o f Jesus for his disciples’ rage (9:51-55). Joh n, by contrast, records that Jesus saw the Samaritan “fields” as “white unto harvest” (4:35); he describes how Jesus led a Samaritan woman o f doubtful morality to faith and reports the confession o f the inhabitants o f Sychar, “We know that this is indeed the Savior o f the world” (4:42). That testimony amounts to an affirmation that Jesus is the fulfillment o f the hopes o f Samaritan religion, as for those of all other peoples. The major issue, however, is the extent to which Samaritan religious traditions are reflected in the Gospel. J . Bowman pointed out that the Samaritans early developed a creed with five points: belief in God, in Moses, in the Scriptures, in Mount Gerizim, and in the Day o f Vengeance. Apart from the fourth item these are basic beliefs shared with the Jews. The Samaritan tenth commandment includes a statement that Mount Gerizim is the place where God is to be worshiped and an appendix on the coming o f one like Moses, the Taheb (the Coming One). Precisely these two items figure in the conversation o f the woman at the well with Jesus, reflecting their link in the mind o f a Samaritan. The picture o f the Samaritans in their adherence to their faith and response to the fuller revelation in Christ compares well with that o f the Jews in Joh n 5 :3 4 -4 7 (see Bowman, “Samaritan Studies,” 3 1 0 14). But it is the Samaritan belief in Moses that is o f special importance for the student o f Jo h n ’s Gospel. The figure o f Moses attains quite staggering proportions in Samaritan religion. J . MacDonald gives an outline o f Samaritan beliefs about Moses

Ixiv

In

t r o d u c t io n

under the significant title “Moses, Lord o f the World” (Theology o f Samaritans, 147- 222). I f the Christian view o f Jesus was decisively affected by the resurrection on the third day, the Samaritan view o f Moses was especially conditioned through the ascent o f Moses to the mount o f God at the giving o f the Law, interpreted as an ascent to God in heaven. “T h e great prophet Moses ascended to the level o f the Divine One and was honoured on Mount Sinai” (Cowley, The Samaritan Liturgy, 877. 28; cited in Macdonald, The Theology o f the Samaritans, 181). Moses thus becomes the Revealer o f God, the Prophet par excellence, beside whom there is no other. From this point one can move backward to creation and forward to the end o f time. From the primordial light that preceded creation the creative Word fashioned the preordained image in Moses. He was the prototype o f all human beings, and in due time he became identified both with the Word and with the Light, and participated in Creation. Moses is the Savior o f Israel (the Samaritans!). As Lawgiver he gave Israel the way o f salvation; his words are life, and a medicine to cure all who are sick (“Exalted is the mighty prophet Moses, whose every word is life and blessing,” Memar 4: 1). T h e narrative o f Exod 34 encouraged the thought o f Moses as the Intercessor between God and humankind, the Reconciler through whom humans can have communion with God. Such a role Moses maintains to the end, even in the day o f judgment and resurrection. I f was inevitable that the Taheb, the Samaritan Messiah, who was viewed as the prophet to come in the likeness o f Moses (Deut 18: 15, 18), was frequently viewed as Moses redivivus. So Markah: “T h e great prophet Moses . . . spoke concerning Israel words o f blessing. . . . He will come . . . and seek out their enemy and deliver Israel” (Memar 3: 3). Many o f these features o f Moses’ exaltation can be paralleled in rabbinic haggada (see W. Meeks, The Prophet-King, 176—215): there, too, Moses is viewed as supreme Prophet, King, Intercessor, the Shepherd o f Israel, the Redeemer who serves as the prototype o f the second Redeemer, and his ascent to heaven at the giving o f the Law is stressed. But Moses is not the solitary mediator as in Samaritanism; if by some he is expected to come at the end o f the age, it will be to precede the Messiah or accompany him, but not as Messiah (any who set their hope on Moses rather than the Messiah were out o f step with Israelite tradition generally). Since Samaritanism has evolved continuously from centuries before Christ to the present day, it is not easy to date with precision the stages o f development o f the Mosaic doctrine. Macdonald considers that Christianity exercised a powerful influence on the development o f this religion; in his view Samaritanism is “Pentateuchal religion evolved along lines influenced by Christianity” (32), and in this process the Fourth Gospel had a decisive influence. Without doubt Samaritan literature has been influenced by varied streams o f religious thought, including Christianity; nevertheless, it is likely that its beliefs about Moses began to be formulated earlier than the documents o f the New Testament, as parallels in Philo, Josephus, and rabbinic haggada intimate (see Meeks, Prophet-King, 239 -4 0 ; G. W. Buchanan, “The Samaritan Origin of the Gospel o f Jo h n ”; E. D. Freed, “Did Joh n Write His Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts?,” and C. H. H. Scobie, “Origins and Development o f Samaritan Christianity”).

In trodu ction

lxv

The Fourth Gospel appears to relate both positively and negatively to Samaritan views o f Moses. Meeks has sought to show that the presentation o f Jesus in the Fourth Gospel has been largely determined by the conviction that Jesus is the one of whom Moses speaks— the ultimate Prophet and Messianic King, whose signs attest his sending from God. Miracles were characteristic o f the Mosaic redeemer, not the Davidic Messiah. In this presentation Jesus is viewed not as a second Moses, but as the greater than Moses. If Moses was the representative o f God, even at times accorded the name Elohim (on the basis o f Exod 7 :1 ) , how much more does that hold good for Jesus! So it may be said o f all the functions and attributes o f Moses: it is Jesus who is “the Man” (a title o f Moses in the M em a r M a rka h ) the Word, the Light, the Savior, the Paraclete, the Revealer. Significantly, when Mosaic traditions are corrected in the Gospel, this is done in the same spirit as corrections o f false estimates o f Joh n the Baptist. Far from denigrating Moses, Jesus adduces him as a witness on his behalf: Israel’s Advocate becomes the Samaritans’ opponent when they reject the word o f Jesus, since in rejecting him they refuse Moses’ testimony to him in the Law ( 5 :4 5 - 4 7 ) . In so far as these traditions about Moses were shared by Jews, the positive and negative relations to Mosaic “christology” hold good o f their beliefs also. It was Bowman’s conviction that the Evangelist, through his Gospel, sought to bridge the divide between Jews and Samaritans in Christ (“Samaritan Studies,” 3 0 2 ). E. D. Freed endeavored to substantiate that position, and urged that Joh n was seeking to make Christianity appeal to Samaritans as well as to Jews, in the hope o f winning converts from both (“Did Joh n Write the Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts?,” 2 4 1 - 5 6 ) . That is not an impossible thesis, but it must be acknowledged that the Christology o f the Fourth Gospel cannot be wholly comprehended under the Moses traditions. That the latter form an important ingredient is a significant insight, but the key elements o f Johannine Christology are the Son o f Man and Son o f God concepts, and these have not been formed through the Mosaic traditions. Nor, indeed, should one attempt to assign the concepts o f Logos, Light, Savior, Paraclete, Apostle, Shepherd primarily to Mosaism, any more than one can Messiah and King. Samaritanism would appear to be one o f the sources that fed the Johannine reservoir—admittedly a neglected one, but not on that account to be magnified beyond warrant. 5. C o

n c l u s io n

From the foregoing review it is evident that the religious relations o f the Fourth Gospel are complex. Th e finks traceable between the Gospel and diverse Hellenistic and Semitic traditions make it implausible to settle for any one o f them to the exclusion o f the rest. It is, accordingly, as inadmissible to view the Fourth Gospel as emanating from a Gnostic enclave as it is to view it as emerging from a group o f Christian rabbis. The breadth o f the Evangelist’s sympathies is demonstrable above all through his employment o f the Logos concept in the prologue. T h e attempt should never be made to explain it on the basis o f Hellenism or Judaism alone. Its roots are in the ancient religions o f the nearer Orient in which ancient Israel was set, and from which the Greeks themselves learned. T h e powerful and creative Word

lxvi

In

t r o d u c t io n

o f Marduk, Ellil, Ptah, Re is to be compared with the mighty and creative Word o f Yahweh in the О Т , which merged with the Wisdom o f ancient tradition, blossomed in later Judaism, and was fused with the Torah. Yet Greek readers would not have read the prologue without recalling some o f the primary elements o f the Logos concept in their own traditions, even though they had never read a philosophical book or heard a lecture on philosophy (how many moderns who use the word “evolution” have read Darwin?). Its use in Hellenistic religion was, as we have seen, widespread, popularized through Philo, the forerunners o f Gnosticism, and the Hermética. T h e hymn o f Col 1 :1 5 -2 0 shows how the concept without the term could be in circulation at an early date. Jo h n ’s employment o f the concept to introduce the story o f Jesus was a master-stroke o f communication to the world o f his day. What he achieved in the prologue to the Gospel he did in the body o f the Gospel; the bells he had set ringing in the minds o f his readers in the first eighteen verses o f his book continued to ring out the message with a multitude o f associations that helped to commend and interpret the good news he sought to convey. I f it has made the task o f interpretation more difficult for modern readers, it will not have been so for its earliest readers. Few o f them, doubtless, will have caught al l the associations present in the text, any more than moderns do. This is the gospel that speaks accordingly as the hearers and readers can receive it. That applies equally to the ignorant and the learned who seek God through its pages. III. T h e A u t h o r s h ip

of the

F o u r t h G o s pe l

W. G. Kümmel pointed out that, from earliest times, discussion o f this subject has been conditioned by two questionable presuppositions: on the one hand, the belief that the apostle Jo h n wrote the Fourth Gospel has been passionately upheld, as though the authority o f the Gospel depended on its composition by Jo h n ; on the other hand, the tradition has been as strongly attacked, under the conviction that its incorrectness carried with it the untrustworthiness o f the Gospel (Introduction to the N T 3, 234). Neither notion, o f course, can stand. T h e evidence must be weighed as dispassionately as possible. Where it is ambiguous the ambiguity should be acknowledged and conclusions drawn with appropriate reserve. 1. T h e E x t e r n a l E v id e n c e T h e most important witness in the early Church as to the authorship o f our Gospel is I renaeus, bishop o f Lyons in the last quarter o f the second century. He wrote: “Jo h n , the disciple o f the Lord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia” (A dv. H aer. 3 .1,2). T h e “disciple” is clearly the apostle Jo h n , who is identified with the “beloved disciple” o f the Gospel. Irenaeus also acknowledged the authority o f the church in Ephesus, since “it was founded by Paul, and Jo h n lived there till the time o f Trajan” (3.3,4). This testimony is the more significant in view o f Irenaeus’ acquaintance with Polycarp, who was martyred in his old age in A.D. 155. Irenaeus referred to this in a letter to his friend Florinus; he reminded him o f their endeavors as boys to gain the appprobation o f the aged

Introdu ction

Ixvii

saint, and in this connection spoke o f his memory o f those days: “I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner o f his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave o f his intercourse with Joh n and with others who had seen the Lord” (cited by Eusebius, H .E . 5.4—8). Here we have a man who, toward the end o f the second century, is able to claim a link with the apostle Joh n through the mediation o f a single individual, who was a teacher o f the Church through the first half o f the second century. Polycrates, bishop o f Ephesus, in a letter to Pope Victor I ca . a . d . 190, refers to the “great lights” who were buried in Asia, awaiting the resurrection; among these were Philip, one o f the apostles, and his three daughters (one o f whom “lived in the Holy Spirit”), and “Joh n, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom o f the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacral plate; he sleeps at Ephesus” (Eusebius, H .E , 3.31.3). Clement o f Alexandria made a famous statement about the Gospel: “Last of all Joh n, perceiving that the bodily facts had been made plain in the gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel” (Eusebius, H .E . 4.14.7). He also reported that the Apostle Joh n went to Ephesus after Domitian’s death, and went about the surrounding country appointing bishops and consolidating the churches (Quis dives salvetur, 42:1 f.). The Muratorian Canon, generally dated about a .d . 180-200, expanded Clement’s references to Jo h n ’s “friends” who urged him to write the Gospel: “The fourth gospel is by Jo h n , one o f the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops exhorted him he said, ‘Today fast with me for three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each o f us.’ That same night it was revealed to Andrew, one o f the apostles, that Joh n should write down all things under his name, as they all called them to mind. So although various points are taught in the several books o f the gospels, yet it makes no difference to the faith o f believers, since all things in all o f them are declared by one supreme Spirit. . . Jo h n ’s Gospel is thus represented as a join t production o f a number o f the apostles, with Jo h n as their spokesman. The anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke states that Jo h n the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse on the island o f Patmos and wrote the Gospel afterwards. T h e prologue to the Fourth Gospel states: “According to Papias, the dear disciple o f Joh n, in his five exegetical books, this gospel was published and sent to the churches o f Asia by Jo h n himself during his lifetime.” While this testimony in the churches to the authorship o f the Fourth Gospel by the apostle Jo h n appears impressive, it becomes evident on examination that it is marred by unwarranted elaborations and confusions concerning those o f whom it speaks. One such confusion is seen in the anti-Marcionite reference to Papias as “the dear disciple o f Jo h n ,” a mistake shared by Irenaeus, who also called Papias “a hearer o f Jo h n and companion o f Polycarp” (A dv. H aer. 5.33 4). This reflects a misunderstanding o f Papias, already pointed out by Eusebius, who makes it clear that Papias had to rely on presbyters for his information about the teaching o f the apostles, and who referred

Ixviii

In

t r o d u c t io n

to the presbyter Jo h n as a contemporary o f his (see below). T h e anti-Marcionite prologue confuses Philip the apostle with Philip the Evangelist, whose daughters were prophetesses (Acts 2 1 :8 -9 ). T h e Muratorian Canon has reproduced sheer legend in suggesting that a group o f the original Apostles, with Andrew in particular, shared with the apostle Jo h n in the writing of the Fourth Gospel; the motive for this is clearly to reinforce the authority o f the Gospel by adducing jo in t apostolic production o f it—an early example o f the tendency to confuse apostolic authority with apostolic authorship. T h e notion voiced by Clement o f Alexandria that Jo h n the Apostle went to Ephesus from Patmos after Domitian’s death and pursued an active ministry in the surrounding area is elaborated in the anti-Marcionite prologue by the assertion that the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse on Patmos and then wrote the Gospel in Ephesus. T h e Apostle would have been nearly a hundred years old when he exercised this ministry o f preaching and writing. Such a ministry is comprehensible o f Jo h n the Prophet who wrote the Book o f Revelation on Patmos (Rev 1 :1 -3 ; 22:9, 18), but hardly o f the Apostle o f that name. All this combines to make the testimony o f Irenaeus concerning the traditions about the Fourth Evangelist very uncertain. There is no reason to doubt his veracity in recounting to Florinus his memories o f Polycarp, but there is ground for questioning his understanding as a boy o f Polycarp’s references to “Jo h n .” Here we must consider briefly his understanding o f Papias’ witness. This has been preserved for us by Eusebius and has been repealed a d nauseam by writers on this subject, but we have to adduce it again. Papias, in his Exposition o f th e Oracles o f the Lord, wrote: “I shall not hesitate to append to the interpretations all that I ever learned from the presbyters and remember well, for o f their truth I am confident. . . . I f ever anyone came who had followed the presbyters, I inquired into the words o f the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or Jam es or Jo h n or Matthew, or any other o f the Lord’s disciples, had said, and what Aristion and the presbyter Jo h n , the Lord’s disciple, were saying. For I did not suppose that information from books would help me so much as the word o f a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, H . E . 3.39.3 f.). Had Papias set out to formulate a puzzle to confuse future generations he could not have produced a better one than the last two sentences. Nevertheless it seems reasonably clear that he intended to distinguish between what “Andrew. . . or any other o f the Lord’s disciples” had said in the past, and what “Aristion and the presbyter Jo h n ” were saying in his day. Jo h n the Apostle is named in the first group, Jo h n the presbyter in the second. Moreover, it looks as though Papias had not been instructed by the presbyter Jo h n himself, but that he had learned o f his teaching through “anyone who had follow ed the presbyters.” From the description o f this presbyter Jo h n as “the Lord’s disciple” it would appear that this presbyter had been a personal disciple o f Jesus. That is a noteworthy point; it could have contributed to the confusion o f Irenaeus concerning the Jo h n who had seen the Lord. There are certain features that are constant in the external tradition: the exile o f Jo h n on Patmos; the identification o f this Jo h n with the author o f Revelation; his return to Ephesus to guide the churches after the death o f Domitian (i.e., after a .d . 98); the affirmation that the same Jo h n wrote the

Introdu ction

lx ix

Fourth Gospel; the belief that he was Jo h n the Apostle, the son o f Zebedee. Let us acknowledge immediately that there is no ground for questioning the name o f the author o f the Book o f Revelation as Jo h n ; virtually all are agreed that there is no case for pseudonymity in the Book o f Revelation. This Joh n, to judge from the book, must have been a man o f great authority among the churches o f Roman Asia. He makes no attempt to distinguish himself from any other Christian leader by the same name. He never calls himself an apostle. There is, however, no possibility that this writer shortly after completing the Revelation wrote the Fourth Gospel. Admittedly, the famous Cambridge trio o f Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort attempted to preserve the identity o f authorship o f the two works by postulating that John the Apostle wrote the Revelation in the confused period at the end of Nero’s life, A .D . 68, and that he wrote the Gospel thirty years later , so giving time to the Apostle to improve his Greek. But this suggestion brings in a fresh and formidable set o f problems concerning the two books. After pondering the Book o f Revelation for a considerable period I came to the conclusion that the two great Johannine writings have one feature in common: they express to an unusual degree the characters, personalities, and ways o f thinking of their respective authors. We have already affirmed the conviction that the Evangelist had reflected on his material and used it in preaching over many years; it proceeds from prolonged consideration o f the gospel traditions. So also the Revelation exhibits the thought o f a Christian apocalyptist. It is the product o f a mind soaked in the Old Testament, to a degree to which no other work in the New Testament approximates. Moreover, the prophet is so much at home in Jewish apocalyptic literature that he finds it natural to express the Christian message through this mode of writing, and he freely utilizes oracles from other apocalyptic works. A striking example o f this is seen in a comparison o f Rev 12:1-17 with Jo h n 12:23-26, 31-32. The theology o f the two passages is fundamentally the same: the dethronement o f the devil and the enthronement o f the Christ occur through the Redeemer’s death and exaltation to heaven, which yet entails kindred suffering for the followers o f the Lord. But t he modes o f expression stand in great contrast: the Evangelist combines synoptic-like sayings o f Jesus with a quasi-apocalyptic utterance, while the prophet takes over and adapts a Jewish oracle, which itself had adapted an Ancient Near Eastern myth, to express the victory of the Messiah and his people over heathen oppressors and the coming o f the divine kingdom. The Evangelist and the prophet have minds made in different molds. The difference in their modes o f presenting the common faith is matched by the differences in their language—differences the more striking in that both authors appear to think in Aramaic and write in Greek, though they do so in consistently different ways. A solution o f the problem posed by the statements o f early Christian writers concerning the activity o f Jo h n o f Ephesus would be to recognize that the tradition arose out o f the activity o f J o h n the prophet in Roman Asia. He it is who was banished to Patmos and composed the Book o f Revelation; and it is entirely comprehensible that he was released from his exile in the reign o f Trajan, and continued his ministry among the churches in Roman Asia. On one basis alone would it be possible to combine this tradition with that

In

lx x

t r o d u c t io n

o f the residence of Joh n the Apostle in Ephesus, namely, if indeed Joh n the Apostle were the author o f the Book o f Revelation. Such a postulate would be in harmony with the synoptic picture o f Jo h n “the son of Thunder,” but there is not a hint in the Revelation that it was written by an apostle; the connection between the twelve tribes o f Israel and the twelve apostles o f the Lamb in the Jerusalem from heaven (Rev 21:13-14) suggests a detached view o f the apostles from one who stands outside the apostolate. Since Jo h n the prophet is almost certainly a Palestinian, his migration to Ephesus could well have been the beginning o f the confusion that attributed the move to Jo h n the Apostle. But the resolution o f that issue is inseparably bound up with the identity o f the Beloved Disciple, and to that we must turn. 2.

T

h e

In

t er n a l

E v id e n

c e

Westcott’s presentation o f the internal evidence relating to the authorship o f the Fourth Gospel is justly famous and worthy o f mention. By a series o f arguments that move in narrower concentric circles he sought to show that (i) the author was a Jew, (ii) the author was a Jew o f Palestine, (iii) the author was an eyewitness of what he describes, (iv ) the author was an apostle, (v) the author was the apostle Joh n (lii-lix). The last two affirmations depend on the belief that only an apostle could have been an eyewitness on some o f the occasions delineated, especially in the Passion and Resurrection narratives, and that the disciple whom Jesus loved must have been the apostle Joh n. It is this last issue, however, on which discussion has most vigorously centered in recent times. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” is first mentioned in Joh n 13:23—26, and thereafter in 19:25-27; 2 0 :1 -1 0 ; 2 1 :1 -1 4 , 20 -2 4 . With these passages it is commonly believed that 19:34—37 should be grouped as referring to the same individual, possibly also 18:15-16, and with greater hesitation, 1:3 5 40. We shall briefly look at these texts to see what can be learned from them concerning the author of the Gospel. The Beloved Disciple emerges into clear view in 13:23. His presence at the Last Supper in Jerusalem, and later in the Passion and Resurrection narratives, claims him as an eyewitness o f these crucially important events. No indication, however, is given as to his identity, certainly not in chap. 13. While we tend to assume that only the Twelve were gathered with Jesus for the Last Supper (cf. Mark 14:17 par.), Jo h n does not say so; in 13:1 he subsumes the group under the expression “his own,” and later refers to them as “disciples.” For our purpose two observations may be made: “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is not a natural self-designation for an author to use o f himself, were he portraying the event o f 13:21-26; second, the phrase ev τ φ κ ό λ π ψ του Ίησου in ν 23 appears to be an echo of ets το υ κόλπου του π α τρ ό ς in 1:18; it is apparently intended to convey the idea that as Jesus was in closest fellowship with the Father and so was able to “make him known” with peculiar authority, so the Beloved Disciple was in closest fellowship with Jesus and therefore able to make him known with very special authority. Such language is understandable from others about a disciple o f Jesus, but inconceivable from the disciple himself.

In trodu ction

Ixxi

Again, a prime element o f the significance o f 19:25-27 is the presence o f a disciple o f Jesus at the scene o f the crucifixion. From 16:32, to say nothing o f the evidence o f the synoptic Gospels, we may assume that the disciples o f Jesus forsook him at the end; but here is a “disciple” who did not do so, and to him Jesus commits his mother. It is unlikely that we are intended to view him as one o f the Twelve. There may be a nuance here that as Jesus committed his mother to the Beloved Disciple, so the followers o f Jesus should resort to him for knowledge o f him (so Schnackenburg, 3:457, following Schürmann). While the disciple who witnessed the spear thrust in 19:34-37 is in no way identified, the proximity o f the scene to that recorded in 19:25-27 and the similarity o f language used in vv 34—37 with that in 2 1 :24 make it probable that the Beloved Disciple is in mind. His function as witness to the actuality and significance o f the Gospel events is heavily emphasized: he attests the reality o f the humanity and the death o f Jesus, and the meaning o f the latter as the sacrifice o f the Lamb o f God, through whom the redemption o f the second Exodus is achieved. Joh n 2 0 :1 -1 0 describes the race o f Peter and the Beloved Disciple to the tomb o f Jesus. Th e latter reaches the tomb first, but Peter enters before him, and departs without comprehending what he has seen; the Beloved Disciple, on the contrary, sees and “believes” (v 9). The superiority o f the insight o f the Beloved Disciple appears again in chap. 21; he recognizes the figure o f the risen Christ standing on the shore and makes it known to Peter (v 7). The situation is more complex in vv 2 0 23. Peter has been restored to ministry for his Lord and his martyrdom obliquely made known, and he receives the command from the risen Christ, “Follow me.” His query as to what is to happen to the Beloved Disciple is countered by the question “I f it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” (v 23). This enables the writer to allude to the misapprehension commonly spread abroad that Jesus said that the Beloved Disciple should survive until the Parousia, and so he repeats again the precise words o f the Lord. From this we deduce: (i) the Beloved Disciple was probably dead at the time o f the writing, and the passage was intended to allay the disappointment o f the community; and (ii) the repetition o f the words of the risen Lord in v 23, coupled with the present tense o f v 24, “who is bearing witness . . . ,” suggests that the Beloved Disciple “remains” in the witness he continues to bear; Peter has glorified Christ through a martyr’s death, and the Beloved Disciple continues his function o f testimony through the Gospel. What, then, are we to make o f v 24: “This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, a n d who has w ritten these th in g s ”? Dodd considered that the reference was solely to the preceding paragraph, vv 2 0 -2 3 , or that at most it extends to the whole o f chap. 21 (H istorical Tradition, 12). The contention is possible, but unnatural. T h e immediate sequence o f “who has written these things” in v 24 by the “many other things” which Jesus did and which could hardly be written (v 25) leads the reader to relate the statement to chaps. 1-20 as well as to chap. 21. Th e Gospel, then, in v 24 is put to the account o f the Beloved Disciple, and an attestation is added, “we know

lx x ii

In

t r o d u c t io n

that his testimony is true.” This led Westcott to believe that the sentence was added by the elders o f the church at Ephesus, so making it our earliest (external) witness to the authorship o f the Gospel. On the contrary, there is no ground for separating v 24 from its context; rather it forms the climax o f the narrative and is most naturally seen as deriving from the author o f the chapter. But the author has so written it as to indicate that the Beloved Disciple is now deceased! In that case v 24 cannot be intended to ascribe direct authorship o f the Gospel to the Beloved Disciple; the emphasis o f the statement is on the witness o f the disciple (ό μ α ρ τύ ρ ω ν . . . ή μ α ρ τυ ρ ία . . .), and the term Ύ ράφας either has a causal meaning (“caused these things to be written”) or signifies “wrote about these things.” The Beloved Disciple, accordingly, is represented as providing the witness which chap. 21 and the preceding chapters embody. Strictly speaking, we must acknowledge that this representation comes from the w riter o f chap . 2 1 ; there is uncertainty as to the origin o f the passage, whether it is a postscript or an epilogue, whether it is added by the Evangelist or by a redactor. Such considerations raise the possibility that the author o f the chapter had one view o f the Beloved Disciple and the Evangelist another. H. Thyen supplies yet another possibility: chap. 21 is an epilogue to balance the prologue (1:1-18); both were written by the redactor, who was responsible for a ll the passages relating to the Beloved Disciple and whose editorial labors were such that he should be viewed as the evangelist! ( L ’E va n g ile de J e a n , 267). At this point we content ourselves with noting the closeness of relation between chap. 21 and chaps. 1-20, which suggests that, on the least estimate, the author o f chap. 21 belonged to the same circle as that o f 1-20, and he is unlikely either to have misunderstood or diverged from the Evangelist’s view o f the Beloved Disciple (so Schnackenburg, 3:453). We still do not know who the Beloved Disciple is. T h e episode o f 21: 1—14 tells o f an appearance o f Jesus to seven disciples, among whom was the Beloved Disciple. Simon, Thomas, and Nathanael are named, then the sons o f Zebedee, and “two others o f his disciples”; but there is nothing to indicate which o f the unnamed fo u r is the Beloved Disciple. It would aid us if we could be confident that 18:15-17 relates to the Beloved Disciple; in favor o f that identification is the manner in which “the other disciple” is spoken of, in association with Peter, in v 16, just as the Beloved Disciple is in 20:2, 4, 8 (cf. also 21:21-23). This “other disciple,” who followed Jesus to the High Priest’s house and had Peter brought into the court, is described as b у νοχττος το ν άρχιερέως; this does not simply mean an acquaintance o f the High Priest, but, in С. H. Dodd’s estimate, one who stood in intimate relations with the High Priest’s family, possibly a relative and o f priestly birth (H istorical T ra d itio n , 86-87). This would exclude the possibility o f identifying this “other” disciple with one o f the Twelve. His presence as a disciple in the priestly circles o f Jerusalem is o f more than ordinary interest, not least as a possible source for certain o f the traditions relating to the passion o f Jesus. If we were to include 1:35—40 among the Beloved Disciple texts, its implication would be considerable, both from the viewpoint o f his earlier background in the circle o f Joh n the Baptist’s disciples and his knowledge o f the beginnings o f the (Judean) ministry o f Jesus.

In trodu ction

lx x iii

Admittedly, there are numerous uncertainties here, but it would appear that the texts relating to the Beloved Disciple hold well together and present a consistent picture. If chap. 21 was written by another author than the Evangelist, he appears to have shared the tradition relating to the disciple without modification. On the basis of these texts it is possible to make some tentative statements concerning the Beloved Disciple and his relation to the author o f the Fourth Gospel. (a) Th e Beloved Disciple is presented as a historical figure among the early disciples o f Jesus and in the continuing Church. We acknowledge that this has been disputed at times. Bultmann, for example, believed that the Evangelist intended us to see in the Beloved Disciple a purely ideal figure, but that he was “historicized” by the redactor o f chap. 21 (483-84). H. Thyen, however, affirmed that recent Johannine research shows “a growing and by no means uncritical consensus that to the literary figure o f the Beloved Disciple on the textual level must correspond, on the level o f the real history o f Johannine Christianity, a concrete person” (“Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium,” T R u 42/3,223). That the Beloved Disciple served a representative and symbolic function is entirely consistent with his being a real disciple o f Jesus, as with other figures o f the Gospel like Nicodemus, the Samaritan Woman, Lazarus—or even the pool o f Siloam! (b) The Beloved Disciple is not a member o f the Twelve, nor a well-known person in the early Church. It is difficult to supply a cogent reason for the Evangelist consistently and completely hiding his identity if he were a prominent leader like Joh n the Apostle or Paul, or a well-known individual like Jo h n Mark or Lazarus. By contrast the anonymity is understandable if the designation were the common mode o f referring to a leader within the Johannine churches not known elsewhere; there would be no need to name the beloved leader. (c) Th e Beloved Disciple is not the author of the Gospel— neither o f chaps. 1-20 nor o f chap. 21. This we deduced from the first mention o f his name in 13:23 and from the implications o f 2 1 :2 1 -2 4 , despite the first impression which 21:24 may make. Th e texts in which the disciple features present him as the witness on which the Gospel rests, not its author. (d) T h e Beloved Disciple is presented as an eyewitness o f certain crucial events in the Gospel, notably in connection with the end o f the ministry of Jesus and the resurrection appearances. If 1:35-40 and 18:15-16 were included in the relevant texts, this would greatly strengthen the impression, gained from the other passages, that the disciple was a Judean and therefore able to narrate elements in the ministry o f Jesus in the south o f Palestine and in Jerusalem in particular. His participation in the movement o f John the Baptist and his involvement in the Jerusalem priestly circles would shed light on various elements in the background o f the Fourth Gospel, including its basic theological thrust. (e) The authority o f the Beloved Disciple extends beyond the events which he may have witnessed. The implication o f 13:23 leads to a view o f the disciple as an authoritative interpreter o f Jesus, not simply o f the course o f events at the close o f the ministry o f Jesus. He is the prime source o f the traditions about Jesus in the Johannine circle. J . Roloff illuminatingly compared the role o f the Beloved Disciple with that o f the Teacher o f Righteousness in

lx x iv

In

t r o d u c t io n

the Qumran Community; both figures are anonymous, and both had decisive influence in their respective communities as interpreters and exegetes (“Der Johanneische Lieblingsjünger,” 129-51). While, however, the role o f the Teacher o f Righteousness was to be an interpreter o f the О Т for his community, that o f the Beloved Disciple was to be an interpreter o f Jesus and his revelation (Jesus was the interpreter o f the О Т!). This was beautifully and succinctly expressed by Yu Ibuki: “T h e revelation of the one loved by the Father takes place through the one loved by the Son. Hence the gospel o f Jo h n can be described as the gospel o f the Beloved according to the Beloved” (W ahrheit 271, cited by H. Thyen, T R u 42/3:260-61). (f ) The relationship o f the Beloved Disciple to Peter requires examination in the exegesis o f the passages. Here it suffices to note that if the superiority o f the Beloved Disciple’s insight is stressed, there is no suggestion o f a polemic against Peter. I f there is any thought in the background that Peter represents the official ministry within the churches and the Beloved Disciple the charismatic ministries o f the Spirit, both ministries are admitted as complementary within the Church o f the Lord. Primarily, however, the authority of the Beloved Disciple within the Johannine communities is in view, possibly with an eye on the deviations that were arising from the teaching he communicates through the Gospel. (g) As the authority figure to which the Johannine communities looked, the Beloved Disciple appears to have had a group o f teachers about him. Th e existence o f a Johannine literature alongside the Gospel, including the three epistles and the Book o f Revelation, points to a group o f teachers having a common center of loyalty, with a diversity not too great to be contained within the unity. Cullmann postulates that this group consciousness goes back to very early days within the life o f the Church (The Jo h a n n in e Circle , 39-56). R. A. Culpepper has filled out the thesis o f a Johannine school by giving a detailed comparison with comparable “schools” in the ancient world (The Jo h a n n in e School, 1975). It is important to recognize that this school, though distinctive within early Christianity, was broad enough to include apocalyptic Christianity as well as a nonapocalyptic presentation o f the kerygma, and that these coexisted under the greater unity o f faith in the incarnate Word, who through his redeeming acts has brought the life o f the kingdom o f God to man. (A) The identity o f the leader o f this group remains the secret of the Evangelist. There has been no lack o f suggestions as to who he may have been: after Jo h n the Apostle, Lazarus is a favorite nomination (cf. 11:5, 36); in addition, Jo h n Mark, Matthias, Paul, the Presbyter Joh n, [a symbol for] Gentile Christianity or free charismatic Christianity have all been proposed. Most recently H. Thyen has argued in favor o f the elder who wrote 2 and 3 Joh n as the Beloved Disciple (L’E va n g ile de J e a n , 296-98). In the end we have to admit that these are all guesses, some with less and some with more plausibility. As with the Beloved Disciple, so with the Evangelist: we do not know his name. But our ignorance o f his identity entails no detriment to the value o f his work. Those who, like the A logi o f the second century, have rejected the Fourth Gospel as a profound interpretation o f Jesus have thereby passed judgm ent on themselves. The Church through the ages has recognized in

In trodu ction

lx x v

the Evangelist a unique theologian taught by the Spirit o f truth. Perhaps we should extend the range o f that judgment and view the Evangelist as a master interpreter o f the school o f the Beloved Disciple, among whom the Spirit showed his activity in large measure. The Fourth Gospel is a monument to the presence o f the Paraclete in the Church o f the Word made flesh. The work o f the Evangelist is an encouragement to every believer to look to that same Paraclete to guide into all the truth attested in the Gospel. IV. T h e D a t e

and

Pl

ace of

Wr

it in g o f t h e

Fo u r

th

G o s pe l

Traditionally the Gospel has been viewed as the last o f the canonical Gospels, and this has remained the general opinion o f most scholars to this day. In the nineteenth century and the earlier part o f this, it became fashionable to assign a very late date to our Gospel; authorities can be cited for placing it in virtually every decade o f the second century to its last quarter (e.g., O. Holtzmann and A. Jülicher assigned it to a .d . 100-125, T . Keim and P. W. Schmiedel to 130-140, G. Volkmar and E. Schwartz to 140-155, F. C. Baur and Bruno Bauer to 160-170; see J . Moffatt, Introduction to the N T , 580-81). The reasons for such late dating were diverse, but, above all, scholars were impressed with the lack o f clear knowledge o f the Fourth Gospel by early Christian writers and the advanced nature o f the theology o f the Gospel. The former factor is certainly puzzling; to this day scholars differ as to whether the Fourth Gospel can be clearly traced in 1 Clement, the Epistle o f Barnabas, the Didache, Ignatius, the Shepherd o f Hermas, or even the Odes o f Solomon; most are inclined to a negative verdict, but remain uncertain about Ignatius (the evidence is conveniently assembled by Barrett, 109-15). Even the apparent use o f Joh n 3:3 by Justin Martyr (και γάρ о Χ ρ ίσ το ς elnev. *Аѵ μ ή d y e w r fiifr e ον μ ή β ίσέλθητβ €ΐς τ η ν βασιλβίαν τω ν ουρανώ ν , I Αροl. 61) is disputed by some as а Johannine reminiscence. The first clear citation o f the Gospel by name is from Theophilus o f Antioch, ca. a . d . 180, but Tatian used it, along with the three synoptic Gospels, in his Harmony o f the Gospels, which was probably compiled in Syriac ca. a . d . 160, and then in Greek a .d . 170. The Valentinian Gnostics used and prized the Gospel at an earlier date, as may be seen in The Gospel o f T ru th , possibly written by Valentinus himself, ca. a . d . 150. All this discussion, however, has been put in the shade by the publication o f two papyrus fragments, the Egerton Papyrus 2, published under the title Fragm ents o f a n U nknow n Gospel a n d other E arly Christian P apyri (Η. I. Bell and T . C. Skeat, London: British Museum, 1935), which appears to have used the Fourth Gospel along with other Gospel traditions, and p , a fragment which includes Joh n 18:31-33, 37-38. This latter papyrus was dated by F. C. Kenyon as “early second century” (T ext o f the Greek Bible, 75), and more recently by K. Aland as “the beginning o f the second century” (“Neue Neutestamentliche Papyri II,” N T S 9 [1962-63] 307); on the basis o f this papyrus Bultmann concluded that the Gospel must have been known in Egypt ca. a . d . 100 (270, n.4; Schmithals, writing on Bultmann’s behalf an introduction to the English translation o f the commentary, curiously pushes the date o f

Ixxvi

In

t r o d u c t io n

the final redaction o f the Gospel on to a .d . 120, p. 12). In recent years there has been a reaction on the part o f a number o f scholars to assigning a late date to the Gospel, believing it to be either contemporary with or earlier than the synoptic Gospels, but in any case prior to a . d . 70. T h e reasons for this are varied, but chief among them are the conviction as to the independence o f the Fourth Gospel o f the other three; certain primitive traits in die portrayal o f Jesus, such as the regular use o f the name Jesus, Rabbi, teacher, and emphasis on the role o f Jesus as the prophet like Moses; the presentation o f the message o f Jesus as a genuine extension o f Judaism, reflecting the Christian faith as still contained within Judaism; allusions to the Temple and other buildings in Jerusalem as still standing (e.g., 5:2), along with absence o f any hint that Jerusalem and its Temple have been destroyed; the marked influence o f the Qumran group, which ceased to exist by a .d . 70; the reflection o f concerns o f the Church during the period a .d . 4 0 -7 0 rather than a 7 0 -1 0 0 date (e.g., the polemic against Jo h n the Baptist, presupposing a continuing strength o f his movement at the time of writing; the commitment o f mission to Israel, reflecting continuing relations between Tem ple and Church); the inexplicable gap between the primitive traditions behind the Fourth Gospel and their publication if the Gospel was written at the end o f the first century (on these arguments see R. M. Grant, Λ H istorical Introduction to the N T [London: Collins, 1963] 152-53, 160; F. L. Cribbs, “A Reassessment o f the Date o f Origin and the Destination o f the Gospel o f Jo h n ,” 3 8 -5 5 ; L. Morris, 3 0 -3 5 ; J . A. T . Robinson, R ed a tin g , 2 5 4 84). Most scholars find this position difficult to accept. Many are ready to acknowledge the early date o f the traditions utilized in the Gospel, but they believe that their final embodiment in the Gospel will have taken place at a later date. T h e moot point is how much later; how long does it require for the theological maturity o f the Fourth Gospel to develop? Centuries could roll by without its emergence, but the early Christological hymns o f the NT, like Phil 2 :6 -1 1 and Col 1:15-20, show what can happen within a single generation, and the minds behind the Fourth Gospel were not ordinary. T h e final chapter o f the Gospel (21) appears to reflect the passing o f the Beloved Disciple, but again that cannot o f itself determine the date at which it happened, though it suggests one not earlier than a .d . 70. Most important are the relations between the synagogue and the Christian communities reflected in the Gospel. F. L. Cribbs maintains that the Gospel assumes they are open, whereas J . L. Martyn holds that by the time o f the final redaction o f the Gospel they have become irreparably broken off. T h e problem is posed by the references in the Gospel to the Jews making confessors o f Jesus as Messiah άχοσυνάγωγα (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). It is urged that these passages presume not a disciplinary exclusion from the synagogue (for a short time, till amendment is evident), but ejection from the synagogue, carrying with it exclusion from the community life o f the Jews. W. Schräge, for example, in his article on άχοσυνάγωγος, writes: “Plain in all three references is the fact that an unbridgeable gulf has now opened up between Church and Synagogue, so that exclusion on the part o f the latter is total. T o think in terms o f the lesser synagogue ban is a trivializing; this is no mere excommuni-

Introdu ction

lxxv ii

cation but total expulsion, a result o f the birkath h a -m in im ” (T D N T 7:852; similarly Str-B 4:331, followed by most commentators). This “blessing about the heretics,” ironically so termed, relates to an addition to the Eighteen Benedictions, which constituted the daily prayers o f all pious Jews and were repeated in every synagogue service. T h e Twelfth Benediction reads: “For the apostates let there be no hope, and let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days. Let the Nazarenes and the heretics be destroyed in a moment, and let them be blotted out o f the book o f life and not be inscribed together with the righteous. Blessed art thou, О Lord, who humblest the arrogant.” The tractate Ber. 28b declares that the benediction was composed in Jam nia by Samuel the Small, in response to a request by Gamaliel II for someone to word a benediction relating to the “minim.” From the first the “minim” (= heretics) probably denoted the Christians, for in Jewish eyes they were the arch-heretics, and the most dangerous; it is likely that the prayer mentioned them alone when it was first composed, and that later “the Nazarenes” was added to make the reference explicit (so Jocz, Jew ish People, 56-57). The date when this version o f the “blessing” was composed is commonly put at a . d . 85, possibly a few years later. J . L. Martyn makes this event the fixed point in his reconstruction o f the composition o f the Fourth Gospel, and the development o f synagogue-church relations reflected in it. In his view the story in Jo h n 9 o f the man born blind is recounted in such a manner as to mirror the contemporary situation o f Jewish Christians, excommunicated from the synagogue, and to encourage them to stand firm in their faith; the wording o f 16:2 reflects an advance on that, when Jewish leaders, in their determination to stop the proselytizing by Jewish Christians in their midst, began to exact the death penalty on Christian activists (see “History o f the Johannine Community,” 149-75, more fully in History a n d Theology o f the F ourth Gospel). On this basis the Fourth Gospel cannot be dated earlier than the decade 90-1 0 0 , and toward its end rather than its beginning. That is, indeed, the date favored by most Johannine scholars, and this appears to have set it on a firm foundation. The foundation, however, may not be as firm as many assume. Not a few Johannine scholars remain unconvinced that the Twelfth Benediction is in view in the Evangelist’s employment o f the term ά π ο σ χ η ^ ω τγ ο ς, partly by reason of the similar situation envisaged in Luke 6:22, and partly through the record o f the treatment o f Jewish Christians in Acts (e.g., o f Stephen, chaps. 6 -7 , and o f Paul, 13:50) and Paul’s own references to like experiences (see especially 1 Thess 2 :1 4 -1 6 . For this understanding o f the setting o f the Johannine community see Dodd, H istorical T ra d itio n , 410; Sanders, 242; D. R. A. Hare, The Theme o f Jew ish Persecution o f C hristians in the Gospel o f M atthew , 4 8 -5 6 ; F. L. Cribbs, 5 3 -5 4 ; J . A. T . Robinson, R ed a tin g , 273-74). More importantly, perhaps, it has been urged that the attitude o f the Jewish authorities in the Fourth Gospel reflects a gathering opposition which led to the formulation o f the Twelfth Benediction o f Jam nia (so R. Kysar, The Fourth E vangelist, 171; W. H. Brownlee, “Whence the Gospel o f Jo h n ?,” 182). W. A. Meeks, who is in sympathy with Martyn’s views, stated, “I doubt whether the separation can be identified specifically with the birkath ha-m inim promulgated at Yavneh, and whether that decree itself can be dated so precisely”

lx x v iii

In

t r o d u c t io n

(“Man from Heaven,” 55, n.40). Meeks considers that the Jewish record o f the scenes in T B e r . 28 “portray as punctiliar events in Gamaliel's time what was actually a linear development stretching over a lengthy period and culminating in the pertinent formulation o f the birkath h a -m in im ” (in a written communication to Martyn, cited in H istory a n d Theology , 55, n.69). Martyn also reports a comparable correspondence with Morton Smith, who holds that Gamaliel is likely to have instituted the birkath after similar moves had been made in Jewish communities and that it should be placed in the second century; while not convinced, Martyn states his readiness to entertain the whole period between a . d . 80 and 115 for the composition o f the Benediction, but preferring the earlier to the latter part o f the period (History a n d Theology, 57, n.75). It seems that more caution is required about this issue, and that the date o f the Fourth Gospel is less capable o f precise determination than is frequently represented. But that is nothing new in Gospel criticism! T h e dates o f the synoptic Gospels are uncertain; there is not one o f them for which we can set a date o f composition with complete confidence. Whereas it was common to date Mark a .d . 6 5 -6 7 (shortly after the deaths o f Paul and Peter), it is now fashionable to set it shortly after the Jewish war, on the ground that Mark 13 was composed to moderate the apocalyptic fever caused by the fall o f Jerusalem ; one would have thought, however, that the apocalyptic fever would be no less intense in the early days o f that war, and as it moved toward its climax. Matthew is frequently dated about a . d . 90, on the ground o f its reflection o f the deliberations o f Jam nia and the B irka th h a -m inim in particular. And Luke must be set about the same time through its relations with Matthew. I f it be so that the Fourth Evangelist was acquainted with the synoptic Gospels but did not use them, this is not without significance for us. One is reminded o f the simile that Austin Farrer used when discussing the date o f the Book o f Revelation: “The datings o f all these books (i.e., Revelation and the gospels) are like a line o f tipsy revellers walking home arm-in-arm; each is kept in position by the others and none is firmly grounded” (The R evelation o f S t . J o h n the D ivine [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964] 37). When one considers the other companions o f the Fourth Gospel, namely, the three epistles o f Jo h n and their authors, it is clear that unusual care is required in our estimates, or the whole lot will fall down! What is eminently plausible is the origin o f the traditions o f the Fourth Gospel at an early date, and their development over a considerable period. A process akin to that proposed by R. E. Brown and O. Cullmann is most likely: an early tradition within the Johannine community became crystallized in the preaching and teaching o f the Beloved Disciple, and it was taken up by the Evangelist and embodied in his own way in the Gospel. T h e B irka th ha-m inim may be viewed as an indicator o f the tensions between the Jewish Christians and their non-Christian compatriots presupposed by the Evangelist, but not as a chronological marker that had already been passed. A date around a . d . 80 would satisfy the evidence, but we admit that to be no more than a plausible guess. No less than four areas have been suggested as a possible venue for the writing o f the Fourth Gospel.

In trodu ction

lx x ix

Ephesus has been traditionally viewed as the place o f its composition, owing to the testimony o f the Fathers (e.g., Irenaeus: “Joh n, the disciple o f the Lord . . . published the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia,” A d v. H a er . 3.1.2). As we saw in our consideration o f the authorship o f the Gospel, this tradition appears to have been primarily determined by the ministry o f Joh n the prophet, who wrote the Book o f Revelation and sent it to the churches o f Roman Asia. Whether or not Jo h n the prophet was identical with Joh n the Apostle, he cannot be viewed as the author o f the Fourth Gospel. While there is more than this to be said in favor o f the Ephesian origin o f the Gospel, it was this confusion o f the tradition relating to Joh n the prophet in Ephesus that caused Kirsopp Lake to regard the persistent linking o f the Fourth Gospel with Ephesus as a curiosity o f criticism. Observing that “the gospel is extremely Philonic,” he thought it likely that it came from Alexandria (Introduction to the N T , 53). J . N. Sanders was earlier attracted to this idea, and supported it by pointing out the affinities o f the Gospel with the Epistle o f Barnabas and that to Diognetus, its use by the Egyptian Gnostics, and the early circulation o f the Gospel in Egypt as attested by the papyri Egerton 2 and p 52 (The F ourth Gospel in the E arly Church, 85-86). W. H. Brownlee likewise lent his support to the Alexandrian origin o f the Gospel; he drew attention to the large Jewish and Samaritan populations in the city, terming it “a little Palestine” in which most o f the parties to which the Fourth Gospel was addressed were found, and the fanaticism o f the city, where such passages as Jo h n 8:58 if.; 10:29-30; 16:2 would have a comprehensible setting (“Whither the Gospel according to Jo h n ?” 189-90). These arguments are interesting, but hardly compelling. Sanders later abandoned the Alexandrian hypothesis in favor o f the Ephesian tradition (“St. Joh n on Patmos,” N T S 9 [1962-63] 75-85). It may be pointed out that the Egyptian sands have preserved for us papyri o f all the Gospels and fragments o f almost all the books o f the NT, and we may yet hope to recover further remains o f them all. Early in this century F. C. Conybeare drew attention to a statement, attributed to Ephraem the Syrian, in the Armenian version o f his commentary on the Diatessaron: “Jo h n wrote in Antioch where he lived till Trajan’s time” (“Ein Zeugnis Ephraims über das Fehlen von C .l und 2 im Texte des Lukas,” Z N W 3 [1902] 193). The claim sounds suspiciously like an accommodation o f a different tradition due to local Syrian patriotism, and its authenticity has been disputed. Nevertheless, the suggestion that the Gospel originated in Syria has attracted a number o f scholars, including C. F. Burney, E. Schweizer, E. Haenchen, and W. G. Kümmel. In its favor can be urged the Aramaic tradition behind the Greek text o f the Gospel, its close affinities with Ignatius, bishop o f Antioch, and with the Odes o f Solom on , and the kinship o f the discourse material with Syrian Gnosticism (so especially BultmannSchmithals, 12). There is no denying the attractiveness o f this view. One must acknowledge, however, that it is difficult to define precisely the locality o f the type o f Gnosticism with which the Fourth Evangelist was confronted; in the Nag Hammadi gnostic writings o f Egypt, the Gospel o f Truth, which shows conspicuous connections with the Fourth Gospel, also has affinities with the Odes o f Solom on . O f late there has been an interest in locating the Gospel in Palestine, not

lx x x

In

t r o d u c t io n

least in view o f the nature o f its contacts with Qumran, with Samaritan religion, and with varied other strains o f Judaism. J . L. Martyn has urged this from the point o f view o f the relations between the Synagogue and the Church reflected in the Gospel. He would see the Gospel as rooted in a purely Jewish city, subject to the authority o f the synagogue and o f the council o f Jamnia. He traces a developing situation in the Gospel: (a) the believers in Jesus are part o f the synagogue, they are Christian Jews in the strictest sense, and the Gentile mission is not on their horizon; (6) the believers are forced to separate from the synagogue through excommunication, which leads to the infliction o f the death penalty on some o f its leaders; (c) a movement to firm social and theological configurations (“History o f the Johannine Community,” 151— 75). We have already discussed some o f the issues bound up with this view. That the Fourth Gospel has its roots in Palestine is virtually certain. That the entire development o f the Johannine tradition up to its publication took place in Palestine is less certain. The Gospel suggests wider horizons than purely Jewish communities in Israel’s land. It is doubtful that the prologue would ever have been formulated in its present terms in an exclusively Jewish setting in Palestine. We need to recall at this point our review o f the religious relations o f the Fourth Gospel, which are uncommonly wide for a document o f the NT. T h e relation o f the incarnation, ministry, death, and exaltation o f Jesus to the cosmos similarly needs to be taken into account; it is false to the heart o f the Fourth Gospel to minimize the significance of Jo h n 3:16, with kindred passages like 12:20-23, 3 1 -3 2 ; 11:50-52; the implications for mission o f 10:16; 17:20-23; 20:21 (cf. 17:18; 2 1 :1-11), and the eschatological significance o f 4 :2 3 -2 4 ,4 2 . The Evangelist may have subordinated the expression “kingdom o f God” to the more personal one o f “life,” but the reality is fundamental to the Gospel; and it is an impossible idea that in the Fourth Gospel the kingdom that came in the redemptive ministry o f Jesus is restricted to a Jewish horizon. That representatives o f the Gospel could be subject to disciplinary measures o f Jewish courts outside Palestine is evident from the Book o f Acts and the letters of Paul. It would seem desirable, then, to acknowledge the growth o f the Fourth Gospel as a process indebted to more than one area. Its origin in a form o f Palestinian Judaism which was open to influences other than Pharisaism is clear; we have already recognized its links with the Qumran sect and Samaritanism, as well as with rabbinic and hellenistic Judaism. In view o f the nearness o f Syria to the Jewish homeland, and the growth o f the Church in Damascus and Antioch especially, it would not be surprising if Syrian thought left its stamp on the Johannine tradition. But Ephesus cannot be dismissed, not simply by reason o f the external tradition o f Jo h n ’s domicile in the city, but because o f the presence o f the Johannine school in that area, to which the Book o f Revelation bears witness. We have clear attestation within the NT o f Gnosticizing activities in Roman Asia, as is evident from the letter to the Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, the Johannine letters, Revelation 2 -3 (which also attest intense opposition between Jews and Christians, 2:9 and 3:9), and possibly 2 Peter and Jude. This solution o f the problem was tentatively adopted by T . W. Manson.

In trodu ction

Ix x x i

He suggested that the Fourth Gospel originated in a tradition which had its home in Jerusalem, and was taken to Antioch; there it influenced literature connected with that city, the liturgical usage o f the Syrian church, the teaching o f missionaries who went out from it (e.g., Paul) and its later leaders (e.g., Ignatius); from Antioch it was taken to Ephesus, where “the final literary formulation was achieved in the Gospel and Epistles attributed to Jo h n ” (“The Fourth Gospel,” 320). With Manson, R. H. Lightfoot (5-6) and Schnackenburg (152) expressed agreement. V. A s p e c t s

of t h e

T

h eo l o g y o f t h e

Fo

ur t h

Go

s pe l

The theme o f the Fourth Gospel is Christ. T h e aphorism o f Zinzendorf might have been uttered by the Evangelist: “I have but one passion: that is he, only he” (cited by Käsemann, Testament o f Jesus, 38). The controlling theological concern, accordingly, is Christology; all other theological concerns such as salvation, eschatology, Church, world, Holy Spirit, are aspects o f the one great theme, and all are viewed in the light o f the dualism that characterizes the Christology. We shall therefore examine at greater length the Christology o f the Gospel and look more briefly at the important themes o f salvation and eschatology.

1. Christology There is an astonishing variety o f ways in which Jesus is confessed and described in this Gospel. The most important are the following (the references adduced are only examples): T h e W ord (1 :1 ,1 4 ) μονογενής θεάς (? or μονογενής υιός [1 :1 8 ]) μονογενής υιός (3 :1 6 , 18) Son o f God (with varied nuances, 1:34; cf. 1 :49; 11:11, 2 0 , 31) T h e Son (3 :1 7 , 36 ; 5 :1 9 -2 7 ) Son o f Man (1:51 etc.) A teacher com e from God (3 :2 ) A prophet (4 :1 9 ; 9 :1 9 ) T h e prophet that should com e into the world (6 :1 4 ; cf. 7 :40) T h e Messiah (1 :4 1 ; 4 :2 9 ; 1 1 :11, 20, 31) King o f Israel (1 :4 9 ; cf. 6 :1 5 ; 12:13) King o f the Jew s (1 9 :1 9 ) T h e Holy O ne o f God (6 :6 9 ) T h e Lam b o f God (1 :2 9 , 36) T h e Com ing O ne (1 2 :1 3 ) T h e Man (19:5) T h e Sent O ne o f God (3 :1 6 -1 7 , 3 4 ; 5 :3 0 ; 7 :1 6 -1 8 ; especially 10:36) βγώ είμι (8 :2 4 , 28, 58; with predicates the Bread o f L ife [chapter 6], the Good Shepherd [chapter 10], the Resurrection [11:2 5 ], the Way, the T ru th , the Life [1 4 :6 ], the true V ine [15:1 -10]) A Paraclete (14 :1 6 ) Rabbouni (20 :1 6 ) T h e Lord (2 0 :1 8 ; 2 1 :7 ; cf. 6 :6 8 ) My Lord and my God (2 0 :2 8 , cf. 1:1)

lx x x ii

In

t r o d u c t io n

T h e remarkable feature o f this list is not alone the titles that are unique to this Gospel, but the accent given to those that do occur elsewhere. That Jesus is “a teacher come from God,” for example, is true beyond the comprehension o f Nicodemus (3:2), for Jesus is the Revealer from Heaven to bring the ultimate truth o f God to man. Similarly the recognition o f Jesus as “a prophet” (4:19; 9:19) is inadequate, but it is an important motif that Jesus is “the prophet who should come into the world” in the last times, for he is the prophet like Moses, yet greater than Moses; he performs greater works in a greater exodus for redemption unto life in the kingdom o f God (3 :1 4 -1 5 ; 6 :3 2 -5 8 ). While the related terms “Messiah,” “King o f Israel,” “Son o f God” are all rooted in Israel’s religion and eschatological hope, they acquire deeper dimensions in the Fourth Gospel; so also the significant variants o f Messiah, “Lamb o f God” (the Warrior Lamb o f apocalyptic tradition transformed into the Passover Lamb o f God); “the Holy One o f God” (6:69), and (at least in Samaritan thought) “the Savior o f the world” (4:42). “The King o f Israel” is expounded in terms o f the king who has come into the world to bear witness to the truth (18:37), and the expression “Son o f God” is lifted to a new plane through the concept o f the sending o f the Son from the presence o f G o d . It is generally acknowledged that the most characteristic elements o f Johannine Christology are bound up with the last-named concept, “the Son (of God).” It is the outstanding feature o f the revelation o f God as Father in the Fourth Gospel. A few statistics will illustrate this. According to T . W. Manson π α τ ή ρ as a name for God attributed to Jesus occurs 4 times in Mark, 8 or 9 in Q, 6 in Luke, 23 in Matthew (of which 17 fall in the Sermon on the Mount), and 107 times in Jo h n (O n P a u l a n d J o h n , 129). O f these over half in the Fourth Gospel denote the relation o f Jesus to the Father. The absolute use o f “the Son” with reference to Jesus occurs once in Mark (13:32) and once in Q (Matt 11:27 = Luke 10:22), then in the trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew’s resurrection narrative (28:19); the term occurs 18 times in Jo h n (plus 1:18), along with “his μ ο ν σ γεν ή ς son” (3:16), and certain occurrences o f “Son o f God” used in an identical sense as “the Son” (e.g., the μονοτγενής “Son o f God” in 3:18, following on 3:16 and 17, and “Son o f God” in 5:25 in the midst o f a series o f references to the Son in 5 :1 9 -2 4 , 26). Accordingly Schnackenburg affirmed, “The ‘Father-Son’ relationship is the key to the understanding o f Jesus as portrayed by the Evangelist, and o f his words and actions as interpreted by him” (2:172). That relationship is grounded in a unity between the Father and the Son “before the world was” (17:5, 24). The “sending” o f the Son by the Father, accordingly, is for a redemption through incarnation and death (3:16-17), the purpose o f which is a gathering into that unity o f all who respond to the word o f his revelation (1 7 :2 0 -2 3 ; 11:51-52). A striking feature o f the presentation o f the Son in the Gospel is its close liaison with the Son o f Man. Such a relationship is adumbrated in the synoptic Gospels (see, e.g., Mark 8:38 and 13:32), but in the Fourth Gospel the mission o f the Son virtually merges with the functions o f the Son o f Man. The representation in Dan 7 o f the coming o f one like a Son o f Man with the kingdom o f God pervades the synoptic Gospels. It is the link which binds the synoptic

Introdu ction

lx x x iii

sayings on the Son o f Man; in his authoritative ministry o f word and deed, in his dying and rising, and in his Parousia he is the instrument o f the kingdom o f God that brings salvation and judgment to mankind. It is highly significant that the first statement relating to the Son o f Man in the Fourth Gospel (1:51) announces the mediation o f the redemptive powers o f heaven through the Son o f Man; the sayings concerning the “lifting up” o f the Son o f Man for the life and the judgment o f the world (3 :14-15; 12:31) strongly remind us o f the synoptic passion predictions (Mark 8:31, etc.), while 12:31 also calls to mind the utterance o f Jesus before the High Priest in Mark 14:62. The interpenetration o f the mission o f the Son (of God) with that o f the Son o f Man works in both directions. It appears most plainly in 5:1 7 -2 9 : the Son performs the works which the Father has continued from the creation and will conclude in the last day, namely, those o f giving life and exercising judgment (vv 17, 19-23, 25-26); in v 27 the judgment that accompanies the coming o f the kingdom o f God is stated to be the prerogative o f the Son “because he is the Son o f Man”; so also it is assumed in vv 2 8 -2 9 that the resurrection for the judgment that determines entry into or exclusion from the kingdom o f God is by the agency o f the Son who is also Son o f Man. In 3:14—15 the gift o f life through the lifting up o f the Son o f Man is expounded in terms o f the sending o f the Son for life and judgment (3 :1 6 21); the reverse phenomenon is observable in 12:27-28, 31-34. Ultimately the works o f the Son who is Son o f Man are those o f God through him. Hence his unity with the Father is stressed—in terms o f the Son in 10:30 (“I and the Father are One,” cf. v 29), and o f the Son o f Man in 8:28 (“When you have lifted up the Son o f Man you will know that I a m ”). In the light o f the foregoing it is evident that the exposition in the prologue o f the Son in terms o f “the Word” is in harmony with the Christology o f the Gospel. It makes explicit what is implicit in the body o f the Gospel. If, as I do not doubt, the term “Logos” is used as “an attention catcher” (Filson, 111), its importance is not on that account to be minimized. The prologue provides, as T . E. Pollard expressed it, an overture to the Gospel in which its main themes are announced (J o h a n n in e Christology , 14). The ruling concept is that o f the Word as Mediator—in creation (vv 1, 10), in revelation (vv 4, 5, 9, 18), and in salvation (vv 12, 13, 16), and its climax is reached in the declaration o f incarnation in v 14, which Thyen considers to be the climactic utterance o f the whole Gospel also (T R u 39 [1975] 222). Admittedly, the impersonal concept o f “Word” cannot represent all that the man Jesus is set forth in the Gospel to be, but neither can any other term do that, not even “the Son.” If, as Pollard rightly suggested, the Fourth Gospel is preeminently “the Gospel o f the Father and the Son” (the title o f a book by W. F. Lofthouse), it is also true that the term “the Son” itself needs to be complemented with all that the other titles attributed to Jesus in this Gospel signify. That has many implications, but one in particular may be mentioned at this point: the frequently reiterated obedience o f the Son to the Father (e.g., 4:34; 5:19; 8:29), whom he acknowledges to be “greater than I” (14:28), requires complementation by the statements in the prologue such as και fleos r\v b λόγος (1:1), and (if it be the correct reading) μορογ€ρής fleos ó ¿j p eis t o p κόλττορ roö πα τρος έκβϊνος έ ξ τ υ ή σ α τ ο (1:18), together with the climactic confession in the Easter

Ixxxiv

In

t r o d u c t io n

narrative, ό κύριός μου καί ό 0€0ς μου (20:28). Such is the content which the Evangelist would have his readers import into the declaration o f faith, “Jesus is the Christ, the Son o f God” (20:31). Then, moreover, it becomes evident that the exposition o f the Son in the Fourth Gospel cannot be justly viewed as “functional Christology.” Doubtless the prime interest o f a gospel, including the one we are discussing, is to set forth the action o f God in Christ for the fulfillment o f his purpose o f grace, whether that be described in terms o f new creation or saving sovereignty (both are present in John). We have already acknowledged that, for the Evangelist, salvation, eschatology, God’s dealings with his people and the world, and the mission o f the Holy Spirit are all set in relation to Christ, and so are aspects o f the function o f the Christ. But the unremitting concentration o f the Evangelist on the person through whom God acts makes it plain that for him “function and person are inseparable” (J. Blank, Krisis, 36; see also the review o f recent discussion in Kysar, F ourth E vangelist, 200-206). “Jo h n clarifies the relation o f Jesus to God,” wrote Barrett (54). Such was the Evangelist’s intention, and such was his achievement. 2. Soteriology In the light o f the preceding discussion it is not surprising that one should affirm that the Christology o f the Fourth Gospel is “essentially ordained to soteriology” (Schnackenburg, on 20:31). This, as Kümmel pointed out, is the primary import o f the “I am” sayings in the Gospel; for while a few o f them are without a predicate (so 6:20; 8:28, 58), most point to an aspect o f the salvation which Jesus is and brings: he is Bread o f Life (6:35), Light (8:12), the Door to life (10:7), the Shepherd (10:11), the Resurrection (11:25), the Way, the Truth and the Life (14:6), the Vine (15:1). In these sayings “Jesus bestows life as only God can” (see Kümmel, Theology o f the N T , 283—

86 ). It is no accident that the first Christological utterance after the prologue is the Baptist’s cry, “See, the Lamb o f God who takes away the sin o f the world” (1:29). Th e famous declaration o f Joh n 3:16 links the incarnation o f the Son o f God with his death for the life o f the world; thus his “sending” was “soteriologically determined” (Miranda, Die S e n d u n g Jesu , 15 f.). T h e peculiar Johannine mode o f representing the redemptive death o f Jesus as the “lifting up” o f the Son o f Man (3:14 f.; 8:28; 12:31; 13:31) is no exception to this. Apart from the linguistic association o f the Aramaic term zeqaph (to “lift up,” to “crucify”), the background to this concept is to be sought in Isa 52:13, the opening sentence o f the fourth Servant Song: “See, my servant will act wisely [mg: will prosper]; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted” (n iv ). T h e L X X omits the first o f the three verbs in the second clause and renders the rest: καί ύφ ω θησ€ται κα ί δοξβσθήσβται σφόδρα, which is very “Johannine” language (cf. Joh n 13:31 f.)! In the Song, the Servant’s “lifting up” for glory follow s his sufferings to death— it is the outcome o f his yielding up o f himself to the Lord for others. In the Gospel the “lifting up” coincides with the death o f the Son o f Man; it is the supreme moment o f his obedience which reconciles the world to God and is one with the Resurrection which brings life to the world. The language o f exaltation via death to the Father’s presence, inspired by the Servant Song, should lead neither to a

Introdu ction

Ixxxv

minimizing o f the vicarious nature o f the death endured (see, e.g., 1:29; 6:51; 12:23-24; 17:19), nor to an elimination o f the concept of resurrection to glory (see, e.g., 2 :1 9 -2 2 ; 10:17-18). The lifting up o f the Son o f Man also entails the judgment o f the godless world that refuses the light o f God’s revelation and o f the “prince” o f this world (12:31; cf. 3:16-21), but the emphasis in the Gospel is on the deliverance from sin and death for life in the new creation, for salvation is above all life (3:14-16, 36; 5:24; 6:33, 40, 4 7 -5 1 , 58, 68, etc.). It is in this context that the sacraments o f baptism and the Lord’s Supper may fitly be mentioned, for the only clear allusions to both are precisely in relation to the life o f the new world. The “new beginning” in a human life, by which it is possible for one to enter the kingdom o f God (3:3) takes place “through water and the Spirit” (3:5). The exposition will give reason for believing that the text is authentic as it stands, for interpreting its historical background in terms o f a baptism o f repentance and the eschatological hope o f the Spirit, and will seek to explain their relation in the Evangelist’s perspective in an era initiated by the lifting up o f the Son o f Man (3:14 f.) and the sending o f the Spirit (7:39). Similarly the discourse o f chapter 6 in its entirety is oriented to the gift o f life through the Son of Man, who gives his flesh for the life o f the world (6:27, 3 1-33, 39 f., 4 9 -5 1 , 53-58); that revelation stands in its integrity apart from the Lord’s Supper, but its reality is at the heart o f the Supper, to which the discourse is manifestly oriented. 5. Eschatology The purpose o f the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ is that humankind may have life (see, e.g., 3:14—16; 10:10; 20:31). Self-evidently this “life,” or life eternal, is life in the “eternal age,” i.e., life in the kingdom o f God (for an extended example o f this concept in the synoptic Gospels see Mark 10:17, 21, 23, 27, 29-30). That this was axiomatic for the Fourth Evangelist is apparent in the Nicodemus discourse; its theme is the experience of or entry into the kingdom o f God (3:3, 5), and it reaches its climax in the earliest statements o f the Gospel concerning the gift of eternal life through the redemption o f Christ, the alternative to which is judgment (3:14-15, 16-21). It is probable that the utterances of Joh n 3:3 and 5 are themselves rooted in eschatology. T o see or enter the kingdom o f God it is necessary to be born άνω θεν, that is, as the context makes clear, “from above,” from God, by the Spirit who is poured out in the new age. The concept o f a new beginning or new creation from God applied primarily to the cosmos in Jewish and Stoic thought; it had in view a new world that replaces the old one, although in Jewish thought the destruction o f the old world was not as radical as in Stoicism. (Philo used the term π α λυτγενεσ ία o f the new world into which Noah and his sons stepped, Vit. M os . 2.65, and Josephus of the renewal o f the Jewish ;τα τρ ίς when the Jews returned to the homeland after the Babylonian exile, A n t . 11.2.) In Matt 19:28 naXtpyeveaia denotes the new age or new world, when the apostles will sit as assessors with Christ in the judgment o f Israel. Alike in Hellenistic and in Jewish thought the concept o f the new beginning or new creation was applied to the individual also (see the discussion in J . Ysebaert, Greek B aptism al Term inology [Nijmegen: Dek-

lx x x v i

In

t r o d u c t io n

ker & Van der Vegt, 1962] 93—129). The context o f this application in the Fourth Gospel (kingdom o f God, agency o f the Holy Spirit, exaltation o f the Son o f Man for life and judgment) indicates that the eschatological significance has been retained. Hegermann is right, therefore, in affirming that salvation in the Fourth Gospel is “miraculous new creation” (“Er kam in sein Eigentum,” 120). Paul’s teaching on the believer as a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), given in a context o f God’s reconciling activity in Christ, is a close parallel to the Johannine teaching, but without the concept o f new birth. The Evangelist consistently represents the new existence in Christ by the Spirit to be a present reality. Life in the kingdom o f God or new creation is now , not a hope reserved for the future. The strongest statement o f this occurs in 5:24: the believer μ€ταβέβηκεν έκ του θανάτου €ίς την ζωήν, he “has made the transition out o f death into life.” Undoubtedly this is in harmony with the representations in the synoptics o f the presence o f the kingdom o f God with and through the ministry, death, and resurrection o f Jesus (cf. the parables o f Mark 4, the Q sayings Matt 11:5-6 = Luke 7 :2 2 -2 3 ; Matt 12:28 = Luke 11:20; Matt 11:12-13 = Luke 16:16), but what in the synoptics has to be searched out lies on the surface in the Fourth Gospel. The strongest statement o f the eschatological action o f God in Christ in present time is Jo h n 12:31: “N o w the judgment o f this world takes place, now the prince of this world will be thrown out; and I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw to myself all people.” This emphasis on the future in the present finds a unique expression in the Evangelist’s teaching that the believer knows resurrection in and through Christ in the present time. This is most clearly exemplified in 5:21, 24 and 11:25. It would appear to be the result o f the Evangelist’s taking with rigorous seriousness the eschatological significance o f the life, death, and resurrection o f Jesus Christ, and the presence o f the risen Christ with his people. Through Christ the new age o f life eternal has come and the new creation is here; as all know, participation in both is through resurrection; since the giver o f life is the risen Lord, and he is the Resurrection (11:25), ipso facto life in Christ is resurrection life. In view o f all this, what are we to make o f expressions o f future eschatology in the Gospel? We read o f a future resurrection in 5 :2 8 -2 9 , the refrain o f 6:39, 40, 44, 54 (“I will raise him up at the last day”), o f a judgment in the last day (12:48), and o f what appears to be an assertion o f the Parousia in 14:3, explicitly asserted in 21:21-23. Bultmann’s view has won many adherents: these affirmations o f traditional eschatology are, in his estimate, the work o f a later redactor, bringing the Gospel into harmony with the views o f the Church at large, while such a statement as 14:3 is commonly interpreted in the light o f the realized eschatology o f the Gospel. For Bultmann Joh n 12:31 alone settles the matter: “The turn o f the ages results now. . . . Since this ‘now’ the ‘prince o f the world’ is judged (16:11); the destiny o f man has become definitive, according as each grasps the meaning o f this ‘now,’ according as he believes or not (1:36; 5:25). N o fu tu r e in this world's history can bring a n yth in g new , a n d a ll apocalyptic pictures o f the fu tu r e are empty dream s ” (431). Despite the popularity o f this view, it fails to do justice to the evidence. If any o f these expressions o f future eschatology are due to a redactor, they are in harmony with the fundamental theology of the Evangelist. For the

Introdu ction

lx x x v ii

latter takes with seriousness not alone the consequences for present time o f the work o f the incarnate Lord, not alone the present activity of the risen Lord, but also the present action o f the risen Lord that extends to the fu tu r e horizons , as 5:17 intimates. The key saying on Christ and the resurrection is 11:25, the primary reference o f which is to fu tu r e resurrection, though it covers also present resurrection; Christ as the Resurrection gives hope for the future life, and the reality o f that life in the present. The same applies to judgment; 3:16 implies a future judgment—God gave his Son that humankind “should not perish,“ while vv 18-21 speak o f a present process o f judgment with a view to its revelation at the last day (3:21; cf. 3:36: the unbeliever “w ill not see life , but the wrath o f God rem ains on him”; i.e., he will be excluded from the life, and the wrath that is upon him now will continue to remain on him). So also with the Parousia. For the Evangelist it is an adaptable concept, like resurrection. The statement in 14:18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you” is to be interpreted o f the resurrection o f Christ at Easter, when the disciples will come to know the real relation o f Jesus to the Father and the mutual indwelling o f Christ in them and they in Christ (v 20). This theme o f the “coming” o f the Lord at Easter and its consequences for the disciples is unmistakably expanded in 16:16-24. Its extension in 14:21, however, is generalized in a significant manner: “He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest (έμφανίσω ) myself to him.” The verb έμφανίζ€ΐν is used in Matt 27:53 o f appearances of the dead to the living. Judas (not Iscariot) takes the statement to denote an outward revelation o f Jesus to the disciples (v 23), but the Evangelist clearly intends it to be understood o f an inward revelation, comparable to the disciples’ Easter experiences. The saying, accordingly, is freshly stated to clarify its meaning: “I f anyone loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we w ill come to him and make our dwelling with him” (v 23). Here the same reality is stated in terms o f a private parousia, with an anticipation o f the promise to the disciples that they will occupy the μονοί prepared for them in the Father’s house in virtue o f the death o f Jesus (v 3). Observe, however, that v 23 no more nullifies the anticipation o f the ultimate Parousia o f Jesus at the end than v 21 nullifies the reality o f the “coming” o f Jesus from the hiddenness o f God at Easter. The Easter “coming” was the revelation o f the exaltation o f Jesus and o f the new creation opened up for believers; the “coming’ to believers who receive the word o f Christ and “love” him initiates the “quickening” (5:21) that brings life from the dead and abiding in the Father through the Son; the “coming” at the Parousia completes the process in the “welcome” (παραλήμφομαι) to the Father’s house of those who, though they have died, enter upon the life o f shared glory with the Son (cf. 17:21). This is a perfectly perspicuous view, and it is characteristic o f the Johannine emphasis on the future in the present that does not abandon hope for the future. It is not to be truncated in the interest o f an exclusive stress on the present or the future, still less by appeal to the use o f sources or intervention o f redactors having different eschatologies. The Johannine eschatology is explicable through the Evangelist’s grasp o f the insight that eschatology is Christology. T o the Son is committed the carrying out of the eternal purpose o f the Father; this he has achieved, he is achieving, and he shall achieve ets τέλο?.

In

lx x x v iii

VI. T

he

Pu r

po s e o f t h e

Fo

t r o d u c t io n

urt h

G o s pe l

Earlier discussions on the purpose of the Gospel frequently were dominated by a concern to determine whether the F ourth Gospel was written to supplement the other three, or to interpret them, or even to correct them. Clement o f Alexandria’s statement “Jo h n , perceiving that the bodily facts had been made plain in the gospel . . . composed a spiritual gospel” would possibly include the first two alternatives. Windisch gave striking expression to the last view; convinced that Joh n wrote to supersede the other Gospels, he set at the beginning o f his work Johannes u n d die Synoptiker the saying o f John 10:8, “All others who have come before me are thieves and robbers.” Yet there is no hint in the Gospel that the Evangelist adopts any stance toward the synoptic Gospels. The most that we can say with confidence is that he writes to provide an authoritative interpretation o f the traditions concerning Jesus current in his own communities, whether oral or written. In so doing he is concerned above all to impart an adequate understanding o f the person, words, and deeds o f Jesus the Christ and Son o f God. The last sentence consciously alludes to the Evangelist’s own statement of purpose that he provided in 2 0 :3 0 -3 1 : “There are many other signs which Jesus did. . . . These have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son o f God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” Unfortunately there lies an ambiguity in the phrase “that you may believe,” and it is compounded by uncertainty as to whether the original text read Ъ а πιστβύσητβ o r Iva пштеитре; the former could suggest the making o f an act o f faith, the latter a continuing in faith, the former a missionary purpose, the latter an instructional or parenetic purpose, the former that the Gospel was directed to outsiders, the latter that it was directed to those within the Church. Whether in reality such distinctions can be justly maintained on the basis o f the difference between an aorist and a present subjunctive is dubious; nevertheless, the majority o f recent scholars incline to the latter view. It finds expression in Neugebauer’s rendering o f the text: “This has been written that you may continue in believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son o f God, and that as those continuing to believe in his name you may hold on to (the) life” (Die E n tsteh u n g des Johannesevangelium s [Stuttgart: Calwer, 1968] 12). In support o f this it has been urged that the language o f the passage reflects the Church’s catechetical teaching rather than the language o f mission, and that the Christology o f the Gospel seems to have been formed in order to illuminate the Church in its struggle with opponents and those who misrepresent the faith, rather than to convert people outside the Church (so, e.g., de Jonge, 2-3). One is constrained to ask whether we have an either-or choice here. I f the language of 20:30-31 reflects the catechesis o f the Church, it is equally true that it echoes the missionary preaching as recorded in Acts (so van Unnik, The Gospels Reconsidered , 180-82). The clause “That you may, through believing, have life in his name” is especially suitable to evangelistic proclamation, and while it may doubtless be adapted to the Church’s parenesis, it would appear to have been formulated in the first instance in relation to the former, as 3 :1 4 -1 5 , 16 suggest. Moreover, in the Fourth Gospel “the Jews” are not uniformly opposed to Jesus. Frequently

Introdu ction

lx x x ix

they are shown to be divided between the uncommitted and the hostile to Jesus; if the Christology is framed to rebut the objections o f the latter, it would at the same time help the former to advance to faith in Christ. Similar considerations apply to all the polemical aims o f the Gospel; in so far as they are intended to instruct and warn Christians, they could also conceivably help to win those maintaining false or inadequate views o f Jesus. There is ground therefore for thinking that the Fourth Gospel was written with both evangelistic and didactic aims in view. Such is the conviction of several, among whom Barrett may be cited as representative. In his view Joh n “attempted and achieved the essential task o f setting forth the faith once delivered to the saints in the new idiom, for the winning o f new converts to the church, for the strengthening o f those who were unsettled by the new winds o f doctrine, and for the more adequate exposition o f the faith itself” (26). This reference to the “new winds of doctrine” raises the issue o f the polemical aims o f the Fourth Gospel. That such aims were in the Evangelist’s mind is not to be doubted, but they were not all of equal importance. O f the less urgent kind is the polemic against contemporary views o f Joh n the Baptist. The poem cited in the prologue is interrupted with a statement on the purpose o f Jo h n ’s ministry and its limitations (“He was not that light, but came to bear witness to the light,” v 8). Other reports o f Jo h n ’s teaching, especially in 1:19-23, 2 9 -3 1 ; 3:2 5 -3 0 , bear a similar slant and suggest that the Evangelist had a subsidiary purpose in correcting current tendencies to elevate the role o f Joh n the Baptist in relation to the kingdom o f God. This would have applied primarily to disciples o f Joh n (cf. Acts 19:1-7), but also perhaps to Jews in their polemic against Christians; these may have made capital out o f the divergence between Joh n and Jesus, charging Jesus with initiating a breakaway from the teaching o f John. More important in the Gospel is the polemic against “the Jews.” The record o f the acts and teaching of Jesus in the Gospel is to no small degree determined by objections against Jesus voiced by Jewish leaders in his time and by Jewish opponents o f the Church in the Evangelist’s day. This we have already discussed in connection with the form o f the Gospel. Here we observe that when “the Jews” are spoken o f in a pejorative manner, the term generally denotes the Jewish leaders (especially Pharisees) in their opposition to Jesus and his followers; because o f that they have become the prime representatives o f the (godless) world that stands in opposition to God. Joh n writes to expose the nature of this hostility to the Son of God, to elucidate the revelation brought by Jesus and how it answers the Jewish objections, to encourage Christians to maintain their Christian confession despite the sufferings they endure from Jewish opponents, and to provide an appeal to Jews to give heed to the witness to Jesus borne by Moses and the prophets and the signs which Jesus did (cf. 5:19-47). The possibility o f an anti-Gnostic polemic in the Gospel has been discussed over many years, accentuated through the clear intention o f the Johannine epistles to correct docetic views o f Jesus. That the Gospel was used alike by Gnostics, and by orthodox in refuting Gnosticism, suggests that the Evangelist was concerned to win as well as refute those who held such views. It is also

xc

In

t r o d u c t io n

possible that the polemic against docetism had in view members o f the Johannine communities who had withdrawn from the Church on the basis o f their Christology and who were posing a threat to those who remained (note the contemporary relevance o f 6:6 0 -6 9 ). That the Evangelist himself was inclined to a docetic view o f Jesus, maintaining, as Käsemann put it, a “naive docetism,” is excluded by the language o f the Gospel. The celebrated statement o f 1:14 “T h e Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we looked on his glory” goes beyond a mere assertion o f the Logos com ing among men that they might see his glory; rather the σαρξ éyévero signifies becoming something that the Logos was not beforehand, namely, flesh. It is a real incarnation o f the Logos that is asserted here, rendering impossible the notion o f at least one influential stream o f docetism, that the Logos was not truly one with the man Jesus (cf. 1 Joh n 4:2). A like assertion o f the unity o f the heavenly redeemer with the flesh and blood o f the man Jesus is at the heart o f the discourse in chap. 6, most strongly expressed in 6 :5 1 -5 8 . And the most natural interpretation o f 19:34 is to see it as possessing an anti-docetic intention (cf. 1 Jo h n 5 :6 -8 ), along with its theological purposes in relation to the О Т scriptures (see the important discussion in Thyen, T R u 39 [1975] 224—29, 236-41). V II. T h e S t r

uc t ur e of t h e

Fo

urth

G o s pe l

T h e fundamental plan o f the Gospel is plain, and it is acknowledged by most exegetes: after the prologue o f 1 :1-18 an account is given o f the public ministry o f Jesus to the end o f chap. 12; the latter half o f the Gospel portrays the last week o f the life o f Jesus, including his ministry to the disciples in the Upper Room, his arrest, trial, death, and resurrection, and an epilogue in chap. 21. С. H. Dodd, along with other writers, is content to divide the Gospel into two main sections: viewing chapter 1 as introductory, he describes chaps. 2 -1 2 as the Book o f Signs and chaps. 13-20 as the Book o f the Passion ( Interpretation , 289). R. E. Brown follows suit, preferring to use the nomenclature “Book o f Signs” and “Book o f Glory” (l:cxxxviii-ix). This division is helpful, since it calls attention to the importance o f the “signs” in the ministry o f Jesus, with which most o f the discourses are linked, as also to the extended treatment o f the passion o f Jesus, viewed as his glorification. Nevertheless, it is necessary to bear in mind that in the passage that describes the purpose o f the book, 2 0 :3 0 -3 1 , the whole work is viewed as a book o f signs. This remains true, even if, as some contend, 20:30-31 originally related to a collection o f signs that Jesus performed; the Evangelist has chosen to set the statement at the climactic point in his account o f the passion and resurrection o f Jesus, with the intention, presumably, o f including the “lifting up” o f the Son o f Man as the ultimate sign o f the Christ for man. Likewise, while the anticipation o f the passion and glory o f Jesus is so vivid in chaps. 13—17 that the hour is viewed as having arrived, the anticipation o f that passion and glory dominates the account o f the two signs in the programmatic chap. 2, and it is so prominent from 1:29 on that the whole Gospel may be said to be the story o f the passion and glory o f Jesus. It is also important to recog nize that the structure o f sign and discourse in chaps. 2 -1 2 is interlaced

In trodu ction

xci

with another prime theme o f Joh n, namely, the fulfillment o f the feasts o f the Jews in the ministry o f Jesus. This occupies the field entirely in chaps. 7 -8 , where the narration o f signs performed by Jesus is replaced by the rites o f the Feast o f Tabernacles, which the Evangelist does not trouble to describe, but whose significance he expounds in relation to Jesus in the developing discourse. In chap. 6 the exposition o f the two signs o f the multiplication o f the loaves and the walking on the water is combined with the theme o f Jesus as the fulfillment o f Passover, while in 10:22-38 there are overtones from the sign o f the healing o f the man born blind in the exposition o f Jesus as the fulfillment o f the feast o f the Dedication o f the Temple. Accordingly we must be sure that our desire for attractive or attention-drawing analyses o f the Gospel does not detract from the emphases that the Evangelist himself makes in his Gospel. By contrast there is no warrant for dismissing the existence o f a clear groundwork or plan o f the Gospel. Not infrequently, mention is made of the so-called “chaotic” state o f the text o f the Gospel (in relation to its present order), and warnings are given not to read the Gospel too schematically. From the point o f view o f structure, however, there appear to be signs o f careful thought by the Evangelist as to the form o f his work. J . H. Bernard drew attention to the way Jo h n brings to a climax the conclusions o f major sections o f his Gospel; notably 1:18, the conclusion o f the prologue; 12:36b50, the climax o f his description o f the public ministry o f Jesus; 20:30-31, the conclusion o f the resurrection narratives and o f the Gospel itself; and 2 1 :2 4 -2 5 at the end o f the epilogue (xxiii). The like is observable in the sections that fall within the major divisions: the testimonies to Jesus o f chap. 1 head up to the climactic 1:51; the section 2 :1 -4 :4 2 comes to a climax in the notable confession o f 4:42; the signs and discourse o f 4:43—5:47 in the forceful passage 5 :4 5 -4 7 ; the account o f chap. 6 in the dramatic 6 :6 6 -7 0 ; the controversial chaps. 7—8 in the astonishing 8 :5 8 -5 9 ; chaps. 9 -1 0 in the not unrelated 10:40-42; the sign o f chap. 11 in vv 4 3 -4 4 , and the highpriestly plot in the suspense o f 11:55-57; the instruction o f the Upper Room discourses in the triumphant 16:33; the prayer in the peace and assurance o f 17:24—26; the account o f the passion in the dramatic episode o f Thomas, 20:24-28, the beatitude of v 29, and the conclusion o f vv 30-31. Whatever the antecedent traditions the Evangelist worked with, or whatever may be said in favor o f transpositions of the text delivered to us, there can be little doubt that the account o f the ministry that lies before us in the Fourth Gospel displays signs o f most careful construction. Without going into detail the following analysis o f the Gospel may be considered as a basis for exposition: I. 1 :1 -1 8 : II. 1 :1 9 -1 2 :5 0 : A. 1 :1 9 -5 1 :

T HE Pr o l o g u e T h e P u b l ic : M in i s t r y o f J e s u s

Testimonies to Jesus T h e Witness o f Jo h n the Baptist and the Early Disciples.

B. 2 :1 -4 :4 2 :

The Revelation of the New Order in Jesus Tw o signs exhibiting the new order, the water into wine and the cleansing o f the

In t

XCI1

r o d u c t io n

temple (chap. 2); me Nicodemus discourse answering to the former (chap. 3); the Samaritan discourse answering to the latter (chap. 4). с. 4:43-5:47:

Jesus the M ediator o f Life and Judgm ent

Two signs, the healing of the officer’s son and the paralytic at Bethesda, with discourse elucidating their significance in relation to Jesus* eschatological task. D. 6:1-71:

Jesus the Bread o f Life

Two signs, the feeding of the multitude and Jesus’ walking on the water, with a discourse expounding their significance and revealing Jesus as the fulfillment of the Passover feast. E.

7:1-8:59:

Jesus the W ater and Light o f Life

Jesus as the fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles; the conflict between the representatives of God and the world. F. 9:1-10:42:

Jesus the Light and Shepherd o f H um ankind

The sign of the healing of the man born blind, the discourse on the Good Shepherd, and Jesus as the fulfillment of the feast of the Dedication of the Temple. G. 11:1-54:

Jesus the Resurrection and the Life

The sign of the healing of Lazarus and the plot of the high priests against Jesus. H. 11:55-12:50:

Jesus the K ing , Trium phant through Death

Two significant acts, the anointing of Jesus and his entry into Jerusalem, with a discourse on his glorification and epilogue to his ministry. III. 13: 1-20:31: A. 13:1-17:26:

T h e P a s s io n a n d R e s u r r e c t i o n o f J e s u s T h e M in is t r y o F J e s u s t o t h e D is c ipl e s in

1. 13:1-30:

t h e

U p p e r R OOm

The Foot Washing

A sign of cleansing through the death of Jesus and example to be followed. 2. 13:31—14:31: 3. 15:1-17: 4. 15:18-16:4a: 5. 16:4b-33: 6 . 17:1-26: В 18:1-20:31: 1 . 18:1-11: 2. 18:12-27: 3. 18:28-19:16a: 4. 19:16b-42: 5. 20:1-31: IV. 21:1-25:

The Departure and the Return o fJesus Jesus the True Vine The Hatred o f the World fo r the Church The Joy That Overcomes Tribulation The Prayer o f Consecration T h e D e a t h a n d R e s u r r e c t io n o f J e s u s

The The The The The

Arrest o f Jesus Trial before the High Priest Trial before Pilate Crucifixion and B urial o f Jesus Resurrection o f Jesus

E p i l o g u e : T h e M is s io n o f t h e C h u r c h a n d

It s C h i e f A p o s t l e s

Editorial Preface to the Second (1999) Edition U n u su al circu m sta n ces have m ad e it im p o ssib le to revise an d u p d ate th e co m m e n ta ry o n a page-by-page basis. T h e la tte r co u rse w ould have b e e n d esirab le, given th e tid al wave o f c o m m e n ta rie s an d studies o f th e J o h a n n in e lite ra tu re th at h as ro lle d o n sin ce th e a u th o r’s p u b lish ed w ork in 1 9 8 7 . E ven a cu rso ry g la n ce at J ö r g F rey ’s 1 9 9 7 w ork o n Jo h a n n in e esch ato log y (Diejohanneische Eschatologie, Vol. 1: Ihre Probleme in Spiegel der Forschung seit Reimarus, W U N T 9 6 [T ü b in g e n : M ohrS ie b e c k , 1 9 9 7 ] ; Vol. 2 u n d e r th e sam e title is c o n c e r n e d w ith th e J o h a n n in e u n d e r s ta n d in g [s ] o f tim e [W U N T 1 1 0 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ] ) or, so m ew h a t e a rlie r, J o h n A s h to n ’s Understanding the Fourth Gospel (O x fo rd : C la re n d o n , 1 9 9 1 ) will show th e re len tle ss m o v em e n t o f scho larly o p in io n over th e past d eca d e. E ven th e p ro fession al g u ild fin d s it d ifficu lt to k e e p a b re a st o f th e la test tren d s o f study in this e n ig m a tic G osp el. Yet re a d e rs o f J o h n c o m e to this a c c o u n t o f J e s u s ’ s ig n ifica n ce fo r th e c h u rc h an d th e w orld with a variety o f e x p e cta tio n s. W ith in th e sco p e o f th e W ord B ib lica l C o m m e n ta ry (W B C ) series, th o se w ho u se th e v o lu m es a re , in th e m a in , stu d en ts a n d re a d e rs w ho seek e n lig h te n m e n t o f th e m e a n in g o f th e te x t an d d esire illu m in a tio n o f S c rip tu r e ’s o fte n elusive d e e p e r sen se in th e c o n te x t o f th e o rig in al au th o rs. It is, o f co u rse, re co g n iz e d th a t th e W B C has co n trib u te d to provid ing a re so u rce o f b ib lio g ra p h ic d ata an d has b e e n valued fo r this reason . B u t over th e p ast d eca d e e le c tro n ic re ca ll o f in fo rm a tio n has b e c o m e m u ch m o re read ily available in th e h o m e a n d study as w ell as in th e halls o f th e academ y. T h e re su lt is th a t th e re is less re a so n to p rovide a full co v erag e o f b ib lio g ra p h ic titles in th e p rin t m ed iu m w hile th ese te ch n o lo g ic a l advances co n tin u e to m ak e readily available a vast body o f in fo rm a tio n at th e to u ch o f a co m p u te r keyboard. W h a t is still n e e d e d , however, is n o t so m u ch d ata as th e assessm ent an d evaluatio n o f th a t fu n d o f in fo rm a tio n . T h e d ata n e e d to b e w eighed as well as co u n te d , a n d th e ir sig n ifica n ce a n d value scru tin ized . T h is p ro c e d u re is th e ra tio n a le fo r w hat is o ffe r e d in th e follo w in g p ages, in th e fo rm fa m ilia r to sch o la rs as an

Anhang. T h e a u th o r has assem b led a co n sid e ra b le a m o u n t o f m a teria l p e rta in in g to th e m e a n in g o f J o h n ’s G o sp el a n d p ro v id ed th e re a d e rs w ith his selective evaluatio n o f it. As a re su lt we have th e in valu able serv ice o f b e in g given access to w hat th e a u th o r d ee m s sig n ifica n t fo r r e c e n t Jo h a n n in e re sea rc h . It is this fe a tu re , ju d g e d to b e u n iq u e in m o d e rn revisions o f an a u th o r ’s previously p u b lish ed w ork, th a t gives a sp ecial m e rit to this new ed itio n . It will, th e re fo re , b e assu red o f a ready w elco m e by th o se w ho co m e to J o h n ’s G o sp el fresh as w ell as th o se w ho, having a cq u ire d th e 1 9 8 7 e d itio n as a p rin te d b o o k o r now o n c o m p a c t disc, d esire to b e b ro u g h t u p to d ate in th e a re a o f J o h a n n in e studies. T h e p lan is a th re e fo ld o n e . First, r e c e n t c o m m e n ta rie s (u p to 1 9 9 8 ) are listed by title (in a S u p p le m e n t to th e C o m m e n ta ry B ib lio g ra p h y ). T h is is follow ed by a

XC1V

Ed it o r ia l Pr e f a c e

t o t he

Re v is e d Ed it io n

sim ilar listing o f studies d ee m ed significant, covering th e sam e p e rio d (in a Su p p lem e n t to th e G e n e ra l B ib lio g ra p h y ). T h is is P a rt I. S e co n d , a sele cte d b ib lio g rap h y o f im p o rta n t d iscussions b e a rin g o n exeg esis a n d th e o lo g ic a l issues a n d a rra n g e d seriatim o v er th e G o sp e l’s tw enty-one ch a p te rs is given. A gain, th e se titles sh o u ld b e re g a rd e d as m a terials th e au th o r, as a key re s e a rc h e r a n d v etera n w riter in th e fie ld , has n o te d as im p o rta n t. T h is (P a rt II) is an in v alu able serv ice an d sh o u ld b e u sefu l to fellow stu d en ts as a vade mecum a n d a n aid to o n g o in g re sea rc h . T h ir d an d , as in d ica te d above, w hat m ay b e co n sid e re d th e m o st valued p a rt (P a rt II I) o f th e revision is th e a u th o r ’s c h o ic e o f le a d in g v o lu m es a n d d iscu ssions, w hich are th e n assessed in th e m a n n e r d escrib e d above. P rosp ective read ers will have im m ed iately a t h a n d a c o n sp e ctu s o f Jo h a n n in e in q u iry a n d c o n trib u tio n s to assist th e m in an u p d a te o f th e ir u se o f th e co m m en tary . B e c a u se o n e title stands o u t in p re e m in e n t fa sh io n as a m o n u m e n ta l study o f th e h isto ry o f Jo h a n n in e in te rp re ta tio n sin c e R eim a ru s (1 6 9 4 -1 7 6 8 ; th e im p o rta n ce o f this p erso n in th e d ev elo p m en t o f Jo h a n n in e studies at th e E n lig h te n m e n t m ay b e re a d in a n o th e r p la ce [C o lin B row n, “H e rm a n n Sam u el R e im a ru s ,” in Historical Handbook o f Major Biblical Interpreters, ed . D. EL M cK im (D ow ners G rove, IL : InterV arsity Press, 199 8 ) 346-49 (an d in d e x )]; n o te th e sen ten ce: “A. Schw eitzer cred ited R eim aru s with in itiatin g th e qu est o f th e h istorical Je su s an d saw R eim aru s w ith ou t p re cu rso rs o r su ccesso rs” [ 3 4 9 ] ) , e x te n d e d sp ace has b e e n a c c o rd e d to th is large-scale tre a tm e n t. J ö r g F rey ’s tw o-volum e w ork (th o u g h only v o lu m e 1 is p e r tin e n t to th e a u th o r’s p u rp o se) surveys a w ide fie ld in b o th E u ro p e a n la n g u ag es as w ell as A n g lo -A m erican co n trib u tio n s a n d is fu ll o f p ercep tiv e in sigh ts th e a u th o r has utilized . T h e a u th o r has provid ed an E n g lish version o f th e lead in g c o n trib u tio n s as h e sees th e m , o fte n tra n sla tin g F rey ’s own w ords. As F rey ’s w ork e x te n d s to in c lu d e b o th “new d isc u ssio n ” a n d a tr e a tm e n t o f th e status quaestionis, as h e (Frey) sees it, th e a u th o r ’s in c lu sio n o f this review will b e esp ecially rew arding. A version o f this review o f Frey is p la n n e d to ap p e ar in th e Journal

of Biblical Literature. T h e new e d itio n is se n t o u t in th e c o n fid e n t h o p e th a t it will e n h a n c e th e re p u ta tio n o f an alread y m u ch valued a n d u sed co m m e n ta ry o n th e “sp iritu al G o s p e l” (C le m e n t o f A lex a n d ria ) by w hich th e life o f th e c h u rc h has b e e n n o u rish ed across th e c e n tu rie s, b u t w hose treasu res a n d p ro fu n d itie s a re still to b e u n lo ck e d in every su cce e d in g g e n e ra tio n .

R . P. M.

Supplem ent to the Second (1999) Edition Part I Supplem ent to the C om m entary Bibliography

Brodie, T. L. The Gospel according toJohn: A Literary and Theological Commentary. New York; Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993. Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991. Culpepper, R. A. The Gospel and Letters oj John. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Ellis, P. The Genius ofJohn: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1984. Grayston, K. The Gospel ofJohn. Narrative Commentaries. London: Epworth; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. Gruenler, R. G. The Trinity in the Gospel ofJohn: A Thematic Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1986. Harrington, D. J. The Gospel ofJohn. Good News Service. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1990. Jenkins, D. L. Windows on the Gospel of John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Nashville: Broadm an, 1988. Kermode, F. “Jo h n .” In The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. F. Kermode and R. Alter. London: Collins, 1987. Minear, P. S. John, the Martyr’s Gospel. New York: Pilgrim, 1984. Moloney, F. J. Belief in the Word: Reading the Fourth Gospel, John 1-4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1 9 9 3 .--------- ·. The Gospel ofJohn. SacPag. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998. Porsch, F. Johannesevangelium. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Quast, К. Reading the Gospel ofJohn: An Introduction. New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1991. Ridderbos, H. The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary. Tr. J . Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Sanford, J. A Mystical Christianity: A Psychological Commentary on the Gospel ofJohn. New York: Crossroad, 1993. Sloyan, G. S.John. Interpretation Commentaries. Atlanta: Jo h n Knox, 1988. Stibbe, M. W. O f John. Readings, A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Talbert, С. H. ReadingJohn: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and Johannine Epistles. London: SPCK; New York: Crossroad, 1992. Wenham, D. John’s Gospel. Good News for Today. RSTF, 1997. Witherington, B., III. John ’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville: Westminster Jo h n Knox, 1995. Supplem ent to the G eneral B ibliography

Anderson, P. N. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light ofJohn 6. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996. Ashton, J. ‘T h e Identity and Function o f the IOUDAIO I in the Fourth Gospel.” NovT27 (1985) 4 0 - 7 5 .----------. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Ball, D. M. “‘My Lord and My God’: T he Implications o f ‘I Am’ Sayings for Religious Pluralism.” In One God, One Lord in a World of Religious Pluralism, ed. A. D. Clarke and B. W. Winter. Cambridge: Tyndale, 1991. Beasley-Murray, G. R. Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1 9 9 1 .----------. John. Word Biblical Them es. Dallas: Word, 1989. ---------- . T h e Mission o f the Logos-Son.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BE TL 100. Leuven: Leuven U P / P eeters, 1992. 3:1855-58. Belle, G. van. “Les p aren th eses johanniqu es.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. B ETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:1901-33.-------- . The Signs Source in the

XCV1

Su ppl e m e n t

Fourth Gospel: Historical Survey and Critical Evaluation of the Semeia Hypothesis. BETL 116. Leuven: Leuven U P /P eeters, 1994. Betz, O . Der Messias Israels: Aufsätze zum biblische Theologie. WUNT 42. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987. Bisnauth, D. “A Re-Reading of John in the Struggle for Liberation.” International Review of Missions 79 (1990) 5 3 -7 1 . Blomberg, C. L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987. Boer, M. C. de. “Narrative Criticism, Historical Criticism, and the Gospel of Jo h n .”JSNT 47 (1992) 3 5 - 4 8 .--------- , ed. FromJ esus toJohn: Essays onJesus and New Testament Christology. FS M. de Jonge. JSNTSup 84. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. Boismard, M.-E. Moïse ouJésus: Essai de christoiogiquejohannique. BETL 84. Leuven: Leuven U P/Peeters, 1988. Borgen, P. “The Independence of the Gospel of John— Some Observations.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven U P/Peeters, 1992. 3:1815-33. Brodie, T. L. The Questfor the Origin ofJohn's Gospel: A Source Oriented Approach. New York; O xford: Oxford UP, 1993. Brown, R. E. An Introduction to New Testament Christology. New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1 9 9 4 .----------. An Introduction to the New Testament. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Burge, G. M. The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in theJohannine Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1 9 8 7 .----------. Interpreting the Gospel ofJohn. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992. Casey, P. M.

FromJewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology. Edward Cadbury Lectures, University of Birmingham, 1985-86. Cambridge: Clarke; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1 9 9 1 .----------. Is John's Gospel True? London; New York: Routledge, 1996. Cassidy, R. J . John 's Gospel in New Perspective: Christology and the Realities of Roman Power. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1992. Charlesworth, J . H. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus.” In Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 1 - 7 4 .----------. “Jesus as ‘Son’ and the Righteous Teacher as ‘Gardener.’” In Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 140-75. Collins, R. F. John and His Witness. Zacchaeus Studies. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991. Cook, M. J. “The Gospel of John and the Jews.” RevExp 84 (1987) 259-71. Culpepper, R. A. “The Gospel of Joh n and the Jews.” RevExp 84 (1987) 2 7 3 - 8 8 .----------. “Guessing Points and Knowing Stars: History and Higher Criticism in Robert Browning’s ‘A Death in the Desert.’” In The Future of Christology. FS L. E. Keck, ed. A. J. Malherbe and W. A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. 5 3 - 6 5 .----------. “Joh n and the Johannine Epistles.” In It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. FS B. Lindars, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988. 2 4 5 - 6 4 .--------- . John the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. Studies on Personalities in the New Testament. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1 9 9 4 .----------. “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:30-31 Reconsidered.” JBL 108 (1987) 6 3 9 - 5 1 .----------. “The Theology of the Gospel of Jo h n .” RevExp 85 (1988) 4 1 7 -3 2 . Davies, M. Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel. JSNTSup 69. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Derretí J . D. M. The Victim: TheJohannine Passion Narrative Re-Examined. Shipstone-on-Stour: Drinkwater, 1993. Duke, P. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985. Dunn, J . D. G. The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991. Ellis, E. E. The World of St.John. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1996. Fortna, R. T. The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1989. Fredriksen, P. FromJesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images ofJesus. New Haven, CT; London: Yale UP, 1988. Frey, J . Die johanneische Eschatologie. Vol. 1: Ihre Probleme im Spiegel derForschung seit Reimarus. WUNT 96. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1 9 9 7 .--------- . Diejohanneische Eschatologie. Vol. 2: Dasjohanneische Zeitverständnis. WUNT 110. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998. Freyne, S. “Locality and Doctrine: Mark and Jo h n Revisited.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven U P/Peeters, 1992. 3 :1 8 8 9 -1 9 0 0 .---------- . “Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Matthew’s and Jo h n ’s AntiJewish Polemic in Focus.” In “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians,Jews, “Others”in Late Antiquity, ed. J. Neusner

P a rti

xcvii

and E. S. Frerichs. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. 117-43. Geyser, A. S. “Israel in the Fourth Gospel.” Neot 20 (1986) 13-20. Grassi, J . A. The Secret Identity of the Beloved Disciple. New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1992. Grelot, P. Les Juifs dans l'Évangile selon Jean: Enquête histonque et reflexion théologique. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 34. Paris: Gabalda, 1995. Hanson, A. T. The Prophetic Gospel: A Study ofJohn and the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. Hawthorne, G. F. The Power and the Presence: The Significance of the Holy Spirit in the Life and Ministry ofJesus. Dallas: Word, 1991. Hedrick, C. W., and Hodgson, R ., eds. Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986. Heilig, J . “The Negative Image o f the Jew and Its New Testament Boots.”Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 64 (1988) 3 9 -4 8 . H engel, M. “Jesus, der Messiah Israels: Zum Streit ü ber das ‘messianische Sendungsbewusstsein’Jesu .” In Messiah and Christos: Studies in theJewish Origins of Christianity. FS D. Flusser, ed. I. Gruenwald et al. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 32. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992. 1 5 5 -7 6 .----------. TheJohannine (Question. Tr. J . Bowden. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. Hinrichs, B . “Ich Bin Die Konzistenz desJohannesevangelium in der Konzentration auf das WortJesu. SBS 133. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Howard-Brook, W. Becoming Children of God: John's Gospel and RadicalDiscipleship. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994. Hurtado, L. W. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Johnson, E. E. “Jews and Christians in the New Testament: Jo h n , Matthew and Paul.” Reformed Review 42 (1988) 113-28. Johnson, L. T. “T he New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions o f Ancient Polemic.”JB L 108 (1989) 419-41. Jon es, N. P. The Symbol of Water in the Gospel ofJohn. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Jo n g e , M. de. “Christology and Theology in the C on text o f Early Christian Eschatology, Particularly in the Fourth Gospel.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:1835-53. -------- .Jesus, the Servant Messiah. New Haven, CT; London: Yale UP, 1991. Kaestli, J . D., et al., eds. La communauté johannique et son histoire: La trajectoire de l’évangile de Jean aux deux premiers siècles. Le Monde de la Bible. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1990. Karris, R . J. Jesus and the Marginalized in John's Gospel. Zacchaeus Studies, New Testam ent. C ollegeville, MN:Liturgical, 1990. Kaufmann, P. S. The Beloved Disciple: Witness against Anti-Semitism. C ollegeville, MN: L itu rgical, 1991. K em per, F. “Zur lite ra risch en G estalt des Johannesevangeliums.” TZ 43 (1987) 247-64. Kieff er, R . “Les premiers indices d’une reception de l’évangile de Saint Je a n .” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2225-38. Koester, C. R. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning; Mystery, Community. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Lee, D. A. The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning. JSN TSup 95. Sheffield: JS O T Press, 1994. León-Dufour, X . “Ou en est la recherche johannique? Bilan et ouvertures.” In Origine et postérité de l’évangile deJean: ХІПе congrès de l'ACFEB, Toulouse (1989), ed. A. Marchadour. LD 143. Paris: Cerf, 1990. 17-41. Loader, W. R. G. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues. Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 23. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Lang, 1989. Maccini, R . G. Her Testimony Is True: Women as Witnesses according toJohn. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Malbon, E. S., and McKnight, E. V., eds. The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament. JSN TSup 109. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Malina, В . “The Gospel o f Jo h n in Sociolinguistic Perspective.” In Protocol of the 48th Colloquy of the Centerfor Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modem Culture, ed. H. C. Waetjen. Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union and University o f California, Berkeley, 1985. 24-29. McCracken, D. The Scandal of the Gospels: Jesus, Story and Offense. New York; Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994. Meeks, W. A. “Breaking Away: Three New Testament Pictures o f Christianity’s Breaking Away from the Jewish Communities.” In “7o See Ourselves as Others See Us'': Christians, Jews, “Others”in Late Antiquity, ed. J . Neusner and E. S. Frerichs. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1 9 8 5 .9 3 -1 1 5 . Mlakuzhil, G. The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel. AnBib 117. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1987.

XCVI11

Su ppl e m e n t

Moliat, D. Études Johanniques. Paris: Editions de Seuil, 1989. M orris, L. Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology ofJohn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989. Motyer, S. “Method in Fourth Gospel Studies: A Way out o f the Impasse?” JSNT 66 (1997) 2 7 - 4 4 .----------. Your Father the Devil ?A New Approach toJohn and “theJews. ” Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996. Myllykoski, M. Die letzten TageJesu: Markus undJohannes, ihre Traditionen und die historische Frage. Vol. 1. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiede Akatemia, 1991. Neirynck, F. Evangelical: Gospel Studies—Études d’évangile: Collected Essays. BETL 60. Leuven: Leuven UP/ Peeters, 19 8 2 .----------. Evangelica II: 1982-1991: Collected Essays. Ed. F. van Segbroeck. B ETL 99. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1991. Neusner, J . Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991. Neyrey, J . H. An Ideology of Revolt: John’s Christology in Social Science Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. O ’Day, G. R . “Narrative Mode and Theological Claim: A Study in the Fourth Gospel.”JB L 105 (1986) 6 5 7 -6 8 .----------. Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Ostenstad, G. “The Structure o f the Fourth Gospel: Can It Be Defined Objectively?” ST 45 (1991) 3 3 -55. Painter, J . “T he Enigmatic Joh an n in e Son o f Man.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. B E TL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3 :1 8 6 9 -8 7 .----------. The Questfor the Messiah: The History, Literature and Theology of theJohannine Community. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. Perkins, P. Gnosticism and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Petersen, N. R . The Gospel ofJohn and the Sociology of Light: Language and Characterization in the Fourth Gospel. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993. Porter, S. E ., and Evans, C. A., eds. TheJohannine Writings. The Biblical Sem inar 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Rand, J . A. du. Johannine Perspectives: Introduction to the Johannine Writings. Part 1. Pretoria: O rion, 1991. Rebell, W. Gemeinde als Gegenwelt: Zur soziologischen und didaktischen Funktion desJohannesevangeliums. Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 20. Frankfurt: Lang, 1987. Rensberger, D. Johannine Faith and Liberating Community. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. Rowland, C., and Fletcher-Louis, С. H. T., eds. Understanding Studying Reading. FS J . Ashton. JSN TSup 153. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Ruckstuhl, E ., and Dschulnigg, P. Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage in Johannesevangelium: Die johanneischen

Sprachmerkmale auf dem Hintergrund des Neuen Testament und des zeitgenössischen hellenistischen Schrifttums. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 17. Fribourg: Editions universitaires; G ö ttin g e n : V an d en h o eck & R u p rech t, 1991. R uiz, M. R . Der Missionsgedanke des Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zurjohanneischen Soteriologie und Ekklesiologie. Forschung zur Bibel 55. Würzburg: Echter, 1987. Schmithals, W. Johannesevangelium und Johannesbriefe: Forschungsgeschichte und Analyse. BZNW 64. B e rlin ; New York: de Gruyter, 1992. Schnackenburg, R . Jesus in the Gospels: A Biblical Christology. Tr. О. C. Dean, Jr. Louisville: Westminster Jo h n Knox, 1 9 9 5 .----------. “Synoptische und johanneische Christologie— Ein Vergleich.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. B E T L 100. Leuven: Leuven U P/Peeters, 1992. 3 :1 7 2 3 -5 0 . Schneider, G. “A uf G ott bezogenes ‘m ein Vater’ und ‘euer Vater’ in den Jesus-Worten der Evangelien, zugleich ein Beitrag zum Problem Jo h an n e s und die Synoptiker.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. B E T L 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3 :1751-81. Schnelle, U. Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in theJohannine School. Tr. L. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. — ----- . “Johannes und die Synoptiker.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck e t al. 3 vols. B E T L 100. Leuven: Leuven U P/Peeters, 1992. 3 :17 9 9 -1 8 1 4 . Segovia, F. F. “T h e Journeys o f the Word o f God: A Reading o f the Plot o f the Fourth Gospel.” Semeia 53 (1991) 2 3 - 5 4 .----------, ed. “What Is John?” Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel. SBL Symposium Series 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1 9 9 6 .----------, ed. “What Is John?”VoL 2: Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel. SBL Symposium Series 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Senior, D. The Passion ofJesus in the Gospel ofJohn. Passion Series 4. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. Sloyan, G. S. Jesus: Redeemer and Divine Word.

P a rti

xcix

Theology and Life Series 28. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1 9 8 9 .----------. What Are They Saying about John ?New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1991. Smalley, S. S .John, Evangelist and Interpreter. 2nd ed. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998. Smiga, G. M. Pain and Polemic: Antijudaism in the Gospels. A Stimulus Book. New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1992. Smith, D. M. Johannine Christianity: Essays on Its Setting, Sources, and Theology. Columbia, SC: University o f South Carolina Press, 1984; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1 9 8 7 .---------- .John among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth Century Research. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1 9 9 2 .----------. “Jo h n and the Synoptics and the Question o f Gospel Genre.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:1783-97. ----------. “The Life Setting o f the Gospel o f Jo h n .” RevExp 85 (1988) 433-44. Staley, J . L. The Print's First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel. SBLDS 82. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1 9 8 8 .----------. Reading with a Passion: Rhetoric, Autobiography, and the American West in the Gospel ofJohn. New York: Continuum, 1995. Stanton, G. N. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989. Stibbe, M. W. G. “T he Elusive Christ: A New Reading o f the Fourth Gospel.”JSNT 44 (1991) 2 0 - 3 9 .---------- .John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel. SNTSMS 73. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1 9 9 2 .----------. “‘Return to Sender’: A Structuralist Analysis o f Jo h n ’s Plot.” Biblical Interpretation 1.2 (1993) 1 8 9 -2 0 6 .----------, ed. The Gospel ofJohn as Literature: An Anthology of 20th Century Perspectives. N T T S 17. L eid en : B rill, 1993. Stim p fler, A. Blinde Sehen: Die Eschatologie im traditionsgeschichtlichen Prozess des Johannesevangeliums. BZNW 57. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1990. Suh, J . S. The Glory in the Gospel of John: Restoration of Forfeited Prestige. Oxford, OH: MP Publications, 1995. Talbert, C. H. ‘“And the Word Becam e Flesh’; W hen?” In The Future of Christology. FS L. E. Keck, ed. A. J . Malherbe and W. A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. 43-52. Thomas, J . C. “The Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Judaism .” ZNW82 (1991) 159-82. Thompson, Μ. M. The Humanity ofJesus in the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Tilborg, S. van. Imaginative Love in John. Biblical Interpretation 2. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Tresmontant, C. The Hebrew Christ: Language in the Age of the Gospels. Chicago: Franciscan H erald, 1989. Trilling, W. “G egner Je su — W idersache der G em einde— Repräsentanten der ‘W elt’: Das Johannesevangelium und die Ju d e n .” In Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung. Stuttgarter biblische Aufsätzbande 1. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. 209-31. Wahlde, U. C. von. The Earliest Version ofJohn's Gospel: Recovering the Gospel of Signs. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1 9 8 9 .----------. “The Gospel o f Jo h n and the Presentation o f Jews and Judaism within Context.” In Essays onJews andJudaism in the New Testament, ed. M. Boys. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993. 67-84. Warner, M. “T he Fourth Gospel’s Art o f Rational Persuasion.” In The Bible as Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion and Credibility, ed. M. W arner. London: R outledge, 1990. 1 5 3 -7 7 . W iles, M. “Can We Still Do Christology?” In The Future of Christology. FS L. E. Keck, ed. A. J . Malherbe and W. A. Meeks. M inneapolis: Fortress, 1993. 2 2 9 -3 8 . Yee, G. A. Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989. Zumstein, J . “L ’interpré tation johannique de la m ort du Christ.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2119-38.

P a r t II S u pplem entary B ibliography o f E xegetical a n d Theological D iscussions o f Sections in the G ospel

Joh n 1 Barth, К Witness to the Word: A Commentary on John 1. Ed. W. Furst. Tr. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. Borgen, P. “Logos Was the True Light: Contributions to the Interpretation o f the Prologue o f Jo h n .” In Logos Was the True Light and Other Essays on the Gospel of John. R e lie ff 9. D ragvoll-Trondheim , Norway: Tapir/U niversity o f Trondheim , 1983. 9 5 -1 1 0 .----------. “The Prologue o f Jo h n — An Exposition o f the Old Testam ent.” In Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity. BJS 131. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. 75-101. Evans, C. A. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background ofJohn's Prologue. JSN TSup 89. Sheffield: JSO T , 1993. Freed, E. D. “J n 1, 19 -2 7 in Light o f Related Passages in Jo h n , the Synoptics, and Acts.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:1943-61. Giblin, C. H. “Two Complementary Literary Structures in Jo h n 1 :1-18.” JBL 104 (1985) 87-103. Habermann, J . Präexistenzaussagen im Neuen Testament. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23, Theologie 362. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Lang, 1990. Harris, E. Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist. JSN TSup 107. Sh effield : Sh effield A cadem ic Press, 1994. H o frich te r, P. Im Anfang war der

“Johannesprolog” :Das urchristliche Logosbekenntnis—Die Basis neutestamentlicher und gnostischer Theologie. BU 17. Regensburg: Pustet, 1986. — ------ . Wertst der “Mensch, von Gott gesandt" in Joh 1, 6? BU 21. Regensburg: Pustet, 1990. K och, D.-A. “D er Taüfer als Zeuge des Offenbarere: Das Taüferbild von Jn 1 ,1 9 -2 7 auf dem Hintergrund von Mk 1 ,2 -1 1 .” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:1963-84. Kuhn, H.-J. Christologie und Wunder: Untersuchung zu Joh 1, 35-51. BU 18. Regensburg: Pustet, 1988. Miller, E. L. “The Joh an n in e Origins o f the Joh an n in e Logos.”JBL 112 (1993) 4 4 5 - 5 7 .---------- . Salvation-History in the Prologue ofJohn: The Significance ofJohn 1:3/4. NovTSup 60. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Plessis, I. J . du. “The Lamb o f God in the Fourth Gospel.” In A South African Perspective on the New Testament: Essays by South African New Testament Scholars Presented to Bruce Manning Metzger during His Visit to South Africa in 1985. Leiden: Brill, 1986. 136-48. Pryor, J . W. “O f the Virgin Birth or the B irth o f Christians? T h e Text o f Jo h n 1:13 O nce M ore.” NovT 27 (1985) 2 9 6 -3 1 8 . Reinhartz, A. The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel. SBLMS 45. Adanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Staley, J . “The Structure of Jo h n ’s Prologue.” CBQ l9 8 6 (48) 241-64. Trocm é, E. “Jea n et les Synoptiques: L ’exemple de J n 1, 1 5 -3 4 .” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BET L 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:1935-41. Vellanickal, M. “Who Was Born o f God.” In La vie de la parole: De l'Ancien Testament au Nouveau Testament. FS P. Grelot, ed. Department des Etudes Bibliques et l’Institut Catholique de Paris. Paris: Desclée, 1987. 211-28. Whale, P. “The Lamb o f Jo h n : Some Myths about the Vocabulary o f the Johannine Literature.” JBL 106 (1987) 289-95. W ile s. M. “Person or Personification? A Patristic Debate about Logos.” In The Glory of Christ in the New Testament. FS G. B. Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. 281-89.

P art II

ci

Joh n 2 Hengel, M. “The Interpretation o f the Wine Miracle at Cana: Jo h n 2 :1 -1 1 .” In The Glory of Christ in the New Testament. FS G. B. Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. 83-112. Léon-Dufour, X . “Le Signe de Cana ou les noces de Dieu avec Israel.” In La vie de la parole: De l’Ancien Testament au Nouveau Testament. FS P. Grelot, ed. Department des Études Bibliques et l’Institut Catholique de Paris. Paris: Desclée, 1987. 2 2 9 -3 9 . Letourneau, P. Jesus, Fils de l'homme et Fils de Dieu: Jean 2:23-3:36 et la double christologie johannique. Recherches Nouvelle 27. Montreal: Bellarm in; Paris: Cerf, 1992. Lutgehetmann, W. Die Hochzeit von Kana (Joh 2, 1-11): Zu Ursprung und Deutung einer Wundererzählung im Rahmen johanneischer Redaktionsgeschichte. BU 20. Regensburg: Pustet, 1990. Williams, R . H. “The M other o f Jesus at Cana: A Social Science Interpretation o f Jo h n 2 :1 -1 2 .” CBQ59 (1997) 679-92.

Joh n 3 Bassler, J . M. “Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel.”JB L 108 (1989) 635-46. Borgen, P. “The Son o f Man Saying in Jo h n 3 :1 3 -1 4 .” In Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives onJudaism and Early Christianity. Brown Judaic Studies 131. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. 103-20. Grese, W. C. ‘“Unless O ne Is Born Again’: The Use o f a Heavenly Journey in Jo h n 3.” JBL 107 (1988) 677-93. Michel, O . “Der aufsteigende und herabsteigende Gesandte.” In Dienst am Wort: Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. К . Haacker. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986. 2 49-70. Morgen, M. Afin que le monde soit sauvé:Jesus révéle sa mission de salut dans l'Évangile deJean. LD 154. Paris: Cerf, 1993. Trumbower, J . A. Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel ofJohn. H U T 29. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992.

Joh n 4 Boers, H. Neither on This Mountain nor in Jerusalem: A Study in John 4. SBLMS 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Botha, J . E . Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Speech Act Reading ofJohn 4:1-42. NovTSup 65. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Koester, C. R. “The Savior o f the World—Jo h n 4:42.” JBL 109 (1990) 665-80. Lindars, B . “Capernaum Revisited: J n 4, 4 6 -5 3 and the Synoptics.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. B ETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:1985-2000. Link, A· “Was redest du mit ihr?” Eine Studie zur Exegese-, Redaktions- und Theologiegeschichte von Joh 4, 1-42. BU 24. Regensburg: Pustet, 1992. Okure, T. TheJohannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4:1-42. WUNT 2/31. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1988. P o ffe t,J. M. La methode exegetique d'Héracleon et d'Origene: Commentateurs deJn 4:Jésus, la Samaritaine et les Samaritains. Paradosis 78. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1985.

Joh n 5 Labahn, M. “Eine Spurensuche anhand von Jo h 5 ,1 -1 8 : Bemerkungen zu Wachstum und Wandel der Heilung eines Lahm en.” NTS 44 (1998) 159-79. Robinson, J . A. T. “‘His Witness Is T ru e’: A Test o f the Johannine Claim.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. 453-76.

Joh n 6 Ваll, D. Η. “I Am” in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications. JSN TSup 124. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Borgen, P. “Bread from Heaven: Aspects

cii

Su ppl e m e n t

o f Debates on Expository Method and Form .” In Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity. Brown Judaic Studies 131. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. 1 3 1 44. Kysar, R . “Pursuing the Paradoxes o f Johannine Thought: Conceptual Tensions in Jo h n 6: A Redaction-Critical Proposal.” In The Living Text. FS E. W. Saunders, ed. D. E. Groh and R. Jewett. Lanham, MD: University Press o f America, 1985. 11-26. McKay, K. L. “‘I Am’ in Jo h n ’s Gospel.” ExpTim 107 (1996) 302-3. Ruckstuhl, E. “Die Speisung des Volkes durch Jesus und die Seeüberfahrt der Jünger nach Jo h 6, 1-25 im Vergleich zu den synoptischen Parallelen.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2001-19.

Joh n 7 -8 Cory, C. “Wisdom’s Rescue: A New Reading o f the Tabernacles Discourse (7 :1 -8 :5 9 ).”JBL 116 (1997) 95-11 6 .

Joh n 8 Coetzee, J . C. “Jesu s’ Revelation in the ego eimi Sayings in Jo h n 8 and 9 .” In A South African

Perspective on the New Testament: Essays by South African New Testament Scholars Presented to Bruce Manning Metzger during His Visit to South Africa in 1985. Leiden: Brill, 1986. 170-77. O ’Day, G. R . “Jo h n 7:53-8:11: A Study in Misreading.” JBL 111 (1992) 631-40. Joh n 9 R ein , M. Die Heilung des Blindgeboren (Joh 9): Tradition und Redaktion. W UNT 2/73. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995. Tolm ie, D. F. Jesus’Farewell to the Disciples:John 13.1-17.26 in Narratological Perspective. Biblical Interpretation 12. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Joh n 10 Beutler, J ., and Fortna, R . T·, ed. The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and Its Context. SNTSMS 67. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. Neyrey, J . Η. “I said, ‘You are Gods’: Psalm 82:6 and Jo h n 10.”JBL 108 (1989) 647-63.

Joh n 11 Byne, B . Lazarus: A Contemporary Reading of John 11:1-46. Zacchaeus Studies. Collegeville, MN: L itu rg ical, 1991. K rem er, J , Lazarus: Die Geschichte einer Auferstehung: Text, Wirkungsgeschichte und Botschaft von Joh 11, 1-46. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985. Grundmann, W. “The Decision o f the Supreme Court to Put Jesus to Death (John 11:4757) in Its Context: Tradition and Redaction in the Gospel o f Jo h n .” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and G. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. 295-318. Thyen, H. “Die Erzählung von den bethanischen Geschwistern (Joh 1 1 ,1 -1 2 ,1 9 ) als ‘Palimpsest’ über synoptischen Texten.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. B E T L 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2021-50.

Joh n 12 Beasley-Murray, G. R . “Jo h n 12:31-34: T he Eschatological Significance o f the Lifting Up o f the Son o f Man.” In Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments. FS H. Greeven,

ed. W. Schräge. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1986. 7 0 -81. Borgen, P. “The Use o f Tradition in Jo h n 12:44 -5 0 .” In Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity. Brown Judaic Studies 131. Adanta: Scholars Press, 1987. 185-204. Busse, U. “Die ‘H ellenen’ Jo h 12,20ff. und der sogenannte ‘Anhang’ Jo h 21.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. B ETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2083-2100. Sabbe, M. “The Anointing o f Jesus in J n 12,1-8 and Its Synoptic Parallels.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2051-82.

Joh n 1 3 :1 -3 0 Kurz, W. Farewell Addresses in the New Testament. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1990. Moloney, F .J . “A Sacramental Reading o f Jo h n 1 3:1-38.” CBQ53 (1951) 2 3 7 -5 6 .---------. “T he Structure and Message o f Jo h n 1 3 :1-38.” ABR34 (1986) 1 - 1 6 .----------. “T h e Structure and Message o f Jo h n 15:1-16:3.” ABR35 (1987) 35-49. Niemand, C. Die Fusswaschungerzählung des

Johannesevangeliums: Untersuchung zu ihrer Entstehung und Uberlieferung im Urchristentum. Studia Anselmiana 114. Rome: Centro Studi Sant’ Anselmo, 1993. O ’Day, G. “I Have Overcome the World (John 16:33): Narrative Time in Jo h n 1 3 -1 7 .” Semeia 53 (1991) 153-66. Thomas, J . C. Footwashing in John 13 and theJohannine Community. JSN TSup 61. Sheffield: JS O T Press, 1991. W inter, M. Das Vermächtnis Jesu und die Abschiedsworte der Vater: Gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Vermächtnisrede im Blick aufJoh 13-1 7. FRLANT 161. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.

Joh n 13:31-14;31 Augenstein , F. Das Liebesgebot imJohannesevangelium und in den Johannesbriefen. BWANT 7/ 14. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993. D ietzfelbinger, C. Der Abschied des Kommenden: Eine Auslegung der johanneischen Abschiedsreden. WUNT 95. Tübingen: M ohr-Siebeck, 1997. Franck, E. Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel ofJohn. Lund: Gleerup, 1985. Woll, D. B . “The Departure o f ‘T he Way’: The First Farewell Discourse in the Gospel o f Jo h n .” JB L 99 (1980) 225-39.

Joh n 15:1 - 1 6 :3 3 Segovia, F. E The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

Joh n 1 8 -1 9 Boer, M. C. de. Johannine Perspectives on the Death of Jesus. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 17. Kämpen: Kok Pharos, 1996. Brawley, R. L. “An Absent Complem ent and Intertextuality in Jo h n 1 9 : 2 8 - 2 9 . 1 1 2 (1993) 427 -4 3 . Brown, R. E. The Death of the

Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 2 vols. New York; London: Doubleday, 1993. Carroll, J . T., and Green, J . B ., eds. The Death ofJesus in Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Flusser, D. “Zur Frage nach der ursprünglichen Bedeutung des Pilatusjesuswort ‘Ecce H om o.’” In Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament. Vol. 1: Jesusworte und ihre Überlieferung ed. M. Majer. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987. 164-75. Giesen, H. “Die Passiongeschichte nach Jo h 18,1— 19,42.” In Glaube und Handeln. Vol. 2: Beiträge zur Exegese und Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23, Theology 215. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Lang,

CIV

Su ppl e m e n t

1983. 55-71. Granskou, D. “Antijudaism in the Passion Account o f the Fourth Gospel.” In

Antijudaism in Early Christianity. Vol. 1: Paul and the Gospels, ed. P. Richardson and D. Granskou. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 2. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier UP, 1986. 201-16. Green, J . B . The Death ofJesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative. WUNT 2/33. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1988. Harvey, A. D. “Christ as Agent.” In The Glory of Christ in the New Testament. FS G. B. Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. 239-50. Heil, J . P. Blood and Water: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus inJohn 18-21. CBQMS 27. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association o f America, 1995. Johnston, G. “Ecce Homo! Irony in the Christology o f the Fourth Evangelist.” In The Glory of Christ in the New Testament. FS G. B. Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. 125-138. Menken, M. J . J . “The Old Testament Quotation in Jn 19,36: Sources, Redaction, Background.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2101-18. Senior, D. The Passion ofJesus in the Gospel ofJohn. Passion Series 4. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991.

Joh n 20 Baarda, T. “Jesus and Mary (John 20, 16f) in the Second Epistle on Virginity Ascribed to Clem ent.” In Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments. FS H. Greeven, ed. W. Schräge. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1986. 35 -5 6 . Balz, H. “Johanneische Theologie und Ethik im Licht der ‘letzte Stunde/” In Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments. FS H. Greeven, ed. W. Schrage. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1986. 35-36. B elle, G. van. “T h e Meaning o f σημβια in J n 20, 3 0 -3 1 .” ETL 74 (1998) 300-325. Brown, R . E. A Risen Christ in Eastertime: Essays on the Gospel Narratives of the Resurrection. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991. Carson, D. A. “The Purpose o f the Fourth Gospel: Jo h n 20:30-31 Reconsidered.” JBL 106 (1987) 639-51. Fee, G. D. “On the Text and Meaning o f J n 20, 3 0 -3 1 .” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BET L 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2193-2205. Judge, P. J . “A Note on J n 20, 29.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. B E T L 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2183-92. Kremer, J . “‘Nimm deine Hand und lege sie in meine Seite!’ Exegetische, herm eneutische und bibeltheologische Überlegungen zu Jo h 20, 2 4 -2 9 .” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2153-81. M cGehee, M. “A Less Theological Reading o f Jo h n 20:17.” JBL 105 (1986) 299-302. Smit Sibinga, J . “Towards Understanding the Composition o f Jo h n 20.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2139-52. Smith, R . H. Easter Gospels: The Resurrection of Jesus according to the Four Evangelists. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983.

Joh n 21 Busse, U. “Die ‘H ellenen’ Jo h 12,20ff. und der sogenannte ‘Anhang’ Jo h 21.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BET L 100. Leuven: Leuven UP/Peeters, 1992. 3:2083-2100. M oore, S. D. “How Jesu s’ Risen Body Becam e a Cadaver.” In The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament, ed. E. S. Malbon and E. V. McKnight. JSN TSup 109. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Pfitzner, V. C. “They Knew It Was the Lord: T he Place and Function o f Jo h n 2 1 :1 -1 4 in the Gospel o f Jo h n .” Lutheran Theological Journal 20 (1986) 64-75. Quast, К. Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis.JSN TSup 32. Sheffield: JS O T Press, 1989. Vorster, W. S. “T h e Growth and Making o f Jo h n 21.” In The Four Gospels 1992. FS F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven U P/Peeters, 1992. 3 :2 2 0 7 -2 1 . W elck, C. Erzählte Zeichen: Die

Wundergeschichten desJohannesevangeliums literarisch untersucht mit einem Ausblick aufJoh 21. WUNT 2/69. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994.

Part III

R eview s o f S ig n ifica n t R ecent B ooks on the G ospel

L. W. Hurtado. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion an d AncientJew ish M onotheism. L o n d o n : SC M ; P h ila d e lp h ia : F ortress, 1 9 8 8 . A thesis is p ro p o se d an d w orked o u t, nam ely, th a t th e C h ristia n C h u rc h o rig in a te d a m o n g a Jew ish p o p u la tio n th a t m a in ta in e d strict m o n o th e ism . T h is raises th e q u estio n , H ow did it c o m e a b o u t th a t it sp eed ily viewed Je s u s as th e S o n o f G od , e x a lte d in th e p re s e n c e o f G o d to b e th e M e d ia to r o f th e ju d g m e n t an d salvation o f Isra e l an d th e n atio n s? H u rta d o ru le s o u t th e in flu e n c e o f th e pag a n s’ polytheism , fo r th e re la tio n o f Je su s to G o d was an early fea tu re o f th e gosp el p ro c la im e d a m o n g Jew s. H e ap p eals to th e grow th o f th e c o n c e p t o f a divine ag en cy a m o n g th e Jew s in th e p o st-exilic p e rio d . T h e s e w ere o f th r e e kinds: (1 ) d ivine a ttrib u tes a n d pow ers, su ch as W isd om a n d th e L o g o s; (2 ) e x a lte d p a tria rch s, e g., E n o c h a n d M oses; a n d (3 ) p rin cip a l an g els, e .g ., M ich a el, Y a h o e l, an d M elch iz ed ek in th e Q u m ra n com m u nity. H u rta d o co n sid ers th e se fig u res to have b e e n d ev elo p ed fro m th e id e a o f G o d having a C hief a g en t, as kings a n d ru le rs w ere know n to have; on ly th e sc o p e o f th e o ffic e was u n iq u e to th e C reator, R uler, a n d R e d e e m e r o f th e u niverse. In P rov 8 W isd o m d ec la re s, “By m e kings re ig n a n d ru le rs m ak e laws th a t a re ju s t; by m e p rin ce s gov ern , an d all n o b le s w ho ru le o n e a r th .” S h e was p re s e n t a t th e cre a tio n o f th e w orld an d even b e fo re : “I was a cra ftsm a n a t his s i d e .. . . T h e L o rd possessed m e a t th e b e g in n in g o f h is w ork, b e fo re his d eed s o f o ld ” ( 8 :1 5 16, 2 0 , 3 0 ). T h e L o g o s, th e W ord , plays a sim ilar ro le in th e О Т , e x c e p t th a t h e is viewed as th e u tte ra n c e o f G o d , as in Ps 3 3 . T h e g re a t e x p o n e n t o f th e fu n c tio n s o f th e L o g o s is P h ilo (w ho re fe rs to th e L o g o s 1 4 0 0 tim es in his w ritin g s!). H e e x te n d s th e Jew ish c o n c e p t o f W isd o m a n d th e G re e k p h ilo s o p h e rs ’ n o tio n o f th e L o g o s, re fe rrin g to th e L o g o s as th e “first b o r n o f G o d ,” th e “n a m e o f G o d ,” a n d “g o v e rn o r a n d a d m in istra to r o f all th in g s” a n d in c lu d in g u n d e r L o g o s alm o st all th e a ttrib u tes o f G od . T h e О Т a n ce s to rs w ere re v e re d by th e Je w s, esp ecia lly E n o c h a n d M oses. H u rta d o cites Ju b. 4 :1 8 - 1 9 , w h ere E n o c h was given a vision in h is sleep in w hich h e saw ev ery th in g th a t is to h a p p e n “till th e day o f ju d g m e n t,” a n d h e w rote it all dow n. H u rta d o affirm s th a t th e re a re two ways in w hich E n o c h ca m e to b e view ed as G o d ’s c h ie f ag en t: th e id e n tific a tio n o f E n o c h in 1 Enoch 3 7 - 7 1 as th e S o n o f M an w ho c a rrie s o u t m essian ic tasks in e sc h a to lo g ic a l ju d g m e n t a n d re d e m p tio n , a n d th e tra d itio n th a t E n o c h was tra n sfo rm e d in to a g lo rio u s a n g e lic b e in g , a trad itio n th a t re a c h e d its a p e x in 3 Enoch w h ere h e is id e n tifie d w ith M eta tro n , “th e le sser Y ah w eh ” (ch a p s. 1 0 - 1 2 ) . T h e E n o c h tra d itio n h a d a rival in th e M oses tra d itio n . T h e G re e k te x t o f S ir 4 5 :2 says th a t G o d m a d e M oses “eq u a l in g lo ry to th e holy o n e s ” (th e a n g e ls ), b u t th e H eb rew te x t co m p a re s M oses w ith Elohim, th e u sual te rm fo r G o d , th o u g h it co u ld re fe r to th e an g els (e .g ., Ps 8 2 :1 ). W h e n M oses re ceiv ed th e law fro m G o d

CV1

Su ppl e m e n t

o n S in a i, h e is said to have d o n e so “fa c e to fa c e ” (S ir 4 5 :5 ) , w h ich is in h a rm o n y w ith th e b e lie f th a t M o ses’ a s c e n t to S in a i involved a d ire c t e n c o u n te r w ith G o d . T h e Exagoge o f Ezekiel, w ritten in G re e k by a Je w ish p o e t in th e se c o n d ce n tu ry B.C., d e scrib e s a d re a m th a t M oses re co u n ts to h is father-in-law , R a g u el, w ho in te rp re ts it fo r h im . O n M o u n t S in a i M oses saw a th r o n e th a t re a c h e d to h eav e n a n d o n it a “m a n ” sat, crow n ed a n d w ith a s c e p te r in h is h a n d . T h e “m a n ” to ld M oses to a p p ro a c h h im , an d M oses was given th e s c e p te r an d th e crow n an d was to ld to sit o n th e th r o n e . R ag u el, in te rp re tin g , says th a t M oses will o n e day se t u p a g re a t th r o n e a n d will ju d g e a n d le a d m o rtals. H u rta d o p o in ts o u t th a t in th e p o st-exilic p e rio d th e re was a te n d e n cy to p ostu la te a c h ie f a n g e l se t by G o d ov er th e e n tire h eav en ly h ierarch y . M . W e r n e r su gg ested th a t th e C hristolo gy o f th e early C h u rc h p re s e n te d J e s u s ’ re s u rre c tio n as h is tra n sfo rm a tio n in to an a n g e lic b e in g , so c r e a tin g an “a n g e lic C h risto lo g y ” ( Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas [ B e r n : H a u p t, 1 9 4 1 ; 2 n d e d . 1 9 5 4 ] ) . H u rta d o asserts th a t th e q u e stio n is n o t w h e th e r th e N T p re sen ts C h rist as an a n g e l b u t w h e th e r Jew ish an g e lo lo g y assisted early Je w ish C h ristia n s in c o m in g to te rm s w ith th e e x a lte d C h rist as С. C. R ow lan d has m a in ta in e d ( The Open H eaven [L o n d o n : S. P. C. K , 1 9 8 2 ] 9 4 - 1 1 3 ) . In D a n 1 0 :2 - 9 a vision o f a n a n g e lic fig u re is r e c o u n te d . T h e a n g e l G a b rie l is n a m e d in D an 8 :1 5 - 2 6 ; sin c e th e fig u re in D an 10 in tro d u c e s th e last re v ela tio n given to D a n ie l, it co u ld b e a re p e a te d r e fe r e n c e to G a b rie l. In D an 1 0 :1 3 -2 1 , how ever, M ic h a e l, “o n e o f th e c h ie f p rin c e s ,” ap p e a rs, a n d in 12:1 h e is c a lle d “th e g re a t p rin c e w ho h as ch a rg e o f y ou r p e o p le (Is r a e l)” w ho in th e fin a l tim e will “a rise ,” p resu m ab ly to play a le a d in g ro le in th e salvation o f th e e le c t. In 2 Enoch M ic h a e l is ca lle d th e “c h ie f o ffic e r o f G o d ” (so also in Testament o f Abraham, 3 Apocalypse o f B aruch [G r e e k v e r s io n ], J oseph an d A seneth). T h e War Scroll o f Q u m ra n tells o f M ich a e l overth ro w in g th e k in g d o m o f w icked ness an d ach iev in g e te rn a l s u c c o r f o r th e re d e e m e d (1 Q M 1 7 :6 - 8 ) . T h e a n g e l M e lch iz e d e k sim ilarly e x a c ts th e v e n g e a n c e o f G o d a n d re scu es th e e le c t fro m “th e h a n d o f B e lia l” ( l l Q M e lch 2 :4 - 5 ) . In th e Apocalypse o f Abraham G o d c o m m a n d s a n a n g e l n a m e d Y a h o e l “th ro u g h th e m e d ia tio n o f m y in e ffa b le n a m e ” to s tre n g th e n A b ra h a m in his tre m b lin g (Apoc. Abr. 1 0 :3 - 4 ) . Yahoel clearly c o m b in e s th e H eb rew n a m e s fo r G o d , Yahweh a n d El. T h e a n g e l th e n speaks o f “G o d ’s in e ffa b le n a m e in m e ” to e x e rc is e au th o rity ov er th e living cre a tu re s w ho s u rro u n d G o d ’s th r o n e a n d ov er L ev ia th a n ( Apoc. Abr. 1 0 :8 - 1 7 ) . H u rta d o ( 9 1 - 9 2 ) co n c lu d e s fro m this review th a t th e Jew s h ad a fu n d a m e n ta l c o n c e p t th a t G o d h ad a c h ie f a g en t, w h e th e r p rin cip a l a n g e l, e x a lte d p a tria rc h , o r a d ivine a ttrib u te d e sc rib e d in p e rso n ifie d la n g u a g e. T h is tra d itio n m ay have a id e d th e first C h ristia n s to u n d e rsta n d th e e x a lta tio n o f Je s u s to h eav en ly au th o rity n e x t to G o d . H u rta d o ’s a rg u m e n t c o m m e n c e s fro m th e c o m m o n a g re e m e n t th a t all C h ristia n r e fle c tio n o n th e p e rs o n a n d w ork o f Je s u s flow s fro m th e b e l ie f in th e re su rre c tio n o f Je s u s in th e e a rlie st C h ristian C h u rch . T h e re s u rre c tio n was u n d e rsto o d as involving two th in g s: (1 ) th e v in d ica tio n o f th e c r u c ifie d o n e as a m e ssian ic c la im a n t a n d (2 ) h is e x a lta tio n to a p o sitio n o f h eav en ly g lo ry (se e A cts 2 :3 3 - 3 6 ; R o m 1 :1 -4 ; 1 C o r 8 :1 - 6 ; 1 5 :2 0 -2 8 ; P h il 2 :9 - 1 1 ; 1 T h e ss 1 :9 - 1 0 ) . T h e s e passages fro m th e le tte rs o f P au l a re very early, a n d all m ak e u se o f th e

P a rtili

cvii

ca te g o ry o f d ivine agency. H u rta d o o b serv es th a t th e C h ristian a p p ro p ria tio n o f th e Jew ish ca te g o ry o f d ivine ag en cy en tails a sig n ifica n t m u ta tio n in this traditio n a n d in m o n o th e is tic d ev o tio n . I t was a d ire c t ou tgrow th fro m a n d variety o f Jew ish tra d itio n , b u t early o n it e x h ib ite d a su d d en an d sig n ifica n t d iffe re n c e fro m Jew ish d ev o tio n . T h e p la ce o f Je s u s in th e relig iou s life a n d d ev o tio n o f C hristian s was u n iq u e an d in clu d e d th e w orship o f Je s u s n o rm ally reserv ed fo r G od . It is im p o rta n t to re co g n iz e th a t this h a p p e n e d a m o n g Jew s firm ly co m m itte d to “o n e G o d ” (as evok ed in th e S h e m a o f D e u t 6 :4 - 5 ) . S ix fea tu re s o f this m u ta tio n sh o u ld b e n o tice d : (1 ) C h rist was a d o red in th e hym ns o f early C h ristian w orship, e.g ., P h il 2 :6 - 1 1 ; C ol 1 :1 5 -2 0 ; 3 :1 6 -1 7 ; E p h 5 :1 4 ; 1 T im 3 :1 6 ; an d m any passages in th e B o o k o f R ev elatio n (e .g ., l :5 b - 6 ; 5 :9 10, 1 3 - 1 4 ; 7 :1 5 -1 7 ; 1 5 :3 -4 ; 1 9 :7 - 8 ) . (2 ) Prayers w ere o ffe re d to C hrist. W h ereas early C h ristian prayers w ere co m m o n ly d ire cte d to th e F a th e r o f Je su s, th e ex alted C h rist was also so ad d ressed (cf. 1 C o r 1 6 :2 2 ; 2 C o r 1 2 :2 - 1 0 ) . (3 ) T h e n am e o f C h rist was u sed in th e b ap tism al in itia tio n rites, first in th e n a m e o f Je s u s o r th e L o rd Je s u s , b u t la te r in th e n a m e o f th e F a th e r a n d o f th e S o n an d o f th e H oly S p irit (M a tt 2 8 :1 9 ). R o m 6 :1 - 1 4 re m in d s C hristian s th a t b ap tism is in to th e C h rist w ho d ied an d was b u rie d an d ro se fro m d eath , an d in bap tism th e b ap tized is o n e w ith th e L o rd in his red em p tiv e acts. (4 ) S o also th e L o rd ’s S u p p e r was c e le b ra te d fro m th e e a rlie st days o f th e C h u r c h ’s e x iste n ce . In 1 C o r 1 0 :1 6 17 P au l speaks o f th e “cu p o f blessin g ” as “p a rticip a tio n in th e b lo o d o f C h rist,” an d th e “b re a d w hich we b re a k ” as a “p a rticip a tio n in th e bod y o f C h rist,” th ereb y in d ica tin g a co n tin u a tio n o f th e su stain in g pow er o f th e d ea th an d re su rre ctio n o f Je su s. (5 ) T h e early C hristian s a d o p te d th e p ra c tice o f “co n fessin g ” fa ith in Je s u s (cf. M att 1 0 :3 2 ; J o h n 9 :2 2 ; R o m 1 0 :9 ; 1 J o h n 4 :2 - 3 , 1 5 ), a d istinctive p ra ctice n o t fo u n d , fo r e x a m p le, in th e e sc h a to lo g ica l co m m u n ity a t Q u m ra n with re sp e c t to M elch ized ek . (6 ) T h e B o o k o f R ev elatio n is an in sta n ce o f a C hristian p ro p h e t u tte rin g an e x te n d e d p ro p h e cy as th e words o f th e living C hrist. In th e in tro d u c tio n h e d escrib e s it as “th e R ev elatio n o f Je s u s C h rist w hich G o d gave h im .” In 1 C o r 1 2 :1 0 ,1 4 :2 0 P au l affirm s th a t any c o n g re g a tio n w ould have m em bers g ifted by th e S p irit to b e p ro p h e ts. It sh o u ld n o t b e fo rg o tte n th a t Je s u s h im s e lf p ro cla im e d th a t th e k in g d o m o f G o d h ad b e e n in au g u rated in his m inistry a n d w ould b e c o m p le te d in h is fu tu re co m in g as th e S o n o f M an. M ark 8 :3 8 an d L u k e 1 2 :8 -9 m ak e life in th e k in g d o m o f G o d d e p e n d e n t o n resp o n se to his m essage. T h is co n v ictio n o f Je s u s surely n ee d s to b e tak en in to a c c o u n t in this d iscussion. H u rta d o (1 1 5 ) says “ [Jesus] seem s to have rested all th a t h e did u p o n th e firm co n v ictio n th a t h e h ad b e e n se n t by G o d .” T h is is surely th e b e lie f o f th e a u th o rs o f th e fo u r G osp els, fo r th e e ffe c t o f th e p re -E aster m in istry o f Je s u s o n his follow ers was c ru c ia l to th e d ev o tio n to Je s u s in th e p o st-E aster p e rio d . A d m ittedly th e Synoptists re co rd only two in stan ce s o f Je s u s re fe rrin g to his b e in g se n t fro m o r by th e F a th e r (M ark 9 :3 7 par., a n d M ark 1 2 :6 in th e p a ra b le o f th e w icked fa rm te n a n ts ). T h e fo r m e r sta tem e n t, how ever, is very sig n ifican t: “W h o ev er receives o n e o f su ch ch ild re n in my n a m e receives m e, a n d w hoever receives m e receiv es n o t m e b u t th e o n e w ho se n t m e .” B u ltm a n n co n c lu d e d th a t this affirm a tio n is c e n tra l to th e C hristolog y o f th e F o u rth G o sp el, fo r in th e G o sp el oí J o h n are sev en te en o c c u rr e n c e s o f th e p h rase “H e w ho se n t m e ” (ό πέμψ α ς μ ε ), six o f “th e F a th e r who se n t m e ,” an d fifte e n o f th e synonym ous verb άττοστέλλειν,

cviii

Su ppl e m e n t

“to se n d ” (The Gospel o f John, 2 4 9 n. 3 ) . A w areness o f this l e d j. A. B u h n e r to w rite his in sigh tfu l work Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium, W U N T 2 (T ü b in g e n : M o h r-S ieb e ck , 1 9 7 7 ). I t is a p ow erfu l su p p o rt fo r H u rta d o ’s b o o k , fo r its e m p h a sis is o n th e o rig in o f th e c o n c e p t o f a m e ssen g er fro m G o d a n d o n th e co n v ictio n th a t th e F o u rth E v an gelist e x te n d s th e “se n d in g ” o f Je s u s as th e S o n o f G o d a n d S o n o f M an fro m h eav en . H u r t a d o ’s b o o k is a n im p o r ta n t c o n t r ib u t io n to th e u n d e r s ta n d in g o f C hristology, fo r w hich we have cau se to b e g ratefu l.

M. Hengel. TheJohannine (Question. Tr. J . B ow d en. L o n d o n : SC M ; P h ila d e lp h ia : T rin ity Press In te rn a tio n a l, 1989. M a rtin H e n g e l has p ro d u ced a highly sig n ifica n t w ork o n th e F o u rth G o sp el an d its p ro b lem s. H e is well aw are o f th e reality o f th o se p ro b lem s, w hich is why h e has se t a p a rt a se c tio n o f his b o o k (pp. 1 0 2 - 8 , divided in to tw enty-three n u m b e r e d p a rag rap h s) e n title d “My own a tte m p t a t a so lu tio n .” T h is is a c o n c e n tr a te d sta te m e n t o f his co n v ictio n s, o f w hich th e follow in g is a b r ie f sum m ary. 1. T h e a u th o r o f th e G o sp el is J o h n th e E ld er, le a d e r o f a C h ristian sc h o o l w ho co m p o se d th e w ork over a le n g th y p e rio d . 2. T h e E v an g elist takes a c c o u n t o f th e sy nop tic G osp els w ith ou t b e in g d e p e n d e n t o n th e m . T h e P a ra cle te is his p rim a ry gu id e. 3. T h e E v an gelist is an eyew itness to “th e h u m a n reality a n d th e doxa [glory] o f C h rist.” Sev en signs a re se le c te d fro m an exten siv e c o lle c tio n o f signs o f Je s u s a n d illu strate th e a n tid o c e tic te n d e n cy o f th e G osp el. 4. T h e a u th o r is n o t versed in rh e to ric ; his w ork is sui genens, re fle c tin g discussion s in th e “s c h o o l.” 5. T h e e n tire w ork is d o m in ated by th e d ialectic o f ten sio n b etw een “tru e G o d ” an d “tru e m a n .” 6. T h is is m a tch e d with th e am bigu ity o f n u m ero u s term s su ch as see in g th e g lo ry o f th e in c a rn a te o n e , th e la m b , a n d th e serv a n t o f G o d , b e in g b o r n anew a n d fro m above, S p irit an d w ind, etc. 7. U n d erly in g th e sym bolic sig n ifica n ce o f m iracles an d actio n s o f Je s u s is “th e m u ltip licity o f a p p ro a c h e s w hich ex p ress th e o n e a ctio n o f G od , th e se n d in g o f th e S o n fo r th e salvation o f th e w orld .” M o d e rn th o u g h t m ay d isting u ish various C h risto lo g ies h e re . 8. T h e u n d erly in g J o h a n n in e iron y g oes b a ck to o ra l te a ch in g , partly co m ic, partly critica l, le a d in g to m isu n d erstan d in g . 9. N o N T th in k e r has su ch in te g ra tin g pow er as th e F o u rth E vangelist. H e b o th sh ap ed an d b ro u g h t to g e th e r th read s o f th e h isto ry o f re lig io n fro m all sides: Q u m ra n , ap o caly p tic a n d w isdom lite ra tu re , ra b b in ic m id rash a n d Jew ish mystic is m , P h ilo , H e r m e tic a , a n d la t e r G n o s tic te x ts . T h e J e w is h e l e m e n t is p re d o m in a n t, b u t th e H e llen istic a sp e ct is n o t ab sen t. 10. M u ch is on ly h in te d a t in th e G o sp el an d rem ain s in c o m p re h e n s ib le b e ca u se th e p u p ils w ere “in itia te d ” b u t we a re n o t. W e m u st r e c k o n w ith th e possibility th a t b e h in d th e w ritten w ork th e re is a m o re ex ten siv e e s o te ric o ra l te a ch in g , re m o tely co m p a ra b le to P la to ’s A cadem y.

P a r tili

C1X

11. T h e a u th o r c a n n o t b e classified an d p ig e o n h o le d , any m o re th a n ca n Paul. H is ch risto lo g ica l th o u g h t is u n iq u e in its m any ch risto lo g ica l titles, an d they resu lt in an im pressive m u ltifo rm u nity d erived fro m “d iffe re n t C h risto lo g ie s.” 12. T h e E v an g elist was a tow ering te a c h e r w ho by th e S p irit-P a ra cle te p a in ted a p ictu re o f th e activity an d p ro c la m a tio n o f Je s u s d iffe re n t fro m th e Synoptists an d in tro d u c e d th e p o st-E aster p re -e x iste n ce an d e x a lta tio n C hristolo gy in to his d e scrip tio n o f th e G a lile a n m aster. 13. T h e r e is an u n c e rta in ty fa c to r h e re : we d o n o t know how fa r th e G osp el was fix ed , w h e th e r th e E v an g elist le ft b e h in d n o te s fro m his o ra l le ctu re s, an d w h eth er th e pu pils knew o f it an d its grow th. 14. J o h n ’s o ra l te a ch in g was m o re im p o rta n t th a n his w ritten w orks. H e issu ed few er w ritings th a n did P au l b e c a u se h e ta u g h t in his sch o o l. H e was a m an o f th e sp o k en w ord, n o t o f letters. 15. T h e G o sp el was p u b lish ed a fte r his d ea th a lo n g with his le tters. T h e s e writings a re ad d ressed to all th e c h u rc h e s. I f they h ad b e e n a sec ta ria n c a n o n o f a sep arate c h u rc h , they w ould n o t have b e e n a cc e p te d by o th e r ch u rc h e s. 16. T h e G o sp el a n d le tters will have b e e n p u b lish ed as co d ices, i.e ., in b o o k fo rm , as w ere all e a rlie r C h ristian b ib lica l texts, so settin g C hristian s a p a rt fro m Jew s w ith th e ir scrolls. It was a n e x te r n a l sign o f th e u nity o f th e C h u rch . 17. T h is new C h ristian fo rm o f c h u rc h lite ra tu re m ak es it p ro b a b le th a t th e w ork was co m p o se d as a new so rt o f “h o ly sc rip tu re ” fo r th e co m m u n itie s a n d th e ch u rc h e s. T h a t it was p u b lish ed as βύαγγέλιον κατά Ίωάννην, “T h e G o sp el a cco rd in g to J o h n ,” in su ccessio n to e a r lie r G osp els u n d e rlin e s this; it was to b e read as a C h ristia n liturgy. 18. Pupils o f th e sc h o o l o f J o h n o r a co m m issio n e d re d a c to r now p u t th e n o tices an d o u tlin es, w hich w ere possibly a tta ch e d , in to th e fo rm we have, an d this ex p lain s th e d iscrep a n cie s th a t lead to tran sp o sitio n th e o rie s. (P o in ts 19 an d 2 0 are o m itte d h e r e .) 21. In th e actual ed iting o n e ed ito r will have written, with a n u m b er o f colleagu es b e h in d him . T h e o lo g ica l rivalries will n o t have b e e n involved in th e w ork itself. 22. T h e title “T h e G ospel o f J o h n ” co m e s fro m ed itors, so giving already know n G osp els (th e Sy n op tics) with th e ir p re d o m in a n tly P e trin e tra d itio n a rival th a t ex p ressed th e n a tu re o f faith b e tte r th a n h ad its p re d ecesso rs. (P o in t 2 3 is o m itte d h e r e .) H e n g e l adds to th e above a tte m p t to su m m arize th e “p ro b le m ” o f th e F o u rth G osp el a m o d est adm ission: “O f co u rse this rem ain s h y p oth etica l (lik e all attem p ts to solve th e Jo h a n n in e q u estio n in th e last 1 5 0 y ea rs): th e a tte m p t to assign to th e Jo h a n n in e co rp u s o n e p a rtic u la r h isto ric a l lo c a tio n , an d o n e tow erin g th e o lo g ian an d fo u n d e r o f a sc h o o l as its au thor. How ever, I th in k th a t su ch a h yp othesis (w hich is n o t new a t all) has m o re to b e said fo r it th a n ag a in st it.” S u ch an attitu d e co m m a n d s o u r resp ect. W. R . G . L oader. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues. B eitrag e zur biblisch en E xeg ese u nd T h e o lo g ie 23. F ran kfu rt am M ain; New York: L ang, 1989. L o a d e r’s b o o k is a p ro fo u n d investigation in to th e C hristology o f J o h n ’s G ospel. H e m akes know n his in d eb ted n ess to B u ltm an n , w ho so u g h t th e ce n tra l stru ctu re

ex

Su ppl e m e n t

o f th e E vangelist’s th o u g h t. However, w hile h e ag rees th a t B u ltm a n n was fu n d am entally rig h t in his o u tlin e o f th e Jo h a n n in e story, h e ca n n o t ag ree th a t th e a u th o r d em yth ologized th e story so m u ch as B u ltm a n n b elieved . N evertheless, h e co n cu rs th a t th e rev elatio n -in fo rm atio n m o d el was tra n sfo rm e d in to a m o d el o f revelatione n c o u n te r as a sign ifican t aid fo r in te rp re tin g th e G osp el today. L o a d e r sees th e key to th e C h ristolo gy o f J o h n to b e th e F a th e r ’s se n d in g o f th e S o n in to th e w orld as h is envoy. H e sets fo r th th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e stru ctu re o f this c o n c e p t as follow s: T he Father sends and authorizes the Son, who knows the Father, comes from the Father, makes the Father known, brings light and life and truth, completes his Father’s work, returns to the Father, exalted, glorified, ascended, sends the disciples and sends the Spirit to enable greater understanding, to equip for mission, and to build up the community o f faith. O v er th e co u rse o f six te e n p ag es L o a d e r e x p o u n d s th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f this stru ctu re in th e G o sp el, m ainly by q u o tin g an d e x p la in in g th e sta tem e n ts in w h ich th e d etails a re m e n tio n e d . 1. T h e S o n was in th e b e g in n in g w ith G o d ( 1 :1 - 2 ) , in th e F a th e r ’s b o so m ( 1 :1 8 ) , th e on ly S o n o f th e F a th e r (1 :1 4 ; 3 :1 6 ) , sh a rin g th e F a th e r ’s g lo ry a n d love b e fo r e th e fo u n d a tio n o f th e w orld (1 7 :5 , 2 4 ) , a n d th e m e d ia to r o f c r e a tio n (1 :3 , 1 0 ). 2. T h e F a th e r h as given all in to th e S o n ’s h an d s (3 :3 5 ; 1 3 :3 ): au th o rity to ju d g e a n d to give life ( 5 :2 2 ) , co m m a n d ( 1 0 :1 8 ) , in s tru c tio n ( 8 :2 8 ) , a n d a task to c o m p le te (e .g ., 4 :3 4 ). T h e S o n th e re fo re d o es n o t a c t o f h is ow n a cc o rd (e .g ., 5 :3 0 ). 3. T h e S o n ’s k now led ge o f th e F a th e r resu lts fro m h is h av in g b e e n w ith th e F a th er, a n d to this Je s u s re fe rs o fte n (e .g ., 3 :3 2 ). N o o n e h as se e n G o d , b u t th e S o n h as ( 1 :1 8 ) . T h is follow s th e envoy-revealer m o d e l, w h ere th e s e n t o n e co m e s fro m , re p o rts to , a n d acts fo r th e s e n d e r (so 1 0 :3 2 - 3 8 ) . 4. T h e S o n co m e s fro m th e F ath er, fro m h eav e n in to th e w orld, th e re b y im plying a u th o rity a n d su p erio rity in c o n tra s t to th o se w ho a re o f th e e a r th (c f., e .g ., 6 :4 1 - 4 2 ; 7 :4 0 - 5 2 ) . 5. T h e S o n ’s m a k in g th e F a th e r know n is th e clim a c tic s ta te m e n t o f th e p ro lo g u e (1 :1 8 ) a n d a p p ea rs th ro u g h o u t th e G o sp el as Je s u s ad d resses th e Jew s. 6. Je s u s h as c o m e in to th e w orld as lig h t (e .g ., 1 :4 -5 , 7 - 9 ) a n d life; re fe re n c e s to life re ceiv ed by p e o p le b elie v in g in Je s u s a re c o m m o n th ro u g h o u t th e G o sp el a n d a re its aim ( 2 0 :3 1 ) . T h e o ffe r o f life w h en re fu sed b rin g s ju d g m e n t. T h e S o n d id n o t c o m e to ju d g e th e w orld ( 3 :1 7 - 2 1 ) , b u t h is co m in g b ro u g h t it, a n d Je s u s a ffirm s th a t it is fo r ju d g m e n t th a t h e ca m e ( 9 :3 9 ) . T h e fin a l r e je c tio n o f Je s u s o n th e cross b e c o m e s th e fin a l a c t o f ju d g m e n t fo r th e w orld (1 6 :1 1 ; 1 2 :3 1 ). T h e “I

Part UI

CXI

a m ” sta tem e n ts w ith a sim p le p re d ica te b e lo n g h e r e sin ce th ey fall w ithin th e revealer-envoy C hristolo g y (cf. 6 :3 5 - 5 1 ) as also d o th e m essian ic statem e n ts o f th e G o sp el (e .g ., 1 :4 1 , 4 5 - 4 9 ) . 7. T h e s e n te n c e “I t is fin ish e d ” (1 9 :3 0 ) is u tte re d by Je s u s o n th e cross. T h e sam e is said in 4 :3 4 a n d 1 7 :4 . T h e w ork re fe rs to th e co m m issio n o f th e revealerenvoy a n d his re tu rn to th e F a th er, having th e re b y m a d e h im know n. 8. J e s u s ’ g o in g is o fte n m e n tio n e d in th e c o n te x t o f c o m in g as in th e sum m ary sta te m e n t o f 1 3 :1 , a n d in th e last d isco u rses in p a rtic u la r Je s u s tells his d iscip les th a t h e is g o in g to th e F a th e r (1 4 :1 2 , 2 8 ). 9 . T h e e x a lta tio n , glory, a n d a sc e n sio n o f th e S o n a re r e fe r r e d to in a n ticip a tio n o f th e “h o u r ” in th e e a r lie r ch a p te rs o f th e G o sp el, b u t in 1 2 :2 3 th e arrival o f th e h o u r is ack n o w led g ed by Je s u s as in vv 2 7 - 2 8 , 3 1 - 3 2 , by th e o b serv atio n o f th e n a rra to r in 1 3 :1 , an d ag ain by Je s u s in 1 3 : 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 7 :1 , an d 17:5. 10. T h e co m m issio n in g o f th e d iscip les o cc u rs w h en th e risen Je s u s ap p ears to th e m o n th e ev e n in g o f th e re s u rre c tio n day a n d says, “As m y F a th e r has se n t m e, so I sen d y ou ” ( 2 0 :2 1 ). T h e y a re n o t o f this w orld a n d will fa c e th e sam e h a tre d an d r e je c tio n th a t th e S o n has fa ce d (1 5 :1 9 ; 1 7 : 1 4 , 1 6 ). B u t they to o have b e e n a u th o riz e d (2 0 :2 1 , 2 3 ). T h e ir a u th o riz a tio n is asso cia ted w ith th e g ift o f th e S p irit ( 2 0 :2 2 ) , an d it is w ith th e S p irit’s au th o rity th a t they will b rin g to th e w orld th e ev id en ce c o n c e r n in g Je s u s (see esp ecially 1 6 :8 - 1 1 ) . 11. Je s u s gives th e S p irit d ire ctly a fte r th e co m m issio n in g o f th e d iscip les ( 2 0 :2 2 - 2 3 ) . It is in th e last d isco u rses th a t th e p ro m ise o f th e S p irit is e x p o u n d e d in d etail. In 1 4 :1 6 -1 7 it is asso ciated with th e m ission o f th e d isciples an d e x p lain s how th e ir “g re a te r w orks” (1 4 :1 2 ) will b e possible. T h e S p irit is n o t a n o th e r revealer-envoy in d e p e n d e n t o f Je s u s ; th e tru th in to w hich h e lead s derives fro m Je s u s (cf. 1 6 :1 3 -1 5 ) . 12. I t is ab o v e all th ro u g h th e S p irit-P a ra c le te th a t g re a te r u n d e rsta n d in g co m e s o f w ho th e S o n was a n d is, w hat h e said a n d w hat h e is saying. W ith this g oes a c h a n g e o f c o m p re h e n s io n follow in g th e d ea th o f Je s u s a n d his re tu rn . In 2 :2 2 th e a u th o r o f th e G o sp el n o te s th a t Je s u s ’ te m p le w ord was re m e m b e re d an d u n d e rsto o d only a fte r Easter. J o h n 1 2 :1 6 is sim ilar. In 1 4 :1 9 -2 0 Je s u s p ro m ises sp ecial know led ge to his d iscip les c o n c e r n in g th e m u tu al in d w ellin g o f th e F a th e r a n d th e S o n a n d th a t o f th e S o n a n d th e d isciples. 13. T h e se n d in g o f th e d iscip les an d th e sen d in g o f th e S p irit are closely related to m ission . T h e S a m a rita n w o m a n ’s m ission to h e r own p e o p le is d escrib e d in 4 :2 9 - 3 0 an d in Je s u s ’ sta te m e n t a b o u t sow ing an d h arv e stin g ( 4 :3 5 - 3 8 ) . In 1 2 :2 0 th e G re e k s ’ a p p ro a c h to Je s u s a n d J e s u s ’ re sp o n se h in t o f th e Genti le m ission in th e n e a r fu tu re , a n d in 1 2 :3 2 Je s u s ex claim s, “I, i f I b e lifted u p , will draw all to m e .” S o th e d ea th , e x a lta tio n , an d g lo rifica tio n o f Je s u s will resu lt in th e sen d in g o f th e d iscip les eq u ip p e d by th e S p irit fo r m ission to th e w orld. 14. Finally, th e farew ell d iscou rses e x h o r t to u nity a n d th e im p a ct it has o n th e world. T h e new co m m an d o f Jesu s th at his disciples love o n e a n o th e r in 1 3 :3 4 -3 5 a n d his p ray er in 1 7 :2 1 -2 3 re fe r to th e e ffe c t u nity will have o n th e m ission. J o h n 1 2 :2 6 a n ticip a te s 1 7 :2 4 : th e S o n is u n ite d w ith th e F ath er, a n d th e d iscip les will sh are this glory. T h e above su m m ary o f L o a d e r’s stru ctu ral o u tlin e o f th e C hristology o f th e F o u rth G osp el is b u t a fra ctio n o f his work. O n e m ain issue o n w hich his readers may d iffer is th e ex p o sitio n o f re fe re n ce s to a to n e m e n t in th e G ospel. J o h n 3 :1 6

CX11

Su ppl e m e n t

has lo n g b e e n viewed as “th e g osp el in a n u tsh ell.” L o a d e r sees th e sta tem e n t as p ro b ab ly a trad itio n al fo rm u la tio n fo u n d elsew here in th e NT. B u t th e verses follow ing re p e a t th e fo rm u la tio n negatively a n d e x p o u n d it in term s o f th e co m in g o f lig h t in to th e w orld, suggesting th a t 3 :1 6 is a n o th e r way o f saying th a t th e F a th e r se n t th e S o n to save th e w orld by b rin g in g th e g ift o f lig h t a n d life. T h e u tte ra n ce o f J o h n th e B ap tist in 1:29 (an d 1 :36) is sim ilarly d ealt with, only m o re lengthily, an d even m o re unsatisfactorily. In my ju d g m e n t th e saying is alm ost certain ly to b e u n d e rsto o d as a m essian ic statem en t, th e “L a m b o f G o d ” b e in g an apocalyp tic c o n ce p t, re scu in g th e flo ck fro m th e ir e n e m ie s (see T. Jos . 1 9 :8 -9 ) . Tw o d isciples o f J o h n a t least h ea rd J o h n ’s w ords an d prob ab ly to o k th e m literally, b u t in th e ir la te r follow ing o f Je s u s an d in lig h t o f his cru cifix io n in te rp re te d th e words in term s o f th e Passover lam b , possibly co m b in e d with th e la m b o f Isa 5 3 . T h e in c id e n t o f th e b re a k in g o f th e legs o f th e two m e n cru cifie d with Je su s, w itnessed by a follow er o f Je s u s in J o h n 1 9 :3 1 -3 6 , led th e E vangelist enthusiastically to cite “T h e se things h ap p e n e d th a t th e scrip tu re b e fulfilled , ‘N ot a b o n e o f h im is to b e b ro k e n .’” T h r e e О Т passages are b e h in d this statem en t: E x o d 1 2 :4 6 an d N um 9 :1 2 , b o th fo rb id d in g b re a k in g a b o n e o f th e Passover lam b, an d Ps 3 4 :2 0 , w hich d escrib es G o d ’s ca re fo r th e righ teo u s su fferer: “H e guards every b o n e o f his body; n o t o n e o f th e m is b ro k e n .” T h e n a rra to r o f th e passage surely h ad in view th e d eath o f Je su s as th e Passover lam b , an d possibly th e ca re o f G o d fo r th e righ teo u s p erso n p e rsecu ted by godless h u m anity (see W is 2 :1 0 -2 4 ; 5 :1 - 9 ) . L o a d e r ack n ow led ges th e possibility th a t su ch S crip tu res view th e d ea th o f Je s u s as h av in g th e e ffe c t o f a to n e m e n t, b u t “they o c c u r largely in an in c id e n ta l m a n n er. . . . In a g o sp el fu ll o f ch risto lo g ica l re fle c tio n an d su m m aries, vicariou s a to n e m e n t is co n sp icu o u sly a b s e n t w h ere we sh o u ld m o st e x p e c t it. I t d o es n o t o c c u r in su m m aries, is n ev er th e fo cu s o f p a rtic u la r d e v e lo p m e n t o r d iscu ssion as a th e m e in itself, an d is a b s e n t as а m a jo r th e m e in th e last d isco u rses o f Je s u s w ith h is d iscip les” (1 0 3 ). N ev erth eless, th e d e a th o f Je s u s d o m in a te s th e F o u rth G o sp el m o re th a n it d o es any o f th e sy n op tic G osp els, a n d its v icariou s sign ific a n c e sh o u ld b e ack n ow led g ed u nhesitatingly. R . J . Cassidy. John's Gospel in New Perspective: Christology and the Realities o f Roman Power. M ary k n o ll, NY: O rb is, 1 9 9 2 . Cassidy’s b o o k is w ritten w ith th e co n v ictio n th a t th e F o u rth G o sp el h as in view th e p e rs e c u tio n o f th e C h u rc h by th e p o licies o f th e R o m a n E m p ire . T h is issue h as b e e n d iscussed in re la tio n to th e B o o k o f R ev ela tio n b u t hard ly with th e G osp e l o f J o h n in m ind . Cassidy draws th e a tte n tio n o f his re a d e rs to th e E v a n g elist’s re p re s e n ta tio n o f th e su rp assing sovereig nty o f Je s u s . Je s u s is p o rtray ed as co n sisten tly o u tm a n e u v erin g his Je w ish o p p o n e n ts a n d re m a in in g b ey o n d th e ir re a ch u n til his “h o u r ” has co m e (cf. 1 2 :2 3 , 27 ; 1 3 :1 ; 1 7 :1 ). W h e n έγ ώ d p i, “I a m ,” is u sed ab so lu tely in th e G o sp el, Je s u s p la ces h im s e lf o n th e level o f G o d a n d claim s to sp eak w ith th e a u th o rity o f G od . T h r e e titles a re a c c o rd e d to Je s u s in th e F o u rth G o sp el: “th e S avior o f th e W o rld ” (4 :4 2 ) , “my L o rd an d my G o d ” (2 0 :2 8 ) , a n d “L o r d ” (fre q u en tly th ro u g h o u t th e G o sp e l). Cassidy a ffirm s th a t th e se titles w ere c la im e d by th e R o m a n em p e ro rs. T h is is tru e o f th e first o n e ; th e se c o n d is alleg ed to have b e e n d e m a n d e d by D o m itia n ; th e th ird , however, is to o am b ig u ou s to b e in clu d ed

P a r tili

cxiii

even th o u g h Je s u s , a fte r w ashing his d iscip les’ fe e t, ack n o w led g ed th a t th e discip les so ad d ressed h im (1 3 :1 3 ). Cassidy ex p lain s th e im p o sitio n o f a tax o n th e Jew s to re p la c e th e a n n u a l paym e n t o f a d id ra ch m a by all m ale Jew s over th e ag e o f tw enty-one tow ard th e u p k eep o f th e Je ru s a le m tem p le. V espasian was a p p o in te d to cru sh th e u p risin g o f th e Jew s in P a le stin e in A.D. 6 6 , b u t th re e years la te r h e was a cc la im e d as em p ero r, so h e le ft his son T itu s to fin ish th e task. T itu s was su ccessfu l in ca rry in g o u t his o rd ers: h e d estroyed Je ru s a le m , in clu d in g its te m p le. V espasian d eterm in e d to te a ch th e Jew s a lesso n an d h ad a law e n a c te d th a t tra n sfe rre d th e p ay m en t o f th e d id ra ch m a fro m th e te m p le in Je r u s a le m to th e te m p le o f Ju p ite r in R o m e . T h is was re se n te d bitterly, b u t it raised d ifficu lties fo r Jew s w ho h ad b e c o m e C hristian s an d w ho b eliev ed they h ad n o o b lig a tio n to pay th e tax fo r a p ag an te m p le. T h is inevitably b ro u g h t a b o u t th e necessity fo r th e e x a m in a tio n o f Jew s w ho cla im e d e x e m p tio n fro m th e tax, a n d it h ig h lig h te d th e p o sitio n o f th e m any Jew s w ho h ad b e c o m e C hristians. A m o re seriou s issue was th e rise o f e m p e ro r w orship in a n d a fte r th e re ig n o f Augustus. As h e rose to power, h e e lim in a te d rivals a n d b e c a m e very p opu lar. H e was viewed as virtually a su p erh u m a n m o rta l, a n d h e c e le b ra te d th e arrival o f th e g o ld en age o f p e a ce by b u ild in g in R o m e th e ara pacis, th e “a lta r o f p e a c e .” O n his d eath h e was p ro c la im e d to b e divus, “d iv in e,” b u t u n d ersta n d a b ly as years passed th e re ig n in g em p ero rs, no tab ly C aligu la an d N e ro , th em selves claim e d in th e ir lifetim es th a t they w ere divine. Cassidy in clu d es D o m itia n in this th o u g h h e h ad th e re p u ta tio n o f b e in g a m o n ste r a n d c a rrie d th e im p eria l c u lt to an e x tre m e . H e is re p u te d to have h ad statu es o f h im s e lf e r e c te d in m any p laces, d em a n d e d th a t h e b e ca lle d Dominus et Deus, “L o rd a n d G o d ,” a n d viciously p ersecu ted th e ch u rc h e s. U n fo rtu n a te ly Cassidy h ad n o t read L. L . T h o m p s o n ’s w ork The Book o f Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (N ew Y ork ; O x fo rd : O x fo rd UP, 1 9 9 0 ). T h o m p s o n d em o n stra te s th a t D o m itia n ’s c h a r a c te r h a d b e e n sla n d e red by a g ro u p o f writers w hen T ra ja n cam e to th e th ro n e . T h e r e is n o p r o o f th a t D o m itian d em an d e d to b e ad d ressed as L o rd a n d G od , fo r th e re a re n o in scrip tio n s, co in s, o r m ed allio n s b e a rin g th e title d u rin g his re ig n , an d a cc o rd in g to Statiu s h e fo rb a d e th o se w ho ad d ressed h im as Dominus to d o so ( Silvae 1 .6 .8 1 - 8 4 ; see T h o m p s o n , Revelation, 1 0 5 - 6 ) . T h o m p so n , however, u n d e restim a tes th e th re a t o f th e e m p e ro r cu lt to th e ch u rc h e s. H e w rites, “F irst c e n tu ry R o m a n life was . . . o n e o f th e m o st in teg ra te d , p e a ce fu l, m e a n in g fu l p erio d s o f h isto ry fo r m o st o f th o se w ho lived in th e e m p ire ” ( Revelation , 2 3 7 n. 1 0 ). W h e n o n e b ears in m in d th a t R o m a n society was d e p e n d e n t o n sixty m illio n slaves, w hose status was largely th e re su lt o f th e c o n q u e s t o f o th e r c o u n trie s by R o m e ’s a rm ies, c o m p e llin g m any m a le slaves to b e c o m e g lad iators fo r th e e n te rta in m e n t o f crow ds in th e a m p h ith e a te rs an d fe m a le slaves to b e c o m e p ro stitu tes, su ch a s ta te m e n t is b ey o n d co m p re h e n sio n . T h o m p s o n m ay have v in d icated D o m itia n ’s ch a ra cte r, b u t h e m akes lig h t o f th e e m p e ro r cu lt to an in e x cu sa b le e x te n t a n d th e reb y validates a t le a st partially Cassidy’s thesis. Cassidy lays em p h asis o n P lin y ’s d ea lin g w ith C hristian s in B ith y n ia. Pliny received an o n ym o u s a lleg atio n s o f p e o p le b e in g C h ristian s an d th e re fo re refu sin g to ack n o w led g e T ra ja n as a g od . O n e x a m in in g su ch p e rso n s a n d fin d in g th e m guilty, h e h a d th e m e x e c u te d , b u t o n re ceiv in g a ccu sa tio n s th ro u g h in fo rm ers,

CX1V

Su ppl e m e n t

h e was u n c e rta in w h e th e r to co n tin u e in this way an d th e re fo re w rote to T ra ja n an d asked fo r his advice. H e told th e e m p e ro r w hat h e h ad b e e n d o in g thus far. T h e follow in g is an e x tra c t fro m his le tter: This is the line which I have taken with all persons brought before me on the charge o f being Christians. I have asked them in person if they are Christians, and if they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, with a warning o f the punishm ent awaiting them. If they persist I order them to be led away for execution----Now that I have begun to deal with this problem, as so often happens, the charges are becom ing more widespread and increasing in variety. An anonymous pamphlet has been circulated which contains the names o f a num ber o f accused persons. Among these I considered that I should dismiss any who denied that they were or ever had been Christians when they had repeated after me a formula o f invocation to the gods and had made offerings o f wine and incense to your statue (which I had ordered to be brought into court for this purpose along with images o f the gods), and furtherm ore had reviled the name o f Christ: none o f which things, I understand, any genuine Christian can be induced to do. (Pliny Epp. 10.96) P liny th e n passed o n to T ra ja n a d e scrip tio n o f C h ristian w orship th a t h e h ad g a th e re d fro m p e rso n s w ho h a d ce a sed to b e C hristian s. T h e ir p ra ctice s se e m e d to h im to b e h arm less. H e c o n firm e d th e tru th o f his im p ressio n s by h aving two w o m en , w hom C hristian s ca lle d d ea co n e sses, to rtu red . H e co n c lu d e d , “I fo u n d n o th in g b u t a d e g e n e ra te so rt o f cu lt ca rrie d to extrav agan t le n g th s.” T ra ja n w rote b a c k an d ap p rov ed b o th his m e th o d o f e x a m in a tio n a n d th e p u n is h m e n t h e m e te d o u t. T h is e x c h a n g e o f le tters to o k p la ce in A.D. 1 1 2 . I t raises th e q u e s tio n o f th e d a te o f co m p o sitio n o f th e F o u rth G o sp el, a n d w h e th e r su ch p e rs e c u tio n was ch a ra cte ris tic o f rep resen tativ es o f R o m a n pow er in th e e m p ire in e a r lie r years. C ertain ly N e ro was guilty o f even m o re savage p e rse c u tio n o f C h ristian s, b u t th a t to o k p la c e exclu siv ely in R o m e . In h is d iscu ssio n o f th e Farew ell D isco u rses, Cassidy n atu rally em p h asizes th e w arnings o f Je s u s c o n c e r n in g p e rse c u tio n o f th e d iscip les, n o tab ly in 1 5 :1 6 - 1 6 :4 a an d 1 6 :3 2 -3 3 . T h e first se c tio n clearly has Jew ish o p p o sitio n in m in d , b u t Cassidy p o in ts o u t th a t 16:1 a n d 1 6 :4 w ere sp o k en to p re v e n t apostasy o n th e p a rt o f th e d iscip les in fa ce o f p e rse c u tio n , w hich Pliny in h is e x a m in a tio n o f C hristian s e n c o u ra g e d in view o f its b e in g an issue o f life a n d d e a th f o r a c c u s e d C h ristia n s. A c c o r d in g to Cassidy, J o h n ’s w ord s w ere p h ra se d to m ak e th e m a p p lica b le to b o th fo rm s o f p e rs e c u tio n , re lig io u s an d p o litica l, Jew ish an d R o m a n . C ertain ly 1 6 :3 3 covers b o th perspectives even th o u g h th e o p p o sitio n o f th e Jew ish a u th o ritie s is m o re ev id en t th ro u g h o u t th e G o sp el. Cassidy has p e rfo rm e d a valuable service in draw ing a tte n tio n to th e ro le o f th e R o m a n pow er in th e p e rsecu tio n o f th e C h u rc h in th e early p e rio d o f its ex iste n ce. H e has, however, p laced m o re em phasis u p o n it th an is ju s tifie d in view o f th e Jew ish a u th o ritie s’ resistan ce to Je su s an d his follow ers in th e p e rio d o f his m inistry an d th e ir tre a tm e n t o f Jew ish C hristians afte r th e fall o f Je ru s a le m .

J . Ashton. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. O x fo rd : C la re n d o n , 19 9 3 . J o h n A s h to n ’s w ork o n th e F o u rth G o sp el is o u tstan d in g . It is a le n g th y w ork o f 5 9 1 p ages, an d its w riting o cc u p ie d h im fo r a t le a st te n years. S in c e its p u b lica-

P a r tili

cxv

tio n , it has b e e n la u d ed by review ers. W ith o u t d o u b t it will b e u sed as a n a u th o ritative so u rce fo r in te rp re tin g th e G o sp el o f J o h n fo r m any years to co m e . A sh to n is co n v in ce d th a t R. B u ltm a n n ’s co m m e n ta ry o n th e G osp el o f J o h n tow ers above all o th e r co m m e n ta rie s o n th e G osp el. H e th e re fo re b eg in s by review ing e a r lie r w orks o n th e F o u rth G o sp el “B e fo re B u ltm a n n ”; B u ltm a n n ’s own c o m m e n ta ry an d o th e r w orks o n J o h n h e treats u n d e r th e h e a d in g “B u ltm a n n ,” an d th a t se ctio n is follow ed by “A fte r B u ltm a n n .” A sh ton calls a tte n tio n to two qu estio n s d istin g u ish ed by B u ltm a n n : (1 ) w h eth er sch o lars are ju s tifie d in ch a n g in g th e o rd e r o f th e te x t, a n d (2 ) i f they a re , how th e d isp la ce m en ts a re to b e ex p la in e d . T h e rig h t to try to d iscover th e o rig in a l o rd e r d oes n o t d ep e n d o n answ ering th e sec o n d q u estio n successfully. B u ltm a n n co n c lu d e d th a t th e re d a cto r was fa ce d w ith a te x t in d iso rd e r an d h ad tried his b e s t to b rin g it in to ord er. H aving solved th a t p ro b lem to his satisfaction, h e tackled th e issue o f w here J o h n ’s G o sp el stand s in re la tio n to th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f early C hristianity. T o M artin D ib eliu s th e m a in p ro b le m o f C hristolo g y was how k now led ge o f th e h isto rical Je s u s c h a n g e d so qu ickly in to fa ith in th e heavenly S o n o f G od . B u ltm a n n d isting u ish ed b etw een faith an d re lig io n an d saw th e ce n tra l m essage o f th e F o u rth G o sp el as a call to faith . In P a rt II A sh to n n o te s th a t two q u estio n s arise w hen e x a m in in g a w ork o f lite ra tu re : (1 ) th e m e a n in g o f th e w ork investigated by an e x e g e te an d (2 ) situatin g th e w ork in its h isto ric a l c o n te x t w ith re g a rd to cu ltu re a n d society, so u rces a n d in flu e n c e s. T h e a u th o r focu ses p rim arily o n th e id eas o f th e F o u rth G ospel. “R eligio u s D isse n t,” th e first issue to b e co n sid ere d , is im p o rta n t sin ce J o h n is b o th Jew ish an d anti-Jew ish. Fam ily q u a rrels w ere p re cip ita te d by Je s u s ’ h a b it o f r e fe rrin g to G o d as his F a th er, w h ich le d Je w ish le a d ers to b eliev e th a t Je s u s cla im e d to b e eq u a l with G o d ( 5 :1 7 - 1 8 ) . T h e “I a m ” sayings are to b e lin k ed h e re . “B e fo re A b ra h a m was, I a m ” (8 :5 8 ) is th e m o st startlin g “I a m ” saying, b u t it is ro o te d in Jew ish trad ition (e.g., E x o d 3 :1 4 , ap ocalyp tic literatu re, an d M erk abah m y sticism ). J o h n 1 0 :3 0 -3 6 is even m o re startlin g , fo r Je s u s cites Ps 8 2 :6 , “I said you a re g o d s,” a n d ap p lies it to h im self. J . A. E m e rto n (JTS n.s. 11 [1 9 6 0 ] 3 2 9 3 2 ) n o te d th a t gods is tran slated in th e P esh itta (Syriac v ersio n ) by angels. T h e sam e te rm is a p p lied to spirits, h oly o n es, m in isters, p rin ce s, ch iefs, a n d even d ivine b ein g s; h e n c e , as A sh ton (1 4 9 ) ex p la in s, “th e w h ole heavenly c o u rt is e n cap su lated in th e p e rso n o f Je s u s .” N o w o n d er th a t this in fu ria ted his h earers. A sh ton (1 5 6 ) co m m e n ts, “I f th e Ju d a is m we know today is a sing le tre e (a lb e it w ith a n u m b e r o f b ra n c h e s ), a t th e tim e o f Je s u s it was a ju n g le .” In th e F o u rth G o sp el th e only c le a r synonym fo r Jew s is “th e c h ie f p riests a n d P h a rise e s” (Jo h n 1 8 :3 ,1 2 ; A sh ton , 1 2 4 - 5 9 ) . U n d e r “T h e C om m u n ity an d Its B o o k ” th e a u th o r argues th a t successive stages o f co m p o sitio n co rre sp o n d e d to th e ch a n g in g situ ation s o f th o se fo r w hom they w ere w ritten . T h e signs so u rce was a m issio n ary d o cu m e n t p ro m o tin g b e lie f in Je s u s . T h e rev elatio n d isco u rses a re b e s t th o u g h t o f as having b e e n b u ilt o n w ords o f a p re a ch e r. A passion so u rce a n d m any synop tic trad itio n s w ere ad o p ted . O n e p rin cip a l p re a c h e r was re sp o n sib le fo r th e m ain bod y o f G o sp el m aterial. A fin al re d a c to r ad d ed ch ap . 2 1 , th o u g h th e m a teria l was n o t n ecessarily less a n cie n t th a n th e re st (p. 1 6 6 ). T h r e e p erio d s in th e co m m u n ity ’s re la tio n to th e synag og u e ca n b e tra ced : early, w hen th e co m m u n ity receiv ed a w elco m e; m id d le, w hen th e n e e d aro se to d e fe n d th e faith an d th e re was a grow ing aw areness th a t

CXV1

Su ppl e m e n t

Je s u s was th e fu lfillm e n t o f m o re th a n th e m essian ic claim s m ad e fo r h im ; th e th ird p e rio d , w hen th e in n e r synagogu e g ro u p o f C h ristian Jew s was e x c o m m u n ica ted a n d so b e c a m e a sep arated com m u n ity o f Jew ish C hristians (see J . L . M artyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 6 6 ). A Jo h a n n in e S c h o o l has b e e n p ro p o sed as re sp o n sib le fo r th e F o u rth G o sp el an d its com m u nity. T h e d ifficu lty is its su p p o se d lo c a tio n , w h e th e r E p h e su s, A n tio c h , o r A le x a n d ria . K. W en g st

(Bedrängte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus: Der historische Ort des Johannesevangelium s als Schlüssel zu seiner Interpretation [N e u k irc h e n -V lu y n : N e u k irc h e n e r V erlag, 1 9 8 1 ]) p ro p o se d th e re g io n o f B a ta n e a a n d G au lan itis, th e k in g d o m o f H e ro d A grip p a II, w ho h ad Jew ish sym pathies. T h e su gg estion is possib le (A sh to n , 1 9 6 - 9 8 ) . U n d e r th e h e a d in g “D u alism ” A sh to n discusses th e d u alistic n a tu re o f th e F o u rth G o sp el in co m p a riso n with th e Synoptics. T h e a u th o r m ay have b e e n an E ssen e . T h e w orld as th e e a rth in o p p o sitio n to h eav en is re fle c te d in 1 8 :3 6 . B u t in 1 7 :1 6 a n d elsew h ere “w orld ” is th e w orld o f h u m a n k in d (cf. 3 :1 6 ), a h o riz o n ta l d ualism th a t is m o ra l o r e th ic a l. In th e p ro lo g u e , th e L o g o s is th e lig h t o f revelatio n , sh in in g in th e d arkness, “b u t th e d arkn ess did n o t o v erco m e it” ( 1 :5 ) . T h e lig h t o f re v elatio n is “th e life o f all p e o p le ” (1 :4 , cf. 8 :1 2 ), ag ain a m o ral d ualism , w hich also ap p lies to th e co n tra st b etw een tru th an d fa lse h o o d . T h e k in g d o m o f G o d o f th e Syn op tics is re p la c e d by life a n d d e a th , th e altern ativ e fo r in clu sio n in o r e x c lu sio n fro m th e k in g d o m . “E te rn a l life ” is synonym ous w ith “life ” in th e k in g d o m o f G o d . Its o p p o site is ju d g m e n t fo r th o se w ho r e je c t th e re v elatio n o f Je s u s . T h e ju d g m e n t m o tif m arks th e F o u rth G o sp el as th e m o st d u alistic o f th e fo u r G osp els. U n d e r “M essiah ” A sh ton n o te s th a t th e titles M essiah a n d S o n o f G o d a re h eld clo se to g e th e r in th e F o u rth G osp el. T h e fo r m e r lo o k s b a c k to a g lory ach iev ed a n d a p ro p h e cy fu lfilled ; th e la tte r lo o k s forw ard to th e C h ristian fu tu re a n d c o n stitu tes a claim to divinity. M o re th a n any o th e r passage in th e F o u rth G osp el, 1 :1 9 -5 1 le n d s plausibility to th e view th a t th e G o sp el was d esig n ed as a m ission ary tra ct, co n ta in in g th e testim o n y o f J o h n th e B a p tist to p riests an d L evites re g a rd in g his own id en tity an d his w itness to Je s u s as th e lam b o f G od . Tw o o f J o h n ’s d iscip les h e a rd his w itness to Je s u s an d sp e n t th e n ig h t with h im , th e n w en t to th e ir b ro th e rs an d told th e m th a t they h ad fo u n d th e o n e a b o u t w hom M oses w rote. U n d e r “Sign s a n d W o n d ers” th e a u th o r n o te s th a t th e first o f th e signs p erfo rm e d by Je s u s was ch a n g in g w ater in to w ine a t a w ed d ing feast. J e s u s ’ m o th e r draws his a tte n tio n to th e la ck o f w ine, w h ere u p o n h e ap p ears to re b u k e her. N ev erth eless, h e resp o n d s an d tells th e servants to fill th e larg e pots with w ater a n d to tak e so m e to th e h o st o f th e feast. T h e jo y given by th e tra n sfo rm a tio n o f w ater in to w ine is a n obvious lesson o f th e o cc a sio n , b u t still m o re it is a sign o f th e m essian ic tim es th a t have b e g u n (cf. Isa 2 5 :6 - 9 ) . J o h n 2:11 in d icates th a t to th e evan g elist th e “sign s” o f Je s u s a re m an ife sta tio n s o f G o d a t w ork in h im . W ith re g ard to th e title “S o n o f G o d ,” J o h n 7 :4 0 - 4 4 relates th a t Jew s a tte n d in g th e festival o f T a b e rn a cle s said o f Je s u s , “T h is is th e p ro p h e t,” o th e rs, “this is th e M essiah ,” yet otHers, “T h e scrip tu re said th e M essiah co m e s fro m D avid ’s sto ck a n d fro m B e th le h e m , th e village w h ere D avid w as.” T h e co n tro v ersy was g eo g rap h ical: Je r u s a le m is p itted ag ain st G a lile e, th e so p h isticate d so u th ag ain st th e u n le tte re d n o rth . T h e s ta te m e n t o f th e te m p le p o lice to th e c h ie f p riests an d

P a r tili

CXVll

P h arisees in 7 :4 2 , “T h is m a n has sp o k en like n o m a n b e fo re h im ,” is an ex a m p le o f th e division o f o p in io n a m o n g th e Jew s c o n c e r n in g Je s u s . T h e c e n tra l th e m e o f th e G o sp el is ex p ressed h e r e , i.e ., re v ela tio n (p. 3 0 2 ). T h e m ission o n th e lips o f Je s u s is lin k e d with his claim o f b e in g se n t by G o d (cf. 7 :2 8 - 2 9 ) . In th e О Т th e m ission m o tif is a sso ciated with p ro p h e ts, b u t this d oes n o t a c c o u n t fo r th e em phasis in th e F o u rth G o sp el o n Je s u s ’ h o m e in h eav en . Je s u s claim s to b e th e S e n t O n e o f G o d , his a g e n t (cf. e.g ., 1 3 :1 6 , 2 0 ; 1 6 :2 7 - 2 8 ) ; m o re sp ecifically h e speaks o f “th e F a th e r w ho se n t m e ” (e.g ., 5 :3 6 ). In th e Synop tics this is re fle c te d in th e p a ra b le o f th e w icked te n a n t fa rm e rs (M ark 1 2 :1 - 1 1 ) , a p a ra b le th a t is in creasin g ly co n sid e re d to b e a u th e n tic. T h e a b se n t o w n er o f th e lan d send s rep re sen ta tiv e s to th e te n a n t fa rm e rs to re ceiv e p a y m en t in k in d . A fte r th e ir ill tre a tm e n t, th e ow ner send s “his belo v ed so n ,” believ in g th a t they will re sp e ct him . J . D . M . D e r r e tt ( “T h e P a ra b le o f th e W ick e d V in e d re sse rs,” in Law in the New Testament [L o n d o n : D a rto n , L o n g m a n , an d T o d d , 1 9 7 0 ] 2 8 6 - 3 1 2 ) p o in ts o u t th a t th e p ro p h e ts a re w itnesses w ho w arn th e te n an ts th a t leg al a ctio n will b e tak en ag ain st th e m i f they r e je c t th e o w n er’s d em an d . T h e p a ra b le ex p lain s th e read iness o f th e o w n er’s son to b e se n t o n th e d a n g ero u s m ission (A sh ton , 3 1 4 - 2 8 ) . T h e title “S o n o f M a n ” o cc u rs in th e F o u rth G o sp el th irte e n tim es. It e m b o d ie s th e th e m e o f J e s u s ’ h e a v e n ly o r ig in a n d d estin y , in d ir e c tly a d d in g to M essiahship a n d S o n sh ip an d p re -e x isten ce . Its o rig in is in D an 7, b u t th e g ro u p o f sayings re la tin g to e x a lta tio n an d g lo rifica tio n (3 :1 4 ; 1 2 :2 3 , 3 4 ; 1 3 :3 1 ) is p aralle l to th e Sy n o p tic p assion p re d ic tio n s a n d sayings re g a rd in g Je s u s ’ e x a lta tio n to th e rig h t h a n d o f G o d (M ark 1 2 :3 6 ; 1 4 :6 2 ). T h e first saying c o n c e rn in g th e S o n o f M an is 1 :5 1 , d ire cte d to N ath an ie l w ho h ad said to Je s u s , ‘Y o u are th e S o n o f G od . You are th e k in g o f Is ra e l.” Je su s re p lied , ‘Y o u will see g re a te r things. . . . You will see h eav en o p e n e d an d th e an gels o f G o d a scen d in g an d d e sc en d in g o n th e S o n o f M a n .” T h e allu sio n to J a c o b ’s d rea m (G e n 2 8 ) is o fte n ta k en to re fe r to th e la d d e r o n w hich th e an g els w en t u p an d down to J a c o b , b u t ce rta in rabbis in te rp re te d th e an g els as d e sce n d in g “o n J a c o b ,” w ho was viewed in Jew ish lite ratu re as a c h i e f a n g e l. T h e S o n o f M an is th e n an in te rm e d ia ry , th e lo cu s o f re v ela tio n ( 3 4 2 - 4 8 ) . T h e a sc e n t o f th e S o n o f M an in 3 :1 1 - 1 3 relates to a vision o f h eav en sh ared by n o o n e else, an d h e d escen d s in o rd e r to m ak e know n w hat h e has see n . A c co rd in g to tra d itio n , M oses clim b e d S in a i to receiv e th e tab lets o f th e law b u t th e n w ent o n to h eav en . J o h n 3 :1 3 dism isses su ch claim s, w h eth er re g a rd in g M oses o r la te r apocalyptists (cf. 9 :2 8 ). T h e c h a r a c te r in D an 7 :1 3 - 1 4 is in te rp re te d in all fo u r G osp els as th e S o n o f M an a u th o riz e d by G o d to b e th e e sc h a to lo g ica l ju d g e a n d m essian ic re d e em e r, a n d in th e F o u rth G o sp el as th e ju d g e o f h u m a n k in d o n e a rth ( 3 5 7 - 6 3 ) . In th e sam e G o sp el, e x a lta tio n an d g lory a re asso ciated with c ru c ifix io n a n d re s u rre c tio n as in P ale stin ian A ram aic an d Syriac th e te rm ’izdĕqēp ca n m e a n b o th “b e lifted u p ” a n d “b e c r u c ifie d .” T h e E vangelist clearly wishes to ex p a n d th e m essian ic fa ith im p lied in th e title S o n o f M an. U n d e r “In tim a tio n s o f A p ocalyp tic” A sh ton observ es th a t E . K äsem an n in “T h e B e g in n in g s o f C h ristian T h e o lo g y ” (in New Testament Questions of Today [L o n d o n : SC M P ress; P h ila d e lp h ia : F o rtre ss, 1 9 6 9 ] 8 2 - 1 0 7 ) p u t forw ard th e thesis th a t ap o caly p tic was th e m o th e r o f all C h ristian theology. H e m ad e few allu sions to th e F o u rth G o sp el, b u t th e links a re many, various, an d im p o rta n t; if they are n e g le c te d , this is largely b e c a u se u n til re cen tly scho larly in te re st in ap ocalyp tic

cxviii

Su ppl e m e n t

was fo c u se d exclu sively o n fu tu rist ap o caly p tic. J o h n 3 :1 3 e c h o e s a n o ld b e lie f th a t h eaven ly sec re ts w ere im p a rte d to Je s u s a fte r h e a sc e n d e d to h ea v e n as a n ap o ca ly p tic visionary, b u t th e F o u rth G o sp el p re sen ts Je s u s as th e o th erw o rld ly visitan t s e n t to reveal th e tru th to h u m a n k in d . T h e G o sp el is n o t a n ap ocalyp se, b u t it d o es reveal heavenly m ysteries by a m e sse n g e r s e n t fro m h eav e n . I t is in d e b te d to ap o caly p tic in fo u r ways: two ages (m y stery ), two stages (d re a m o r v isio n ), a n d two pairs o f spatial co n tra sts (in sid ers-ou tsid ers a n d a b o v e-b elo w ). A m ystery o r a s e c re t o n c e h id d e n now rev ea led is th e e ss e n ce o f ap o caly p tic. By th e d evice o f pseudonym ity th e two ages w ere sep arate d by tim e betw een th e co m p o sitio n o f th e w ork an d re c o g n itio n o f its s ig n ifica n ce . In th e F o u rth G o sp el th e C h ristia n g o sp el is view ed as th e re v elatio n o f a m ystery. I. d e la P o tte rie (L a vérité dans Saint Jean , 2 vols. [R o m e : B ib lic a l In stitu te P ress, 1 9 7 7 ] 4 4 5 - 4 9 ) saw th a t “re v ea l” o r “u n v eil” is th e m e a n in g o f avayyeX keiv in J o h n 1 6 :1 3 . T h e P a ra c le te tak es ov er th e ro le o f “in te r p r e te r a n g e l” in ap o caly p tic. In sid ers-o u tsid ers a re th e wise an d fo o lish in 2 Enoch [A] 1 3 :4 9 -5 5 . S u ch a d istin c tio n is se e n in M ark 4 :1 1 - 1 2 . By esta b lish in g a gap b etw ee n rid d le te a ch in g (παροιμίαι; 1 6 :2 5 -3 3 ) an d in te rp re ta tio n , th e F o u rth E v an g elist shows h e is th e tru e h e ir o f th e a p o caly p tic tra d itio n . In th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e th e m e o f “D e p a rtu re an d R e tu r n ” in th e F o u rth G osp el, d ea th as a fin al jo u r n e y is tra n sfo rm e d in to a re tu rn fro m a m ission (7 :3 3 ). In th e farew ell d isco u rse, d e a th is a jo u r n e y w ith a g oal, a p a th to h eav en . T h e s ta te m e n t in 14:1 is a n e n c o u ra g e m e n t fo r fa ith in G o d a n d in Je s u s — “K e e p o n b e lie v in g !” (c f. 1 4 :1 5 , “K e e p m y c o m m a n d m e n ts ”; a n d 1 4 :2 3 - 2 4 , “K e e p m y w ord s”). W h e n is Je s u s e x p e c te d back ? T h e la tte r h a lf o f th e first d isco u rse a n sw ers “a f t e r th e r e s u r r e c t i o n .” M o s t c o m m e n ta t o r s a s c r ib e to th e F o u r th E v an gelist a realized esch ato log y — all fu tu re h o p e s a re a n ticip a te d in th e p resen t. J o h n 1 4 :2 - 3 is c o n sid e re d by C. H . D o d d to b e “th e clo se st a p p ro a ch to th e trad itio n a l lan g u ag e o f th e C h u rc h ’s esch ato log y ” ( The Interpretation o f the Fourth Gospel, 4 0 4 ; e .g ., 1 T h e ss 4 :1 7 ). B u t 1 4 :2 - 3 is se t in h ea v e n , a n d th e ev an g elist c o u ld n o t have allow ed th e two statem e n ts as co n tra d icto ry . T h e L a tin F a th ers view ed 1 4 :1 8 as a re em p h asis o f th e p ro m ise o f vv 2 - 3 , b u t J e s u s ’ w ord th a t th e d iscip les will s ee h im “in a little w h ile” p o in ts to E aster. T h e re s u rre c tio n a p p e a ra n ce s are p resag es o f a p e rm a n e n t p re s e n c e , a n d th e h o p e o f a se c o n d co m in g has b e e n b o th re alized a n d tra n sfo rm e d . B u ltm a n n in te rp re ts E a s te r a n d th e p a ro u sia as th e sam e ev en t, b u t С. К B a r r e tt sees h e r e “a stu d ied am b igu ity ” ( The Gospel according to St. John , 4 9 1 ) — th e d e p a rtu re a n d r e tu r n o f Je s u s in h is d e a th an d re s u rre c tio n , a n d th e d e p a rtu re a t th e a sc e n sio n a n d re tu rn a t th e p arou sia. As th e F o u rth G o sp el m oves o n to th e “P assion a n d R e s u rre c tio n ,” in 1 2 :2 3 Je s u s d ecla re s, “T h e h o u r has c o m e fo r th e S o n o f M an to b e g lo rifie d .” T h e r e is th e re fo re an im p o rta n t sen se in w hich Je s u s was n o t y et g lo rifie d w hile o n e a rth (cf. 7 :3 9 ). T h e p ray er in 1 2 :2 7 conveys th e agon y o f Je s u s in p ro sp e ct o f his d ea th , b u t c o n q u e r in g su ch te m p ta tio n , h e prayed , “F ath er, glorify y ou r n a m e ,” w hich b ro u g h t th e answer, “I have g lo rifie d it, a n d I will glorify it a g a in .” T h is m e an s th a t Je s u s in his m in istry g lo rifie d th e F a th er, a n d his passion will b e a se c o n d g lo rific a tio n (A sh to n , 4 9 4 - 9 5 ) . T h e synoptic G ospels im p o rte d in fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g th e re su rre ctio n o f Je s u s in to th e ir a cc o u n ts o f th e life o f Je s u s , a n d th e F o u rth E v an gelist to o k ov er n a rra tives o f J e s u s ’ a p p e a r a n c e s in a ty p ically J o h a n n i n e way. F o u r e p is o d e s a re

P a rtili

CX1X

re co rd e d in J o h n 2 0 . A c co rd in g to A sh ton , n o w h ere d o es th e ev an g elist m ove fu rth e r fro m h istory th a n in th ese stories. T h e y a re n o t a cco u n ts o f w hat h ap p e n e d b u t m o ra l tales to drive h o m e a series o f lessons. A sh ton (5 0 3 ) cites D o d d ’s a ttem p t to m ak e sen se o f 2 0 :1 - 2 3 as a co n tin u o u s n arrativ e, b u t th a t is “to e n te r an A lice in W o n d erla n d w orld w h ere o n e ev en t su cceed s a n o th e r w ith th e crazy lo g ic o f a d re a m .” H e la te r w rites ( 5 1 1 ), “O n ly a re a d e r w hose own im aginative resp o n ses have b e e n b lu n te d by fam iliarity o r cred u lity will b e le ft u n d istu rb ed by th e sh ift fro m th e e le g a n c e a n d fin esse of, say, th e farew ell d iscou rses to th e fairy-tale a tm o sp h e re o f th e re s u rre ctio n stories. It is lik e fin d in g H an s C h ristian A n d ersen h a n d in h a n d w ith S ø re n K ierk eg a a rd .” D esp ite th e se s trin g e n t statem en ts, A sh ton p o in ts o u t th a t e a c h o f th e fo u r ep iso d es in ch a p . 2 0 , ta k en o n its own, co n stitu tes an effectiv e e n d in g to th e G o sp el, a n d h e adds ( 5 1 1 ), “T h e C ru cified O n e is rightly re co g n iz ed as th e R isen L o rd ; in p u rsu in g its m ission th e co m m u n ity re-en acts th e e x p e rie n c e o f Je s u s h im s e lf.” T h is last s e n te n c e re q u ires in te rp re ta tio n sin ce it re m in d s o n e o f P a u l’s v ery d iffe re n t o u tlo o k a n d theology. O n e e le m e n t o f th e Jo h a n n in e passion n arrativ e w ould ea se th e in te rp re ta tio n o f th e re su rre c tio n : th e re p re se n ta tio n o f th e d ea th o f Je s u s as a “liftin g u p ” e n tailin g g lo rifica tio n p resu m es th e in sep arab ility o f th e d e a th an d re su rre ctio n o f Je s u s , as in 1 2 :3 2 , “I, i f I am lifted u p fro m th e d ea th , will draw all to m yself,” an d 1 3 :3 2 , “I f G o d b e g lo rified in h im [th e S o n o f M a n ], G o d will glorify h im in h im self, an d will glorify h im very s o o n .” T h is in te rp re ta tio n is co m m o n ly a d o p ted , a n d th e p ro b le m o f re la tin g to o th e r re s u rre c tio n a p p e a ra n ce s in th e G ospels an d in 1 C o r 1 5 :1 -1 1 ca n b e w orked o u t w ith p a tie n c e , to say n o th in g o f th e su p ern a tu ra l e le m e n ts o f th e re s u rre c tio n a p p e a ra n ce s them selves. In e x a m in in g this n o ta b le study th e re a d e r m u st n o te how th e tren d , m o st telling ly see n in th e p io n e e r in g w ork o f E . C. H oskyns a n d e la b o ra te d in C. H . D od d , n am ely th a t J o h n ’s G o sp el is d o m in a te d by a passion m o tif th ro u g h o u t, has co m e to fu ll ex p ressio n .

G. van B e lle . The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel: Historical Survey and Critical Evalu-

ation of the Semeia Hypothesis. B E T L

1 1 6 . L eu v en : L eu v en U P / P e e te rs, 1 9 9 4 .

T h e ση μ εία , “signs,” hypothesis has b e e n widely discussed in r e c e n t years, an d van B e lle has th orou gh ly investigated its o rig in an d its value. H e sees its b e g in n in g in th e w ork o f A le x a n d e r Schw eizer, p u b lish e d in 1 8 4 1 , e n title d Das Evangelium

Johannes nach seinem innem Werthe und seiner Bedeutung fü r das Leben J esu kritisch untersucht (Leipzig: W eid m an ). Schw eizer ad o p ted C. H . W eisse’s id ea th at two authors w ere resp on sible fo r th e m aterial o f th e F o u rth G ospel, o n e fo r th e discourses a n d th e o th e r fo r narratives (Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet [Leipzig: B re itk o p f & H artei, 1 8 3 8 ]). T h e co h e re n t co m p ositio n was in te rru p te d by in terp olatio n s, sh o rte r ad d itions fro m th e sam e p erso n , especially in th e G alilean section s ( 2 :1 - 1 2 ; 4 :4 4 -5 4 ; 6:1 —2 6 ; plus ch ap . 2 1 ). Schw eizer fo u n d few follow ers, an d h e re tra c te d his c o m p o sitio n th e o ry in 1 8 6 4 . Η . H . W en d t also a d o p ted W eisse’s d istin ction betw een narratives an d d iscourses in J o h n (see The Teaching of Jesus, 2 vols. [New York: S crib n er, 1 8 9 6 (G e rm a n o rig in al, 1 8 8 6 ) ] ) . F o r th e special J o h a n n in e m aterial, th e evangelist used a so u rce o f dialogu es an d discou rses an d ad d ed narratives to w ork in this trad ition . T h e fo rm e r m aterial was a “valuable o ld e r so u rce” an d m ay have co m e fro m th e B eloved D isciple. W. N icol

cxx

Su ppl e m e n t

(see b elo w ), J . B e c k e r ( “W u n d e r u n d C h risto lo g ie : Z um lite ra rk ritis c h e n u n d ch risto lo g isch e n P ro b le m d e r W u n d e r im Jo h a n n e s-e v a n g e liu m ,” NTS 16 [ 1 9 6 9 7 0 ] 1 3 0 - 4 8 ), an d G. R ich te r (“P räsen tisch e u n d fu tu ristisch e E sch ato lo g ie im 4. E v an geliu m ,” in Gegenwart und kommendes Reich , F S A. V ö gtle, ed . P. F ied le r an d D. Z e ller [Stu ttgart: K ath olisch es Bibelw erk, 1 9 7 5 ] 1 1 7 -5 2 ) c o u n t W en d t a m o n g th e fo re ru n n e rs o f th e semeia hypothesis. F. S p itta ’s w ork o n this hypothesis is m o re im p o r ta n t ( D as Johannes-E vangelium als (Quelle der Geschichte Jesu [ G ö ttin g e n : V a n d en h o eck Sc R u p re ch t, 1 9 1 0 ]). U n lik e W en d t h e so u g h t th e h isto rical k e rn e l n o t only in d iscourses b u t also in narratives. H e su ggested th a t ch ap . 21 was jo in e d to a Grundschrift, “fo u n d a tio n a l d o cu m e n t,” by a re d a c to r in o rd e r to su p p le m e n t re su rre ctio n ap p earan ces with G alilean narratives. T h e p r e - J o h a n n in e s o u r c e was m o r e c le a r ly d e f in e d by A . F a u r e as a W underbuch, “m ir a c le b o o k ” (in “D ie a lt te s ta m e n tlic h e n Z ita te im v ie r te n E v an geliu m u n d d ie Q u e llen sch e id u n g sh y p o th ese,” ZNW 21 [1 9 2 2 ] 9 9 - 1 2 1 ) , a n d was given its “classic fo r m ” by B u ltm a n n as p a rt o f his c o m p le x lite ra ry th eo ry . B u ltm a n n a ffirm e d th a t th e n arrativ es a re in c o m p a tib le w ith th e d isco u rses a n d view ed th e m as а σ η μ εία , “sign s,” so u rce , w hich was c o n jo in e d w ith “rev ela tio n d isco u rse s.” R . T. F o r tn a set h im s e lf to p ro d u c e a d e ta ile d study o f th e p ro b le m in The

Gospel o f Signs: A Reconstruction o f the N arrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel, S N T S M S 11 (C am b rid g e : C am b rid g e UP, 1 9 7 0 ), w hich was follow ed by a sim ilar study by W. N ico l ( The Semeia in the Fourth Gospel: Tradition and Redaction, N ovT S u p 3 2 [L e id e n : B rill, 1 9 7 2 ] ). F o r tn a c o m b in e d th e signs so u rce w ith an e a r lie r passio n a n d re s u rre c tio n so u rce (ch ap s. 1 8 - 2 0 ) , so fo rm in g a “G o sp el o f S ig n s.” It d escrib e s th e life o f Je s u s fro m b e g in n in g to p assion an d re s u rre c tio n , b u t it is only a “m in i-g o sp e l” b e c a u se th e d isco u rses o f Je s u s a re la ck in g . T h e m a in clu e to th e e x is te n ce o f th e signs so u rce is th e n u m b e rin g o f th e first two signs in 2:11 a n d 4 :5 4 ( “this ag ain is th e se c o n d sign th a t Je s u s d id w h en h e ca m e fro m Ju d e a in to G a lile e ”). T h is fact, how ever, has led to a d iscu ssion re g a rd in g w h e th e r th e re st o f J e s u s ’ signs w ere n u m b e re d o r w h e th e r th e signs so u rce was lim ited to th e se two signs only. S o m e sch o la rs co n s id e r 2 1 :1 - 1 4 to b e a th ird G a lile a n sign as in d ica te d in 2 1 :1 4 (m istaken ly ?). W. W ilk e n s en d e a v o red to lin k W e llh a u se n ’s h y p oth esis o f а Grundevangelium, “fo u n d a tio n a l G o sp e l,” w ith th e ack n ow led g m e n t o f th e G o s p e l’s stylistic u nity a n d p ro p o se d th a t th e F o u rth G o sp el was th e w ork o f a sin g le a u th o r in th r e e phases ( Zeichen und Werke, A TA N T 5 5 [Z ü rich : Zw ingli, 1 9 6 9 ] ) . T h e “Sign s G o sp el” th e re fo re is n o t a so u rce b u t a fo u n d a tio n a l d o c u m e n t rew orked by th e sam e a u th o r twice. M any sch o lars view J o h n 2 0 :3 0 -3 1 as th e o rig in a l co n c lu s io n o f th e G o sp el an d J o h n 21 as an a p p en d ix . In th a t case it is cu rio u s th a t th e E van gelist d e scrib e d his G o sp el as a b o o k o f signs w h en th e last sign is p o rtray ed in ch a p . 11 an d th e last o c c u r r e n c e o f th e te rm σ η μ ειο ν , “sig n ,” is in 1 2 :3 7 . T h e su p p o rte rs o f th e signs hyp oth esis d e fe n d it by su g g estin g th a t th e E v an g elist tra n sfe rre d th e o rig in al co n c lu sio n o f th e signs so u rce to this p o in t. T h e lite ra ry a n d stylistic c h a r a c te r o f th e F o u rth G o sp el has played a n im p o rta n t ro le in th e study o f th e G o sp e l’s so u rces, an d p articu larly o n this issue. T h e p ro p o n e n ts o f th e semeia so u rce have e n d e a v o red to d e m o n stra te th e u nity o f th e s o u r c e ’s style. E d u ard S ch w e ize r’s v o lu m e o n E g o Eim i (rev. ed ., F R L A N T n .s. 3 8 [G o ttin g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p re ch t, 1 9 6 5 ]) a n d E . R u c k stu h l’s Die literarische

P a r tili

CXXl

Einheit des Johannesevangelium (F re ib u rg in d e r Schw eiz: Paulusverlag, 1 9 5 1 ) tog e th e r d e m o n stra te d th e stylistic u nity o f th e F o u rth G o sp el. T h e ir co n c lu sio n s m ad e it d ifficu lt to re c o n s tru c t so u rces an d show ed th a t th e style-critical argu m e n t m u st b e c o n jo in e d with o th e r e v id en ce. F o rtn a a n d N ico l have e n d ea v o red to show th e stylistic u nity b etw een th e signs so u rce in th e m iracles an d in th e p a ssio n a n d r e s u r r e c tio n c h a p te r s , th o u g h w ith lim ite d su cce ss. H . T h y e n (“J o h a n n e s 13 u n d d ie ‘k irc h lich e R e d a k tio n ’ d es v ierten E v an g eliu m s,” in Tradition und Glaube, F S K. G. K u h n , ed . G. Je r e m ia s e t al. [G ö ttin g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p re ch t, 1 9 7 1 ] 3 4 3 - 5 6 ) a n d H.-P. H e e k e re n s (Die Zeichen-Quelle derjohanneischen Redaktion, S B S 113 [Stu ttgart: K ath o lisch es B ibelw erk, 1 9 8 4 ]) ag ree th a t R uckstuhl has d e m o n stra te d th e stylistic u nity o f th e G o sp el b u t d en y th a t it ca n b e u sed to c o n tro l lite rary -critical h y p oth eses (see van B e lle , 3 6 8 ). T h e fo r m o f th e m ira cle sto ries in th e G o sp el n arrativ e is a n o th e r issue o f c o n te n tio n . T h e su p p o rters o f th e semeia h yp oth esis isolate th e m ira cle stories a n d in sist th a t th e m ira c le s in J o h n a re m o re m ira c u lo u s th a n th o se in th e S y n o p tics a n d so sh o u ld b e d e sc rib e d as “n o v elistic” o r “ep ip h a n y m ira cle stories.” R. S c h n a c k e n b u rg ( The Gospel according to St John, 1 :2 6 - 4 3 ) , J . L . M artyn (History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel), a n d W. N ico l even u rg e th a t th e fo rm o f th e m ira cle story is a decisive c rite rio n fo r assign in g th e Jo h a n n in e m iracles to th e semeia so u rce, b u t they insist th a t su ch a so u rce c o n ta in e d m ira cle stories only. A d ifficu lty re la tin g to th e m iracles so u rce is th e th e o lo g y a n d C hristolo g y th a t lie b e h in d th e m ira cles. A d vocates o f th e signs so u rce h o ld th a t th e re is a co n tra d ic tio n in th e F o u rth G o sp el b etw een passages th a t in d ica te a re la tio n b etw een signs a n d faith (e .g ., 2 :1 1 ; 4 :5 3 ; 6 :1 4 ; 2 0 :3 0 - 3 1 ) a n d th o se th a t m in im ize a n d even rej e c t fa ith b ased o n signs (e .g ., 2 :2 3 ; 4 :4 8 ; 6 :2 6 ). T h e s e sch o la rs b eliev e th a t th e evan gelist view ed faith b ased o n m iracles as in fe r io r (cf. 1 4 :1 1 ; 1 0 :3 8 ; 4 :4 8 ), b u t if th e first passages are attrib u te d to th e signs so u rce , th e aporia, “difficu lty,” is e x p lain ed . N ev erth eless, it is b eliev ed th a t th e so u rce p re sen ts a low er m essianism , w hereas th e Jo h a n n in e re d a c tio n re fle c ts a h ig h e r C hristology. T h e d ifficu ltie s o f a c c e p tin g th e semeia h yp oth esis a re co n sid e ra b le . Its advoca tes d o n o t a g re e o n th e c o n te n ts o f th e so u rce. S o m e insist th a t it c o n ta in e d m ira cle stories only; o th e rs in clu d e ad d itio n a l n arrativ e m a teria l, even th e passion an d re s u rre c tio n n arratives, th o u g h m any sch o la rs d en y th a t th e la tte r w ere in th e sam e so u rce as th e m iracles stories (see van B e lle ’s list o f sch o la rs [3 7 0 n. 6 ] ) . Y et o th e r s a re c o n v in c e d th a t th e s o u rc e c o n siste d o n ly o f th e firs t two m ira cles th a t to o k p la ce in C an a, a n d th a t it was a d d ed by a la te r re d a c to r o f th e G o sp el. V an B e lle ob serv es (3 7 0 n. 8 ) , “F o r critics o f th e th eory , su ch d isag reem e n t d o es n o t in sp ire c o n fid e n c e in th e semeia hyp oth esis in p a rticu la r an d in J o h a n n in e so u rce criticism in g e n e ra l. R e co n s tru c tio n s are to o h y p o th etica l b e cau se d istin ction s b etw een J o h a n n in e an d n o n -Jo h a n n in e e le m e n ts are freq u en tly to o su b je ctiv e .” B u ltm a n n co m p a re d th e re p re se n ta tio n o f th e m ira cles o f Je s u s in th e signs so u rce with th e p ro je c te d p re-M ark an m ira cle cycles, a su g g estio n e la b o ra te d by J . M. R o b in so n a n d H . K o e ste r ( Trajectories through Early Christianity [P h ila d elp h ia : F ortress, 1 9 7 1 ] ). T h e p re-M ark an an d p re -Jo h a n n in e m ira cle co lle c tio n s are h eld to b e a re ta lo g ie s th a t p re s e n t Je s u s as a “divine m a n ,” d ressed as a H e lle n istic w onder-w orker. K o e ste r m ain tain s th a t th e m ira cle sto ries o f M ark an d J o h n w ere su fficien tly sim ilar to b e d iffe re n t v ersion s o f th e sam e lite ra ry c o lle c tio n . F o rtn a

CXX11

Su ppl e m e n t

in his first b o o k o n th e “G o sp el o f S ig n s” d e fin e d it as “a ru d im e n ta ry g o sp e l,” a n “aretalog y w ith s e q u e l,” b u t h e n o lo n g e r fin d s this a p p ro p ria te in his la te r study o f th e “G o sp el o f S ig n s” ( The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessors [P h ila d e lp h ia : F o rtress, 1 9 8 8 ] ) . I t is u n c e rta in th a t in H e lle n istic-R o m a n tim es th e re was a fix e d lite ra ry fo rm ca lle d aretalogy. T h e su p p o sed so u rce uses th e S e p tu a g in ta l te rm σ η μ εΐο ν , “sig n ,” n o t th e H e lle n istic te rm s θαύμα, “w o n d er,” α ρ ετή , “v irtu e ,” a n d δύναμις, “m igh ty w ork.” I t is d o u b tfu l th a t th e tid es “so n o f G o d ” a n d “p r o p h e t” w ere c o n n e c te d w ith th e θ ειο ς άνήρ, “divine m a n ,” c o n c e p t. T h e m ira cle s o f Je s u s a re to b e in te rp re te d w ith an О Т a n d Je w ish b a ck g ro u n d a lo n e . “J e s u s ’ m ira cles lo o k m o re lik e salvific m ira cles su ch as we m e e t in th e O .T .” (so R. H . G und ry, “R e c e n t In v estigatio n s in to th e L ite ra ry G a ttu n g ‘G o s p e l,’” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed . R . N. L o n g e n e c k e r a n d M . C. T e n n e y [G ra n d R ap id s, M I: Z o n d erv an , 1 9 7 4 ] 1 16; o n this issue see fu rth e r van B e lle , 371 an d fo o tn o te s ). In van B e lle ’s o p in io n th e stylistic c r ite ria f o r iso la tin g so u rces a re th e w eakest. M o st critics have a c c e p te d th e F o u rth G o s p e l’s u nity o f la n g u a g e a n d style, a n d fro m this d iffe re n t lite ra ry layers ca n hard ly b e sep arate d . In g e n e ra l th e two in d ic a tio n s th a t m a k e it im p o ssib le fo r m an y critics to re g a rd th e F o u rth G o sp el as a c o n s is te n t w ork, nam ely, “th e a ll-b u t-in to le ra b le te n sio n b etw ee n n a rra tiv e a n d d isco u rse ” (F o rtn a , Predecessors, 1) a n d th e p re s e n c e o f th e so -called aporiai, “d iffic u ltie s ,” d o n o t n ecessarily le a d to th e a c c e p ta n c e o f a signs so u rce . A rig id d istin c tio n b etw ee n n arrativ e a n d d isco u rse d o es n o t re c k o n w ith th e in te r r e la tio n sh ip a n d u nity o f b o th as th e re su lt o f “a lite ra ry skill o f th e a u th o r” (R . Kysar, “J o h n , T lie G o sp el o f,” ABD 3 :9 1 6 a ). S e c o n d , an aporia is n o t “a su re sign o f a so u rce , m u ch less a re co v era b le s o u rc e .” D esp ite van B e lle ’s r e je c tio n o f th e semeia h yp oth esis, h e ack n o w led g es th a t th e th e o ry has stim u late d J o h a n n in e re se a rc h in m an y b ra n c h e s , e .g ., th e study o f th e G o s p e l’s re d a c tio n a n d stru c tu re , its th e o logy o f signs a n d C hristology, its re lig io n -h isto rica l b a ck g ro u n d , a n d its style. P. M . Casey. Is Jo h n ’s Gospel T ruel L o n d o n ; N ew Y ork: R o u tle d g e , 1 9 9 6 . M au rice C asey’s b o o k o n th e F o u rth G o sp el is th e m o st fo rth rig h t b id to answ er th e q u estio n in its title with a re so u n d in g “N o .” F ro m its b e g in n in g to its e n d , it invokes im p ro b a b le arg u m en ts to prove its p o sitio n . T h e clean sin g o f th e tem p le, fo r in stan ce , is p laced by th e Evangelist a t th e b e g in n in g o f Je s u s ’ m inistry in stead o f a t th e e n d as in th e Synoptics. “N o th in g h a p p e n s a fte r this event, b u t in M ark it triggers th e Passion, in J o h n th e raising o f L azaru s d oes it. F ro m a h isto rical p o in t o f view th a t is ch a o tic an d u n co n v in cin g ” (1 0 ). J o h n 2 :1 3 speaks o f Jesus in Je r u s a le m a t th e Passover. Casey rem arks, “W e know th e o rig in o f this d ate— it is th e tru e a n d c o r r e c t d ate o f th e clea n sin g o f th e T e m p le !. . . W e now have th e w hole c h ro n o lo g ica l stru ctu re o f this G osp el, an d it is derived fro m Je s u s ’ fin al Passover split in to th re e ! It follow s th a t th e le n g th o f th e m inistry in fe rre d fro m Jo h a n n in e festival datings is n o t a relia b le p iec e o f ev id en ce” (2 7 ). Casey d oes n o t m e n tio n a n o th e r possible in te rp re ta tio n o f d ie p la cin g o f th e te m p le clea n sin g in ch ap . 2: th e Evang elist knows p e rfe ctly well th at it to o k p la ce a t Je s u s ’ last Passover, b u t h e p u t it in th e sam e ch a p te r as Je s u s ’ first “sig n ,” so in d ica tin g th a t w hoever u n d e rsto o d th e m e a n in g o f th e two events w ould have th e key to th e m e a n in g o f Je s u s ’ m inistry. B u t th e n Casey d oes n o t ad m it th e h istoricity o f th e “signs” o f Jesus: “T h e w hole o f th e Jo h a n n in e h a n d lin g o f Je s u s ’ signs is h istorically spu riou s fro m b e g in n in g to

P a rtili

cxxiii

e n d ” (5 7 ). As to th e discourses attrib u ted to Je su s, it is claim ed th a t “C hristology is o n e o f th e stron g est arg u m en ts against th e historicity o f th e F o u rth G o sp el” (3 0 ). O f J o h n 3 :1 6 -1 8 Casey says, “T h e [term ] w orld is rare in Je s u s ’ te a ch in g in th e synoptics. It is never u sed to in d icate th e field o f Je s u s ’ m ission. T h e fu n c tio n o f this passage is to p e rm it salvation to G en tiles w ho have faith an d deny it to Jew s w ho d o n o t” ( 3 4 - 3 5 ) . M oreover, th e re are n o p re ex isten ce u tteran ces o f Je su s in th e Synoptics. “T h e y are p re se n t in this gosp el in th e m idst o f th e ir real Sitz im Leben, a vicious co n fro n ta tio n with ‘th e Je w s’” ( 3 9 -4 2 ) . T h is is a co n tin u o u s ch a rg e m ad e by Casey to th e E v an g elist’s p re se n ta tio n o f Je s u s in th e F o u rth G o sp el: by th e tim e this G o sp el was w ritten th e m ajo rity o f th e J o h a n n in e c h u rc h was G e n tile , an d th e Jew ish C hristian s h ad b e e n e je c te d fro m th e synagogu es; a cco rd in g ly th e re was hostility b etw een th e two groups. Casey has n o t a d m itte d th a t this G o sp el has a th o ro u g h ly Jew ish o u tlo o k fro m its b e g in n in g to its e n d , su ch th a t I. A b rah am s co u ld o p en ly say th a t as a Je w h e fe lt m o re a t h o m e in th e G o sp el o f J o h n th an in th e o th e r c a n o n ic a l G ospels. T h e u se o f th e te rm Logos, “W o rd ,” in th e p ro lo g u e to th e G o sp el is said by Casey to ap p eal to G en tiles as well as Jew s. T h a t is natu rally co rre c t, fo r it h ad b e e n ad op ted by G re e k p h ilo so p h ers fo r six ce n tu rie s, b u t th e te rm in a religiou s sen se was u tilized by th e n a tio n s in th e N e a r E ast in th e se c o n d m ille n n iu m B.C. T h e p ro lo g u e is th e su p rem e e x a m p le o f th e co m m u n ic a tio n a n d co m m e n d a tio n o f th e G o sp el to th e w orld o f n atio n s, G e n tile an d Jew ish . In discussing th e attitu d e tow ard th e Jew s in th e F o u rth G o sp el, Casey cites U . C. von W a h ld e ’s b e lie f th a t in th e G o sp el “th e Je w s” are th e n a tio n , b u t so m e o f th e ex am p les o f th e te rm re fe r to th e relig iou s a u th o ritie s ( “T h e Jo h a n n in e J ews: A C ritical Survey,” NTS 2 8 [1 9 8 2 ] 3 3 - 6 0 ) . O n this Casey co m m e n ts, “V on W ahld e b eg in s with a survey o f previous sch o larsh ip . T h is en su res th a t any bias trad itio n al a m o n g th e G e n tile C h ristian m e n w ho d o m in a te sch o la rsh ip will p e rp e tu a te its e lf ’ (1 2 1 ). S u ch an alleg a tio n o f “b ias” a m o n g N T sch o la rs surely re b o u n d s o n C asey’s own h e a d fo r th a t is th e attitu d e th a t h e takes th ro u g h o u t his b o o k . In a discussion o n th e au th o rsh ip o f th e F o u rth G osp el Casey qu otes L. M o rris’s arg u m en ts ( The Gospel according to John) , w ho in tu rn relies heavily o n W estcott’s p u b licatio n s o n th e G ospel o f J o h n ; W estcott called th e real poin ts a t issue “b etw een tru e an d false Ju d a ism ” ( The Gospel according to St.John [1881 ] x ) , a statem en t th a t Casey says is wholly lacking in scholarly objectivity (1 7 3 ), a c o m m e n t th a t Casey hardly has th e rig h t to m ake. P robably n o sch o la r sp e n t so m u ch tim e in his professional life o n th e F ou rth G ospel as W estcott, and w h eth er o r n o t h e ju d g e d correctly, h e surely n ev er d eserved su ch a ju d g m e n t fro m a fellow bib lical scholar. C asey co m m e n ts o n th e c o n fessio n o f T h o m a s a t th e e n d o f J o h n 2 0 , ow ning Je s u s as “m y L o rd a n d m y G o d ,” as follow s: “T h is co n fe s s io n s e p a ra te d th e Jo h a n n in e co m m u n ity fro m th e Jew ish . L ik e J o h n 6 :5 3 it violates th e Jew ish id e n tity o f Je s u s o f N azareth an d m arks o u t th e rew riting o f h isto ry in this g osp el as th e large-scale p re a c h in g o f fa lse h o o d ” ( 1 9 6 - 9 7 ) . T h is is a very stro n g answ er to give to th e q u estio n in th e title o f this b o o k , n o t le ast b eca u se it is b ased o n th e b e lie f th a t th e Jew ish le ad ers in th e tim e o f Je s u s w ere w ith ou t fa u lt in th e ir co n d e m n a tio n o f Je s u s . C asey w ould d o well to read th e b o o k by S te p h e n M otyer o n this su b je ct, p u b lish ed in 1 9 9 7 a n d review ed n e x t in this b r ie f se le c tio n o f works o n J o h n . M otyer at le ast w rites in a m o d est fa sh io n an d puts forw ard a view point b ased o n carefu lly ex p ressed arg u m en ts.

CXX1V

Su ppl e m e n t

S. Motyer. Your Father the Devil? A New Approach toJohn and “theJews.”P a te rn o s te r B ib lic a l a n d T h e o lo g ic a l M o n o g ra p h s. C arlisle: P a te rn o ster, 1 9 9 7 . T h is study is based o n wide re sea rch , an d it is clearly w ritten an d will fa scin ate a n y o n e w ho read s it. T h e o p e n in g s e n te n c e o f th e In tro d u c tio n reads, “T h is b o o k w ants to u n d e rsta n d J o h n 8 :3 1 - 5 9 , a n d th e re la tio n sh ip betw een Je s u s an d ‘th e Je w s ’ in th a t passag e.” T h e passage is a n o to rio u s o n e , in w hich Je s u s says to his h e a re rs, “You a re o f you r fa th e r th e devil.” T h e s e w ords have e c h o e d th ro u g h th e ce n tu rie s. M otyer cites J o h n C hry so stom in th e fo u rth c e n tu ry fo r c h a ra cte riz in g th e Jew s as d em o n -p o ssessed id o la ters, p lag u ed by every sin an d vice. M artin L u th e r in 1 5 4 3 p u b lish ed a treatise “O n th e Jew s an d T h e ir L ie s,” in th e in tro d u ctio n to w hich h e cited this saying o f Je s u s an d th e n , callin g synagogues n o th in g b u t a d e n o f devils, u rg e d C hristian s to b u rn th e synagogues, sch o o ls, a n d h o m e s o f Jew s, co n fisc a te th e ir sacred b o o k s, p ro h ib it th e ir te a ch in g , take th e ir m oney, an d im p o se fo rc e d la b o r o n th e m till they b e c o m e C hristian s. N o w o n d er th a t Je w ish sc h o la r L illia n F reu d m a n views J o h n th e E van gelist as “th e fa th e r o f antiS e m itism ” an d cites R oy E c k h a rd t as saying th a t J o h n 8 :4 4 - 4 7 ca n b e ca lle d “th e ro a d to A uschw itz.” T h is u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e F o u rth G o sp el is h eld by an in cre a sin g n u m b e r o f C h ristian as well as Jew ish sch o lars, so M otyer has w ritten this b o o k to co n v in ce b o th th a t it is a badly m istak en in te rp re ta tio n . T h e a u th o r rem in d s his rea d ers th a t th e F o u rth G o sp el was w ritten in th e afte rm a th o f th e d e stru c tio n o f Je r u s a le m a b o u t A.D. 70. T h is was an a p p allin g loss to th e Jew s, fo r th e ru in o f th e te m p le m e a n t th a t th e sacrificial system co u ld n o lo n g e r c o n tin u e an d th e festivals co u ld n o lo n g e r b e ce le b ra te d in th e trad itio n a l m a n n e r. Inevitably, variou s fa c tio n s so u g h t s o m e o n e to b la m e . F o r years th e te m p le a u th o ritie s w ere d eep ly su sp ected by th e R o m an s; th e Z ealots an d o th e r w arrin g fa ctio n s w ere b la m ed by su ch as Jo s e p h u s , b u t th e sin o f th e p o p u la ce th ro u g h th e ir d iso b e d ie n c e to th e law was in creasin g ly b la m ed , an d th e reb y th e ju d g m e n t o f G o d was th o u g h t to b e th e cau se o f th e ca ta stro p h e . T h e co n c e n tr a tio n o f th e F o u rth G o sp el o n Je s u s ’ a tte n d a n c e at th e festivals an d th e grow th o f h o stility o n th e p a rt o f Jew ish lea d ers to h is “signs” a n d te a c h in g su ggest th e lik elih o o d th a t Je w is h C h r is tia n s in P a le s tin e c o n t in u e d to a s s o c ia te w ith th e synagogu es as well as p ersev ere in th e ir trad itio n a l w orship (see A cts 2 1 :2 0 ). In r e c e n t years this has b e e n em p h asized by J . L . M artyn in his b o o k History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, w ho views th e h ostility o f th e Jew ish au th o ritie s in Y avneh (Ja m n ia ) to C h ristian Jew s in th e synagogues as ex p ressin g itse lf in th e in clu sio n o f C hristians in th e cu rse o n th e h eretics co n ta in e d in th e prayers know n as th e E ig h te e n B e n e d ictio n s, in clu d e d in every synagogu e serv ice o n th e S a b b a th . M artyn h o ld s th a t this p ro ce d u re was in te n d e d to b rin g a b o u t th e ex p u lsio n o f C h ristian Jew s fro m all synagogues, an d th a t it b e g a n th e p a rtin g o f th e ways o f Jew s a n d C hristian s. O f la te, how ever, n o t a few ex p e rts in this m a tte r have o p p o sed th e th e o ry a n d m a in ta in e d th a t th e re is in su ffic ie n t ev id en ce fo r su ch a view (see W. H o rbu ry, “T h e B e n e d ic tio n o f th e M in im an d Early Jew ish -C h ristian C ontroversy,” J T S n.s. 3 2 [1 9 8 2 ] 1 9 - 6 1 ) . I f it b e asked w ho a re “th e Je w s” in th e G o sp el o f J o h n w ho set them selves so strongly ag ain st Je su s, th e answ ers are m an ifo ld , an d they a re review ed by M otyer. A n u m b e r o f passages in th e G o sp el a lte rn a te b etw een th e w ord in g “th e Je w s” an d “th e P h a rise e s” (see, e.g ., 9 :1 3 - 2 2 ; 1 1 :4 7 ; 1 8 :3 ). W h ile M oty er realizes th a t it

P a rtili

cxxv

m ay b e sk ating o n th in ic e lin gu istically to e q u a te th e two, h e ad m its th a t this fits th e situ atio n a fte r th e Jew ish war w h en th e Jew ish lead ers in Y avneh w ere refash io n in g Ju d a is m a ro u n d th e e x p o sitio n o f th e M osaic law, a task in w hich th e P h arise es esp ecially la b o re d . M oty er lays g re a t em p h asis o n th e e ffe c t o f th e d eso la tio n o f Je ru s a le m o n th e Jew s in P a le stin e, largely b e c a u se m o d e rn w riters o n th e G o sp el o f J o h n have failed to d o so. Jew ish lite ra tu re in th a t p e rio d saw a revival in ap ocalyp tic works a n d M erk a b a h m ysticism th a t m ad e r e fe re n c e to it. T h e Apocalypse o f Abraham 2 5 2 7 d eclare s th a t th e n a tio n ’s tragedy was G o d ’s p u n ish m e n t fo r sin as d o Sib. Or 4, 2Apoc. Bar. 1 0 :1 8 , an d 4 Apoc. Bar. 1:1, 8. Several b o o k s a ttrib u te th e fa ilu re o f th e Jew s to o b ey th e le a d in g o f G o d to th e devil, e.g ., th e Book o f Jubilees, th e Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, th e Q u m ra n lite ra tu re , a n d th e Apocalypse o f Abraham. T h e co n v ictio n sp read th a t th e d isaster o f Je r u s a le m was cau sed by th e in scru tab le will o f G od , yet lay w ithin his p u rp o se fo r th e w orld, w hich in clu d ed b rin g in g ju d g m e n t o n th e n a tio n s a n d th e p ro m ise o f his k in g d o m to all. Je s u s h im s e lf was co n scio u s o f th e e x tre m itie s to w hich th e P h a rise es stretch ed th e law, an d h e o p en ly re je c te d th e ir in te rp re ta tio n o f it. H is d ecla ra tio n s th a t h e ca m e to fu lfill th e festivals th a t c e le b ra te d th e E x o d u s an d o th e r o ccasio n s o f d eliv e ra n ce stag g ered th e Jew ish a u th o ritie s, a n d th e ir fu ry a t his o p p o sitio n to th e m le d to th e d ecisio n th a t h e m u st b e p u t to d eath . T h e ir attitu d e was n o t sh ared by all th e p e o p le , as is se e n in th e divisions fo r an d ag ain st Je s u s as h e ta u g h t in th e te m p le (see 7 :4 0 -4 4 ; 9 :1 7 - 3 4 , 3 5 - 1 0 :1 8 , 1 9 - 2 1 ) , b u t th e lead ers c o n tin u e d to c o n d e m n h im publicly. U n d o u b te d ly Jesus u sed stro n g lan g u ag e in ad d ressin g th e m , b u t h e was e x e rcisin g his p ro p h e tic m ission in so sp eak in g as w hen h e to ld th e m th a t if they did n o t b eliev e in h im , they w ould d ie in th e ir sins (8 :2 1 , 2 4 ) , a n d y et m o re incisively th a t they w ere son s o f th e devil, liste n in g to his lies a n d ready to d o m u rd er a t his will ( 8 :4 4 ). I f th a t sou nd s sh o ck in g , it is n o m o re so th a n th e la n g u a g e o f m any О Т p ro p h e ts, n o tab ly H o s e a ’s p ro p h e tic a tta ck o n Israe l in H os 6 :4 - 6 , set in th e c o n te x t o f a call to re p e n ta n c e fo r th e Je w s ’ d iso b e d ie n c e o f Y ahw eh. T h e u ttera n ce s o f Je s u s in J o h n 8 :3 1 - 5 9 are sim ilarly an o n sla u g h t w ith a view to p ro m p tin g his Jew ish o p p o n e n ts to r e p e n t o f th e ir o p p o sitio n to th e o n e se n t fro m heaven fo r th e salvation o f Isra el an d th e n a tio n s. M o ty er stresses th a t it is a grave m istak e to in te r p r e t J o h n 8 :4 4 - 4 7 in ab so lu te te rm s as th o u g h th e Jew ish n a tio n w ere re p ro b a te w ith ou t h o p e o f salvation. Je s u s was giving w arn in g s to th o se h e was ad d ressin g to e sca p e a n o th e r ju d g m e n t o f G o d a n d to re ce iv e re c o n c ilia tio n a n d e te r n a l life , w h ich as M essiah h e a lo n e c o u ld g ra n t. W h e re a s Jew s th ro u g h th e c e n tu rie s have b e e n a n g e re d at J e s u s ’ a c c u s a tio n , M o ty er raises th e q u e stio n o f w hat Je w ish re a d e rs th o u g h t w h en th ey firs t re a d th is G o sp e l in lig h t o f th e assu m ed ju d g m e n t o f G o d o n Je r u s a le m a n d th e ir n a tio n . S o m e a t le a st will have b e e n aw are th a t a m o re c o n te m p o ra ry p r o p h e t said to th e so n s o f J a c o b , ‘Y o u r p r in c e is S a ta n ” (T. Dan 5 :6 ) . Je s u s h a d a p p e a le d to th e law o f two w itnesses a n d ca lle d o n G o d to b e a r te stim o n y o n h is b e h a lf ( 8 :1 4 - 1 8 ) , so sh ow in g h is re a d in ess to fa c e G o d ’s ju d g m e n t. M any Je w s b e lie v e d th a t Je s u s was th e p r o p h e t to c o m e o f w hom M oses h a d sp o k e n (D e u t 1 8 :1 5 - 2 2 ; see J o h n 6 :1 4 - 1 5 ) , a n d M oses h ad a d d ed th a t th e p r o p h e t’s w ord m u st b e b e lie v e d o r G o d w ould h o ld su ch u n b e lie v e rs a c c o u n ta b le (D e u t 1 8 :1 9 ). Je s u s stated th a t a n y o n e w ho k eep s his w ord will n ev e r d ie

CXXV1

Su ppl e m e n t

( 8 :5 1 ) , i.e ., h e will e x p e r ie n c e e te r n a l life in G o d ’s k in g d o m . T h e Je w is h d e b a ters re s p o n d e d by saying th a t h e h ad a d e m o n , fo r A b ra h a m a n d a ll th e p ro p h e ts h a d d ie d , so w ho d id h e th in k h e was? Je s u s re p lie d th a t A b ra h a m r e jo ic e d to se e h is day, a s e n tim e n t e n tire ly a t o n e w ith c o n te m p o r a r y Je w is h b e lie fs a b o u t w h at A b ra h a m saw in h is visions. T h e Je w is h le a d e rs e x p o s tu la te d a t th a t, b u t Je s u s h a d o n e m o re s e n te n c e to ad d : “B e fo r e A b ra h a m was, I a m ” ( 8 :5 8 ) . T h a t was to o m u c h fo r h is o p p o n e n ts ; th e y p ic k e d u p ro ck s to th row a t h im , b u t Je s u s le ft th e te m p le u n h a r m e d . W h a t th e Je w ish le a d e rs fa ile d to d o o n th a t o c c a s io n th ey s u c c e e d e d in d o in g la te r by h a n d in g J e s u s o v er to th e R o m a n a u th o ritie s . T h e ea rly re a d e rs o f th e G o sp e l k new th is, a n d th e y m u st have b e e n c o m p e lle d to m a k e a d e c is io n w h e th e r to b e lie v e in Je s u s o r to sta n d w ith th o se w ho r e je c te d h im . T h e E v a n g e list h a d w ritte n in o r d e r th a t th e f o r m e r c h o ic e b e m a d e as 2 0 :3 0 - 3 1 in d ica te s. S te p h e n M o ty er has d o n e a sp len d id serv ice in w riting this b o o k . H e h as p ro vid ed an o u tsta n d in g e x p o sitio n o f a m o st d ifficu lt passage in th e G o sp el o f J o h n . S o d o in g , h e will have h e lp e d b o th C h ristian s puzzled by th e passage a n d also e n c o u ra g e so m e Jew s a t least to re co g n iz e in Je s u s th e M essiah w hom G o d se n t fo r th e m a n d th e re st o f th e n a tio n s. S . S . Sm alley. John ,

Evangelist and Interpreter.

2 n d ed . C arlisle: P a te rn o ster, 1 9 9 8 .

S te p h e n S. S m a lley ’s b o o k , a c o m p e n d iu m o f in fo rm a tio n o n th e F o u rth G o sp el, was first p u b lish ed in 1 9 7 8 an d re p rin te d fo u r tim es sin ce , c o n c lu d in g w ith a revised e d itio n in 1 9 9 8 . T h e v o lu m e is very c o n d e n s e d an d d eals w ith all th e im p o rta n t issues in th e G o sp el; it is th e re fo re th e k in d o f b o o k th a t m e ets th e n ee d s o f stu d en ts a n d p re a ch e rs. A n e x a m in a tio n o f its co n te n ts gives a n id e a o f its co v e rag e : it d eals w ith th e re la tio n o f th e F o u rth G o sp el to th e syn op tic G osp els; th e tra d itio n e m b o d ie d in th e G o sp el is d escrib e d ; th e b a ck g ro u n d o f th e G o sp el is d e a lt w ith in d eta il— in p a rtic u la r th e v aried asp ects o f G re e k a n d Je w ish re lig io n s; th e a u th o rsh ip o f th e w ork, its so u rces, a n d th e lite ra ry criticism th a t has b e e n lately ap p lie d to all fo u r G o sp els; th e e le m e n ts o f d ram a in th e u n fo ld in g story ; th e p u rp o se o f th e b o o k ; th e E v an gelist a n d history, a n d th e E v an gelist as in te rp re te r, i.e ., J o h n th e th e o lo g ia n . Sm alley is w ell a cq u a in te d w ith th e w hole fie ld o f issues, an d re a d e rs will b e w ell in fo rm e d a b o u t th e m all w hen th ey have co m p le te d re a d in g th e b o o k . A few p o in ts o f in te re s t m ay b e m e n tio n e d . T h e B elo v ed D iscip le is stated in th e p e n u ltim a te s e n te n c e o f th e G o sp el to b e th e fo llo w er o f Je s u s o n w hose witness th e G o sp el rests. Sm alley b eliev es th a t this was th e a p o stle J o h n , w ho d ied b e fo r e th e G o sp el was fin ish e d , th u s o b lig in g co lle a g u e s to c o m p le te th e w ork fo r h im (h e n c e th ey a ttested th e reliab ility o f h is w itn ess). J o h n th e a p o stle will have sp o k e n A ra m a ic, as d id Je s u s h im self, w h ich th e re fo re will have in flu e n c e d his G re e k sp e e c h an d w riting. H is know led ge o f th e О Т will have b e e n co n sid era b le , a n d h e was evid ently a cq u a in te d w ith th e H eb rew o rig in a l (a t tim es h e cite s th e S e p tu a g in t, b u t a t o th e r tim es h e tran slates fro m H eb rew in to G re e k ). H is re p o r t o n th e m in istry o f Je s u s a p p ears to b e in d e p e n d e n t a n d h isto rica lly relia b le b u t in te rp re te d in J o h n ’s own way. T h e g e n re o f th e b o o k is a G o sp el, b u t in a u n iq u e fo rm , fo r it is a k ery g m atic an d d id actic co m p o sitio n . Its reliab ility is n o n e th e w orse fo r th at!

P a rtili

CXXVll

Sm alley is co n v in ce d th a t salvation in th e F o u rth G o sp el is in te rp re te d in term s o f th e sacram en ts: fo r b ap tism see J o h n 3 :5 , 6, 8, a n d fo r th e E u c h a rist see J o h n 6 :5 1 , 5 3 - 5 8 . T h is is b e ca u se Je s u s was se n t by G o d as his envoy (S o n o f G o d , S o n o f M an , M essiah, an d p re -e x iste n t L o g o s ); h e n c e his d ea th is view ed as in clu d in g his e x a lta tio n to b e w ith th e F a th e r as h e was in th e b e g in n in g . F o r J o h n th e w orld o f esch a to lo g y h as b e e n invad ed by th e su p ra-h isto rical. S in c e th e W ord has b e c o m e flesh , h isto ry ca n convey th e life o f G o d in C hrist. T h e d ivine revelatio n is decisive an d co m p le te . P e n te c o s t m e rg e s w ith th e d e a th a n d a scen sio n o f Je s u s ; th e g ift o f th e S p irit b e c o m e s an im m ed ia te p aro u sia (s e c o n d c o m in g ) o f Je s u s (Jo h n 1 4 :1 6 -1 8 ? ). T h e r e is, how ever, a fu tu re e sch a to lo g y in J o h n ; b eliev ers sh are in th e p re s e n t th e life o f G o d th ro u g h C h rist an d will also b e raised u p at th e last day (6 :4 7 a n d 4 0 b ). T h e G o sp el o f J o h n is in e ffe c t an e x p o sitio n o f its o p e n in g sta tem e n t, “in h im was life ” (1 :4 ) ; h e n c e Je s u s in J o h n ’s view m ak es possible th e new c re a tio n (1:1, 14) . T h e r e is m u ch th a t is e x c e lle n t in Sm alley ’s review o f th e F o u rth G o sp el, an d m u ch th a t re q u ires th o u g h tfu l co n sid e ra tio n . T o re a d it carefu lly will e n r ic h any read er.

J . Frey. Die johanneische Eschatologie. Vol. 1: Ihre Probleme im Spiegel der Forschung seit Reimarus. W U N T 9 6 . T ü b in g e n : M o h r-S ieb e ck , 1 9 9 7 , is а title d eserv in g sep a ra te a n d fu lle r tre a tm e n t, as was m e n tio n e d above. T h is v olu m e o f 5 5 0 p ag es is a d isserta tio n w ritten u n d e r th e su p erv isio n o f M. H e n g e l in th e U niversity o f T ü b in g e n . I t is a d eta iled e x a m in a tio n o f scho larly discussions o n th e c o m p o sitio n o f th e F o u rth G o sp el, ch iefly in th e w ritings o f G e rm a n sch o lars, b u t w ith sp ecial a tte n tio n to th e esch ato lo g y o f th e F o u rth G ospel. In th e la tte r p o rtio n o f th e b o o k A n g lo -Sax o n w riters are also co n sid e re d an d o th e r E u ro p e a n sch o lars. T h e b o o k is a re m a rk a b le a c h ie v e m e n t in th a t F rey d escrib e s in d etail scho larly re se a rch in to th e G o sp el o f J o h n w ith th e w idest variety o f th e o rie s o f co m p o sitio n o f th e G osp el a n d re p rese n tatio n s o f its eschatology. It will n o t b e p o ssib le to survey th e so lu tio n s o f all th e w riters in clu d e d in this b o o k , b u t th e follow in g d iscu ssion will tak e in to a c c o u n t th e m o st in te re stin g o f th e m in this a u th o r ’s ju d g m e n t. T h e b o o k is divided in to twenty sectio n s, e a c h subdivid ed by titles ch a ra cte riz in g e x p o sitio n s o f J o h a n n in e eschatology, a m o n g w hom R . B u ltm a n n stands as a p rim a ry fig u re . H ea d in g s a re su p p lied h e r e to aid th e re a d e rs o f this c o m m e n tary, b u t they d o n o t c o rre s p o n d to th e subdivisions o f F rey ’s b o o k .

I. The H istorical Setting to Bultm ann T h e first se ctio n deals with th e p ro b lem s o f re se a rc h , b e g in n in g w ith H . S. R eim aru s’s views. H e was a rationalist historian and w rote a series o f anonym ous works. His b o o k, en titled The Aims o f Jesus and His Disciples, d ealt with th e eschatology o f th e Gospels. It was pu blished by G. E. L essing in 1778, ten years after th e d eath o f R eim arus. L essing did n o t ag ree with R eim aru s’s ideas; yet h e believed th at they m ust b e co n fro n te d F o r R eim arus, Je su s was a zealotic political m essianic pretender. His d eath in Je ru sa le m was overinterpreted by his disciples in a d eceitfu l fashion, in th at they p ro claim ed th at Jesu s d ied as an o fferin g fo r sin; w hereas his body was stolen,

cxxviii

Su ppl e m e n t

they d eclared th at h e was raised from th e d ead by G od and was to retu rn from heaven to establish th e kingdom o f G od o n earth . His failure to retu rn exp osed th e ir d e c e p tio n an d with it th e failure o f th e C hristian claim th at G o d ’s revelation th rou gh Jesu s had taken p lace. T h is was a serious allegation, an d it led J . S. Se m le r in th e follow ing year to repud iate R eim aru s’s conclu sions. H e argued th at with th e Jew ish-apocalyptic b a ck g ro u n d o f early C hristian te a ch in g o n th e M essiah an d eschatology, an alternative can b e given. O n e can eith e r in terp ret Jesu s and th e apostles in this tim eb o u n d world a n d give up th e generally a ccep ted C hristian tea ch in g as R eim aru s did, o r o n e ca n recogn ize th at Je s u s ’ p ro clam atio n h ad o n e c o n te n t only. T h is was m orality an d th e spiritual ad oration o f G od. F o r Jesu s th e kingdom o f G od was n o t ex tern a l an d p olitical b u t inward and spiritual; th e future h ad already b ro k en in to th e present. T h e re fo re S e m le r viewed th e eschatology o f th e F ou rth G ospel as u n d e r th e com p u lsion o f alternatives, as outw ard/inw ard, in tellectu al/ sp iritu al, political/ relig iou s, m o ral/ n atio n al, particularistic/universal, fu tu re/ p resen t. Frey has sympathy with S e m le r’s views, b u t by th e en d o f his b o o k it is clea r th at h e sees th e Jo h a n n in e teach in g as em phasizing b o th th e p resen t kingdom o f G od and th e prom ise an d w arning o f its co m in g in th e future. In th e seco n d h a lf o f th e e ig h te e n th ce n tu ry an d in th e n in e te e n th ce n tu ry G erm an p h ilo so p h ers ap p ro ach ed esch atology differently. G. E. L essing, I. K ant, G . W. F. H e g e l, an d F. E . D. S c h le ie rm a c h e r so u g h t to p re se n t a p re se n t esch ato log y instead o f th e trad itio n a l te a ch in g o f th e C h u rc h o n “th e last th in g s.” K an t, fo r ex a m p le, afte r his tran scen d e n tal d ialectic h ad destroyed th e classic p r o o f o f im m ortality, so u g h t to show th a t th e re ca n b e n o know ledge o f th e last things o n th e basis o f h u m a n th o u g h t, fo r th e reality o f su ch things is b ey o n d th e vision o f in tellig e n c e . T h e k in g d o m o f G o d rep resen ts th e id eal o f a m o ra l com m unity, an id eal th a t d o es n o t ex ist in n atu re, a com m u n ity th a t is p ossible only th ro u g h th e postu late o f G od . N evertheless, h u m an k in d has th e m o ra l task o f a cce p tin g an d p u ttin g in to p ra c tice th e universal e x iste n ce o f th e k in g d o m o f G od. H e g e l also criticized th e trad itio n al fu tu rist esch atolog y o f th e C h u rch , w hich fo r h im was a h o stile sym ptom o f clerica l tyranny. In an early b o o k , The Life of Jesus, h e ad o p ted th e view o f S e m le r an d re p ea ted K a n t’s u n d erstan d in g o f Je s u s as a te a c h e r o f virtue w ho clo th e d his m essage to th e Jew ish p o p u lace as th e T o ra h o f th e M essiah an d p e rfo rm e d m iracles. By Je s u s ’ d eath this te a ch in g o f m orality was tran sfo rm e d in to a relig ion o f re d e m p tio n , w hich co m p en sa te d fo r th e in cap acity o f m an to “realize” th e kin g d om th ro u g h th e p ostu late o f th e esch ato lo g ical h o p e. L a te r H e g e l d evelop ed in his p h ilo so p h ical system th e th o u g h t o f re co n cilia tio n as th e rem oval o f th e disunity o f subjectivity an d objectivity, this side o f e x iste n ce an d th e o th e r side, m an an d G od , d eath an d life. H e g e l saw in Je s u s o f N azareth th e re co n cilia tio n (Versöhnung) o f th ese op posites. H e lo o k ed o n th e d eath o f Je s u s as th e d eath o f G od , an d h e saw th e n eg a tio n o f d eath in th e life o f th e Sp irit. T h e p re se n c e o f C hrist is re p la ced by th e u niversal p re se n c e o f th e Sp irit. In this “prese n c e o f th e A bsolute as p re se n c e o f th e e s c h a to n ” th e p re se n c e o f th e k in g d o m o f G o d an d o f im m ortality is realized. S c h le ie rm a c h e r also ad o p ted a p re se n t eschatology, w hich in flu e n ce d th e la te r “m ed iatin g th eo lo g ian s” (Vermittlungstheologen), fo r w hom th e futu rist-eschatolog ical u tte ra n ce s o f Je s u s lost th e ir sig n ifica n ce a n d b e c a m e p icto ria l exp ression s o f his o th e r te a ch in g , so th a t o n e co u ld pass over to th e cle a r sta te m e n t o f th e religiousp re se n t an d m o ral ideas in th e te a ch in g o f Je s u s in th e F o u rth G ospel.

P a r tili

CXX1X

In G erm an Idealism , p referen ce was given to th e G ospel o f Jo h n . J. G. H erder, for exam ple, recognized th e F o u rth Gospel as apostolic a n d resistant to all attem pts to harm o n ize it in light o f its characteristic traits. S chleierm acher believed th at J o h n ’s G ospel was th e oldest o f th e canonical Gospels. Its total im pression indic a te d it was g e n u in e ly b io g ra p h ic a l as o n ly a c o m p a n io n o f C h ris t c o u ld com m unicate. T h e high estim ate o f this G ospel in G erm an Idealism was b o u n d u p with a tendency to spiritual interpretation, as may be seen in th e writings o f Lessing, w ho looked o n th e F o u rth G ospel as th e “gospel o f th e Spirit.” H egel attrib u ted a particular significance to th e Jo h a n n in e words a b o u t th e Spirit, J. G. Fichte design ated J o h n th e only teach er o f th e g en u in e Christianity, a n d F. W. J. Schelling saw in J o h n th e d eep est a n d m ost thoughtfu l Evangelist, th e apostle o f th e Spirit an d representative o f th e consum m ate religion o f h u m an k in d (Frey, 24). T h e division o f historical an d dogm atic discussion in biblical theology was b o u n d to em erge, a n d it h a p p e n e d th ro u g h D. F. Strauss. In his three-volum e w ork o n th e life o f Jesus, h e m agnified th e differences betw een th e synoptic Gospels a n d th e F o u rth Gospel. In p articu lar h e drew atten tio n to th e “m ythical” features o f all fo u r Gospels, an idea h e drew from J. G. E ich h o rn a n d his school. N o t th a t Strauss h ad a clear u n d ersta n d in g o f th e sources o f th e synoptic Gospels; A. Schweitzer described h im as “a sceptic eclectic.” Strauss q u estio n ed th e eschatological teaching o f all fo u r Gospels. In his view th e addresses o f Jesus in th e F o u rth G ospel were free com positions o f th e Evangelist, an d as historical sources w ere far less reliable th an th e synoptic Gospels. Frey com m ents th a t Strauss’s work was “criticism o f th e history p re sen ted by th e Gospels w ithout a criticism o f th e G ospels” (i.e., w ithout source criticism ), citing th e w ords o f F. C. B aur (Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien [T übingen: M ohr-Siebeck, 1847] 41). F. C. Baur, by contrast, created a system o f study o f th e N T o n th e p rin cip le th a t th e w orth o f a source o f w riting is g ain ed only by co n sid eratio n o f its p u rpose a n d ten d en cy (Tendenz). T his h e d eveloped fro m a co m p ariso n o f P au l’s letters a n d th e Acts o f th e Apostles: two d iffe ren t re p o rts o n th e sam e subject c a n n o t b o th b e right; th e p re p o n d e ra tin g historical p robability belongs to th e o n e th a t gives evidence o f th e p u rp o se o f th e p u re historical a c c o u n t a n d gives evidence o f its own tim e. A ccording to B au r’s conviction, J o h n co n tain s n o g e n u in e historical tra d itio n b u t builds o n m aterial o f th e Synoptics fro m th e id ea o f th e divine g reatness a n d glory o f Jesus. T his has th e co n se q u en ce o f an extrem ely late d ate fo r th e F o u rth G ospel. It sets th e reco n ciliatio n o f th e early C hristian o p p o sitio n betw een Jew ish C hristianity a n d P aulinism in th e h ig h e r unity o f th e C atholic C h u rch ; in ad d itio n th e a p p e ara n ce o f G nosticism , M ontanism , a n d th e Passover controversy h a d tak en place, so th e w ork co u ld n o t have arisen b efo re th e second h a lf o f th e second century. At th e tu rn o f th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry a c ritic a l c o n s e n s u s a m o n g th e le a d in g N T sc h o la rs lik e A. J ü lic h e r, H . J. H o ltzm an n , a n d W. W rede ap p ears to have tak en place, in w hich th e Jo h a n n in e d e p a rtu re s from th e synoptic tra d itio n w ere e x p lain e d fro m th e apologetic, didactic, a n d theological p u rp o se o f th e Evangelist, a n d th e F o u rth G ospel was lo o k ed o n prim arily as a p urely th eological w ork w ith o u t any historical sources o f value fo r th e h isto ry a n d p ro c lam atio n o f Jesus. T h e historical ex p o su re o f eschatology in th e p ro c la m atio n o f Jesu s cam e to light in th e “th o ro u g h -g o in g eschatology” o f J. Weiss a n d A. Schw eitzer— a n d its system atic n eu tra liz in g o f previous exposition. T h e kingdom -of-G od c o n c ep tio n

cxxx

Su ppl e m e n t

o f Jesu s was seen by Weiss as exclusively in th e Synoptics a n d w ith o u t J o h a n n in e ex altatio n ( Überformung), a n d so h e u n d e rsto o d it as purely fu tu re . T his m e a n t “a conscious d istancing from th e p resen t-d eterm in in g Spirit theology o f J o h a n n in e th o u g h t th a t fills o u t th e p re se n t itself w ith its religious c o n c e p t o f totality” (as B. L a n n e rt p u t it in Die Wiederentdeckung der neutestamentlichen Eschatologie durch Johannes Weiss [T ü bingen: M ohr, 1989] 159). S trauss’s d ictu m re g a rd in g th e lifeo f-Jesus research , “e ith e r eschatological o r u n esc h ato lo g ic al,” was now answ ered in its first m ean in g . T his view point was pressed by A. Schw eitzer even m o re firmly. A ccording to his historical re co n stru ctio n Jesus d ied as an o fferin g o f his own eschatological dogm a; his d ea th a n d th e co n tin u a tio n o f real h istory m ust signify th e d isin te g ratio n a n d im possibility o f any eschatology. By co n tra st Frey writes, “T h e p ro m o tio n o f a ‘p u re ’ p re se n t eschatology from th e F o u rth G ospel co u ld succeed in th e research o f th e last ce n tu ry only th ro u g h selective o b serv atio n o f th e text-data a n d ca n d id new in te rp re ta tio n o f d istu rb in g passages” (49). H e cites in th e sam e p a ra g ra p h F. O v erb eck ’s o p in io n : “It is . . . only a false idealizing o f th e G ospel o f J o h n th a t has b e e n able to attac h to th e G ospel th e id e a th a t it generally only knows so m eth in g o f a decision b ein g m ad e in th e p r e s e n t . . . a n d th e re fo re also n o th in g o f a com ing again o f C hrist, w hich allegedly w ould have n o p u rp o s e ” (DasJohannesevangelium [T ü b ingen: B ernoulli, 1911] 472). J. W e llh a u sen in 1907 p u b lis h e d a s h o rt b o o k e n title d Erweiterungen und Änderungen im vierten Evangelium. H e p o in te d to th e striking sta te m e n t o f th e G ospel, J o h n 14:31c: έγβίρсаѲс, άγωμ^ν бѵтсиѲбѵ, “G et u p , le t us go fro m h e r e .” Since th e logical c o n tin u a tio n o f this d e m a n d ap p e a rs in 18:1, a c c o rd in g to W ellh au sen ’s ju d g m e n t chaps. 15-17 are a d d e d by a later h a n d w ith th e p u rp o se “n o t only to e x te n d b u t also to c o rre c t.” Shortly afterw ards E. Schw artz’s w ork Aponen im vierten Evangelium ap p e a re d . Follow ing o n W ellh au sen ’s suggestions, h e em p h asized th e offenses in th e J o h a n n in e w ritings a n d p u t fo rw ard th e hyp o th esis o f a m ulti-stage grow th o f th e J o h a n n in e co rp u s, in clu d in g th e b o o k o f R evelation. W ellhausen, however, was n o t only im pressed by th e “co n fusion o f th e F o u rth G o sp el” b u t saw in “th e form less a n d m o n o to n o u s chaos . . . like step p in g sto n es” a Grundschrift, i.e., an original w ork fo rm in g th e basis o f th e Gospel. T h e J o h a n n in e speeches a n d dialogues d o n o t b elo n g to th a t fo u n d a tio n . In th e revision o f th e U p p e r R oom discourses, in stead o f th e P araclete “th e im m an e n t h eav en ly Je su s a n d h is u n io n w ith his ow n o n e a r th ” fu n c tio n as th e life-principle o f th e C hurch. T h e n eg a tio n o f th e p aro u sia saying (14:2-3) in th e revised ed itio n rem ains p e rtin e n t; it is only “inw ard a n d positive” as a radical re p re se n ta tio n prevailing over ju d g m e n t a n d e te rn a l life. “[O n e w ho] has received [e te rn a l life] h e re below co n tin u es it a t o n ce, after h e has died, in heaven with Jesu s a n d th e Father, a n d does n o t n e e d to wait fo r th e re su rrec tio n a n d th e last ju d g m e n t” (EvangeliumJohannes, 114). T h e J o h a n n in e eschatology e x p e rien ce d various chan g es in th e hypotheses o f th e religious-historical school. W. B ousset expressed th e fo u n d a tio n a l religious id ea o f th e F o u rth G ospel as th e th o u g h t o f deification th ro u g h th e vision o f G od. In this B ousset saw th e ro o t o f J o h n ’s view o f Jesus in a N e ar E astern syncretism native to H ellenistic G nosticism a n d th e m ystery cults. T h e C h rist m ysticism b ecom es G od mysticism, in w hich th e vision o f G od in th e ep ip h an y o f th e δόξα, “glory,” o f th e Son arises, th e know ledge o f w hich is itself already e te rn a l life. T h e eschatological tension betw een fu tu re a n d th e already p re se n t is tran sfo rm ed

P a r tili

CXXXl

in th e “sac ram en tal” ten sio n o f a spiritualized exterior, o r in a tem p o ra l b ein g w ho already enjoys tim elessness. A. S chlatter o p p o sed this in te rp re ta tio n . H e saw a close link betw een th e writings o f P alestin ian Ju d aism a n d th e G ospel o f J o h n . In 1902 h e p u t fo rw ard detailed parallels, w hich h e e x te n d e d in th e 1930s. S c h la tte r’s views w ere scarcely n o ticed by his co n tem p o raries, b u t reflectio n in la ter works o n th e b ac k g ro u n d o f Jo h a n n in e speech shows th e ir superiority, a n d to this day they are n o t refu ted .

II. From Bultmann to Barrett In co n tra st to B ousset’s views, R. R eitzenstein a n d Η . H. S ch ae d er tu rn e d to Iranian-oriental-gnostic re d e m p tio n mysteries. R. B u ltm an n also in his early works was im p re sse d by th e sig n ifican c e o f th e new ly d is c o v e re d M a n d a e a n a n d M an ich aean sources fo r th e u n d e rsta n d in g o f J o h n ’s G ospel (Exegetica, ed. E. D inkier [T ü bingen: M ohr-Siebeck, 1967] 55ff.). In th ese h e fo u n d a R ed ee m er m yth th at h e viewed as th e b ack g ro u n d to th e p resen tatio n o f th e R ed eem er Jesus in th e F o u rth G ospel. M oreover, th e redem ptive event was eschatological a n d u n d e rsto o d in term s o f p re se n t tim e. T h ese observations B u ltm an n was to consider carefully in his later co m m en tary o n Jo h n . B u ltm an n ’s eschatological co n cep t is reflected in th e phrase “eschatological existence” an d in his u n d ersta n d in g o f Jesu s’ m inistry as “th e eschatological event”; h en c e “Eschatology [is] th e constructive prin cip le o f Theology.” Eschatology is n o m o re th e con clu d in g o r in ferio r locus o f de novissimis; ra th e r “C hristian theology is entirely eschatology.” B ultm ann followed J. Weiss an d grasped the p reach in g o f Jesus an d th e m ovem ent o f prim itive C hristianity as eschatological expectation, b u t he ch an g ed his m in d with th e o u tb reak o f th e dialectical theology u n d e r th e influen ce o f S. K ierkegaard, W. H e rrm a n n , K. B arth, a n d M. H e id e g g er’s analysis o f th e tem porality o f h u m an existence; all this led B ultm ann to em brace existentialism. W hereas H eid e g g er’s analysis was purely form al an d n eu tra l an d u n d ersto o d th e question o f existence to be phen o m en o lo g ical, B ultm ann succeeded in integrating th e analysis o f existence a n d th e step from philosophy to theology. A ccording to H eidegger Geschichte, “history,” in its original sense is n o t simply an event in contex t b u t th e “event [Geschehen] o f existence [Dasein] in th e w orld.” In B u ltm an n ’s view H eid e g g er’s u n d ersta n d in g o f Dasein, “existence,” m ad e possible a radical u n derstan d in g o f the C hristian faith; i.e., th a t “bein g is a potentiality to be. T h at is to say, th e being o f m an is rem oved from his own control, it is risked continually in th e concrete situations o f life an d goes th ro u g h decisions in w hich m an does n o t choose something for himself, b u t chooses himself as his possibility ” (R. B ultm ann, Faith and Understanding tr. C. R Sm ith [New York: H a rp e r & Row, 1969] 149). F or B ultm ann everything specifically C hristian is eschatological. Soteriology is to be explained as eschatology, a n d eschatology as soteriology, as in th e teaching o f justification. In th e o n e an d decisive salvation event— th e com ing o f Jesus C hrist o r m o re accurately his bein g p resen t in th e kerygm a—h u m a n existence is b ro u g h t to its reality a n d w h o len ess a n d fre e d o m fro m th e w orld, to th e salvation th a t th e re in is unsurpassable. T h e m ost precise contrary sketch to B ultm ann’s in terp retatio n o f J o h n derives from his stu d en t E. Käsem ann. H e believed J o h n ’s Gospel to be sp rung from a conventicle o n the edge o f th e great C h u rch developing into early Catholicism, with

CXXX11

Su ppl e m e n t

Hellenistic enthusiastic traditions whose continuation a little later was opposed as heretical (2 Tim 2:18). “P resent eschatology by itself, a n d n o t c o m p re h en d ed w ithin a fu tu re eschatology— ” said K äsem ann, “th at w ould be for th e Christian p u re glorying in th e flesh, such as enthusiasm has certainly sufficiently d em o n strated in every e p o c h ” (New Testament (Questions of Today [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969] 136-37). T h e key to the representation o f Jesus lies n o t in th e eschatological-soteriological parad o x o f th e L ogos b e c o m in g flesh b u t in th e m etap h y sica l-ch risto lo g ic al presupposition o f his pre-existence an d equality with th e Father. T h e only re p o rte d events in th e Gospel are “m anifestations o f pre-existence” ( Verkündigung und Forschung 3 [1942/46] 189). T h en , however, Jesus’ incarnation in th e F ourth Gospel can only rep resen t a “projection o f preexistence-glory,” an d his passion is the re tu rn h o m e in the sam e glory; his com ing, i.e., his sending, is th en n o t m ore th an a change o f place th at does n o t really touch his eternal being; his hum anity is reduced to “a m inim um o f e q u ip m en t o f ru le ” an d constitutes the “backdrop for th e Son o f G od p ro ceed in g th ro u g h th e world o f m a n ” (The Testament of Jesus [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968] 13). U n d e r th e prim acy o f the christological proclam ation o f the presence o f God, the earthly history o f Jesus becom es an ahistoric myth, “the h isto ry . . . m erely a reflex o f theological abstraction” (Verkündigung und Forschung 3 [1942/46] 189). T h ro u g h th e prim acy o f Christology in th e Gospel o f Jo h n , according to Käsem ann, a com plete fulfillm ent o f eschatology is carried o u t in th e pre-existence o f Christ. T h e Jo h a n n in e “eschatology n o longer em phasizes the e n d an d the future, b u t the beginning a n d the abiding. Because it is m easured by the eternal, the tem poral therefore has the ch aracter o f th e transitory [Vorübergehenden]” (The Testament o f Jesus, 20). Frey com m ents o n K äsem ann’s critique o f B u ltm an n ’s exegesis: “T h e critic o f th e exposition o f B u ltm a n n th u s becom es th e critic o f th e J o h a n n in e theo logy itself” (165). K äsem ann’s in terp retatio n o f th e prologue to J o h n ’s Gospel m akes th e real th em e J o h n 1:14c, έθεασάμεθα την δόξαν αύτοΰ, “we have b eh e ld his glory,” instead o f 1:14a. “T h e revelation o f th e Logos is th e m eaning a n d th e criterion o f th e incarnation, n o t vice versa, as if th e incarnation were th e tru th , th e confines a n d limits o f th e Logos” (The Testament of Jesus, 43). T hereby for K äsem ann th e relevance o f th e concrete histo ry o f Jesus, a n d above all his cross, is called in q u estio n fo r th e J o h a n n in e representation. A m o n g th e critics o f B u ltm an n fro m his ow n school, E. H a e n c h e n tow ers alo n g sid e K äsem ann in his b rillia n t review o f B u ltm a n n ’s 1964 co m m entary. In his discussion a b o u t B u ltm an n ’s re d u c tio n o f th e Heilsgeschehen (“saving ev e n t”) to a p o in t (Punktualisierung), H a e n c h e n drew a tte n tio n to th e significance o f th e h isto ry o f th e life o f Jesu s in th e p re se n ta tio n o f th e F o u rth Gospel: J o h n re p re s e n te d th e w hole earth ly life o f Jesu s as th e carry in g o u t o f a way in th e course o f tim e th a t in its totality is th e revelation a n d tran slatio n in to reality o f th e love o f G od. T h erew ith it is clear th a t a re d u c tio n o f th e revelation to a m e re p o in t (punktuelle) d o es n o t c o rre sp o n d to th e c o n c e p t o f th e F o u rth G ospel w ith its iden tity o f G od a n d Jesus. So H a e n c h e n , in th e w ords o f U. Busse (ETL 57 [1981] 135), was a b le to “b re a k o p e n R. B u ltm a n n ’s e x iste n tia l n a rro w in g o f th e christological statem en ts in th e G ospel o f J o h n as eschatological.” T h e k e rn e l o f th e in terp retativ e contin u ity o f th e B u ltm an n scholars ap p ears to b e th e ag reem e n t w ith B u ltm a n n ’s re co in ag e o f th e term inology o f th e “eschato logical” in th e sense o f a p re s e n t a n d a t th e sam e tim e truly C hristian self-understanding, b o u n d u p w ith th e necessity o f an existential in te rp re ta tio n . T h e h e rm e n e u tic a l

P a rtili

C X X X lll

m easure o f an existential u n d e rsta n d in g o f tim e was— n o tw ith stan d in g th e crass an a ch ro n ism — ag ain a n d again a ttrib u te d to th e F o u rth Evangelist h im self by L. Schottroff,. E. Fuchs, W. M arxsen, H. C o n zelm an n , a n d G. Klein, o n th e basis o f various relig io u s-h isto rical c o n s tru c tio n s by B u ltm a n n . T h e p o stu la te o f th e F o u rth Evangelist’s existential u n d e rsta n d in g o f tim e can th u s b e co n sid ered as an especially irre m o v a b le, a lth o u g h historically extrem ely q u estio n ab le, e le m e n t o f Jo h a n n in e ex p o sitio n in th e B u ltm an n school. In opposition to A. Schw eitzer’s th o ro u g h g o in g eschatology a n d th e existential in terp re tatio n o f R. B ultm ann, O. C ullm ann set fo rth а heilsgeschichtliche (“salvation history”) interp retatio n . Basic to his in terp retatio n is th e assum ption th at th e prim itive C hristian u n d e rsta n d in g o f tim e, like th at o f th e О Т Jewish u n d erstan d in g , was lin ear in character, in sh arp opposition to th e Greek-H ellenistic “cyclic” thought. W hereas in Jewish th inking th e m iddle o f th e two-part tim e line lay in th e expected tu rn o f th e ages, fo r th e N T this “m iddle o f tim e” has e n te re d with C hrist’s cross an d resu rrectio n an d therew ith created a new division o f tim e. F or C ullm ann th at novelty results in th e co n c u rre n ce o f already fulfilled a n d n o t yet fulfilled expectatio n , i.e., th e te m p o ra l te n sio n b etw e en p re s e n t a n d fu tu re as th e co m m o n fo u n d atio n o f th e N T eschatology. T his tension betw een already-now a n d not-yet in th e Gospel o f Jo h n , according to C u llm an n ’s ju d g m e n t, is “n o t only present, b u t stressed ” ( Salvation in History [L ondon: SCM Press, 1967] 270; see 268-291 for w hat follows). In “seeing th e tim es to g eth er,” w hich is a special characteristic o f this Gospel, going back to th e w orking o f th e Paraclete, “th e distinction in principle betw een th e perio d s o f salvation history is fu n d a m e n tal to this perspective, as can be clearly seen from th e farewell discourses” ( Salvation in History, 272). In th at th e Evangelist rep resen ts his theology in th e fo rm o f a life o f Jesus, th e historical life o f Jesus counts as “th e centre o f th e w hole saving process o f G o d ” ( Salvation in History, 270). Thereby, C ullm an n characteristically sets fo rth “th e historical life o f th e in carn ate Jesus in a unity with th e life o f th e exalted C hrist in his C h u rc h ” ( Salvation in History, 271), re p re se n te d together. A ccording to C u llm an n th e viewing o f th e tim es to g e th e r is also th e key to th e co m p re h en sio n o f eschatology a t th e e n d o f tim e. C ertainly th e “already” in th e p resen ce o f Jesu s dom in ates, “th e K ingdom o f G od is already anticipated” ( Salvation in History, 290), a n d th e tim e o f th e C h u rch is e x te n d e d as “betw een tim e .” It d o es n o t lose th ro u g h th a t its c h a ra c te r as “b etw e en tim e ,” fo r th e p re s e n t eschatology is only m ean in g fu l if “w hat has h a p p e n e d now in th e L o rd w ho has a p p e a re d in th e flesh will take place a t th e e n d ” ( Salvation in History, 290). P aolo Ricca was a stu d e n t o f C u llm an n w ho p ro d u c e d in 1966 a b o o k e n title d Die Eschatologie des vierten Evangeliums (Z ürich: G o tth elf). In this h e follow ed in th e footsteps o f his m aster, p articularly w ith re g a rd to Heilsgeschichte (“salvation h isto ry ”) , b u t w ith som e in terestin g variations. H e analyzed th re e m otifs in th e G ospel o rg an ized in th re e m odes o f tim e: consummatum est (= th e p a s t), et veniet consummatio (= fu tu re ), a n d continuum eschatologicum (= p re se n t). A ccording to Ricca th ese th re e m o d es in th e G ospel fin d a t th e sam e tim e th e ir u n ity in th e p erso n o f C hrist, so th a t th e J o h a n n in e eschatology can be d esig n ated “p erso n alized eschatology” (Eschatologie, 179). H e w rote, “T h e J o h a n n in e eschatology is c e n te re d a n d su m m arized en tirely in th e p e rso n o f C hrist, th e pre-existent, in ca rn ate, crucified, risen, a n d — in heaven as o n e a rth th ro u g h his a lte r ego, th e Spirit—-living o n e ” (Eschatologie, 128). T h e histo ry o f Jesu s in th e G ospel o f J o h n

CXXX1V

Su ppl e m e n t

is, acco rd in g to Ricca, seen from its τέλος, “e n d .” T h e G ospel “is w ritten as a flashback [Rückblende] fro m E aster a n d P en teco st” {Eschatologie, 29). T h e k e y w ord o f th e e n tire G ospel th e re fo re is th e τβ τέλβ σ ται, “it is ac co m p lish e d ,” o f J o h n 19:30, in w hich th e victorious p ro c la m atio n o f th e fu lfillm en t o f all m essianic prom ises is to be seen a n d a t th e sam e tim e th e b e g in n in g o f th e sabbath rest o f th e w orld, th e m essianic tim e (Eschatologie, 69). P rotology a n d eschatology are th u s b o u n d u p in th e Logos c o n c e p t (Jo h n 1:1), w hich th e re fo re is to b e in te rp re te d equally as an eschatological co n cep t, w hereby o u t o f th e lin k in g o f Jesu s as th e λόγος, “W ord,” to his λόγοι, “w ords,” th e e n tire h isto ry o f Jesus, h a ste n in g th e τέλος, “e n d ,” becom es eschatological history. Frey calls a tte n tio n to R om an C atholic research in G erm any, selecting as exam p les two o u tsta n d in g w riters, nam ely, R. S ch n a c k e n b u rg a n d J. B lank. T h e fo rm e r led an intensive discussion w ith B u ltm a n n ’s view o f th e F o u rth G ospel a n d its eschatology, a n d th e la tte r’s dissertatio n o n κρίσις, ‘ju d g m e n t,” in th e G ospel o f J o h n is viewed by Frey as th e m ost im p o rta n t m o n o g ra p h o n th e subje c t ( Krisis [F reiburg im Breisgau: L am bertus, 1964]). B lan k ’s d issertatio n is a critical ex p o sitio n o f B u ltm a n n ’s co m m en tary re g a rd in g th e th e m e o f κρίσις, “ju d g m e n t,” an im p o rta n t issue fo r g ain in g a suitable u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e J o h a n n in e eschatology. In this w ork a fu n d a m e n ta l p h ilo logical exegesis is m ethodically lin k ed w ith an intensive theological in te rp re ta tio n o f th e subject. W ith re g a rd to literary criticism B lank decides, above all, to o p p o se th e elim in a tio n o f redacti o n al ad d itio n s a n d also en d eav o rs to in te rp re t th e ce n tral passage fo r eschatology, J o h n 5:19-30, as an o rig in al unity. B lan k ’s sta rt fo r a th eological u n d e rs ta n d in g — ag ain st B u ltm an n a n d in an ap p e al to W. L ü tg ert a n d J. D u p o n t— is w ith th e J o h a n n in e Christology. ‘T h e C hristology is n o t a fu n c tio n o f eschatology, b u t o n th e c o n tra ry th e J o h a n n in e eschatology is a fu n ctio n o f C hristology” ( Krisis, 38). O n th e basis o f th e Jo h a n n in e C hristology th e J o h a n n in e eschatology is g ra sp ed as p re s e n t eschatology, fo r th e decision a b o u t salvation a n d ju d g m e n t is set acco rd in g to th e J o h a n n in e kerygm a (e.g., J o h n 3:17-21) as so m eth in g n o t in th e fu tu re b u t in th e p re sen t. In faith in C h rist a n d in h e a rin g th e testim ony o f his w ork o f salvation, p ro c la im e d th ro u g h th e effectiveness o f th e P araclete, it is re g a rd e d as having h a p p e n e d . B lank is im p ressed w ith th e id ea o f christological im plication. By this h e u n d e rsta n d s “th e indissoluble unity o f p erso n a n d h isto ry in Jesu s C hrist. A ccording to J o h n , Jesus C h rist in clu d es th e various stages o f th e ‘Christ-way’ as a w hole in h im s e lf” ( Krisis, 347); as th e o n e o n e a rth h e is th e Son o f th e F ather, th e divine Logos, a n d in th e J o h a n n in e view a t th e sam e tim e already th e glorified o n e. A ccording to J o h n th e e n tire C h rist-o ccu rren ce as th e eschatological C h rist event, w ith its h ig h p o in t in th e c o n n e c tio n o f th e event o f his “h o u r ” o f “e x a lta tio n ” a n d “g lo rifica tio n ,” is p re se n t in th e p erso n o f C hrist, in th e co u rse o f his earth ly w orking, even as it is p re s e n t th ro u g h th e S p irit’s w orking in th e post-E aster C h u rch . T h e d istin ctio n b etw een C hristology a n d a n th ro p o lo g y o r soteriology is to be observed: w hereas th e “c o m p le tio n ” o f Jesu s h im self in virtue o f his glorification (i.e., o n th e basis o f th e E aster event) is already p re se n t fo r th e believers w hose tem p o ra l existence is n o t yet co m p leted , th e re su rre c tio n o f th e d e a d a n d th e u ltim ate fellow ship with C hrist re m a in yet in th e fu tu re. T h e p re sen t, yet h id d e n , d ec isio n in fa ith o r u n b e lie f, salvation o r ru in , will b e b ro u g h t a b o u t a t th e p a ro u sia a n d th e resu scitatio n o f th e dead .

P a rtili

cxxxv

A n ex h au stiv e c o n tin u a tio n o f B la n k ’s u n d e rs ta n d in g a p p e a rs in R u d o lf S ch n ac k en b u rg ’s com m entary, w hich b eg an p u b licatio n in 1965 (ET 1968). Acco rd in g to his co n c ep tio n also, th e Jo h a n n in e re p resen ta tio n o f eschatology is based o n Christology, in th e “theological tu rn in g to C hrist p re se n t [Christus praesens]” (1:141). In an ex em p lary way S ch n ac k en b u rg shows in th e F o u rth G ospel “a d e fin ite esc h ato lo g ical way o f th in k in g o f th e p re se n c e o f C h ris t” in th e J o h a n n in e affirm ations o f th e £ωή αιώνιος, “ete rn a l life,” o f th e “last day,” o r “o f th a t day” (2:530ff.). A ccording to S ch n a c k en b u rg ’s in terp re tatio n , a strong shifting o f accen t takes place betw een th e p resen ce sayings like J o h n 3:18 o r 11:24-25 a n d th e red actio n al passages; nevertheless h e will n o t com pletely deny to the Evangelist fu tu re expectations. T h e Evangelist, despite his em phasis o n p re se n t salvation, is “o p e n ” fo r a fu tu re eschatology because h e rem ains tru e to “th e H ebraic-Sem itic w hole way o f th in k in g , fo r w hich h u m a n p erfe c tio n can finally prevail only in th e resuscitation o f th e b o d y ” (2:539). S ch n ac k en b u rg acknow ledges th e decisive c h a ra c te r o f th e J o h a n n in e re in te rp re ta tio n in th e re p la cem e n t o f th e h o rizontal-tem poral dim en sio n th ro u g h the vertical-spatial, w hich in th e F o u rth G ospel d o m in ates th e eschatological p re sen tatio n . T h e Evangelist has in te rp re te d th e old tem p o ral eschatology newly in atem poral-spatial, ontological categories, in th e co n cep ts o f “above” a n d “below,” “w h e n ce” a n d “w hither.” Accordingly, th e re com es in his w ork a stro n g er individual salvation so th at “th e in tere st in th e fu tu re o f th e w orld a n d th e C h u rch in th e w orld is tran sferre d to th e destiny o f th e individual” (2:541). T h e reason fo r this tran sfere n ce is prim arily in th e th eological vision o f th e Evangelist, w ho projects his th o ro u g h g o in g ( konsequent) in te rp re ta tio n o n to his Christology. Frey com m ents on S chnackenburg’s research, “N ot only with the im m ense fullness o f inform ation o f his com m entary, b u t especially with his ‘literary-critical sharp tu rn [Kehre],’ the wise N estor o f G erm an-speaking Catholic Jo h an n in e exposition has exercised a vigorous influence, especially since in the position th at was ultimately adopted, m aturing Catholic exegetes were released from academ ic pressures. T h e transform ation o f eschatology in the language o f Hellenistic mysticism is seen in the un d erstan ding o f the Gospel o f Jo h n by C. H. D odd an d his The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1953). Its influence on English scholarship is com parable to the significance o f B ultm ann’s interpretation o f the Gospel o f Jo h n for G erm an theology. S tarting from an intensive investigation o f th e G ospel’s religious-historical background, D odd understands the F ourth Gospel as a transform ation o f the Christian revelation in a language an d world o f ideas to which the eschatology is strange; therefore the eschatology in this work m ust have a deeply new interpretation. Admittedly this m odification o f the primitive C hristian eschatology does n o t touch the substance o f the Gospel since according to D o d d ’s conviction Jesus’ proclam ation was stam ped n o t by apocalyptic near-expectation, b u t by em phasis on the presence o f the βασιλεία, “K ingdom ,” an d its actual inbreaking; thus it bore the character o f “realized eschatology.” T he Jo h an n in e accentuation o f the eschatology o f the present leads D odd to stress the authentic line, “that ‘the age to com e’ has com e,” in the m ost thoroughgoing way. So the Jo h a n n in e Gospel can be exactly considered as “the classical treatm ent o f the them e o f eternal life” (“Eternal Life,” in C. H. D odd, New Testament Studies, 2nd ed. [M anchester: M anchester UP, 1954] 163). D odd draws a clear distinction between the Jewish-apocalyptic an d rabbinic teaching on the “com ing age” an d the Jo h an n in e teaching on £ωή αιώνιος, “eternal life,” a distinction that

CXXXV1

Su ppl e m e n t

is qualitative as well as quantitative. T h e co n cep t im plies fu tu re life; at th e same time, however, in αιώνιος,“etern al,” u n d e r the influence o f Platonic ontology, the qualitative distinction from m ere physical life is to be u n d ersto o d m uch m ore strongly. £ωή αιώνιος, “etern al life,” denotes therefore th e divine life beyond o u r perception o f tim e, in which th ere is n o real past an d future b u t only G od’s eternal “now.” W ith this in terp re tatio n D o d d sees him self by n o m eans com pelled to deny to th e Evangelist tem poral-futurist sayings like J o h n 5:28-29. F or him this pro b lem is solved th ro u g h th e observation th a t these are sayings o f p o p u la r eschatology, b u t n o t co rresp o n d in g to th e au th en tic u tteran ces o f th e Evangelist th a t are dram atically set fo rth in th e Lazarus narrative o f J o h n 11. This narrative com prising sign a n d dialogue, d e e d an d w ord o f Jesus is indivisibly woven an d portrays th e fu tu re re su rrectio n in th e p resen t w orking o f Jesus; it is paradigm atic, adm ittedly only a sign o f th e fulfillm ent o f w hat is anticipated. T h e £ωοποίησις, “m aking alive,” as th e co n q u est o f d ea th th ro u g h Jesu s’ going in to d eath has for th e Evangelist tru e finality th ro u g h h im (D odd, Interpretation, 366). M anifestly th e Evangelist w anted to in te rp re t th e d e a th a n d resu rrectio n o f Jesus as th e g ro u n d fo r th e new life o f disciples, as th e eschatological event in the fullest sense (Interpretation, 396). T hereby n o t only Соютгаіеіѵ, “m ake alive,” an d κρίναν, “ju d g e ,” are draw n into th e p resent, b u t also Je su s’ com ing again: “C hrist’s d e a th o n th e cross is His ascent to th e rig h t h a n d o f th e Father; a n d H is re tu rn to H is disciples after death, which is closely associated, if n o t identified, with th e com ing o f th e Holy Spirit, is His second adv e n t” ( Interpretation, 395). T h e tru e parousia consists th e n with th e m u tu al divine αγάπη, “love,” th a t exists betw een F ath er a n d Son a n d is d u p licated in th e love betw een Jesus a n d his own as well as in th e ir m u tu al love (Interpretation, 398). Frey p o in ts o u t som e im p o rta n t likenesses betw een th e convictions o f D o d d a n d th o se o f B u ltm ann, e.g., re la tin g to th e paro u sia a n d th e d e a th a n d re su rrectio n o f Jesu s as th e eschatological event. D o d d ’s re in te rp re ta tio n o f th e fu tu rist eschatology, however, follows a d iffe re n t p a th fro m B u ltm a n n ’s. R ath er th a n in tro d u cin g a m o d e rn “m o re a d e q u a te ” philosophical conceptuality as th e p rincipal b a c k g ro u n d o f th e P latonic ontology p re se n te d in th e G ospel o f J o h n , D o d d in te rp re ts th e eschatology th ro u g h th e h isto ry o f religions (religionsgeschichtlich). D o d d ’s in te rp re ta tio n th ereb y m oves consciously— a n d historically m o re a p p ro priately th a n B u ltm a n n ’s— in th e fram e o f an c ie n t th o u g h t. R egarding th e dialectical theology a n d its influence o n o u r u n d ersta n d in g o f th e J o h a n n in e G ospel, С. K. B arrett, following W. F. H ow ard in E ngland, tu rn e d against a Hellenistic-mystical classification o f th e G ospel o f Jo h n . Like H ow ard, B arrett also u n d erstan d s th e pro b lem o f th e J o h a n n in e eschatology as th e dialectical unity o f p re sen t salvation a n d fu tu re h o p e, rich in tension, w hich is o f value in u n d ersta n d in g its function, instead o f simply d isintegrating it th ro u g h negation o f o n e o f th e com ponents. T his dialectic, w hich fits in well with a series o f o th e r dialectics, inclu d in g paradoxical features o f J o h a n n in e rep resen tatio n , d o cu m en ts fo r B arrett th e struggle fo r an ad e q u ate language fo r proclam ation. Eschatological blessings are p re sen t because th e e n d has begun, a n d yet th e fu tu re rem ains in existence because factual history still goes on, a n d th e anticipation o f the e n d th at is believed to com e with C hrist as th e real e n d o f history, n o t only th e e n d o f worldly existence, is firm ly held. T h e real established “clash an d p arad o x o f tenses” is only partially explain ed th ro u g h an exchange betw een th e “fictitious” enthusiastic tem poral stand p o in t w ithin th e activity o f th e earthly Jesus (with futurist proclam ations)

P a rtili

c x x x v ii

an d th e (in fact fo r th e Evangelist a n d his readers) valid tem p o ral stan d p o in t o f th e post-Easter retrospective. F or th e re also, w here this stan d p o in t o f “fulfillm ent” is favored, w here th e life in faith is p re se n t a n d th e heavenly w orship in th e C h u rch is anticipated, so m eth in g yet rem ains fo r a fu tu re perfection. A ccording to B arrett, J o h n m o re th a n all o th e r N T a u th o rs recognizes th a t m ere fu tu re eschatology is unsatisfactory. As this can very well describe pictorially th e e n d o f history, it is useful to b rin g to expression th e p arad o x o f th e p erso n a n d w ork o f Jesus; yet it is scarcely ad e q u ate to d escribe th e tim e o f th e C hurch, th e tim e betw een th e shadow o f th e e n d a n d th e c o n su m m atio n itself. F or its tim e a n d its q u estio n s th e Evangelist m u st fin d new form s o f language. So h e em ploys, in d e p e n d e n c e o n Paul, m ystical a n d sacram en tal co n cep ts also, b u t retain s pro g ram m atically th e eschatological e le m e n t fo r a defen se against th e d an g e rs o f m ysticism, p erfectionism , a n d sacram entalism . III. Newer Discussions and Johannine Eschatology From 1970 th e new er literary criticism ap p e are d with th e claim to have learn ed from o ld er mistakes. T hose w ho p u rsu ed th e m e th o d n o lo n g er wished to ask abo u t sources, transpositions, a n d accidental c o rru p tio n s o f th e text b u t lab o red m o re strongly after theologically m otivated redactional interventions. M.-E. B oism ard w rote an article in Review Biblique en titled “In v o lu tio n d u th em e eschatologique dan s les traditions jo h a n n iq u e s” (RB 68 [1961] 507-24), a n d followed it u p with a com m entary in 1977, L ’Évangile deJean , co a u th o red by A. Laim ouille. In the latter h e p ro p o u n d e d such a com plicated web o f theories th a t scarcely anyone was p re p a re d to follow them . R. E. Brown in his co m m en tary o n J o h n p roposed a five-step hypothesis for th e origin o f th e G ospel as follows: (1) Synoptic-like m aterial a b o u t Jesus fo u n d its way in to oral p re ach in g a n d teach in g o f th e Jo h a n n in e school. (2) It was b ro u g h t to g eth er in a selection fo r a co ntin u o u s Gospel, (3) w hich already possessed an outline. (4) T his was p erh ap s e x te n d e d by th e Evangelist to becom e a second edition. (5) Finally, it was yet again en larg ed by a red acto r from his school circle. F or Brown, th e F o u rth G ospel is “th e best exam ple in th e N T o f realized eschatology” ( Gospel according toJohn 1 :cxvii). T h e futurist u tteran ces d e m a n d a diffe re n t h an d lin g : som e ex p lain them selves sim ply by th e fact th a t Jesu s in th e in ten tio n o f th e Evangelist speaks to a post-Easter com m unity; oth ers em anate from th e circum stance th a t physical d e a th co n tin u es in th e life o f th e com m unity, an d h en c e “etern al life” m ust contain an aspect o f postm ortal com pletion. In estim ating th e apocalyptic elem ents in th e Gospel, Brown was in flu en ced by B oism ard’s observations a b o u t doublets in Jo h n : 5:19-25 a n d 26-30 are u n d ersto o d as parallel expressions o f th e sam e them e, w hereby vv 26-30 could derive from an earlier stage o f reflection, a n d h e d ared cautiously to suggest th at b o th versions were u n ited in th e existing co n tex t o f vv 19-20a, 30 by th e final redactor, o r p erh ap s by th e Evangelist him self in his “second e d itio n ” o f th e work. Brown th o u g h t th a t 12:44-50 an d 3:31-36 w ere an insertion by th e final re d acto r o f th e Gospel. T h e Evangelist h a d n o alternative b u t to a d o p t a synthetic way o f thinking, taking u p th e old er form s a n d re in te rp retin g th em in th e light o f new er insights. In contrast to B row n’s m odel o f literary criticism, m o re lively an d detailed “histo rie s ” have b e e n c o n s tru c te d , w h ich a d m itte d ly c a rry a m o re h y p o th e tic a l ch a rac te r. S u ch a re o ffe re d by J. B eck er a n d G. R ichter, th e la tte r reviving

c x x x v iii

Su ppl e m e n t

W ellhausen’s an d B u ltm an n ’s classic m odel o f th e Grundschrift (“foundational docum e n t”) a n d th e fo rm e r th e hypothesis o f m any sources. B ut despite th e scholarship o f B ecker a n d Richter, re c e n t research in to th e G ospels has b e e n d o m in a te d by d iffe re n t kinds o f literary criticism , such as rh e to ric a l criticism , stru ctu ralism , reader-response criticism , narrative criticism, a n d sociological criticism. Frey has p rovided several in terestin g exam ples o f these. A. R einhartz used th e reader-res p o n s e a n d n a r ra tiv e c ritic ism in h e r a p p r o a c h , “G re a t E x p e c ta tio n s : A R eader-O riented A pproach to Jo h a n n in e C hristology a n d Eschatology, ” Journal of Literature and Theology 3 (1989) 61-76. In this m e th o d n e ith e r th e real a u th o r n o r th e addressees stand u n d e r investigation fo r instruction. O nly th e co n stru ct o f th e “im plicit a u th o r” a n d th e “im plicit re a d e r” are in view: “th e im plied re a d e r m irro rs th e identity o f th e original readers, at least as they w ere seen by th e real a u th o r” {Journal of Literature and Theology 3 [1989] 72). In th re e o f th e σημέιον, “sign,” n arratives (John 2:1-11; 4:46-54; 11:1-44), w hich in them selves replicate th e w hole Gospel, a n a rratio n “p a tte rn ” is m et th a t C. H. Giblin (“Suggestion, Negative Response, a n d Positive A ction in St. J o h n ’s Portrayal o f Jesus [John 2,1-11; 4,46-54; 7,2—14; 1 1 ,1 -44 ],” NTS 26 [1979-80] 197-211) describes as “suggestion, negative response, a n d positive ac tio n ”: th e re q u est is b ro u g h t to Jesus fo r a h elp fu l in terv en tio n (John 2:3; 4:47; 11:3), b u t this expectation receives im m ediately a repulse (John 2:4; 4:48; 11:6) before Jesus fulfills th e d em an d , even if in a m odified (an d m iraculously increased) form . T h e “p a tte r n ” similarly appears outside th e σημεΐον narratives in J o h n 7:2-14: th e d em a n d o f th e b ro th ers o f Jesus (vv 3-5) is repulsed by Jesus by an allusion to th e cross (vv 6 -8 ) a n d th e n th ro u g h th e “delayed” jo u rney to th e festival (v 14), a n d his self-revelation is taken u p th ere in a m odified m anner. T h e “p a tte rn ” th erefo re appears to be co n stituted in а Gattung “fo rm ,” a n d finds its c o rresp o n d en c e in th e stru ctu ral p lo t o f th e en tire G ospel—in th e succession o f Jesus’ appearances an d works, his astonishing acts, the m isunderstanding exposed in th e “going away” in th e d ea th o n th e cross, a n d his E aster re tu rn . It seem s, according to R einhartz, th a t in this m ovem ent o n e m ust recognize a conscious m ean s o f re p resen ta tio n o n th e p a rt o f th e Jo h a n n in e author. T h erein th e sovereignty o f Jesus in contrast with h u m an influences could be expressed, yet beyond th a t th e in te n d e d w orking o f this m o d e o f rep resen ta tio n sets questions to th e im plicit reader. In such an in teractio n with th e read ers o f th e Gospel, th e com m unicative effectiveness o f th e p resen ted “p a tte rn ” is described: in this way it serves “to shape th e im plied re a d e r’s response, to clarify, to m odify a n d to d e e p e n th e Christological expectations o f th e im plied reader, b rin g in g th em into h arm o n y with th o se o f th e im p lie d a u th o r ” (Journal o f Literature and Theology 3 [1989] 66). C hristological expectations th a t d ie im p lied a u th o r awakens th ro u g h his p resen tation are expressed, th e n (in individual aspects) rejected, a n d finally in a m odified fo rm affirm ed. This narrative p a tte rn in th e co n tex t o f th e whole G ospel shows itself as “a strategy by m eans o f w hich th e im plied a u th o r attem pts to g uide th e response o f th e im plied re a d e r in th e n arrativ e” (Journal o f Literature and Theology 3 [1989] 71). T h e questioning w ithin th e “read er-o rien ted a p p ro ach ” shows itself as a m ean ingful su p p lem en t to th e re p erto ire o f th e historical m ethod. In 1972 W. A. M eeks w rote an article o n th e issue o f th e social fu n c tio n gove rn in g th e m o tif o f th e ascent-descent o f th e revealer fo r th e self-understanding o f th e J o h a n n in e co m m u n ity ( ‘T h e M an from H eaven in J o h a n n in e S ectarianis m ,” JB L 91 [1972] 4 4 -7 2 ; G e rm a n tr., “D ie F u n k tio n d e s v o m H im m e l

P a r tili

CXXX1X

h e ra b g e s tie g e n e n O ffe n b a re rs fü r das S elb stv erstän d n is d e r jo h a n n e is c h e n G e m e in d e ,” in Zur Soziologie des Urchristentums [M unich: Kaiser, 1979] 24 5 -8 3 ). T his christological m otif, h e said, sh o u ld n o lo n g e r be u n d e rsto o d as an ele m e n t o f th e “h istory o f id eas”; in stead it sh o u ld b e seen program m atically as “m ean s o f c o m m u n ic a tio n ” w ith re fe re n c e to th e b e a re rs o f J o h a n n in e theology. M eeks wishes to show th a t this m o tif m eets us always in c o n n e c tio n w ith sayings o f ju d g m e n t, o f division a n d a lien a tio n ; th e re fo re it is n o t a m e ta p h o r o f unity b u t em phasizes th e alien a tio n o f th e heavenly revealer. This observation is analyzed as a pictu re o f th e J o h a n n in e com m unity. Such an analysis is possible because fo r M eeks a “p rojection o f th e social situation o f th e com m unity exists” in th e narrative story o f Jesus (Meeks, 281). T h e Gospel as a w hole is in its co n cep tio n th e “aetiology o f th e J o h a n n in e g ro u p ” (Meeks, 279), w hich Meeks, following J. L. M artyn, views as d e te rm in e d by th e trau m a o f separation from th e synagogue an d at th e sam e tim e opposition o f th e w orld an d is looked o n as a hostile sect. W ith this p ictu re o f th e “stran g e” revealer, th e G ospel o f this fellowship offers religious legitim ation fo r a universe th a t provides fo r th e co n crete isolation o f th e g ro u p from th e en tire society (Meeks, 280). By th e sam e token, with its christological convictions th e e stra n g em en t o f this g ro u p from Ju d aism a n d its isolation are yet fu rth e r reinforced. N evertheless, betw een th e symbolic universe o f the Jo h a n n in e literatu re a n d th e situation o f th e g ro u p th a t p roduces it, n o o n esided relationship o f d e p e n d e n c e exists b u t only a dialectical process. U rg e n t q u eries m ay b e d ire c ted to M eeks’s in te rp re ta tio n o f th e Jo h a n n in e text. Is h e re o n e christological m o tif selected a m o n g m any in th e F o u rth G ospel as th e exclusive key to u n d e rs ta n d in g it? A n d th ro u g h this absolutizing o f th e m o tif o f th e re v ealer’s distance fro m th e w orld is n o t th e d isin tegration-function o f th e G ospel overem p h asized a n d th e in teg ra tio n -fu n ctio n , w hich likewise b elongs to th e tex t a n d its symbolic universe, neglected? Should, m oreover, th e o th e r observation q u o te d by M eeks elsew here (“Social F u n ctio n s o f A pocalyptic L anguage in P au lin e C hristianity,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. D. H e llh o lm [T ü b in g en : M ohr-Siebeck, 1989] 687-706) cause us to th in k th a t a th eological m o tif like th e asc en t a n d d e sc e n t o f th e Son o f M an can have n o t o n e fu n c tio n b u t several? C o n sequently does n o t M eeks’s version o f th e “m irro r im ag e” take as its basis a difficult-to-be-established, psychologizing tran sferen ce? F rom th e lite rary p ic tu re o f th e strange, m isu n d e rsto o d revealer are we to in fer a feeling o f alien atio n o n th e p a rt o f believers in th e w orld to w hich th e sectarian isolation o f th e co m m u n ity corresponds? If th e J o h a n n in e tex t do es n o t sim ply serve th e agency o f “rig h t” teac h in g b u t serves th e co m m u nicatio n o f a symbolic w orld, th e n it is n o t astonishing th a t its re p re se n ta tio n follows less th e ratio n al laws o f logical consistency th a n those o f sym bolic (o r m ythical) co m m u n icatio n . O n th e o th e r h a n d , from a fu n ctio n al in te rp re ta tio n o f J o h a n n in e Christology, q u estions are throw n up, n o t least re g ard in g th e d a n g e r o f a re d a c tio n is t d e riv a tio n o f c h ris to lo g ic a l s ta te m e n ts fro m a social b ack g ro u n d , w hich M eeks can only partially escape. K. Berger m ost plainly an d with illum inating linguistic grounds has devoted efforts to deny Meeks’s interpretation. H e has shown that the Jo h an n in e use o f m etaphor, an d especially the m isunderstandings, which Meeks refers to, do n o t depict an insider language accessible only to initiates an d especially n o t a “projection o f the social situation o f the group.” In this view a m isinterpretation o f the im plied readers in the Gospel

cxl

Su ppl e m e n t

is p u t forward, who should n o t perm anently be identified directly with the picture o f the outsiders an d the ones who rem ain in incom prehension am ong the figures aro u n d Jesus. T h ro u g h the literary device o f m isunderstandings, th e readers’ eyes should be o p en e d regarding how they should u n derstand the sayings o f Jesus (Exegese des Neuen Testaments, 2nd ed., UTB 658 [Heidelberg: Q uelle & Meyer, 1984] 230-31), an d with the Jo h an n in e m etaphors it is a question o f dealing with an elem ent that has relative sem antic uncertainty an d great openness o f interpretation, which may speak to the recipients in o rd e r th at they may th en be led to th e central confession o f C h rist T h e Jo h an n in e use o f m etaphors is concerned precisely with “an introduction to the Christian language o f p ictu res.. . . T he reader is initiated, an d h e is allowed to ‘stand,’ i.e., find him self in the joyful consciousness that h e understands better th an N icodem us” {Exegese, 230). Frey observes th a t new er research es in to o th e r J o h a n n in e m ean s o f p re se n ta tio n , such as th e co m m en ts in se rte d p aren th etically in to th e n arrativ e o r th e J o h a n n in e use o f irony, co n firm this view: th e G ospel shows clearly an in te rp re ta tive te a c h in g in te r e s t; it w ill le a d its r e a d e r s to a n in - d e p th “c o r r e c t ” u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e p erso n o f Jesu s a n d his d e a th . It c o n tain s effective linguistic m ean s th a t have th e goal o f throw ing o p e n to its re ad ers th e n a rra te d symbolic w orld a n d n o t closing it. H e concludes, “F rom th e way th e m isu n d erstan d in g s a n d th e sym bolism o f th e d e sc e n t a n d asc en t o f th e Son o f M an are p re se n te d , an isolated, “se c ta ria n ” social s tru c tu re o f th e J o h a n n in e com m u n ity is n o t th e re fo re to b e in fe r re d ” (Frey, 336).

IV. By Way o f Review and Prospect Frey points o u t th e e x tra o rd in ary variety o f assessm ents a n d m eth o d s th a t are applied to Jo h a n n in e problem s in re cen t times. Discussion is free, b u t also optional: anything can b e affirm ed, a n d anything can be proved. M ethods o f in terp re tatio n strongly differ, w h eth er synchronic literary m eth o d s o r historical red actio n al m eth ods, o r even b o th co m b in ed . A co n v erg en c e o r even a grow ing co n sen su s in literary-critical analysis o f th e G ospel is n o t in sight. F or instance, in th e p ro b lem o f th e relatio n o f J o h n to th e synoptic tradition, m ost m o d e rn scholars w ere ad h e rin g to P. G ardner-S m ith’s view ( Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels [C am bridge: C am b rid g e UP, 1938]) in affirm ing th e in d e p e n d e n c e o f Jo h n , b u t lately a grow ing n u m b e r o f exegetes have b e e n p e rsu ad ed (notably by F. J. N eirynck, “J o h n a n d th e Synoptics,” in L’évangile de Jean, ed. M. d e Jo n g e , BETL 44 [Leuven: Leuven UP, 1977] 73-106) th a t th e F o u rth Evangelist was a c q u ain ted with th e synoptic m aterial. T h e religious-historical b a c k g ro u n d o f th e G ospel, especially its relatio n to Gnosticism , is still disp u ted by many, despite th e a ttem p t by th e B ultm ann school to assum e its origin in Gnosis. T h e discussion o f Jo h a n n in e eschatology, its history in th e Jo h a n n in e com m unity o r school, its tradition- a n d religious-historical references, its significance fo r th e addressees o f th e G ospel— these rem in d ers o f th e o p e n questions o f p re sen t J o h a n n in e investigation m ake plain th a t th e discussion o f a theological individual th em e like eschatology can only b e followed th ro u g h in th e fram ew ork o f an en tire u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e J o h a n n in e literature. T h e p ro b lem o f Jo h a n n in e eschatology has in fact re ced e d in to th e b ack g ro u n d o f research. It has becom e q u ieter as a theological th em e o f J o h a n n in e exposition precisely because o f th e popularity o f o th e r interests.

P a r tili

cxli

N o t least to ex p lain th e d im in u tio n o f in te re st in th e eschatology o f th e Jo h a n n in e writings is th e con fu sio n o f th e m ea n in g o f th e te rm “apocalyptic.” W hereas in ea rlier tim es “apocalyptic” was co n tra sted with th e “relig ion o f th e p ro p h e ts ,” re c e n t scholarship has distin g u ish ed “apocalyptic eschatology” as o n e a m o n g m any th em es o f apocalypses, an d “apocalyptic” as th e “sym bolic u n iv erse” in w hich th e circles c o n c ern in g th e in te rp re ta tio n o f reality b rin g it to expression. It is essential to observe th a t th e B ook o f R evelation has a n u m b e r o f sayings with a present-eschatological m eaning. T h e sam e featu re ap p ears in th e Q u m ra n lite r a tu r e (see H . W. K u h n , Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil, SU N T 4 [G ö ttin g en : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p re c h t, 1960] 34 -4 3 , 1 7 6 -7 8 ), in H ellenistic d iasp o ra Ju d aism , a n d in th e m ystery religions, w hose b ac k g ro u n d o f “p re se n t eschatology” in in au g u ra tio n rites fo r existence after d e a th is clearer th a n fo r th e earthly co n tin u in g life afte r th e rites, a n d finally th e sam e h o ld s g o o d fo r G nosticism (K. R udolf, Die Gnosis [G ottingen: V an d en h o eck & R u p rec h t, 1990] 214). Frey defines th e “core p ro b le m ” ( Kernproblem; Frey, 418; cf. 429) o f J o h a n n in e eschatology as th e a b ru p t ju x tap o sitio n o f p re se n t a n d fu tu re utteran ces, seen m ost sharply in J o h n 5:24-29. T h e p re se n t eschatology is expressed m ost strongly in J o h n 5:24, fo rm u la te d in th e w ords μ€ταβέβηκ€ν έκ του θανάτου εις τη ν ζωήν, “has m ad e th e tran sitio n from d e a th to life,” w hich c a n n o t b e q u estio n ed o r lim ited by such sayings as J o h n 4:23; 5:25. T h e difficulty o f in te rp re tin g th e saying in J o h n 14:3 with re fe re n c e to πάλιν έρχεσθαι, “to com e ag a in ,” is to know w h e th e r th e com ing o f Jesu s in J o h n 14:3,18, 28 relates to th e re su rre c tio n o f Jesus, o r to th e parousia o f Jesus, o r in light o f vv 14 ,1 6 -1 7 , 26 to th e com ing o f th e Paraclete, in w hich la tte r case μονήν πο ιεΐν, “to m ake [o u r] dw elling,” o f v 23 w ould be a d a p te d a n d sp iritu aliz ed , so th a t th e “F a th e r’s h o u s e ” (v 2) re p re s e n ts th e “te m p le ” o f th e com m unity.

V. Conclusion and Assessments F or th e assessm ent o f fu rth e r discussion, Frey offers these perspectives fo r u n d ersta n d in g th e in te rp re ta tio n o f th e F o u rth Gospel: T h e m ere description o f ideas o f tim e in primitive Christianity as theological interpretation o f eschatological assertions does n o t suffice, b u t it is indispensable for a text-grounded theological in terpretation to draw u p o n the diversity o f tem poral elem ents o f construction in o rd e r to investigate th e form ( Gestalt) o f the eschatological proclam ation an d its in ten tio n in th e F ourth Gospel o n the basis o f a b ro a d er linguistic foundation (Frey, 466). Both the authorial reproduction o f the past an d the expectation o f on e who is com ing could be recognized as significant in this fram e alone u n d e r the leading question: to w hat extent therein is the ever present m om ent qualified an d so h u m an existence can becom e “actual,” “eschatological”? However, eschatology in its traditional understanding o f the concept as the expectation o f a still-awaited future an d described u n d e r the verdict o f som ething literally pictured is incongruous for the Christian kerygm a an d m ust finally fall down as an “un-Christian ” understanding o f time. As naive mythology o f a future apocalyptic speculation o r th e like, it m ust be elim inated (Frey, 467). D etem poralizing (Enttemporalisierung; Frey, 468) follows in th e new er as in th e o ld er exegesis. This state o f affairs certainly perm its itself to be recognized only from a viewpoint th at was n o t already stam ped by th e ex isten tial-th eo lo g ical u n d e rs ta n d in g o f tim e. O nly in o u r d istan ce from

cxlii

Su ppl e m e n t

B ultm an n ’s exposition could it be observed how very m u ch th e existential in terp retation o f th e J o h a n n in e eschatology neglected th e tem poral form o f the J o h a n n in e text a n d com bined all too quickly in a single p o in t o f tim e, as th e “now ” o f proclam ation, the whole representation o f the history o f Jesus as a way in exten d ed time, the references to its pre- an d post-history, an d the often carefully distinguished times (before an d after Jesus’ “glorification”; J o h n 2:22; 12:16; etc.) an d events. B oth linguistic a n d literary-critical research have em phasized th e significance o f th e J o h a n n in e n a rrativ e p a re n th e s e s a n d th e “d o u b le te m p o ra lity ” o f th e J o h a n n in e p re sen tatio n in various tex t form s. T h e F o u rth Evangelist does n o t in th e e n d a p p e a r to give special a tte n tio n to tim e statem ents, w hich are o ften to b e re g a rd e d as m arginal. J. A. B ühner, R. Kieffer, a n d U. S chnelle have in m o re re c e n t p u b lic a tio n s d raw n a tte n tio n to this, th a t in th e p e c u lia r s tru c tu re o f in terlac in g (Verschränkung; Frey, 469) th e tim es a n d places, an essential key to th e u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e F o u rth G ospel a n d its eschatology is to be fo u n d . Above all, fo r th e u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e p ro b lem atic n a tu re o f th e F o u rth G osp el a n d its co m plex discussion o n e rightfully expects fu rth e r re searc h to be clear o n o n e issue: Jo h a n n in e exegesis does n o t d e p e n d , as F. O verbeck suspected (Das Johannesevangelium [T übingen: B ernoulli, 1911] 79), o n “licking o n e ’s own paw s.” R ath er it is d e p e n d e n t o n ren ew ed philological work, w hich alo n e can b e th e basis o f historical-exegetical know ledge. As Frey has passed u n d e r review th e w hole ra n g e o f J o h a n n in e scholarship over th e p ast two centuries, it is clear, as h e rem arks, th a t th e re is n o settled o p in io n o r c o n se n s u s r e g a rd in g so m e o f th e o u ts ta n d in g issues o f J o h a n n in e in te rp re ta tio n . T h e en ig m a o f th e F o u rth G ospel re m a in s an o n g o in g puzzle to b e w restled with by successive g en e ratio n s o f students, p reach ers, a n d readers. T h e p re se n t co m m en tato r, however, rem ain s convinced th a t even th o u g h th e last w ord o n J o h n has n o t yet b e e n spoken, a firm co m m itm e n t to historical a n d th e o logical exegesis, b ased o n so u n d linguistic study, is th e way forw ard.

John

I. The Prologue

(1:1—18 )

Bibliography Aland, K. “Eine U ntersuchung zu Joh 1, 3.4.“ Z N W 59 (1968) 174-209. Borgen, P. “Observations on the Targum ic Character o f the Prologue o f Jo h n .” N T S 16 (196970) 2 8 8 -9 5 .---------. “T he Logos Was the T ru e Light. Contributions to the Interpretation o f the Prologue of Jo h n .” N o v T 14 (1972) 115-30. Boman, T. D as hebräische D en ken im V ergleich m it dem G riechischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1954. 45-56. (ET: H eb rew T h o u g h t C o m p a red w ith G reek. T r. Jules L. Moreau. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. 58-69.) C ulpepper, R. A. “T he Pivot of Jo h n ’s Prologue.” N T S 27 (1980-81) 1-31. Demke, C. “Der sogenannte Logos Hymnus in Johanneische Prolog.” Z N W 58 (1967) 45-68. Dodd, C. H. In terp reta tio n o f the F ou rth G o sp el , 26385, 2 9 4 -9 6 .---------. “T he Prologue to the Fourth Gospel and Christian W orship.” S tu d ies in the F ou rth G ospel. Ed. F. L. Cross. London: Mowbray, 1957. 9-22. Hooker, M. D. “Jo h n the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue.” N T S 16 (1969-70) 354-58. ---------. “T he Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret.” N T S 21 (1974-75) 4 0 58. Jerem ias, J. “T he Revealing W ord.” T h e C e n tra l M essa g e o f the N e w T estam en t. London : SCM, 1965.71-90. Käsemann, E. “T he Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to Jo h n ’s Gospel.” N e w T estam en t Q u estion s o f T oday. London: SCM, 1969. 138-67. R ichter, G. “Die Fleischwerdung des Logos im Johannes-Evangelium .” N o v T 13 (1971) 81-126; 14 (1972) 257-76. Robinson, J. A. T. “T he Relation o f the Prologue to the Gospel of St. Jo h n .” N T S 9 (1962-63) 120-29. Sanders, J. T. T he N e w T estam en t C h risto lo g ica l H ym n s. SNTSMS 15. Cambridge: CUP, 1971. 29— 57. Thyen, H. “Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium .” T R 39 (1975) 53-69, 222-52.

Translation 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God. 2 This was in the beginning with God.

л Everything came into existence through him, and apart from him not a thing came into being.a 4 What has come into being hadb its life in him, and the life was the light o f men; 5 And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it. 6 There came on the scene a man sent from God, whose name was John; 7 he came for witness, to bear testimony concerning the light, in order that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear testimony about the light. 9 This was the authentic light, which enlightens every man by his coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him , and the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own domain, and his own people did not accept him.

2

John

1:1—18

12 But to all who did accept him

he gave authority to become God’s children, namely to those who believe on his name, 13 who were begottenc not from humans’ blood, nor out o f the desire o f the flesh, nor out o f the desire o f a man, but o f God. 14 And the Word became flesh and pitched his tent among us, and we gaud on his glory, glory such as belongs to the only Son from the Father, fu ll o f grace and truth. 15John bears testimony concerning him, and in his proclamation said, “This is he o f whom I said, ‘He who comes after med has become before me,’fo r he existed prior to me.” 16 For a share o f his fullness we all received, even grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth were established through Jesus Christ. 18 God no one has ever seen. The only Son,e by nature God, who is ever close to the Father’s heart, has brought knowledge o f him. Notes a There is uncertainty whether the second line o f v 3 should end with ουδέ év or with b yéyovcv. T h e majority o f early writers, both orthodox and Gnostic, adopted the former alternative; but the use o f the statement by the Arians and Macedonians to prove on that basis that the Holy Spirit was a created being led the orthodox to favor the second way o f reading the sentence. Most moderns consider the former to be intended, on the grounds o f rhythmical balance o f the clauses; the “staircase parallelism,“ characteristic o f vv 1-5, is then preserved. For the ambiguity o f the term ζωή on this reading see Comment. b Since the perfect tense o f yéyονεν is naturally followed by a present, some authorities (notably N D O L MSS), read έστνν in v 4 instead o f ήν. T h e external attestation for ήν is slightly better than for έοτιρ; the latter is probably due to accommodating ήν to yéyov€v\ moreover the occurrence o f ήν in the next line indicates that such was read also in the first. c All Gr. manuscripts, virtually all o f the early versions and most o f the Fathers read in v 13 ot owe έγεννήθησαν, agreeing with the τΛς тотеіхлхпѵ o f v 12. T h e O L MS b reads qui natus estr reflecting ός ούκ iy ev v rfa, supported by, among others, Tertullian, who charged the Valentinians with responsibility for altering the sing, reading to the pi. T h e external evidence for the pi. is overwhelming, and most adopt it without hesitation. Nevertheless many modem critics and exegetes have accepted the originality o f the sing, (including Burney, Boismard, Dupont, F. M. Braun, P. Hofrichter, whose researches persuaded Thyen o f its rightness), and it is incorporated into the JB. T h e conviction, voiced by many, that the pi. was changed to the sing, to make it refer to the Virgin Birth o f Jesus is reversed by Hofrichter; in his view the sing, was altered to a pi. because it appears to exclude the virgin birth through a denial that Jesus was begotten έξ αιμάτω ν, which includes the blood o f Mary! T h e decision is more difficult than is generally acknowledged, and we leave it open. d Various attempts were made by copyists to improve the rough Gr. o f v 15a. Note especially the reading o f the first hand o f Sinaiticus, which omits the grammatically offensive relative clause and makes a single statement: αυτός ήν ό όπίσω μου έρχόμενος δς ¿μιτροσθέν μου yéyovev. T he reading adopted in the U BS and Nestle editions o f the Gr. N T should be accepted. e T h e decision as to whether μανοηενήβ θεός or μοιχτγενής υιός in v 18 is the original reading is difficult. Both readings are consistent with Johannine theology, and both have good external attestation, though the support o f p 66 and p 75 gives advantage to the former. T he difference in the uncials would be minimal, ΘΣ or ΤΣ (both abbreviations were usual). While υιός seems more natural in view o f the following et$ τόν κόλπον roO πατρός, it should, perhaps for that very reason, be viewed as the easier reading and so yield to the more difficult θεός. In that case Θεός must be viewed as in apposition to μονοτγενής and be understood as “God by nature” as in v 1c

Form /StructurelSetting

3

(so Schnackenburg, 1:280). Lindars, in agreement, comments, “T h e harder reading has the merit o f bringing the thought back to v 1, and so constitutes another case o f the Johannine inclusio. ‘God* here has the same meaning as ‘and the Word was God’ ( 1С)” (9 9 ).

Form/StructurelSetting 1. T

he

C o m po s it

io n o f t h e

Pr o l

ogue

The poetic quality o f the prologue is observable, even in translation. C. F. Burney m a i tnained that a retroversion o f the passage into Aramaic reveals the form o f a hymn consisting o f eleven couplets, interspersed with comments; this hymn he saw preserved in vv 1-5, 10-11, 14, 16—17 (Aram aic O rigin , 40-41). The suggestion o f an Aramaic original, while accepted by Bultmann, has been widely rejected, but the basic idea o f a poem concerning the Logos has found general acceptance. B ernard’s comments are worthy of note; he pointed out that the hymn does not consist only o f couplets but contains also triplets (in vv 1, 10, 18) and even single lines (vv 2, 14e); he om itted vv 16—17 from the hymn and considered that it concluded with v 18; the remaining verses give comments from the Evangelist: 6-8, 15 on the witness o f Jo h n the Baptist; 12-13 correct the notion that no one recognized the Word; and 16-17 illustrate the grace and truth o f 14 (I cxliv-vii). Variations in attem pts to delimit the postulated poem have strengthened the skepticism o f some as to w hether any such poem ever existed. Barrett, for example, prefers to describe the prologue as “rhythmical prose” (150), as also does Lindars (80-82). Interestingly, Haenchen accepts the idea o f an original poem, but in his desire to recognize its freedom o f construction (over against Bultm ann’s postulate o f couplets only) he construes the poem as “rhythmical prose”! (137). It is not difficult to observe the difference between the lyrical prose of 1 Cor 13 and the more formal poetry of such hymn citations as 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 2:11-13. It is noteworthy that Phil 2:6-11 and Col 1:15-20 are closely related to the prologue in theology, and both are commonly regarded as Christological hymns. T he balance o f vv 1-5 in the prologue favors their origin in a hymnic composition, as also vv 10-12. But there is a tendency am ong scholars to restrict the further extent o f the poem. Various writers wish to omit v 2 from it, on the ground that there is a smooth transition from v 1 to v 3, and that v 2 explains the application o f θβός to the Logos in v lc (so C. Demke, Logos Hymnus, 54; also Käsemann, Structure, 151; Schnackenburg, 1:227; Thyen TR [39] 58); yet these reasons are hardly strong enough to require the elimination o f v 2 from the poem, and most regard 1-5 as a unity. V 9 is commonly linked with 6-8a as explanatory comment from the Evangelist. More importantly, 14-18 are frequently separated from 1-5, 10- 12b on the grounds that the later verses have in mind the Sinai tradition rather than the wisdom tradition o f the earlier verses, and that whereas the poem is written in the third person, 14-15 are uttered in the first person and appear to be in the nature o f a confession, forming the church’s responsive praise to the affirmations of the hymn to the Logos (so Demke, ibid.; Käsemann, 150-52; Boismard, Saint Luc et la rédaction, 206-210; T hyen claims that the majority o f exegetes now adhere to this position, TR [39] 222, 246). It is not an easy question to determ ine. Vv 15, 10- 12b give the impression of being incomplete excerpts from the original hymn, calling for a climax such as 14 provides; 1 0 -12b are best interpreted as relating (in the poem) to the preincarnate ministry o f the Logos, anticipating the incarnation rather than being a statem ent o f it; and v 14 consists o f balanced

4

J

ohn

1:1-18

clauses like the former verses! If indeed 14-18 are to be viewed as elements of the Church’s confession of faith, like 3:16, this would underscore what in any case is implied in the postulate of a hymn at the base of the prologue, that the theology of the Logos incarnate was not the product of a single theological genius, as the Church has generally viewed the Evangelist, but a fundamental tenet of a church (or group of churches) of which the Evangelist was a prominent leader, whose gospel is its definitive exposition. 2. T

he

St

r uc t ur e of t h e

Pr o l

c x ;u e

If from one point o f view the prologue may be viewed as a poem provided with explanatory comments, from the literary viewpoint it is a closely knit composition, constructed with consummate artistry. This latter aspect has been emphasized by some scholars, who hold that the text is the result of an intricate process, whereby an extended chiasmus has been fashioned. Attempts to display such a structure are described by R. A. Culpepper (“The Pivot of John’s Prologue,’’ 2-6); he himself sets forth an analysis wherein vv 1-2 are balanced by v 18, 3 by 17, 4—5 by 16, 6-8 by 15, 9-10 by 14, 11 by 13, 12a by 12c, so resulting in 12b as the pivot of the chiasmus: “He gave them authority to become the children of God.’’ Impressive as this examination is, I find it difficult to accept. The commencement and conclusion of the prologue are crucial for this view; it is urged that in the beginning the Logos is in heaven with God, and at the end of the redemptive process he is “in the bosom of the Father,’’ i.e., again in heaven with God; the prologue exemplifies the descent-ascent theology of the Redeemer. This is surely a misunderstanding of the passage. It begins by declaring the unity of the Logos with God and his role as the instrument of God in the act of creation; in that capacity h e r e m a in s a c tiv e w ith in th e crea ted o rd e r , and is the source of life in the world; as “the light of men’’ he continues to shine, even in the presence of uncomprehending darkness. This continued ministry of the Logos in the world is underscored if (as most believe) the poem in 10-12 relates to the preincarnate work of the Logos. As there is no “descent” (not even for incarnation!) neither is there ascent here; for the assertion in v 18 most naturally relates to the authoritative revelation of the Father given by the Incarnate Son. Since he is ever “in the bosom of the Father,” he knows the Father’s heart and mind, and out of that intimate fellowship he “gave an exposition of him.” The imagery is applied later to the Beloved Disciple, who in 13:23 is said to have reclined “in the bosom of Jesus,” and so was able to learn the mind of the Lord— a comment which may well extend to the revelation of which the Gospel is the distillation and record. With this Schnackenburg agrees, pointing out that the prologue, unlike other NT hymns to Christ, does not conclude with a celebration of the Lord’s heavenly exaltation, but with “a pointed statement of the one historical revelation brought by the unique Son of God” (1:224). Apart from this vital consideration, the parallels between 3 and 17, and between 4-5 and 16 seem fragile. Moreover, the references to the testimony of John the Baptist owe their position not to the necessities of a chiasmus structure but to the interpretation of the context in which each reference is placed (see C o m m e n t). For the Evangelist it would appear that the account of the prologue moves to the statement of v 14; by virtue of its theological significance it forms the center of gravity of the prologue, and indeed of the Gospel itself. As to its subject matter, there is widespread agreement on the division o f the prologue, though the exegetes use various ways o f describing the sections. It divides naturally into four, which may be enumerated as follows:

Form!Structure!Setting

5

(i) vv 1-5, The Word and Creation; (ii) vv 6 -8 , The Witness to the Word by John the Baptist; (iii) vv 9 -1 3 , The Reactions to the Word in the World; (iv) vv 14-18, The Confession o f the Word by the Church. 3. T

he

Fu n c t

io n o f t h e

Pr

ol ogue

It is evident that the prologue is more than a preface, such as that which Luke provides for his Gospel, explaining how he came to write his work. The explanation for the writing o f the Gospel is left to its conclusion (2 0 :3 0 31). The prologue is “a directive to the reader how the entire Gospel should be read and understood” (Thyen, TR [39] 223). As the Gospel is wholly concerned with Jesus, so the prologue is wholly taken up with him. The Evangelist does not feel it necessary to commend the story o f Jesus to his readers. Rather he prepares for the story by describing the Son o f God in terms that rivet the attention o f his readers, and so encourages them to read the story for themselves. The remarkable feature o f this presentation is that it employs categories universally known, possessing universal appeal, which would attract and have attracted alike Jews, Christians and pagans, Hellenists and Orientals in their varied cultures, followers o f ancient and modern religions, philosophers and people o f more humble status who were yet seekers after God. The prologue has frequently been likened to an overture to an opera. The comparison is apt, since an overture is calculated to whet the appetite of the hearers, preparing them for the work to be presented and bringing together themes developed in it. On the latter point one may, for example, recall how the Gospel makes mention o f the preexistence of the Son o f God (e.g., 17:5), the giving o f the μοιχτγβρής in incarnation and death (3:16), his function as the light o f the world (8:12) and its life (11:25), the manifestation o f his glory (2:11), the unbelief o f the world in face o f it (12:41; 16:8-11), and the trust o f those drawn by it (6:67-69; 12:31—2; 17:6—19). The declaration o f purpose in 20:30-31 has a fundamental connection with the punch line o f the prologue in 1:14; the latter affirms the reality o f the incarnation of the Logos in humanity, and 20:30 records the intention o f establishing that Jesus is the Christ and Son o f God in the sense confessed by Thomas (“my Lord and my God”). Despite its simplicity of language the prologue is far from simple. Bultmann asserted that it is more a mystery than a key to the Gospel and is comprehensible only to one who knows the whole Gospel (13). The truth in that assertion lies in the profundities which inhere in the terms and concepts used in the prologue (word, life, light, glory, grace, truth, revelation), and which gain their fullest significance in the light o f the story o f the incarnate Logos that follows. Nevertheless, despite the measure o f enigma in the prologue, it does prepare the way for the exposition o f the profundities it so tersely declares. This Hoskyns perceived and characteristically stated: “In the course o f his gospel the Evangelist draws out what is involved in Jesus as the Word of God. . . . The figure o f Jesus as the embodiment o f the glory o f the Word o f God controls the whole matter o f the Christian religion” (162).

6

J

4. T

he

O r ig in

of t h e

ohn

1:1-18

L o g o s C o n c e pt

There is a famous passage in the Confessions o f Augustine wherein, during a recital to God o f his spiritual pilgrimage, he wrote, Thou procuredst for me, by means of one puffed up with most unnatural pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin. And therein I read, not indeed the very words, but to the very same purpose, enforced by many and diverse reasons, that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: the same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made: that which was made by Him is life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. And that the soul of man, though it bears witness to the light, yet itself is not that light; but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. And that He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. “But,” observed Augustine, “that He came unto his own, and his own received Him not; but as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons o f God, as many as believed in his name; this 1 read not there.” Similarly after citing a version o f Joh n 1:13, he added, “that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, I read not there” (Confessions 9.13, 14, translated by E. B. Pusey [London: Dent, 1907] 129—31). Whether one is impressed more by what Augustine found in the Platonists or did not find in their writings depends perhaps on the interests in a given moment. Doubtless there will have been many besides Augustine in the early centuries o f our era who were struck by the relationships between the prologue and Hellenic and Hellenistic traditions, and there was much to encourage comparison in these areas. For Heraclitus the Logos is “the omnipresent wisdom by which all things are steered”; it is the divine word received by the prophet, which becomes almost equivalent to God (see J. Adam, The Religious Teachers of Ancient Greeks, 2 lb-34). For the Stoics, the Logos is the common law of nature, immanent in the universe and maintaining its unity, the divine fire, the soul of the universe. Philo of Alexandria exploited the concept in a striking fashion. He saw the Logos as the agent of creatum, distinguishing between the Logos as a thought in the mind of God, his eternal wisdom, and its expression in making formless matter a universe. The Logos is the medium of divine government of the world; it is “the captain and pilot of the universe.” The Logos is the means by which man may know God, for God is unknowable by the mass of mankind; they can know him only in and through the Logos: “The Logos is the God of us imperfect men, but the primal God is the God of the wise and perfect”; accordingly the Logos is viewed as the High Priest through whom men come to God, an Advocate (π α ρ έικ Κ η το ς) for the forgiveness of sins. And the Logos is identified with the Perfect Man, the man of Gen 1, made in the image of God, as distinct from the man of the earth of Gen 2; he is the Father’s “eldest Son,” his “Firstborn.” These contacts of Philonic thought with the Fourth Gospel are the more significant in view of the independence of the two authors, for they clearly reflect related traditions and modes of thinking. To some extent a similar observation may be made regarding Gnostic representations of the Logos as an intermediary figure between God and the world; through the Logos God is able

FormlStructure/Setting

7

to make a material world, and through him man has the possibility of deliverance from this world. The concepts of creation and redemption are, of course, quite different from the biblical concepts. For the Gnostic the Logos is the Redeemer who descended into the lower world in human form, deceiving the demonic powers, and made it possible for man to follow him into the higher world of God. Here the Logos is called the Son of God, the μ ο ν ο γ εν ή ς , the Image of God, the demiurge, even а δεύτερος θεός, and also Man (Άνθρωπος). In the Odes of Solomon, the parallels to the picture of the Logos in the prologue are particularly interesting, especially in Ode vii: He became like me, in order that I might receive him, he appeared in likeness as myself, in order that I might put him on. And I trembled not when I saw him, for he is my grace. . . . He gave himself to be seen by those who are his, in order that they should know him who made them and that they should not think that they came o f themselves.

To what extent the Odist has been influenced in his language by the Evangelist is difficult to determine, but the Odes as a whole are not, apparently, Christian. Where did these ideas emanate from? Their history stretches beyond the confines of Greek culture. The opening words of the prologue give the clue: “In the beginning was the Word. . . .” The statement recalls the first word of the Hebrew Bible, ΓΓ1ΰΝΊ3 (b'resit), rendered in the LXX, as in the Gospel, év ápxf¡. The association was the more evident to the Jews, since they referred to books of the Bible by their opening words, and so “In the beginning” was the Jewish name for “Genesis.” In that beginning God spoke, and the universe was created (Gen 1:3, 6, 9, etc.). This representation was entirely comprehensible to Jews, since to them, as to other peoples throughout the ancient Orient, the Word, especially the Word of God, was not so much an expression of thought as a powerful action, a concept not native to Greeks. So we read in Ps 33:6: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth.” This delineation of the creative power of the word of God is observable in much of the literature of the ancient nearer Orient. In Assyrian and Babylonian thought the word of God is a cosmic power, compared in the Ellil hymns to a raging storm, a bursting dam, a snare in the forest, a net stretched out over the sea which nothing can escape: T he word o f Ellil, heaven cannot endure it. T h e word o f Ellil, earth cannot endure it.

L. Dürr, from whom these references are cited, emphasizes that in the hymns that tell of the power of the divine Word, the beneficence and life-giving activity of the Word in creation are also celebrated (see Die Wertung des göttlichen Wortes, 12-14). In Egypt the power of creation and the maintenance of the universe are attributed to the divine Word; here the Word is viewed as an ever-active substance that flows out of the mouth of the deity. The ОТ representations of creation as taking place through the mighty utterance of the Word of God are clearly characteristic of Near Eastern thought, but there is one important difference: in the ОТ the Word is never spoken of in terms of an emanation, but always of God sovereignly acting on the world through his Word. This creative action of God by the Word is fundamentally the same as that by which God brings to pass his purpose in

8

J o h n 1:1—18

history by the Word which he makes known to his prophets (see e.g. Isa 55:11, and T. Bowman’s comments, Das hebräische Denken, 47-48; ET Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek [London: SCM, I960]). It is important to observe that the development of the concept of the Word of God in the ОТ and later Judaism is similarly related to that among Israel’s neighbors. This applies to the association of Word and Wisdom. The connection of Wisdom with the creative Word is already assumed in Prov 8:22-31 (note especially vv 27-31). In Wisd 9:1 there is an explicit identification of Wisdom and the Word: “God of our fathers, and Lord who keepest mercy, who madest all things by thy word, and by thy wisdom formedst man. . . .” This can be paralleled in varied ancient texts of countries with which Israel was in contact. In Egypt, Thoth is alike the Word and the god of wisdom. In the Ras Shamra texts the word and wisdom of El are linked together: “Thy word, O El, is wisdom, wise art thou eternally” (II AB IV, 41 f.). It is perhaps not without significance that the clearest approach to the hypostatizing of the Word occurs in the Wisdom of Solomon, wherein Wisdom is also presented in a highly developed fashion. Describing the slaying of the firstborn in Egypt the writer proceeds: “All things were lying in peace and silence, and night in her swift course was half spent, when thy almighty Word leaped from thy royal throne in heaven into the midst of the doomed land like a relentless warrior, bearing the sharp sword of thy inflexible decree, and it stood and filled it all with death, his head touching the heavens, his feet on earth” (18:14-16). The imagery is consonant with the tradition of the powerful, and even terrible, action of the Word in and upon the world. A more characteristic element in the poetry of Wisdom is to depict her as descending from heaven to seek a place of welcome in the earth and finding none. A late expression of that concept is seen in Enoch 42:2: Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children o f men, and found no dwelling place; Wisdom returned to her place, and took her seat among the angels.

By contrast Sir 24:6-8 tells of the home that was appointed for her: T h e waves o f the sea, the whole earth, every people and nation were under my sway. Among them all I looked for a home: in whose territory was I to settle? Then the Creator o f the universe laid a command upon me; my Creator decreed where I should dwell. He said, “Make your home in Jacob; find your heritage in Israel.”

Here, however, the author has given a significant twist to the ancient tradition, for what he has in mind is none other than the Torah, the Law, with which Wisdom has been identified. It was an extraordinary, though comprehensible, development in a context wherein the Word of God was understood as revealed in the Law. The term AAAA (tôrāh) is itself many hued; it could denote the word of God, the will of God concretely embodied in the Law, and divine instruction (especially in the Book of Proverbs). In due time it became identified with Wisdom itself, and so gained the theological and cosmological associations of Wisdom and the Word. The passage above cited from Sir 24 begins with a declaration of Wisdom: I am the word which was spoken by the Most High; it was I who covered the earth like a mist . . . .

Form/Structure/Setting

9

an utterance clearly due to the approximation of Wisdom to the creative Word of God. The passage concludes with the statement, “All this is the covenant book of God Most High, the law which Moses enacted.” This notion of Torah was developed by the rabbis. The opening word of Genesis, bereshith, can signify “in the beginning” or “by the beginning.” Gen. Rob. 1 comments thus: “Through the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; the ‘beginning’ is nothing other than the Torah, as it says in Prov 8:22, Yahweh created me as the beginning of his way.” The citation is instructive, for Prov 8:22 speaks of Wisdom, but for the rabbis Wisdom is the Law, the creative Word. Distinctively Jewish as this development of the Wisdom-Word concept is, it is important to bear in mind its origins in the early dynamic concepts of Word and Wisdom of God in creation. It is significant that this thinking is most characteristically expressed in poetic utterance. Apart from the later Wisdom writings there are the Wisdom psalms of the ОТ, which are believed to preserve a tradition of composition which originated and was maintained in circles of the “wise men.” O f them, S. Mowinckel affirmed, “From of old these ‘learned’ or ‘wise’ men used to cultivate a special kind of literature, ‘the poetry of wisdom,’ which was cultivated all over the Orient, and had a common, markedly international, character, in Egypt, Babylonia, and Canaan” (Psalms and Wisdom, 206-7). J. T. Sanders considers this tradition to be the fount of the NT Christological hymns, with its most notable expression in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel (see The New Testament Christological Hymns, chap. 8). Here then we have a fascinating example of an ancient religious tradition from the area in which Israel’s faith was cradled, accommodated to the monotheistic and historic nature of the revelation in Israel, spread through the Western world and taken up in its developing religious and philosophical traditions, and finally given a new orientation within the Gospel. T. Bowman, assured as he was of the oriental origin of the concept of the Word and its decisive significance within the О Т and Judaism, believed that the Greek tradition must not be discounted within the prologue, but rather that the two streams must be seen as flowing together in it. He illustrated this from the convergence and divergence of the meanings of the Hebrew Ί 3 7 (dābār) and the Greek λόγος:

The famous scene in Faust, therefore, where Faust reflects on how to translate Logos in John 1:1 and decides on “In the beginning was the deed” is one-sided.

What we have in the prologue is a coming together of notions buried deep in the cultures of East and West. The result, as Boman suggested, should be compared with the effect of the ringing of many bells together; the ОТ tone sounds most powerfully in the assertions of the action of the Word, but the affirmations of the nature of the Word comport with the characteristic Greek emphasis on being (55). Here one should heed the words of J. B. Skemp, a classicist, regarding the prologue and the Gospel it introduces: “It may be possible as a tour de force to prove that

J o h n 1:1-18

10

everything in it could stem from pure Hebrew antecedents, but it will never be possible to prove that its hearers heard it with minds and hearts uninfluenced by Hellenistic meanings of the words they heard read to them” (T h e G reeks a n d the G o sp el [London: Carey Kingsgate, 1964] 56). But a further factor calls for consideration. Among Christians the expression “the Word” was laden with a special meaning: it denoted the good news of God’s revelation and redemption in Christ. The four Gospels present it as God’s word spoken th ro u g h Christ and a b o u t Christ. This prompted Hoskyns to assert: “That Jesus once spoke is more fundamental for the understanding of the Logos than is the history of Greek philosophy, or the story of the westward progress of oriental mysticism, more fundamental even than the first chapter of Genesis or the eighth chapter of Proverbs” (137). In so writing, Hoskyns almost certainly would have united the speech of Jesus in word and deed. In that wider sense he insisted on linking the identification of Jesus as the Logos with other images used of Jesus— the Life, Light, Truth, Way, Door, Bread, Resurrection (see 139). C. H. Dodd made the same point, as the present writer once heard him say: “As Jesus gives life and is life, raises the dead and is the resurrection, gives bread and is bread, speaks truth and is the truth, so as he speaks the word he is the Word.” The employment o f the Logos concept in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel is the supreme example within Christian history o f the communication o f the gospel in terms understood and appreciated by the nations. As Paul stood on Mars Hill and declared, “That which you worship but do not know, I now proclaim” (Acts 17:23), so the Evangelist set forth to the world o f his day thoughts familiar to all about the Logos in relation to God and the world, startlingly modified by the affirmation o f the Incarnation, and then went on in the Gospel to tell how the Word acted in the words and deeds o f Jesus and brought about the redemption o f the nations.

Comment T h e Wo r

d of

Go d

and

Cr

e a t io n

(1 :1 —5)

1 “In the beginning” recalls Gen 1:1. But it relates here not to the act o f creation, but to what existed when creation came into being, namely the Word, who was with God and was God. As Haenchen pointed out (116), the subject is surprising; one expects to read, “In the beginning . . . God,” but it is “the Word”; yet it would be impossible to read in its place any other title that has been appropriated for Jesus, e.g., “In the beginning was the C h r i s t or ,” “the Son,” or “the Son o f Man.” Not even the lofty title “the Lord” or the more ancient “the Wisdom” could adequately convey the associations o f the following utterances, for the connotation o f “the Word” is unique; and it is without parallel in the languages o f modern culture. Its richness has to be searched out and conveyed by explanation (see above, pp. 6-10). πρός тЬѵ Ѳебѵ = “with God,” in the sense o f “in the presence o f God” (cf. Mark 6:3), or “in the fellowship o f God” (1 Joh n 1:2-3), or even (as the next clause suggests) “in union with God.” και 0βός ήν b λόγος: 0eÓ9 without the article signifies less than ό θβός; but it cannot be understood as “a god,” as though the Logos were a lesser god alongside the supreme God; nor as

11

Comment

simply “divine,” for which the term fleto? was well known (in 2 Pet 1:4 believers are said to be fleta? k o w ü jv c í φύσε ω?, “sharers o f the divine nature”); nor as indicating the exercise o f divinefu n ctio n s without possessing the divine nature; rather it denotes God in his n a tu re , as truly God as he with whom he “was,” yet without exhausting the being o f God (observe that the Evangelist did not write και λόγο? ήν b fleo? (“and God was the Word”). The divine nature o f the Logos is seen in his activity in creation (1-5), revelation (5, 9-1 2 , 18) and redemption (12-14, 16-17); in all these God expresses himself through the Word, hence the dictum o f Bultmann, “From the outset God must be understood as the ‘one who speaks,’ the God who reveals himself” (35). 2 The statement o f v 2 emphasizes, through repetition, (i) that the Word, and none other (ouro?), was with God in the beginning; (ii) that he was with God before all times and did not come into being at the “beginning” (contrast the éyévero o f vv 3 and 6); and (iii) the paradox o f the Word who was God, and yet in fellowship with God. 3 For the punctuation o f the sentence see the Notes. The Logos is asserted to be the Mediator o f creation, positively and negatively (“Everything by the Logos, nothing without him,” Bultmann, 37). In view of 1c the concept o f the Logos as M ediator must be distinguished from that o f an intermediary between God and creation, as though the Logos were a species o f demiurge, doing something in and for the world which God in his glory would not do; the creative activity o f the Logos is the activity o f God through him (so Pollard,

20). 4 The Logos is Mediator not only in the act o f creation, but in its continuance. Hence fcjij (life) and 0co? (light) include the life and light which come to man in both creation a n d new creation. Our Gospel emphasizes the latter aspect, since it is concerned with the saving action o f the Logos-Son for humankind, but the new creative work presupposes the original creative action o f the Logos and is its goal. 5 The present φθάνει is unexpected; it embraces history and the present time o f the Evangelist. The light o f the Logos shone in the primal darkness at creation, and continued amidst the darkness o f fallen mankind; it shone with greater brilliance in the glory o f the Incarnate One; and it shines on in the era o f the Resurrection, which is the time o f the Paraclete. Similarly the verb ob κ α τέλ α β εν includes the past o f the preincarnate Logos, as o f the Incarnate Logos, and extends into the era o f the Church’s witness to the Logos made flesh, καταλαμβίχνειν can mean “grasp” in the sense o f makes one’s own (cf. Phil 3:12), understand (Eph 3:18), overcome or overtake (12:35, cf. 1 Thess 5:4). The context (cf. 10-12) suggests that acknowledging and receiving the truth o f the revelation is primarily in view here. T h e W it n e s s t o

t h e

W o r d o f Go d

by

J o h n

t h e

B a p t is t

(1:6-8)

6 An account o f Joh n the Baptist’s ministry formed the commencement o f the kerygma (Acts 10:37; Mark 1: 1,4; similarly in this Gospel, immediately following the prologue, 1:19 ff.). The Evangelist interrupts his citation from the Logos hymn in order to present the Baptist’s testimony to “the Light,”

12

John

1:1-18

i.e., to th e Logos in c a rn a te in Je su s. It is possible th a t in th e E vangelist’s tim e th e re w ere follow ers o f J o h n w ho claim ed th a t he was th e L ig h t, i.e., th e L ig h t o f S alvation, th e D e liv erer o f G o d ’s p eo p le. T h e m istake is effectively rectified: J o h n ’s a p p e a ra n c e (éyévero , “cam e o n th e sce n e’’) was in re sp o n se to a com m issio n fro m G o d to be a w itness to th e o n e a n d only L ight o f th e w orld. T h is, in th e p u rp o s e o f G od, was th e s u p re m e e n d o f his p ro c la m atio n a n d b ap tism . (T h e passag e follow ing th e p ro lo g u e will e x p a n d this th em e, especially vv 1 9 -3 7 .) T h e R e a c t io n s t o

t h e

W o r d o f

Go d

in

t h e

W o r l d

(1 :9 -1 3 )

9 In face o f false claim s (c o n cern in g J o h n o r an y o th e r alleg ed p ro p h e tre d e e m e r) th e a u th e n tic L ig h t is affirm ed to be th e W o rd w ho illum ines th e ex isten ce o f every m an (positively and negatively, fo r salvation a n d ju d g m e n t; see 3 :1 9 -2 1 ). T h e sta te m e n t is a m b ig u o u s, in asm u ch as th e p h ra se “co m in g in to th e w o rld ” can re la te to th e L ig h t (“th ro u g h his co m in g in to th e w o rld ”) o r to every p e rso n (“every p e rs o n b o rn in to th e w o rld ”). T h e ex p ressio n “all w ho co m e in to th e w o rld ” was co m m o n a m o n g Jew s to d e n o te ev ery o n e, b u t it d id n o t in clu d e th e g en e ric te rm “m a n .” W e c a n n o t be su re w hat was in te n d e d h ere. E ith e r re fe re n c e m akes sense, a n d is h a rm o n io u s w ith th e co n tex t. It is p e rh a p s p re fe ra b le to c o n n e c t th e p h ra se w ith th e c o m in g in to th e w orld o f th e Logos. T h e q u estio n th e n arises: When d o es h e com e? T h e w riters to w hom A u g u stin e re fe rr e d will have n atu ra lly th o u g h t in te rm s o f th e u n iv ersa l m in istry o f th e L ogos in th e w orld; in c a rn a tio n o f th e Logos was n o t w ith in th e ir h o rizo n . It is likely th a t su ch was th e in te n tio n o f th e p o em h e re cited, a n d vv 10-1 2 a re wholly c o m p re h e n sib le in this sense. B u t 10—12 also su m m arize ad m irab ly in re tro sp e c t th e m inistry o f Je su s, a n d 12—13 seem to have th e gospel o f new life in view. D o d d ’s in te rp re ta tio n has m u c h to c o m m e n d it: th e E vangelist (as d istin ct fro m th e poet) holds b o th re fe re n c e s to g e th e r. “T h e life o f J e s u s is th e history o f th e Logos as in c a rn a te , a n d this m u st be, u p o n th e stage o f lim ited tim e, th e sam e th in g as th e h isto ry o f th e L ogos in p e rp e tu a l re la tio n s w ith m an a n d th e w orld. . . . T h e w hole passage fro m v. 4 is at once a n ac c o u n t o f th e re la tio n s o f th e Logos w ith th e w orld and a n a c c o u n t o f th e m in istry o f J e s u s C h rist, w hich in every essential p a rtic u la r re p ro d u c e s th o se re la tio n s” (Interpretation, 284). 10 H e re we m eet fo r th e first tim e in this G ospel th e te rm κόσμος, “w o rld .” In 10a it d e n o te s th e w orld in h ab ited by h u m a n k in d , in 10b th e w orld in clu d in g h u m a n beings, in 10c h u m an ity , fallen a n d in d a rk n e ss, yet re m a in in g th e o b ject o f th e love o f G o d (3:16). T h e u tte ra n c e is ak in to Jew ish sayings re g a rd in g th e u n re sp o n siv e n ess o f h u m a n k in d to W isdom (cf. E n o ch 42 :2 , “W isdom w ent fo rth to m ak e h e r dw elling a m o n g th e ch ild re n o f m en , a n d fo u n d n o d w ellin g p lace”). 11 T h e s ta te m e n t is view ed by B u ltm a n n as precisely parallel to 10: €ΐς τά ίδια , lit., “to his ow n (p ro p e rty )” = th e w orld o f m en ; oi ίδιοι, lit., “his ow n (p e o p le )” = h u m a n k in d in its en tire ty ; th e re fo re h u m a n beings, not Israel, a re in view (56). I f this sh o u ld c o rre s p o n d to th e in te n tio n o f th e o rig in al h y m n , th e E vangelist alm o st certain ly saw th e saying as re la tin g e sp e -

13

Comment

dally to Israel in its resistance to the Word o f God (Israel is the people peculiarly “God’s own”; see Exod 19:5; cf. Rom 15:8; Joh n 4:22). 12 The positive aspect o f the ministry of the Logos is here described: there were those who “received” the Logos, i.e., welcomed the Word in faith. T o them he gave authority to become God’s children; they were not so by nature (contrary to the Gnostics!), but became such by authorization o f the Logos. This implies a concept o f adoption, which in v 13 gives way to that o f regeneration (the theme is developed in 3:1-21). If, as Bultmann thought, the Evangelist inserted the term ¿¡¡ουσία (authority) into the hymn (in Semitic (nātan), “to give,” itself can mean “give permission”; see e.g. languageB Rev 2:7; 3:21), then the insertion emphasizes the action o f the Logos. We observe that believers are called τέκ ν α ѲеоО, children o f God; unlike Paul, the Evangelist never refers to them as utoi 0eoü, sons o f God; like the Seer o f Revelation, he reserves the expression Son (of God) for Jesus. Believing “in the name o f Jesus” is found only in Joh n and 1 John; it implies “acceptance o f Jesus to the full extent o f his revelation” (Schnackenburg, 1:263). Later we learn that the Father has given to the Son to share his name (17:11; cf, 6:20; 8:58). 13 T o “become children pf God” is a work wholly o f God’s operation. The successive phrases contrast birth from God with human begetting, and emphasize the inability o f men and women to reproduce it. The plural α ίμ α τα (commonly = “drops o f blood”) alludes to the blood o f the parents who beget and give birth; the “will o f the flesh” denotes sexual desire; the will of “a male” (άνδρός) has in view the initiative generally ascribed to the male in sexual intercourse; here it extends to human initiative as such. On the possibility o f v 13 relating to the birth o f Jesus (reading 09 ούκ . . . ¿yewrflri) see the Notes. The singular reading would emphasize the Incarnation o f the Logos as wholly due to the miracle o f divine action, and as such anticipates the povoyew fc o f v 14. Hoskyns rejected the singular reading but saw in it a clue to the unusual wording o f the sentence. He suggested that the Evangelist deliberately employed language suggestive o f the Virgin Birth when describing the new birth o f believers; the miracle o f regeneration is thus patterned on and determined by the miracle o f the Incarnation (164— 65). Even if a reference to the Virgin Birth be questioned (there is no clear reference to it in the Gospel), the idea o f relating “birth from God” (3:3) to the Incarnation is entirely possible, and theologically sound. T h e C o n f e s s io n

o f

t h e

W o r d o f Go d

by

t h e

C h u r c h

(1:14-18)

14 b λόγος σάρξ éyévero, “the Word became flesh,” is the controlling utterance o f the sentence. It is not to be subordinated to the third clause, as though it signified only the condition for manifesting the glory o f God in the world (contra Käsemann, “Prologue to Jo h n ’s Gospel,” 158-59). Σ αρξ ¿yéѵето is more emphatic than the related ¿фаѵерСэѲг] év а а р кіу “who was manifested in the flesh,” o f 1 Tim 3:16. On éyévero Richter commented: “The verb ytvopcu in connection with a predicative noun expresses that a person or a thing changes its property or enters into a new condition, becomes something

14

J

ohn

1:1-18

that it was not before” (Fleischwerdung, 88). In this context that “something” is flesh. The assertion excludes any notion o f Docetism, “naive” or otherwise. T h e Logos in becoming σάρ£ participated in man’s creaturely weakness (the characteristic meaning o f “flesh” in the Bible). Into that condition o f human weakness the Logos “pitched his tent” (έσκήνωσεν, from σκηνή, “tent”) and revealed his glory (cf. shekinah, having the same consonants as the Greek σκηνή). T h e language is evocative o f the revelation o f God’s glory in the Exodus—by the Red Sea, on Mount Sinai, and at the tent o f meeting by Israel’s camp (especially the last; see Exod 3 3 :7 11; for the glory in and upon the Tabernacle cf. Exod 40:34-38). The Exodus associations are intentional, and are part o f the theme o f the revelation and redemption o f the Logos-Christ as fulfilling the hope o f a second Exodus. έθεασάμεθα, “we gazed on,” represents the taking up by the Church into its confession the testimony o f the eyewitnesses o f the ministry o f the Christ. It connotes more than contemporary spiritual insight o f faith, though it doubtless includes it. The Evangelist will have had in mind the glory o f the Christ which the witnesses saw in the signs he performed (e.g., 2:11), in his being lifted up on the cross (19:35), and in the Easter resurrection (20:24-29). It was a revelation o f glory such as could proceed alone from the “μονοτγενής from the Father,” i.e., God's only Son (not “as o f an only son o f his father” in a generic sense). Μονοτγενής, lit., “the only one o f its kind,” unique in its у ένος, in the LX X frequently translates ITT* (yahîd ), used o f an only or beloved child (as in Judg 11:34, o f Jephthah’s only daughter). It is therefore parallel to ауакгугЫ;, “beloved,” an alternative rendering o f 7*TP in the LXX. Significantly, in Gen 22:2, 12, 16, άγαπτρΌς in the L X X renders 7 ’T P with reference to Isaac, Abraham’s “only” son; Heb 11:17, alluding to the same passage, uses μοικτγενής o f Isaac. The use o f άγαπτ/τός in the synoptic accounts o f the baptism o f Jesus (e.g., Mark 1:11) accordingly, may be compared with μοιπτγενής, despite the difference o f scriptural backgrounds, and the same would apply to Joh n 3:16, 18, and 1 Jo h n 4:19. Μ ον(τγενής also appears in Greek religious literature. Bultmann adduces examples o f the term applied to divinities in the sense o f “begotten by one alone” (i.e., by one father, without the assistance o f a mother), a significance which Hofrichter would adopt for this passage also, in view o f its proximity to 1:13 (139 ff.). While that meaning would suit nicely the singular reading o f 1:13, the associations o f the term with ТТР and άγαπιττός suggest that the Johannine community had the latter meaning (“only”) in mind in the confessional statements o f 1:14 and 3:16, which will have been formulated without reference to 1:13. χάρις και αλήθεια, “grace and truth,” = the common ΓΙΌΚ1 7ΌΠ (hesed we*me0, frequently rendered in the LX X by έλβος και άλήθεια to describe the covenant mercy of God (cf. Exod 34:6). This “gracious constancy” o f God is manifest in its fullness in the Logos-Son. χάρις occurs in the Fourth Gospel in this paragraph alone (14, 16, 17) but its threefold repetition here reflects its importance in the confessional theology o f the Johannine church. By contrast, άλήθεια, “truth,” is a key Johannine term, in which the Hebrew and Greek concepts o f truth come together. ГШН (’eme0 represents firmness,

Comment

15

stability, a n d o f p erso n s, stead fastn ess o r tru stw o rth in ess; a m o n g G reeks ά λή θεία d e n o te s th a t w hich really is; in th is G ospel it o fte n re p re s e n ts “e te rn a l

reality as rev ealed to m en — e ith e r th e reality itself o r th e rev elatio n o f it” (D o d d , Interpretation, 177). H e re th e p erso n a l n a tu re o f th e reality o f G od a n d th e rev elatio n is to th e fore. 15 A n an ticip atio n o f 1:30, this sta te m e n t is a J o h a n n in e in terp re tiv e re p re se n ta tio n o f a well know n saying in th e p rim itive C h u rc h , re c o rd e d in M ark 1:7, b u t clo ser in fo rm to M att 3:11. T h e M essiah is s u p e rio r to J o h n in “m ig h t,” in th a t h e has b ee n a c co rd e d a priority o f status (εμπροσθέv μου yéyovev) in ac co rd an ce w ith his priority in time (π ρ ώ το ς μου ήν). T h e LogosC h rist p artic ip a te s in th e e te rn a l p rio rity o f G od. T h e m ix tu re o f tenses in th e saying reflects its fre q u e n t citatio n ; th e p ast ten se re p re s e n ts w h at J o h n used to say , b u t th e p re s e n t μ α ρ τυ ρ εί (“w itnesses”) indicates th a t J o h n ’s testim ony to C h rist c o n tin u e s in th e kerygm a. Its p e rtin e n c e h e re is its co n firm atio n o f th e tru th affirm ed in v 14, alo n g w ith th e im plicit re je ctio n o f any claim m ad e o n J o h n ’s b e h a lf th a t h e was g re a te r th a n th e M essiah Je s u s (cf. 1 :6 S ).

16 T h e saying relates im m ed iately to v 14 (v 15 is p aren th etic). T h e W o rd m ad e flesh was full o f grace a n d tru th , fo r “in his fullness we all have sh ared , ev en (καί resu m p tiv e) g race a fte r g ra c e .” coni a p p e a rs to in dicate th a t fresh grace re p laces g race received, a n d will d o so p e rp e tu a lly , th e salvation b ro u g h t by th e W o rd th u s is d efin e d in term s o f in ex h au stib le grace, a significa n t fe a tu re in view o f th e absence o f f u r th e r m e n tio n o f χ ά ρ ις in th e G ospel. 17 T h e g race th a t ch aracterizes th e rev elatio n a n d re d e m p tio n o f th e μοιχτγενής is u n d e rsc o re d by a co m p ariso n w ith th e old co v e n an t m ed iated th ro u g h M oses. T h e deliv eran ce u n d e r th e “first R e d e e m e r” (as th e rabbis view ed M oses) issued in th e gift o f th e Law; this was “g iv en ,” n o t as a b u rd e n , b u t as a re v elatio n o f G o d ’s will fo r his p eo p le (th e re is n o h in t o f polem ic ag a in st th e Law). T h e re d e m p tio n b ro u g h t a b o u t by th e “second R e d e e m e r,” th e L ogos-C hrist, occasioned a rev elatio n o f G od a n d a n e x p e rie n c e o f salvation ch a rac te rized by “g race a n d tr u th .” By this m ean s th e e a rlie r revelation o f th e co v e n a n t fa ith fu ln e ss o f G o d was b ro u g h t to an eschatological fulfillm ent; th e second E xo d u s u n d e r th e L ogos-C hrist led to th e new o rd e r o f th e e te rn a l k in g d o m o f G od. 18 In view o f th e E x o d u s a s so c ia tio n s o f vv 14 a n d 17, “N o o n e h as ever seen G o d ” will have in view n o t only d eliverers a n d p ro p h e ts o f H ellenistic re lig io n s a n d o f th e О Т generally, b u t m o st especially M oses. H e w itn essed th e th e o p h a n y a t Sinai, b u t his re q u e s t to lo o k d irectly o n th e g lo ry o f G od w as d e n ie d : “N o m o r ta l m ay see m e a n d liv e ” (E x o d 3 3 :1 8 -2 0 ). T h e p rin c ip le was re c o g n iz e d by c o n te m p o ra ry Ju d a ism . A b lin d m a n o f g re a t le a rn in g said to R abbi C hijja: “You have g re e te d o n e w ho is seen a n d do es n o t see; m ay you b e c o u n te d w orthy to g re e t h im w ho sees a n d is n o t s e e n ” (H ag. 5b, 32; c ite d Str-B 2 :3 6 2 -6 3 ). M oses saw n o m o re th a n G o d ’s b ack (E x o d 3 3 :2 1 -2 3 ), a n d o u t o f th a t e n c o u n te r issu ed th e re v e la tio n o f the Law ; claim ants to o p e n visions a n d revelations fro m G od m u st be ju d g e d in th e lig h t o f such facts. By c o n tra st, how ever, th e only S on, w ho sh ares th e n a tu re o f G o d (ó povoyeirift θεός), has given a n a u th e n tic ex p o sitio n o f God to m an.

16

J

ohn

1:1-18

The term έξττγήσατο is related to the English term “exegesis”; in Josephus it is the technical term for the exposition o f the Law by the rabbis. The object o f the exposition from the Logos-Son is the Father. This “exegesis” is peculiarly authoritative by virtue o f the unity o f the Son with God, expressed in the phrase “who is in the bosom of the Father,” i.e., in closest fellowship with him (cf. 13:23). The prime reference is to the relationship to God o f the Son in his life o f flesh and blood, but it naturally extends to his pre-existent and post-Resurrection relationship to the Father. The finality of the revelation o f God through the Logos-Son could hardly be more strongly expressed.

Explanation 1. The life o f Jesus, o f whom the Gospel will tell, is set in relation to the God o f eternity, who is the Lord o f the ages, Creator o f all, Sustainer o f all, and Redeemer o f all. He in whom the Word took flesh is presented as the divinely appointed Mediator in all the works of God: he is Mediator o f creation and new creation, and in and through both, the Mediator of revelation. 2. The appearance o f the incarnate One is set in relation to all previous revelatory and redemptive acts o f God as their consummation and perfection. That such revelatory and redemptive works took place within Israel’s history is taken as axiomatic; the Evangelist sees in Jesus the fulfillment o f all intimations o f “grace and truth” made known to Israel. The same applies in principle to the revelation o f God in the world beyond Israel. The Logos is the source o f all life and light in the world. The response among the nations to the activity o f the Logos was, alas, no more fruitful than it was among Israel; one may also add that it was no less positive among them than in Israel! But the Logos was not discouraged; on the contrary, he involved himself with the life o f the world in an ultimate manner: he became flesh that the glory o f God might be revealed to all flesh. So through the universal embrace o f his incarnate life and ministry, the way was made for the scattered children of God in all the earth to be united into one (cf. 11:52; 12:31-32). 3. The death and resurrection o f Jesus find no mention in the prologue, but that twin event stands as the presupposition o f its every line, so surely as the incarnation of the Logos is presupposed through the whole. The Word o f whom the prologue speaks is the Christ who revealed the divine glory in his living and dying and rising. As the risen Lord he is active still among the nations by his Spirit. O f this the Church is the sign, even as it is his instrument (15:1-17) and the voice o f the Paraclete (15:26-27). The Fourth Gospel is the proclamation o f the Lord o f life— the Lord from whom life takes its beginning, because he is the Mediator o f creation; and the Lord from whom life takes a new beginning, because he is the Mediator o f the new creation, manifest in his resurrection (20:22). The prologue introduces the story o f the Word made flesh, climaxed in the revelation o f his Easter glory; without the Easter glory there would have been no prologue. We are reminded at the beginning of the Gospel never to forget its issue: Christ with God and life through his name (20:31).

E xplan ation

17

4. If the prologue is the supreme example o f the communication and commendation o f the gospel to the world, it also provides immense encouragement to believers who read the story again. For the Lord they serve and adore is the ultimate revelation of the Father, sharing with him the sovereignty o f the ages and bringing into reality the divine purpose for the ages. They have learned from bitter experience that the darkness still rejects the light, and threatens life itself (cf. 16:2). But does that matter? The Light shines on, more brightly than on the day of creation, and the life is bestowed which gives entrance to the new creation. Expectation o f future glory is not a theme of the prologue; rather the emphasis lies on the revelation of the glory awaited from the future made in the present. The glory o f the Second Exodus has come about because the redemptive event has happened, and in it the glory has been revealed as infinite grace. It follows that the grace that has been established as divine reality through incarnation, cross, and resurrection is a continuing reality for all who know him. The Resurrection is nothing if it is not the triumph o f love with power. In the knowledge and experience o f that reality, through the presence of the Spirit o f the risen Lord, the believing reader anticipates with eagerness the “exegesis” of that boundless grace in the flesh and blood o f Jesus, the Christ and the Son o f God.

II. The P ublic M inistry o f Jesu s A. T estim on ies to J e s u s : T h e W itness o f J o h n th e B a p tist a n d th e E arly D iscip les (1 :1 9 -5 1 ) Bibliography Bammel, E. “T he Baptist in Early Christian T radition.” N T S 18 (1971-72) 95-128. Barrett, C. K. “T he Lamb of God.” N T S 1 (1954-55) 210-18. Berger, K. “Zum traditionsgeschichtlichen H intergrund christologischer Hoheitstitel.” NTS 17 (1970-71) 3914 2 5 .---------. “Die königlichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testam ents.” N T S 20 (1973-74) 1-44. Cullmann, Ο. “ό όπίσω μ ο υ βρχόμβνος.” C o n ie c ta n e a N eo testa m en tica 21. FS A. Fridrichsen. Lund: Gleerup, 1947. 26-32. Dodd, С. H. In te r p r e ta tio n o f th e F o u r th G ospel, 302—12.---------. H isto ry a n d T r a d itio n in th e F o u r th G o sp el , 248-80. Hulen, A. B. “T he Call o f the Four Disciples in Jo h n 1.” J B L 67 (1948) 153-57. Iersel, B. M. F. van. “Tradition und Redaktion in Jo h 1, 19-36.” N o v T 5 (1962) 245-67. Jonge, M. de. “Jesus as Prophet and King in the Fourth Gospel.” J e s u s : S tr a n g e r f r o m H e a v e n a n d S o n o f G od. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. 4 9 - 7 6 .---------. “Jewish Expectations about the ‘Messiah’ according to the Fourth Gospel.” Ib id . 77-116. Kraeling, С. H. J o h n the B a p tist. New York/London: Scribners, 1951. Motile, C. F. D. “A Note on ‘U nder the Fig T ree’ in Jn . 11:48, 50 Г J T S ns 5 (1954) 210-11. O'Neill, J. C. “T h e Lamb of God in the T e sta m e n ts o f th e T w e lv e P a tria rc h s. ” J S t N T (1979) 2-30. Painter, J . “Christ and the Church in Jo h n 1, 45-51.” L 'E v a n g ile d e J e a n . Ed. M. de Jonge. BETL 44. 1977. 359-62. Robinson, J. A. T. “Elijah, Jo h n and Jesus: An Essay in Detection.” N T S 4 (1957-58) 263-81. Scobie, С. H. H . J o h n th e B a p tist. London: SCM, 1964. 73-79, 142-62. Smalley, S. S. “Johannes 1, 51 und die Einleitung zum vierten Evangelium.” J e s u s u n d d e r M e n s c h e n so h n . FS A. Vögtle. Ed. R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg. Freiburg: H erder, 1975. 300-313. Williams, F. E. “Fourth Gospel and Synoptic Tradition: Two Johannine Passages.” J B L 86 (1967) 311-19. Wink, W. J o h n th e B a p tis t in th e G ospel T ra d itio n . SNTSMS 7. Cambridge: CUP, 1968. 87-115.

Introduction The initiatory character o f this record o f the ministry of Joh n the Baptist is unmistakable; it reads, as Hoskyns remarked, like a second, though subsidiary, introduction to the Gospel as a whole (167). Smalley indeed holds that the whole o f chap. 1 forms the introduction to the Gospel; the two halves o f the chapter belong together, so that the prologue to the Gospel really ends not with v 18 but with the Christological utterance o f v 51 (“Joh . 1:51 und die Einleitung zum vierten Evangelium,“ esp. 304). Certainly 1:19-51 is closely linked with the prologue through its expansion o f the theme o f Jo h n ’s witness to Jesus (cf. 6 -8 , 15) and its Christological declarations. It may be viewed as a bridge from the purely theological affirmations o f the

T ran slation

19

prologue to the account o f the ministry o f Jesus, which itself is accompanied by a perpetually recurring Christological ground bass.

Translation 19 A n d this is the witness o f J o h n , when the Jew s a sent to him priests a n d Levites fro m Jerusalem to question him , “W ho are y o u ? ” 20H e confessed, a n d did not deny it; he confessed, “I am not the Christ. ” 21 A n d they asked him , “W ell then, are you E lija h ?” A n d he said, “I am n o t ” “A re you the prophet?” A n d he replied, “N o .” 22 They said then to him , “W ho are you?— that we may give a n answer to those who sent us. W hat do you say about yourself ?” 23 H e declared, “I am — ‘a vo ice o f o n e c a llin g o u t in th e w ild e m e s s b ’ “M a k e str a ig h t th e L o r d ’s h i g h w a y ”

as Isaiah the prophet said.” 24 N o w those who h a d been se n tc included some Pharisees. 25 They questioned him a n d said to him , “W hy then are you baptizing i f you are not the Christ, nor E lijah, n o r the prophet?” 20J o h n replied to them, “I baptize only with water; am ong you sta n d s d one whom you do not know , 27 one who comes after m e;e I am not worthy to und o the strap o f his sandal.” 28 These things took place in B ethany, on the f a r side o f the Jo rd a n , where J o h n used to baptize. 29 O n the next day J o h n sees Jesus com ing to him , a n d he says, “Look, the Lam b o f God, the one who takes away the sin o f the w orld! 30 This is he o f whom I said, ‘A fter me comes a m an who has taken precedence over me, fo r he existed prior to m e. ’ 31 A n d I d id not know who he was, but I came, baptizing in water, fo r the purpose o f his being revealed to Isra el.” 32A n d J o h n bore witness a n d said, “I saw the Spirit com ing dow n as a dove fro m heaven, a n d it rem ained upon him ; 33 a n d I did not know him , but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me, Y o u w ill see the Spirit com ing dow n a n d rem a in in g on someone; this is the one who is to baptize in H oly Spirit. ’ 34 And I have seen it, a n d borne witness that this m an is the S o n g o f G od.” 35 The next day J o h n was again sta n d in g there with two o f his disciples, 36 a n d looking a t Jesus as he was w alking by, he said, “Look, the Lam b o f G o d !” 37 A n d his two disciples heard him say this, a n d they follow ed Jesus. 38 B u t when Jesus turned a n d saw them fo llo w in g he said to them, “W hat are you looking fo r ? ” They said to him , “R abbi (which is translated 'Teacher'), where are you staying?” 39 H e says to them, “Come, a n d you w ill see.” They came therefore a n d saw where he was staying, a n d they stayed on with him that day, fo r it was about fo u r in the afternoon. 40 A ndrew , Sim on Peter's brother, was one o f the two who heard J o h n a n d follow ed him ; 41 the first th in g he d id i was immediately to fin d his brother, Sim on, a n d he said to him , “W e have fo u n d the M essiah (which is translated ‘C hrist’) ”; 42 he led him to Jesu s. Jesus fix e d his gaze upon him a n d said, “You are Sim on, the son o f J o h n ;j you w ill be called K epha (which is translated ‘R o c k ’) . ” 43 O n the next day he decides to go o ff into Galilee, a n d he fin d s P hilip. Jesus

J

20

ohn

1:19-51

says to him , “Follow m e ” 44 N o w P h ilip was fro m B ethsaida,k the tow n o f A ndrew a n d Peter. 45 P hilip fin d s N a th a n a el a n d tells him , “W e have fo u n d the one o f whom M oses wrote in the L aw , a n d o f whom the prophets wrote. It's J esus, the son o f Joseph, a m an fro m N a z a r e th ” 46 A n d N a th a n a el said to him , “N azareth? C an anything good come out o f that place?” P h ilip says to him , “Come a n d see. ” 47Jesus saw N a th a n a el com ing to him , a n d he says about him , “Look, a true Israelite— a n d there's no deceit in h im !” 48N a thanael says to him , “H o w in the world do you know m e?” Jesus replied to him , “Before P hilip called you, while you were u n d er the f i g tree, I saw you. ” 49 N a th a n a el answered him , “R abbi, you are the Son o f God, you are the K in g o f Isra el!” 50Jesus replied to him , “A re you believing because I told you that I saw you beneath the f i g tree? You w ill see greater things than th a t.” 51 A n d he said to him , “A m en, a m en ,l I say to you all: you w ill see heaven sta n d in g open, a n d the angels o f God g o in g u p a n d com ing dow n to the Son o f M a n .”

Notes a T h e expression “th e Jew s” has a peculiar place in th e F ourth G ospel; in M ark it occurs six tim es, five o f which are in th e p hrase “king o f th e Jew s ” (in M att five occurrences, fo u r o f th em in “king o f th e Jew s,” in Luke five occurrences, th re e in “king o f th e Jew s”), w hereas it occurs seventy tim es in J o h n . T o B ultm ann th e Jew s in this G ospel are representatives o f u nbelief tow ard Jesu s, a n d so th e unbelieving w orld as such (186-87). T h is is largely tru e, b u t co u n te re d by such passages as 4:22 (“salvation is o f th e Jew s”), a n d passages in which “th e Jew s,” m ean in g Jew ish people, are distinguished from “th e Jew s,” m ean in g Jew ish rulers (e.g., 7 :11-13). W e m ust d istinguish, th erefo re, betw een th e Jew s in an eth n ic a n d historical sense (e.g., 3:1, 25; 4:9), Jew ish p eople w ho reject th e claims o f Jesu s (6:41; 7:11; 8:22), a n d Jew ish rulers, especially Pharisees, w ho oppose Jesu s (10:24, 31; 18:14, 31, 36, 38). T h e Evangelist’s usage may have been p ro m p te d by th e co n duct o f Jew ish leaders o f his tim e who o p p o sed th e C h u rch , a n d w hom he views as th e spiritual descen d an ts o f th e Jew ish au th o rities who co n ten d e d against Jesu s in his m inistry a n d so u g h t his d e a th (B row n, l:lxxii). b T h e citation from Isa 40:3 in v 23 follows th e p u n ctu atio n in th e LXX a n d T a rg u m . T h e M assoretic H eb. text u n d erstan d s it as, “P rep are th e L o rd ’s highway in the w ild e r n e s s ra th e r th a n relatin g th e voice to “in th e w ilderness.” J o h n carries o u t his a p p o in ted task in th e w ilderness, in accordance with th e second Exodus typology. c Som e texts insert oí before απεσταλμένοt, u n d e rsta n d in g th e envoys o f v 19 as sen t by th e Pharisees, an unlikely situation, since Pharisees generally w ere laym en. T h e article is om itted by m ost MSS, indicating th a t Pharisees w ere included in th e d e p u ta tio n , o r possibly fo rm ed a second one. d T h e p erfect έστηκεν signifies, “T h e re is o n e w ho has taken his stand in y our m idst”; th e h id d en M essiah is p resen t in Israel! O th e r read in g s (στήκει pres., είστήκεi plupf.) are inadequately su p p o rted . e ό όπίσω μου έρχόμενος may reflect th e messianic expression (hardly a title) ό έρχόμενος; cf. th e m essage from J o h n in M att 11:3, which echoes th e m essianic in terp re tatio n o f Ps 118:26, cited in th e accounts o f th e T riu m p h a l E ntry into Je ru sa le m (M ark 11:9 par), a n d which should be ren d ered : “Blessed in the name o f the Lord (is) the Coming O ne.”

As to th e sandals, cf. th e dictum o f Rabbi Je h o s h u a b. Levi: “All works which a slave p erfo rm s fo r his m aster a disciple should d o for his teacher, except u n d o in g shoe strap s” (Keth. 96a, Str-B 1:121). f B ethany “o n th e fa r side o f J o r d a n ” is distin g u ished from B ethany n e a r Jeru salem . O rig e n ,

F orm /Structure/Setting

21

unable to locate this B ethany, a d o p te d a read in g fo u n d in a few MSS Bethabara; this he viewed as adm irable, since “H ouse o f P rep aratio n ” was an a p t n am e fo r th e baptism which p re p a re d fo r Christ! B ut it is not to be accepted. gSom e MSS, chiefly W estern, read in v 34 ό έκλεκτός instead o f ό υιός roö ѲеоО. M any exegetes accept th e variant, o n th e g ro u n d th a t it w ould be fa r m ore likely to be ch anged to ό utos тоО ѲеоОth a n th a t th e reverse should h a p p e n (so e.g. B arrett, B ecker, B row n, Sanders, Schnackenburg). T ex tu al critics te n d to a d h e re to th e m ore strongly su p p o rte d read in g ó utos τοϋ ѲеоО (so M etzger ed. for th e UBS; a n d B ern ard , B ultm ann, D odd, H aenchen). T h e variant could have occurred th ro u g h th e influence o f an early tradition o f th e baptism o f Jesu s (B ultm ann), o r th ro u g h reflection o n Isa 42:1 (H aenchen), b u t uncertainty rem ains as to th e original reading. h T h e te n th h o u r will have been reckoned from daw n, generally assum ed to be a b o u t 6:00 A .M ., hence it stands fo r 4:00 p . m ., tow ard th e e n d o f a w orking day. i πρώτον, m ost widely attested in th e textual traditio n , indicates th a t A ndrew , b efore d o in g anything else, fo u n d Sim on, πρώτος is also found, im plying th a t A ndrew was th e first follow er o f Jesu s to lead a n o th e r to him . A few Lat. MSS read mane = πρωί, early, i.e., in th e m o rn in g o f th e day following th a t m en tio n ed in v 39. j Instead o f son o f John (Ίωάννου) m any MSS read “son o f Jonah” (’kovd), a reflection o f M att 16:17. Som e MSS even re a d son o f J o a n n a (ΊωαννΛ, cf. Luke 8:3, 24:10). κηφΟς is th e Gr. form o f th e A ram . N93 (iképhá’) (Gr. adds th e “s,” to avoid it so u n d in g like a fem inine nam e). Πέτρος is a translation o f N 93, a n d it should be translated into English (“Rock”), n o t transliterated (“P eter”). k Bethsaida, “place o f th e fishery,” lay on th e eastern bank o f Jo rd a n , strictly in G aulanitis, b u t popularly viewed as in Galilee. T h e re is evidence th a t from th e com m encem ent o f th e Jew ish war, a . d . 6 6 , th e whole area ro u n d th e lake was know n as Galilee; th e Evangelist follows co n tem p o rary usage (B arrett). In M ark 1:29 th e hom e o f Sim on a n d A ndrew is given as C a p e rnaum , p erh ap s indicating a later move. l ’Αμήν, αμήν will have so u n d ed as strange in G r. ears as it does in English, a n d should no t be translated (“verily, verily” etc.). It was an u n u su al usage, a n d occurs only in J o h n (the synoptists have som e sayings with a single άμήν). A m ong th e Jew s amen was used to affirm a p rayer; a few instances o f its occurrence in statem ents are fo u n d in th e Q u m ra n literatu re, b u t at th e e n d o f a sentence (e.g., IQ S 1:20; 12:10). Jesu s used it to in tro d u ce im p o rtan t statem ents, im plying th at b ehind th em stands th e authority o f “th e G od whose nam e is A m en” (Isa 65:16 NEB; note th e nam e “th e A m en,” applied to Jesu s in Rev 3:14). Som e MSS a d d to “you shall see” th e ph rase άπ’ άρτι, reflecting th e influence o f M att 26:64; contrary to som e exegetes, this copyist’s m istake is no t to be viewed as a p o in ter to th e m eaning o f th e saying.

Form/Structure/Setting 1. The narrative is characterized by a certain repetitiveness (cf. v 27 with 30) and lack o f continuity (cf. 2 5 -2 6 , unexpectedly separated from 33). Such features have led to various attempts to reconstruct an original source and to reorder the present text. Bultmann held that in the original text of vv 19—34 (the most “disturbed” section of 19-51)21 was followed by 25,26,31,33-34, and 28-30 concluded the paragraph; the remaining vv 22-24, 27, 32 were added from the synoptic tradition by the ecclesiastical redactor (84-85). Van Iersel followed on Bultmann’s reconstruction, but he placed 24-25a after 19b, then continued with 19c-22a, 25b-26, 31, 33b34, 28, 35-36; the modifications of the source he considered to be due to the introduction of material from the synoptic tradition (known orally) and to the desire to present in one paragraph information concerning John, the first witness to Jesus the Son of God (Tradition und Redaktion, 169-77). F. E. Williams believed the opening paragraph, 19-28, to be a Johannine dramatization of Luke 3:15 f., which drew on material from Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah (Mark 8:27-30), Luke’s version of John’s embassy to Jesus (7:18-30) and Mark 1:3, a hypothesis with a high degree of improbability (see The Fourth Gospel and Synoptic

22

J

ohn

1:19-51

Tradition , 311-12, 317-19). More recently J. Becker expounded the view that vv

19-51 are based on the Signs Source and the Evangelist’s own material; assuming that 2:1-11 comes from the Signs Source, he observed that that passage needs 35 ff. to precede it, and the latter similarly requires 19 ff.; but 29-34 is formed by the Evangelist, with elements from the Signs Source and from the Ecclesiastical Redactor (see his commentary, 87-90). Boismard forsakes the postulate of sources and suggests that the Evangelist wrote three different accounts for the opening of his Gospel, two of which were closely parallel and contained both common material and doublets (e.g., common material in 19-21, parallels in 25-26, 31 with 22-23, 30b, 33); these varied accounts were combined into one by a later editor (Les traditions johanniques, 5:42). Space forbids individual examination of these attempts to account for and improve upon the Evangelist’s report on the ministry of John (a lucid discussion of those that appeared before 1966 will be found in Brown, 1:6 7-71). That the Evangelist employed earlier traditions is evident, but the judgments of the critics on the materials of 19-51 are sometimes highly subjective and less convincing to readers than to those who propound them. If the Evangelist or a subsequent editor had wished to clarify the narrative with the aid of the synoptic material, it would have been simple enough to record (discreetly, had he so wished) the baptism of Jesus by John; the allusions to the event are too plain to justify the idea that the Evangelist suppressed it on polemical or theological grounds. The account reads more consistently than some allow, and it is not difficult to see reasons for the Evangelist’s handling of his material. In v 26, for example, the balancing clause of “I baptize with water” is delayed till 33b, until the revelation is given as to who the Baptizer in Spirit is; 26c is allowed to remain as a brief allusion to the presence of the hidden Messiah, and the answer (to 25) completed when the fuller testimony of John is recorded in 30-34. (On these and kindred issues see the lengthy discussion by Dodd, H is to r ic a l T r a d itio n , 248—301.) 2. The structure o f the section is determined by the witness theme already announced in vv 6 -8 , 15 o f the prologue. We have here recorded: (i) the witness o f Joh n to Jew ish leaders (“the Jews o f Jerusalem ,” 19), first negatively (19-24), then positively (25-28); (ii) 2 9 -3 4 , the witness o f Jo h n to people who came to hear him ; (iii) 35—50, the witness of Joh n to certain disciples , resulting in their following Jesus and the call o f others through their witness, the whole providing a chain o f testimonies concerning Jesus; (iv) a concluding statement, v 51, which, though following that to Nathanael, is addressed in the plural to the disciple group (it would have been an originally independent saying). The relation o f the section to references to Jo h n in the prologue is clear: “He came for witness” (7a) governs the whole passage; “he was not that light” (8a) is elaborated in 19-28, “he came to bear witness about the light” (8b) in 29 -3 4 , “that all might believe through him” (7c) in 3 5 -5 0 . Haenchen is right in discerning a “dramatic development” in the unfolding o f events in 19-51 (165). If the variant reading “the Chosen One o f God” be accepted in v 34 the following acclamations concerning Jesus are made: (1) the Lamb o f God, (2) the Chosen One o f God, (3) Rabbi, (4) the Messiah, (5) the Son o f God, (6) the King o f Israel, (7) the Son o f Man. T h e closing statement directly leads into the narrative that follows, and covers the presentation o f Jesus in the entire Gospel to its last sentence. 3. T h e narrative provides an account which (a) clarifies the nature o f Jo h n ’s ministry and its relation to that o f Jesus, and (b) describes the call o f the

Comment

23

first disciples and their earliest confessions o f faith in Jesus. Both these elements will have been o f importance to the Church o f the Evangelist’s time. The former will have gained increased actuality through the existence o f a community o f disciples of John which continued after his death (cf. Acts 18:2419:7), and which was bound to be in uneasy relation to the Church. In the face of inevitably growing adulation o f Joh n in a movement sprung from him, it is made plain that Joh n was no rival to Jesus; he made no messianic claims for himself, but functioned supremely as the great Witness for Jesus. The Church itself is reminded that through his witness to Jesus and his pointing the earliest disciples to him, the Church had its roots in the work and witness o f Joh n to Jesus. In turn the Church is instructed how to act toward the community (or communities) that followed the teaching o f John: the followers o f the Christ should make known to them what John actually said to Jesus and should seek to win them, even as Joh n pointed disciples of his to Jesus. This interpretation o f the Evangelist’s characterization o f John is admittedly milder than is frequently represented. The rivalry and even hostility that later sprang up between the Baptist movement and the Church, as witnessed in the Clem entine Recognitions , is often read into the situation of the Evangelist’s time, leading to a constant insinuation o f sharp polemic against Jo h n ’s community in the Evangelist’s words. This is an exaggeration o f the situation. There is not the slightest hint o f Joh n being viewed as a false prophet or pseudoMessiah, nor o f hostility toward his followers (contrast the representations o f “the Jews”); rather there is apparent a profound respect towards John, which is consonant with a hope that his later followers might yet be won to the Church (on this see Scobie, John the B aptist , 154-56; Wink, 102-5). The call of the first disciples and their confessions o f faith in Jesus will have been similarly instructive for the later Church, precisely because o f the representative capacity o f the disciples. Their declarations o f faith were spontaneous—and inadequate; they required the complementation o f a greater revelation through the total ministry of Jesus, which is indeed promised in 1:51.

Comment T

he

W it

n ess o f

J

ohn t o t h e

J

e w is h

L e a d e r s ( 1 :1 9 - 2 8 )

19 The deputation is not recorded in the synoptic Gospels. We are to assume that the reports of Jo h n ’s activities and popular speculations concerning him prompted the investigation from Jerusalem. 20 Jo h n ’s denial that he was the Messiah is unusually emphatic. The language is reminiscent o f Christian vocabulary concerning confessing and denying Christ (cf. Mark 8:38; Luke 12:8-9), but here it is used by Joh n to confess that he was not the Messiah and to deny any suggestion that he was (for the need, cf. Luke 3:15). 21 The question, “Are you Elijah?” arises from Mai 4:5 (cf. 3:1), promising the sending o f Elijah before the Day o f the Lord that Israel might avert its wrath (cf. Sir 48:10). J . A. T . Robinson thought that Joh n denied that he was Elijah because he believed that his task was to prepare for Elijah's coming,

24

J

ohn

1:19-51

and that Jesus at first accepted this Elijah role (“Elijah, Jo h n and Jesus,” 264 f., 270). The notion is unlikely. Popularly it was believed that Elijah would anoint the Messiah, and thereby reveal his identity to him and to Israel (see Justin, Apology 35.1). It is possible that the Evangelist reports Jo h n as denying that he was Elijah because such a view o f the Messiah was unthinkable, alike in Jo h n ’s preaching and in Christian thought (so de J o n g e , Jesus, Stranger fro m H e a v e n , 89). As to “the prophet,” cf. the formula in 1QS 9:11: “. . . until the coming o f the prophet and the Messiahs o f Aaron and Israel.” The coming o f the prophet was generally viewed as the fulfillment o f Deut 18:15, 18, though Becker suggests (95) that the type o f the Exodus prophet, who repeats the miracles o f the Exodus and conquest o f the land, may have been in mind (cf. the “prophets” o f whom Josephus reports, A n t 20.5.1 f.; 21.38). 2 4 -2 5 The question “Why then are you baptizing” hardly proceeds from the view that the Messiah, or Elijah or the prophet, will baptize at their appearing (contra Bultmann, 88), but seeks to know Jo h n ’s authority for calling on Jew ish people to be baptized for the kingdom o f God, a demand by no means acceptable to Pharisees or Sadducees. 2 6 -2 7 Jo h n ’s reply indicates that his baptism is a preparation for the appearance o f the hidden Messiah, who already stands in Israel’s midst and is about to fulfill his Messianic task. V 26 therefore has a significance independent o f v 31, but it finds its completion in that saying: the identity o f the Messiah was hidden even from Joh n, but through a vision o f the Spirit (at the baptism o f Jesus) it was revealed that Jesus was to fulfill the role o f the Lamb of God. In that revelation, and the witness it made possible, Joh n found the raison d ’être o f his baptism (on this see below, p. 25). T

he

W it

n ess o f

J

ohn t o t h e

P e o pl

e

(1:29-34)

29 The audience is unnamed, but the mention o f “the next day” shows that the embassy has departed and Joh n speaks to the people about him. The cry of v 29 must be seen in conjunction with v 36 and the intervening paragraph; vv 3 2 -3 4 make it clear that the revelation o f Jesus as the Lamb o f God is consequent on his baptism, and is not proclaimed while Jesus advances to his baptism. The basis of v 29 is the cry o f v 36: “Look, the Lamb o f God!” Taking the relevant evidence into account, we conclude that there is little doubt as to what figure is in mind: the Baptist has in view the Lamb who leads the flock o f God, and who delivers them from their foes and rules them in the kingdom o f God. Such a figure appears in the Testament of Joseph 19:8 f., where a lion and a lamb appear together, the form er the Messiah from Ju d ah , the latter the Messiah from Aaron (so reads the present text; J. C. O ’Neill has suggested that the original text spoke of one animal only: “a lamb . . . like a lion,” The Lamb of God, 5). It is said, “And all the beasts rushed against him (the lamb), and the lamb overcame them, and destroyed them, and trod them underfoot. And because of him the angels and men and all the earth rejoiced. . . . His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, which shall not pass away.” A further reference to the lamb of God occurs in the Testament of Benjamin 3 ; O ’Neill has given strong reasons for believing both references to be pre-Christian (1-27). More im portant still is the vision of

Com m ent

25

the Lamb in Rev 5. T here the Christ is depicted as the Lion o f Judah who has conquered, then as a Lamb with seven horns who has won the right to open the scroll, representing the covenant of God to give the kingdom. These portrayals o f the Christ as Lion and as Lamb are not paradoxical but parallel, since seven horns signify immense strength—the Lamb is a powerful Ram! But he must be presented as Lamb, for “he stands as one that has been slaughtered.” He stands, for he is the Living O ne who died and is alive for ever (Rev 1:18); and he was slaughtered in sacrifice, specifically as God’s Passover Lamb, to bring about the new Exodus for the liberty and life of the kingdom of God (the Book of Revelation is controlled from its first to last pages by the Exodus typology). In this work from the Johannine circle, then, we have an apocalyptic representation of the Christ adapted to the Christian doctrine of redemption; the mighty Christ wins salvation for the world through his sacrificial death. Precisely the same has taken place in Jo h n 1:29.

The proclamation o f Joh n the Baptist identifies Jesus as the powerful Lamb o f God, whose task is to bring about the judgment of the wicked and the salvation o f the righteous (cf. Matt 3 :7 -1 2 par.). The identification and the role are retained in the Johannine circle, but these are modified in the light o f the redemptive event and the revelation o f its meaning: the Lamb o f God brings deliverance through submission to death as the Passover Lamb (see 19:31-37) and his rising to life with the Father in heaven. Since this understanding of Jesus as the Lamb o f God belongs to the Johannine circle, and so is a community tradition and not the invention o f the Evangelist, it is at least possible that other elements o f Jewish and Christian tradition will have been linked with the figure, notably the submissive lamb of Isa 53 (cf. Acts 8 :3 2-35) and the lamb provided by God at the intended sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:10-13). As various streams o f thought flow together in the concept o f the Word o f God in the prologue, a similar development could have happened with this one. 30 See the comment on 1:15, and note Cullmann’s suggestion, that by the form o f this statement the Evangelist responds to the Baptist community’s application o f the maxim that one who precedes is greater than his successor (“ό όπίσω μου έρ χ ό μ € ν ο ς” 26-32). 32 The language is reminiscent o f the common tradition regarding the divine response to the baptism o f Jesus: the Spirit o f the age to come descends from an opened heaven and remains on Jesus, just as the prophets o f the О Т anticipated the Spirit to rest on the Messiah (cf. Isa 11:1-2; 42:1). The Father’s voice declares him to be not simply a man o f the Spirit, but the B aptizer with the Spirit; the witness in v 26 is thus completed, for the revelation has been made as to who the Baptizer with the Spirit is. 34 The witness o f Jo h n to Jesus comes to its climax in the confession: “This man is the Son o f God.” As with the Lamb o f God, so the expression Son o f God is differentiated according to speaker and context. “Son of God” was more prevalent in Judaism than has generally been allowed. Israel is God’s first-born son (Exod 4:22 f.); David’s progeny is owned by God as his son in 2 Sam 7:14, a deeply influential passage (cf. Ps 2:7; 89:26 f.) which came to be interpreted messianically. The “righteous” are spoken o f as God’s sons in Sir 4:10; Wisd Sol 2:18; Ju b 1:24 f.; for Qumran views cf. 4QFlor 1:6 f.; 1QSa 2:11 ff., and the reference to the Son o f God in the Daniel

26

J

ohn

1:19-51

apocryphon o f Cave 4. “Son o f God” was applied also to miracle workers and charismatic figures (see D. Flusser, Jesus, 9 3 -9 4 ; Vermes, Jesus the J e w , 2 0 6 -1 0 ; Hengel, The Son o f God, 4 2 -43). The differentiation between the expression applied prior to and after the ministry o f the Revealer is clear, but the significance o f the confession is equally evident: the Jews, the Church, the contemporary movement o f Jo h n the Baptist, the world itself are called on to listen to the witness o f the last o f the prophets o f the old order: Jesus is the Son o f God! If the confession o f v 34 is to be read, “This man is the Elect One of God” (see Notes), the essential testimony remains. T he term is reminiscent o f the first Servant Song (Isa 42:1), but it is not thereby to be automatically interpreted in the light of the last Servant Song (Isa 52:13-53:12), as though Jo h n viewed the Elect as the suffering Servant; the nam e is applied to the Son of Man in the judgm ent scenes of the Similitudes o f Enoch, e.g., Enoch 49:2-4: T h e Elect O n e stan d eth befo re th e L o rd o f Spirits, A nd his glory is fo r ever a n d ever, A nd his m ight u n to all gen eratio n s . . . A nd he shall ju d g e th e secret things, A nd no n e shall be able to u tte r a lying w ord before him ; F or he is th e Elect O n e before th e L ord o f Spirits according to his good pleasure.

Again, however, one must distinguish between the use of the title in an apocalyptic setting and in the Christian, and specifically Johannine, tradition. T

he

Ca

ll and

W it

n ess o f t h e

F ir

st

D is c

ip l e s

(1:35—51)

3 6 -3 9 The cry, “Look, the Lamb of God,” is a directive to the two disciples o f Joh n to follow Jesus. In 37 ήκολούθησαν , “they followed,” is literally meant, but the nature o f the narrative indicates it as a first step towards becoming disciples o f Jesus. The Evangelist would have a ll the followers o f Jo h n in his day to listen to their master and follow the Lamb. The first words of Jesus in this Gospel are, “What do you want?” On this Bultmann observed, “It is the first question which must be addressed to anyone who comes to Jesus, the first thing about which he must be clear” (100). A secondary significance o f μένειν, “to stay,” in 3 8 -3 9 (cf. 14:2-3, 23) is less obvious, as also the tenth hour (“the hour of fulfillment,” Bultmann). The hour mentioned suggests time for conversation, perhaps even that the disciples stayed overnight with Jesus. At all events they became convinced o f the truth o f Jo h n ’s witness (41). Andrew is named as one o f the two disciples; but who is the other? Commonly he has been thought o f as the Beloved Disciple, and this may be right—but not his identification with Jo h n , the son o f Zebedee (see above, pp. lxx-lxxi). A plausible alternative is Philip, a guess supported by the conjunction o f Andrew and Philip elsewhere in the Gospel (6:58; 12:21-22, see A. B. Hulen, 151-53; Schnackenburg’s acceptance o f this view led him to regard v 43 as an addition o f the redactor, 1:310). Andrew finds his brother, who is referred to first as Sim on Peter, as in all the Greek-speaking churches; then as S im o n , his given name; finally it is reported how he came to be known

Com m ent

27

as Kepha, “Rock.” Since knowledge o f these early disciples is clearly assumed, we may view v 42 as recording the source o f Simon’s new name, not the time when it was given. Its inclusion here may suggest that the Evangelist saw in the call o f the first disciples an anticipation o f the formation o f the later Church (Schnackenburg, 1:313). 4 3 -4 6 That Jesus “finds” Philip emphasizes his call to be a disciple. Only in this Gospel do we hear anything o f his doings (6 :5 -8 ; 12:21-22; 1 4:810); in the synoptics his name occurs only in lists o f the twelve apostles. Nathanael is not even mentioned in the other Gospels; expositors therefore have sought to supply him with another name—from the lists o f the Twelve! (Bartholomew is the favorite identification.) The assumption, however, that all the early followers o f Jesus had to be apostles is as gratuitous as the notion that all the books in the N T had to come from pens o f apostles. Nathanael’s expostulation at the idea that the Messiah could come from Nazareth is comprehensible, for Nazareth was utterly insignificant; it has no mention in the О Т, the Talmud or Midrash, or in any contemporary pagan writings (Str-B cite one reference to Nazareth from a Jewish writer ca. a . d . 800). The residence o f Jesus in Nazareth is akin to his birth in a stable; it is part o f the offense o f the incarnation. Philip therefore can only reply, “Come and see”; the answer to the offense of the incarnation is Jesus himself. 47—50 Nathanael is greeted by Jesus as “an Israelite in whom is no deceit.” Why “no deceit”? There may be an echo o f Ps 32:2, spoken o f one who is acceptable to God: ουδέ έσ τιν έν τ φ σ τό μ α τι α ντον δόλος, “there is no deceit in his mouth.” It is likely, however, that Nathanael is regarded as a descendant o f Jacob-Israel who does not share in the notorious deceit o f his ancestor (cf. Gen 27:35, έλ θ ώ ν ό αδελφός σου μετά δόλου ekaßev τ η ν ebXoyíav σου, “Your brother came with deceit and took your blessing.”) Nathanael’s surprised question, how Jesus should know him, is answered by an even more surprising affirmation: Jesus saw him “under the fig tree” when Philip called him (no hidden subtlety here, just a statement o f place where the two met). Is this, as has been frequently suggested, an instance o f Jesus being viewed as a “divine man,” possessing magical powers, such as the Hellenistic world knew? No, the О Т is familiar with this kind of phenomenon among the prophets (cf. 2 Kings 6 :8 -1 2 ; Ezek 8 :1 -1 8 ; 21:21-23); Jesus has insight beyond that o f the prophets, he is the Revealer to whom and through whom God communicates; hence, Nathanael confesses him as Son o f God and King o f Israel (on Nathanael’s lips the two titles are virtually synonymous, see on v 34). It is possible that we have here a reflection o f the Wisdom tradition wherein the “Son o f God” is marked as having wisdom from God; the Son has received from God his Father knowledge and revelation, o f which Solomon, the Son o f David, the supremely wise man, was the model; he who knows the hearts possesses wisdom. Solomon had this gift (Wisd 7:20), and it is manifested in yet greater measure in Jesus; hence, Nathanael acknowledges Jesus as Son o f God and K in g of Israel (for a comparable recognition o f Jesus cf. 4:19, 29, and see Berger’s discussion, “Die königlichen Messiastraditionen,” 4—5, 2 2 41). But Nathanael is to see “greater things” than this example o f Jesus’ knowledge; he is to witness signs that reveal Jesus as the Son o f God and mediator o f the kingdom to Israel.

28

J

ohn

1:19-51

51 The Evangelist adds a saying addressed to all the disciples. Its imagery is complex; Jacob’s dream is clearly in the foreground, but there are reminiscences o f the baptism of Jesus, possibly of his temptation (see Bammel, 111), and o f the eschatological and apocalyptic picture language used o f the Son o f Man, such as appears in the synoptic Gospels. In Jacob’s dream a ladder is set up between earth and heaven, and angels ascend and descend on— “it”? or upon Jacob? The point was discussed by later rabbis; in Ber. Rab. 70:12 the angels “were ascending on high and looking at his €ΐκώ ν (image), and then descending below and finding him sleeping” (see Burney, A ram aic O rigin , 116). T h e natural reading o f v 51 is that the angels ascend to heaven, and descend to the Son o f Man (ém το ν υιόν του άνθρώ που); he is the point of contact between heaven and earth, the locus o f the “traffic” that brings heaven’s blessings to mankind. “You shall see” relates not to a future beyond the death o f Jesus (as in Mark 14:62), but to the entire gamut o f the action of the Son o f Man for the kingdom o f God: from the heaven that became open at his baptism, the blessings o f the saving sovereignty will be poured out through him— in the signs he performs, the revelation o f his word, the life that he lives, the death and resurrection that he accomplishes (his “lifting up”), till the goal is attained when the Son o f Man welcomes the redeemed to the Father’s house (14:3). This affirmation is a summary o f the ministry o f the Son o f Man for the achievement o f the divine purpose; it embraces the intent o f the whole sweep o f the Son o f Man sayings in the synoptic Gospels, including those relating to the ministry o f the Son o f Man (e.g., Mark 2:10, 28; Matt 11:18-19; Luke 19:10), his death and resurrection (e.g., Mark 8:31, etc.), and his ultimate Parousia (e.g., Mark 14:62; Matt 2 5 :3 1 46). It is characteristic o f the difference in the emphases of the Gospels that while the synoptists give prominence to the future revelation o f the Son of Man, the Fourth Evangelist stresses the revelation o f the divine sovereignty in the incarnate life o f the Son o f Man, culminating in his exaltation to heaven via the cross. But not even he can forget the ultimate end (e.g. 5 :2 1 29), and it should not be eliminated from the prospect in 1:51.

Explanation 1. The theme that binds together 1:19-51 is that o f witness to Jesus. It is written from the perspective o f the completed ministry of Jesus, with its revelation through word and sign, cross and resurrection, and illumination o f the Spirit-Paraclete. The witness o f the Baptist accordingly is viewed against the background o f the achieved sacrifice of Christ and the light of Easter upon it. So also the confessions o f the disciples are taken up into the fullness o f the revelation through the Son o f Man. The whole is written in the light o f the destiny o f Jesus to suffer rejection and condemnation by the “world,” and o f the Church’s experience o f like opposition from authorities of the same order. 2. Witness is a central theme o f the Fourth Gospel as a whole, and it is developed in harmony with the fundamental idea o f the term. For witness is basically an attestation o f facts that have bearing on a case presented in a law court, and by natural extension it denotes attestation o f convictions held

E xplan ation

29

to be true. The concept is strikingly developed in the writings o f DeuteroIsaiah, wherein Yahweh confronts a disbelieving world in a kind o f trial relating to his claims to be the sole and sovereign God; the prophet who is his mouthpiece is instructed in the revelation (Isa 50:4), and the people o f Israel are his witnesses (Isa 4 3 :1 0 -1 3 ; 44:7-9). So in the Fourth Gospel the whole story o f Jesus is shot through with trial motifs; witnesses are called, witness is borne, and the testimony is constantly questioned and rejected by opponents o f Jesus, till at length he undergoes a final trial. Through it all Jesus himself appears as the Witness to the revelation from God; he bears testimony to what he has seen and heard from the Father (3:32), and in support thereof he adduces the ultimate witness—that o f the Father, who bore witness to Jesus through Joh n, through the works he gave Jesus to do, and through the Scriptures o f the О Т (5:31-47); the process reaches its end in the exaltation o f Jesus to the Father’s presence in heaven (13:32; 17:1). Accordingly the world that accused Jesus and passed sentence on him has sentence passed on it as having been the tool o f the devil (12:31-32). It has been overcome by the Son of God (16:33), and through the witness of the Church it becomes the object of the Paraclete’s convicting exposure (16:8—11). The significance o f this for our passage is that the latter commences with a report of Jo h n ’s witness when questioned by emissaries o f the Jews in Jerusalem. The scene is set as an interrogation o f John by the authorities, i.e., the same authorities who will later interrogate Jesus. In response to their question he gives clear witness, both as to who he is not and as to who he is; his task is to straighten a path for “the Lord,’’ and his baptism is a preparation for him who baptizes with Spirit. This witness to the interrogators is followed by the prophetic witness recorded in 1:29-36, which declares Jesus to be the Lamb o f God and the Son (or Elect) of God, and directs men to follow him. 3. This representation o f the nature and significance of Jo h n ’s ministry has been severely criticized by recent scholars. They maintain that to reduce Jo h n ’s role to that of a “mere witness’’ to Jesus is to distort the history of John for the sake o f the theology o f Jesus. This is a questionable position to take; whoever adopts it is likely to extend it to the whole Gospel. The Evangelist did not set out to tell the whole story even of Jesus, but to give a key to its understanding. His narrative had a limited aim, and he concentrated attention on achieving it (20:30). So also is evident that the Evangelist knew a good deal more about Joh n than he recorded; for example, 1:32-33 reflects knowledge of an early tradition o f Jo h n ’s baptism o f Jesus; he alludes to it but he does not describe it. On the other hand the synoptists themselves reflect a conviction that John came as witness as well as forerunner (see e.g. Matt 3 :1 1 -1 2 , 11:2—3, 12-13). Ehe tradition reproduced by the Fourth Evangelist about John itself contained this theme o f Jo h n ’s witness to Jesus, as the Lamb o f God saying indicates (we have already noted its currency in the Johannine circle before the Evangelist, pp. 24-25). We may well believe that the Evangelist in the prologue crystallized the belief o f his contemporaries when he summarized Jo h n ’s function as: “He came for witness, to bear witness to the Light.’’ In the perspective o f the Church the role of John as witness to Jesus may be compared with the claim that the Scriptures serve as witness to Jesus,

30

J

ohn

1:19-51

the Son o f God (cf. 5:3 9 -4 0 ); the Scriptures contain more than that, but the church confesses without hesitation that this is their supreme function. The Church itself, with all its variety o f functions, concurs with this Gospel that it is sent into the world for the same purpose— to bear witness by word and deed to the Son o f God, as he was sent into the world to bear witness to the Father (20:17). 4. Jo h n ’s witness under interrogation was highly relevant for the Johannine group that received the Book o f Revelation; for that whole work is characterized as “the witness o f Jesus” (Rev 1:2), and Jesus is described in its opening greeting as “the faithful Witness” (1:5). Having exemplified faithfulness as a witness under trial (cf. the tradition in 1 Tim 6:13), he now bears witness to the word and promise o f God for the encouragement o f churches called to endure a like passion as he did. The community o f the Evangelist stands in need o f just such encouragement, and in the Gospel it receives it. It needs hardly to be remarked that this motif applies to multitudes o f Christians in the world today who find themselves in situations comparable to those o f the Johannine communities. They know what it is to bear witness under interrogation, sometimes extremely hostile. T o such the witness o f Jo h n , o f Jesus, o f the earliest churches, and o f the Gospel speaks powerfully, frequently leading them to follow the example and declare the witness in a manner unmatched by churches in more tolerant areas. Nevertheless those o f us who live where Jesus is o f small concern to the populace (“They wouldn’t hurt a hair of him, they only let him die”) have need to ponder Jo h n ’s witness. For an affluent and materialist generation needs as urgently as any the witness to the Lamb o f God who takes away the sin o f the world. 5. The witness o f John in chapter 1 gives way to that o f the early disciples. Here is a series o f enthusiastic testimonies to Jesus, covering a wide spectrum o f the contemporary Church’s witness to its Lord. T h e “Rabbi” is confessed as the Messiah, as the One who fulfills the Law and the Prophets, as the Son o f God and the King o f Israel. All these are valid confessions o f faith, and they are especially pertinent for the Church’s witness to the synagogue. But they all require to be filled with greater meaning than they have in Judaism. It has often been observed that the “Messianic Secret” is lacking in this chapter. In reality the Evangelist has his own version o f it: first impressions of Jesus have to grow under the impact o f the revelation that comes through him. All Jewish understandings o f the Anointed One are inadequate to describe the Incarnate One sent from the Father; they require the depth and height and breadth o f the witness o f Jesus— hence the relevance o f the additional logion about the Son o f Man in 1:51. In this Gospel Son o f Man and Son o f God are complementary concepts; they flow into one another. T h e saying forms the climax o f the introduction to the story o f the Word made flesh; it illuminates the Gospel, and it continues to speak to the Church, not alone of the Evangelist’s time but to that o f every generation. For the Son o f Man is still the meeting point o f heaven’s fullness and earth’s need, even in the midst o f the bustle and noise o f our modern world. So Francis Thompson (The K ingdom o f God) saw, and bore his witness:

Introduction

31

T h e angels keep th e ir ancient places; T u rn b u t a stone, a n d start a wing! ’T is ye, ’tis your estran g èd faces T h a t miss the m any sp len d o u red thing. B ut (w hen so sad th o u canst not sadder) Cry; — an d u p o n thy so sore loss Shall shine th e traffic o f Jaco b ’s lad d er Pitched betwixt H eaven a n d C h arin g Cross.

B . T h e R ev ela tio n o f th e N ew O rd er in Je s u s (2 :1 -4 :4 2 ) Introduction It is evident that the second chapter is linked with the account of the call of the disciples in chap. 1 through the reference in 2:1 to the third day; the promise in 1:51 is given its first fulfillment in the miracle of the water into wine. But it is equally plain that the sign described in vv 1-11 is the first of the series of signs incorporated in chaps. 2-12 as examples of the deeds of the Redeemer-Revealer, hence that a new start is being made at 2:1. It commences the account in this Gospel of the public ministry of Jesus. T he chapter naturally has a completeness of its own. It conjoins a significant miraculous deed with a significant non-m iraculous act. T he placing of the latter (the cleansing of the temple) at the beginning of the ministry, in striking contrast to the synoptic accounts, is almost certainly due to a decision of the Evangelist, through which the peculiar significance of the event in the temple is underscored. By this conjunction of the sign of Cana and the cleansing of the temple he has created a diptych to form a prelude to his story of the ministry of Jesus (so Bultmann, 112). T h e chapter has a programmatic significance: whoever understands the miracle o f the w ine a n d the cleansing o f the temple has the key to the m inistry , death , a n d resurrection o f Jesus a n d their outcome in the salvation o f the kingdom a n d existence o f the Church.

But further: as the chapter is linked in its opening with chap. 1, so it is bound with the Nicodemus discourse of chap. 3 by the paragraph 2:23-25. T he discourse may be seen as a drawing out of aspects o f the signs of chap. 2. But only aspects. A major feature of the cleansing of the temple finds its exposition in chap. 4, namely the new order of worship brought into being through the redemptive presence and action of Christ. U n s was perceived by C. H. Dodd, who saw chaps. 2-4 (specifically 2:1-4:42) as bound together by a single theme: “T he old things have passed away, see, the new have come!” (2 Cor 5:17). The three chapters together present the replacement of the old purifications by the wine of the kingdom of God, the old temple by the new in the risen Lord, an exposition of new birth for new creation, a contrast between the water o f Jacob’s well with the living water from Christ, and the worship of Jerusalem and Gerizim with worship “in Spirit and in tru th ” (see Interpretation , 297). It is well to keep in mind these wider horizons as we study the narratives of chap. 2.

32

J

ohn

2:1-12

1. T he B eg in n in g o f th e S ig n s: W ater in to W ine

(2 : 1- 12 ) Bibliography Boismard, Μ. E.

D u B a p têm e à C a n a . 33-59. Brown, R. E. “T he ‘M other of Jesus’ in the Fourth Gospel." L ’E v a n g il e d e J e a n . 307-10. Derrett, J. D. M. “W ater into Wine." B Z 7 (1963) 80-97; also in L a w in th e N e w T e sta m e n t. 228-46. Dodd, C. H. H is to r ic a l T r a d itio n . 223-28. Geyser, A. “Semeion." S tu d ie s in J o h n . FS J. N. Sevenster. 12-21. Lindars, B. “Two Parables in John." N T S 16 (1969-70) 318-29 (especially 318-24). Linnemann, E. “Die Hochzeit zu Kana und Dionysios." N T S 20 (1974) 408-18. Noetzel, H. C h ristu s u n d D io n ysu s. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1960. Rissi, M. “Die Hochzeit in Kana Jo h 2, 1-11.” O tko n o m ia . FS O. Cullmann. 76-92. Schnackenburg, R. D a s erste W u n d e r J e s u . Freiburg: H erder, 1951. Temple, S. “Two Signs in the Fourth Gospel." J B L 81 (1962) 169-74. Theissen, G. U rch ristlich e W u n d e r g e sc h ic h te n . Gütersloh: Mohn, 1974; T h e M ir a c le S tories o f th e E a r ly C h ris tia n T r a d itio n . T r. F. McDonagh. Ed. J. Riehes. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1983.

Translation 2:1 A n d on the third day a w edding took place in C ana o f Galilee, a n d the m other o f Jesus was there. 2Jesus was also invited to the w edding, together with his disciples. 3 W hen the w ine ran short the m other o f Jesus says to him , “They have no -wine left.”a 4Jesus says to her, “W h a t have we to do with one another, wom an t M y hour has not yet arrived.” b 5 H is m other says to the servants, “W hatever he tells you, do.” 6 N o w there were sta n d in g there, in accordance w ith the purification requirements o f the Jew s, six stone water ja rs, each one holding fro m twenty to thirty gallons. 7Jesus says to them, “F ill the ja rs with water. ” A n d they fille d them u p to the brim . 8 A n d he says to them, “N o w draw some, a n d take it to the m an in charge o f the feast.” A n d they took it. 9 B u t when the m an in charge o f the fe a st tasted the water that had become w ine (not know ing where it had come fro m , though the servants who had draw n the water knew ), he called the bridegroom 10 a n d said to him , “Everybody serves the good w ine first, a n d when people are d ru n k the inferior kind; you have kept the good w ine till n o w !” 11 Jesus did this as the beginning o f his signs in C ana o f Galilee a n d revealed his glory, a n d h is disciples believed in him. 12 A fter this he w ent dow n to C apernaum , he a n d his mother a n d his brothers a n d his disciples, c a n d there they rem ained not m any days.

Notes a A fter th e concluding statem ent, som e O L MSS a n d syrhmg add: δη owereXéodn ο οίνος του άμου* έίτα, “since th e wine fo r th e w edding was used u p ; th en . . . T his ap p ears to be a secondary explanation, b u t it is ad o p te d in th e text o f th e JB . b G ram m atically it is possible to u n d e rsta n d ούπω ήκει ή ώ ρα μου as a question: “H as n o t my h o u r now arrived?” T h e “h o u r” w ould th en unam biguously relate to the messianic task o f Jesus, a n d th e difficulty th a t Je su s responds to M ary’s request, in spite o f an a p p a re n t rebuff , w ould be rem oved. For this reason it is favored by som e early F ath ers a n d som e recen t R om an Catholic exegetes, b u t th e p rinciple o f difficilior lectio potior should be applied h ere an d th e w ords read as a statem ent.

Form lStructu re/S etting

33

c к а іо і μαΘηται αυτόν is o m itted by N W, som e O L MSS a n d th e A rm enian. T h is stren g th en e d L indars in his belief (following B ultm ann) th a t in th e original n arrative no m ention was m ade o f th e disciples o f Jesus; th e incident was related as occu rrin g while Jesu s lived at hom e, an d is to be classed with th e folk legends reco u n ted in th e ap ocryphal gospels (127, 132). T h ese speculations are scarcely w arran ted by th e textual p h en o m en a o f v 12. For a d ifferent deduction, see B arrett, 194. έμ€ΐΡ€ν instead o f έμειναν is read in P66 a n d som e later MSS. It is favored by B ultm ann and B arrett, b u t it could be d u e to th e influence o f the sing, verbs th at precede a n d follow this one (κατέβη . . . άνέβη : . .).

Form/Structure/Setting 1. A m iracle story is re la te d , c o m p a ra b le to th o se d esc rib ed in th e synoptic G ospels, b u t u n k n o w n to th e m . As th ro u g h o u t this G ospel, th e m iracle is te rm e d а σ η μ ε ϊο ν , a “sig n ” (th e w o rd δ υ ν α μ ις , “act o f p o w er, m iracle” do es n o t o cc u r in this G ospel). T h e co n c ep t o f s ig n is fam iliar in th e О Т (com m only Л Ж , ’ôt); it is u sed especially o f even ts, b o th n o rm a l a n d su p ra n o rm a l, th a t d e m o n s tra te th e tru th o f G o d ’s w o rd th ro u g h his p ro p h e t (e.g. E xod 3:12; 1 Sam 1 0 :1 -9 ) a n d so a u th e n tic a te th e p ro p h e t h im self (e.g. E xod 4 :1 -9 ); it also d e n o te s ev en ts th a t h e ra ld th in g s to com e, especially in re la tio n to th e eschatological fu tu re (e.g. Isa 7 :1 0 -1 6 ). As in th e synoptic G ospels so in th e F o u rth G ospel, th e m irac u lo u s d e e d s o f J e s u s a tte st th a t th e p ro m ises re la tin g to th e kin g d o m o f G o d a re actu alized in a n d th ro u g h Je su s. O u r evangelist goes o n e step f u r th e r in view ing th e m iracles as p a r a b le s o f th e kingdom w hich com es th ro u g h th e total w ork o f th e Son o f G od. I f th e w orks o f th e p re se n t are m an ifestatio n s o f th e kin g d o m th a t now is, th ey are also an ticip ations o f th e “g re a te r th in g s” (14:12) o f th e k in g d o m th a t com es in th e d e a th a n d re su rre c tio n o f th e C h rist, th e se n d in g o f th e Spirit a n d th e P arousia fo r final ju d g m e n t a n d re su rre c tio n . As in th e О Т th e co m in g o f G od fo r his kin g d o m resu lts in th e g a th e rin g o f th e G entiles to see his glory, a n d th e ir p ro c la m atio n o f it to n atio n s th at h av e n o t seen it (Isa 66:19), so th e σ η μ β ϊα o f J e s u s a re rev elatio n s o f h is glory. F or th e div in e b a sileia is G od sovereignly ac tin g in ju d g m e n t a n d salvation th ro u g h th e Son; accordingly th e kin g d o m th a t com es th ro u g h th e Son is th e k ingdom o f G o d in C h rist. O f this th e σ η μ € ΐα . a re revelations. 2. T h e stru c tu re o f th e n arra tiv e is clear. T h e situ a tio n is d escribed in vv 1—3a; th e n e e d fo r a n in terv e n tio n is m ad e k now n in 3 b -5 , en ta ilin g a dialo g u e b etw een th e m o th e r o f J e s u s a n d J e s u s h im self; in 6—8 a m iracle occurs, as servants o b ed ien tly carry o u t th e c o m m an d s o f Je su s; in 9—10 th e m iracle is atte ste d th ro u g h th e m aster o f th e feast, as he co m p lim e n ts th e b rid eg ro o m o n th e excellence o f th e w ine. A co m m e n t is a d d e d in v 11, em p h asizin g th a t it was th e first o f th e signs o f Je su s, a n d clarifying its fu n c tio n as a rev elatio n o f th e glory o f Je s u s a n d a s tre n g th e n in g o f th e faith o f his disciples. 3. T h is m e n tio n o f th e fir s t o f th e signs d o n e in C an a calls to m in d th e statem en t in 4:54, th a t th e h ealin g o f th e royal official’s son was th e se c o n d sign p e rfo rm e d by J e s u s o n c o m in g from J u d e a in to G alilee, ig n o rin g th ere b y th e re fe re n c e in 2:23 to th e signs d o n e by Je su s in Je ru sa le m . This linking o f th e signs led to th e p o stu late o f a Signs S ource, w hich c o n ta in e d all seven o f th e signs n a rra te d in th e G ospel (w ith possibly a good deal m o re m aterial utilized) a n d co n c lu d e d with 2 0 :3 0 -3 1 (so B u ltm an n , w hose views

34

J

ohn

2:1-12

on this were developed by R. T . Fortna and W. Nichols, see pp. xxxix—xl). The theory entails formidable difficulties, but it is not impossible that the Evangelist was acquainted with a source that contained the two signs o f Cana. That he should have stressed this sign as the beginning o f self-revelation o f Jesus given through the signs is natural (Schnackenburg, 1:323), not least in view o f the significance which he wished us to see in it.

Comment 1 The mention o f the third day has led to various attempts to read a symbolic meaning into the date. For some it is allusion to Easter: the miracle anticipates the manifestation o f Christ’s glory in the Resurrection (Dodd, Interpretation, 300). Others note that 1:19-2:1 implies the passage o f a week; they see here a comparison o f the first week o f the new creation with the work o f creation (Boismard, D u baptême à C ana, 15). A simpler interpretation is preferable: “The promise made by Jesus in 1:50 or 51 was fulfilled very soon” (Schnackenburg, 1:325). 2—3 The disciple group invited with Jesus will have been viewed as his family, for whose contributions to the marriage feast he will have been responsible. It is a natural assumption that this motivated Mary’s drawing the attention o f Jesus to the lack o f wine— not that she hoped for a miracle, but that his presence with the disciples, jointly embarked on a mendicant ministry which rendered them unable to fulfill the obligation o f guests, contributed to the embarrassing situation (for customs on the obligations o f wedding guests and their relation to this event see Derrett, L a w in the N T , 228-38). 4 It is not impossible that this verse was inserted by the Evangelist into his “signs source”; the passage would read more smoothly without it. By contrast Becker claims that the thought is characteristic o f the Signs Source itself (he notes 5:6; 6:5 ff.; 7:6 ff.; 11:6 ff.). It is wiser to retain the narrative in its wholeness. ri έμόί και σ ά ; is a well known but ambiguous expression, which can express a hostile or peaceful attitude (contrast Judg 11:12 with 2 Chron 35:21). 2 Kgs 3:13 is o f interest, in that it expresses rejection, yet the prophet gives what is asked; so here is an apparent rejection o f Mary’s initiative, yet a granting o f the request for intervention. The question may, however, have a gentler tone; an analogical expression from east Syrian “Chaldean” suggests not division but unity o f thought, which could here be rendered, “Why are you speaking to me o f this need? With you, I understand it” (see Derrett, 241-42). yw ai has caused needless perplexity. While it is an unusual mode of address to one’s mother, it also may be affectionate. Apart from John 19:26, which cannot be intended to express distance, a significant occurrence o f the term is found in Josephus, A n t . 17.74: the wife o f Pheroras tells Herod (the Great) how her husband summoned her in his illness, beginning his statement with “Woman.” The example is important, since Pheroras had great affection for his wife; he refused Herod’s request that he send her away, and his persistance in keeping her led to a rupture o f relations between the two men. In this Gospel the “hour” o f Jesus commonly denotes his death and glorifica-

Com m ent

35

tion (see 7:30; 8:20; 13:1; 17:1). An immediate reference to that hour is scarcely thinkable in this context; it must relate to the service o f the divine sovereignty on which Jesus now embarks, which will (as the Evangelist knows) culminate in the “lifting up” on the cross. (If the saying was in the source it would clearly have related to the beginning o f the redemptive ministry, and was interpreted by the Evangelist in the light o f its end, since the ministry was an indivisible unity.) The import o f the statement is to declare that Jesus’ service for the kingdom o f God is determined solely by his Father; into that area not even his mother can intrude (cf. 7 :3 -9 and Mark 3 :3 1 -3 5 , and see the excellent discussion o f Schnackenburg, 1:327-31). 6 The Jewish requirements for which the jars were used included ritual cleansing o f the hands through pouring water on them and washing o f vessels (cf. Mark 7 :3 -4 , and for the regulations Str-B 1:695-705). T h e jars were o f stone, since stone vessels did not contract uncleanness. Their large size was natural, but the sequel suggests that the great quantity they contained reflected the fullness o f Christ’s grace, in contrast to the limitations o f the old covenant (John 1:16-17). 8 Jewish sources do not enable us to be certain whether the άρχιτρίκΚ ίοος was a guest chosen to supervise the feast (“the president o f the banquet,” Barrett) or a servant appointed for the task (a “butler,” Lindars). The issue is secondary; whether guest or servant, he acted as master o f ceremonies. 10 Th e statement to the bridegroom is neither a proverb nor a rule; it may be an ironical or humorous or simply shrewd comment on human conduct. For the Evangelist it serves as a testimony to the perfection o f the sign performed by Jesus. 11 The miracle o f the wine revealed the glory o f Jesus. We are to recall 1:14 and 1:51: the Word made flesh, the only Son o f the Father, who is the Son o f Man, manifested his creative pow er . Does that exhaust the content o f the sign? T o what end does he use his power and glory? Some scholars view the glory of Jesus here set over against that claimed for Dionysus, th e provider o f wine, and the fullness o f life experienced in intoxication. Various stories were told o f this provision, such as the placing o f three empty basins at night in the temple at Elis and finding them to be full o f wine the next day; o r o f the spring o f wine that flowed in the temple of Bacchus in Andros on the festal day known as T h eo d o sia (see Dodd, H is to r ic a l T r a d itio n , 224-25). An exhaustive examination o f the evidence relating to such parallels was made by H. Noetzel (C h ristu s u n d D io n y su s ); he has convinced most scholars that the parallels are insufficient to support the claims made for them. In particular the m otif o f c h a n g in g water to wine is not present in the Dionysus legends; the jugs of Elis, for example, were not filled with water but were empty, and the fount of wine in Andros did not replace one o f water. T o suggest that the Evangelist or his source wished to dem onstrate through the Cana miracle that a greater than Dionysus has appeared is a speculation without warrant. T he notion that at Cana the superiority o f Jesus to Melchizedek was evidenced was earlier suggested by C. H. Dodd. In contrast to the Ammonites and Moabites, who refused Israel bread and water in the wilderness, Melchizedek, said Philo, “shall bring forth wine instead o f water and give our souls a pure draught, that they may become possessed by that divine intoxication that is more sober than sobriety itself; for he is the priest-logos, and has for his portion the Self-existent” (L eg . A lle g . 3.79 ff.: see Dodd, In te r p r e ta tio n , 298 f.). T he parallel is interesting,

J

36

o h n 2 :1 -1 2

but insufficient to account for the Cana narrative. Dodd later maintained that the story could have evolved from a parable o f Jesus which had the setting o f a wedding feast; it could have begun, “A certain man made a wedding feast,” and ended, “You have kept the good wine till now” (Historical Tradition, 227). O n this H aenchen commented, “In that case Jesus would have had to recount between that beginning and this end about a miracle of wine, and who should have perform ed that?” (193).

Most writers acknowledge that in the Johannine narrative there is an implicit contrast between water used for Jewish purificatory rites and the wine given by Jesus; the former is characteristic o f the old order, the latter o f the new. There can be little doubt that the change o f which the miracle is a sign is the coming o f the kingdom o f God in and through Jesus. The picture o f the kingdom o f God as a feast is prominent in Judaism and in the synoptic teaching (see, e.g., Matt 5:6; 8 :1 1 -1 2 ; Mark 2:19; Luke 2 2 :15-18, 29-30a), and abundance o f wine is a feature o f the feast (e.g. Isa 25:6). The glory o f Jesus, manifest in Cana was a sign o f his mediating the grace o f the kingdom o f God in his total ministry. The glory o f God is seen precisely in God’s bestowal o f life in his kingdom, and this he gives through the Son.

Explanation 1. This first o f the signs o f Jesus is depicted as the first public act o f the ministry o f Jesus. As a revelation o f the divine intervention that then began and continued throughout his ministry, it is significant that it was perceived by very few persons and its meaning understood only by the closest associates o f Jesus. 2. The hour o f Jesus in Cana was less a symbol o f his timeless redemptive action than a representation o f the eschatological moment which, itself full o f glory, leads to a glorious future. We may here recall a different but related use o f “hour” in this Gospel: “the hour comes and now is” (4:23; 5:25), which refers to eschatological realities o f the kingdom o f God which are now in process o f actualization and are moving to a climax in the near future. 3. The hour that struck in Cana leads on inexorably to the moment o f the exaltation o f the Son o f Man to heaven via his cross, when the wine o f the kingdom o f God was made available to the whole world (12:30-31). Its anticipation runs through the whole Gospel till the triumphant tetelestai, “It is finished!” rings out from the cross (19:30). While we do not consider that the statement o f time in 2:1 has relation to the third day of the Resurrection, there is no doubt that the narrative is suffused with the Easter faith and is to be understood in its light. The event sheds light on the time of the Church as well as on the historic ministry o f Jesus. 4. For this reason the gift o f wine instead o f water was crucially important for the earliest readers o f this Gospel. They must grasp the superiority of the Son o f God and his gift to the mediator o f the old covenant and its gifts (1:17). It is their privilege to rejoice in the possession o f the life o f the kingdom o f God, and to persist in their adherence to its Lord and Giver in face o f those who champion the old order and glory in its mediator. O f this gift every celebration o f the Eucharist is a standing reminder.

B ibliography

37

5. The reality and the gift remain through every succeeding generation, till the last hour strikes and the ultimate gift o f life through Christ is his gift to all who do not reject the revelation in him (5:21-29).

2 . T h e C lean sin g o f th e T em p le (2 :1 3 —2 2 ) Bibliography Braun, F. M. “L’expulsion des vendeurs de Tem ple.” R B 38 (1929) 178-200. Buse, I. “T he Cleansing of the Tem ple in the Synoptics and in J o h n .” E x p T im 70 (1958— 59) 22-24. Cullmann, O. “L’Opposition contre le Tem ple de Jérusalem .” N T S 5 (195859) 157-73; ET in E x p T im 71 (1959-60) 8-12, 39-43. Dodd, C. H. In te r p r e ta tio n , 300-303.— — . H isto r ic a l T r a d itio n . 89-91. Hiers, R. H. “T h e Purification o f the Temple: Preparation for the Kingdom of God.” J B L 90 (1971) 82-90. Léon-Dufour, X. “Le signe du Tem ple selon saint Jean .” R S R 39 (1951) 155-75. Mendner, S· “Die Tem pelreinigung.” Z N W 47 (1956) 93-112. Roloff, J. D a s K e ry g m a u n d d e r ird isch e J e su s . 89-110. Scott, E. F. T h e C risis in th e L ife o f J e s u s . New York: Scribners, 1952. Trocmé, E. “L’expulsion des m archands du T em ple.” N T S 15 (1968-69) 1-22. Vögels, H. “Die Tem pelreinigung und Golgotha (Joh 2:19-22).” B Z 6 (1962) 102-7. White, H. J. O n the Saying Attributed to O u r Lord in Jo h n II .19.” E x p T im 17 (1919) 41523.

Translation 13N o w the Jew ish passover a was near, a n d Jesus w ent u p to Jerusalem . 14 A n d he fo u n d in the templeb people selling cattle a n d sheep a n d doves, a n d the moneychangersc sitting a t tables. So he m ade a w hip d out o f cords a n d he threw them a ll out o f the temple, in clu d in g the sheep a n d the cattle ; e he scattered the coins o f the money-changers a n d overturned their tables, 16 a n d to those who were selling doves he said, “Stop m a kin g the house o f my F ather a house o f tra d e.” 17 H is disciples remembered that it is w ritten, “Zeal f o r y o u r house w ill destroy f m e ” 18 The Jew s therefore answered him , “W hat sign can you show us as authority fo r doing these th in g s? ” 19Jesus replied to them, “Destroy this temple, a n d in three days I w ill raise it u p ” 20 The Jew s therefore said, “This temple has taken fo rtysix years to b u ild * a n d are you g o in g to raise it u p in three days?” 21 B u t he was speaking about the temple o f his body. 22 W hen therefore he h ad risen fro m the deadh his disciples remembered that he h a d said this, a n d they believed the scripture a n d die words that Jesus had spoken.

Notes aτο πάσχα strictly den o tes th e Passover celebration held o n th e n ig h t o f 14-15 N isan, w hich was followed by th e Feast o f U n leavened B read, 15-21 N isan. In later Ju d a ism th e two feasts w ere com bined u n d e r th e o n e term a n d called th e Passover. b t o iepov = th e whole tem ple com plex, including th e sanctuary, ancillary buildings, a n d courts (here th e courts are in m ind, probably th e c o u rt o f th e G entiles, cf. M ark 11:17). T h e sanctuary p ro p e r = όναός, as in vv 19-20.

38

J

ohn

2 : 13-22

c Money changers were required, since Jews were not allowed by the Romans to issue their own coins, and Rom. coins bore images of their rulers with (to Jews) blasphemous claims of rule and divinity. The Jewish rulers therefore decreed that the temple tax and sacrifices be paid for in Tyrian coinage. dp66 and p75 and some other MSS prefix ώς to φρα-γέΧΚιον, “a kind of whip.” Despite the age of these witnesses the addition looks like an attempt to tone down the action of Jesus. e τά τε πρόβατα και τούς βόας is frequently viewed as “a poor apposition to πάντας” (so Bultmann, 123 n.8), but that is an impossible meaning in this context, since πάντας must include the sellers of v 14. It is a construction according to sense (though see Schnackenburg on the Evangelist's use of re, 1:346 n.15), drawing attention to the fact that Jesus drove out the sacrificial animals as well as those who sold them. f καταφάyerrn “will consume,” not in a psychological sense, but more drastically “will destroy cf. Rev 11:5; 12:4; 20:9. gοίκοδομήθη, not a completed act lying in the past, for the building operations continued on the temple until a . d . 63.; rather a past process viewed from the present. Bernard (after Alford) cites Ezra 5:16 as a remarkable parallel, also relating to the temple: άπό τότε ¿ως гоб νϋν φκοόομήθη και ούκ έτελέσθη, “From that time until now building has gone on and it is not yet finished.” hή'γέρθη is passive in form, but can have intransitive as well as passive sense. In view of ¿7ερώ ιη v 19 and the parallel concept in 10:17-18 the intransitive sense is more suitable here.

Form/Structure/Setting 1. It has been pointed out (by Schnackenburg, 1:344) that our passage is strikingly like a diptych (a double altarpiece on two leaves hinged together): we have (i) the action o f Jesus, vv 14-15; words o f Jesus, v 16; “remembering” o f disciples, v 17; (ii) action o f the Jews, v 18; words o f Jesus, v 19; misunderstanding o f the Jews and comment o f Evangelist, vv 2 0 -2 1 ; “remembering” o f disciples, v 22. 2. O f these two sections the former, describing the cleansing o f the temple, is also related to the synoptic accounts o f the event, though independent o f them, whereas the second, narrating a dialogue o f Jesus with Jewish authorities, has considerable differences. Interestingly enough, there is ground for viewing the accounts o f the cleansing both in Jo h n 2:14—16 and Mark 11:15-19 as apothegms (for the former see Becker, 1:122-23; for the latter Trocmé, “L ’expulsion des marchands,” 10-11). This suggests that the dialogues had a separate existence from the action. Certainly the saying o f Jesus in v 19, circulated independently in varied (and garbled!) forms, gained notoriety (see Mark 14:58//Matt 26:61 and Mark 15:29//Matt 27:40). Trocm é pointed out that the corresponding dialogue in Mark 11:27-33 is more closely bound with the controversies recorded in Mark 12:13-37 than it is with the temple event. It would appear that the two halves o f the accounts, alike in Jo h n and the synoptics, had independent circulation, or at least embodied material that circulated independently. 3. T h e relationship o f the accounts o f the cleansing o f the temple in the Fourth Gospel and in the synoptics has been endlessly discussed, with all possible variety o f options put forward by exegetes. There is reasonably widespread agreement now that: (i) the event happened only once, not twice (at the beginning and end o f the ministry o f Jesus); (ii ) it took place in the last week o f the life o f Jesus; (iii) the Fourth Evangelist had no intention o f correcting the timing o f the event, but set his account at the beginning o f

Com m ent

39

the ministry o f Jesus to highlight its significance for understanding the course o f the ministry. It provides a vital clue for grasping the nature and the course o f our Lord’s work, his words and actions, his death and resurrection, and the outcome o f it all in a new worship o f God, born out o f a new relation to God in and through the crucified-risen Christ. (For a comparable procedure o f an evangelist transferring to an earlier point a well known event in the life o f Jesus, note Luke’s setting his report o f the visit o f Jesus to Nazareth at the beginning o f the Galilean ministry, Luke 4 :1 6 -3 0 ; this Luke did because what then took place presaged the outcome o f the entire ministry o f our Lord in the Jewish rejection o f him and his acceptance among the Gentiles, so preparing for volume 2 o f Luke’s story of Jesus and his Church.)

Comment 13 That the evangelist speaks o f the “Passover o f the J e w s” indicates that the Church no longer observes the feast; this is not through hostility (to it, or to any other Jewish feast, contra Haenchen, 198), but because the Passover has been fulfilled in and through Jesus (cf. 19:31-37). The question arises as to which Passover is in mind, for that in which the temple was cleansed was at the end o f the Lord’s ministry. Did Jesus also go to Jerusalem for a Passover at this early date? The indications o f time in 2:1, 23; 3:22; 4:1 suggest that he did. It was the period when the ministries o f Jesus and John overlapped. 14-17 The ejection from the temple o f traders, with their beasts and birds for sacrifice and the scattering o f their money, is an act o f wrath which the traders were powerless to resist. Observe that the wrath was directed not against those engaged in or leading worship, but against those detracting from it. The motives and significance o f the action are hinted at in vv 1517. (i) The trade in the temple was viewed as an act o f desecration: “Stop making the house o f my Father a house o f trade.” There is probably an allusion here to the final words o f Zechariah’s vision o f the kingdom of God: “No trader shall again be seen in the house o f the Lord of Hosts.” Jesus is taking action to bring about the eschatological order wherein God will be glorified in his house and in the worship o f his people (see R. H. Hiers, “The Purification o f the Tem ple,” 83-90; Dodd, Interpretation , 300). The expression “house o f my Father” instead o f “house of the Lord o f Hosts” is typically Johannine, but equally typical of Jesus (cf. Luke 2:49 and his teaching on God as Father), (ii) The eschatological order is achieved not through the ejection o f traders but through that to which the action leads: the death o f the Father’s Son. So Ps 69:9 is quoted, a psalm o f the Righteous Sufferer, frequently cited in the NT with reference to Christ’s death. The discourse that follows (as the rest o f the Gospel) will show that this death will be for the glory o f God and the redemption o f man. (iii) That the action in the temple can be characterized as “zeal for your house” suggests a positive attitude to the temple, and not one o f total rejection (contrary to a frequently held opinion). “Jesus purified the temple, showing thereby that he had come to remove all barriers to the true worship o f God” (E. F. Scott, The Crisis in the

40

J

ohn

2 : 13-22

Life o f Jesus, 19). That is, stated positively, Jesus had come to open up the

way to the true worship o f God, and this motif lies at the heart o f the narrative and dialogue, (iv) The curious structure o f v 15b, which overloads the sentence, draws attention to the expulsion o f the sacrificial beasts. This comports with the thought that in the temple o f the eschatological order sacrificial worship will have no place. This again is to be understood in terms o f eschatological fulfillment rather than condemnation o f the old order o f worship; for the death that puts an end to all sacrifices is one with the exaltation o f the Christ to Lordship and leads to the age o f the Spirit. This, too, is assumed in the enigmatic utterance o f v 19. 18 The demand by the Jewish interrogators for a sign to legitimate the outrageous action and teaching o f Jesus is in harmony with Jewish ideas o f testing prophets (cf. Deut 18:20-22 and 13:1-5; the latter could have a threatening application). Similar demands for a sign are related in the synoptic Gospels (cf. Mark 8:11; Luke 2 3 :8 -9 , and especially Matt 12:38-40//Luke 11:29-30, where the sole sign to be given is that o f the resurrection o f Jesus). 19-21 The response o f Jesus to the demand for a legitimating sign is given in the form o f a māšāl, a riddle which at the same time is parabolic. Mendner vehemently protested its absurdity (particularly in the light of v 21), citing scholarly criticisms of it as “an unsuitable and thoroughly incomprehensible answer,” “thoroughly unworthy, and also unfair,” “a blow in the air,” giving rise to “suspicion that Jesus has megalomania” (“Die Tempelreinigung,” 99-101). These citations are given by Mendner not to discredit Jesus, but in an endeavor to prove that Jesus could not have made such an utterance. On the contrary, virtually all agree that Mark 14:58//Matt 26:61 and Mark 15:29//Matt 27:40 show that Jesus did make some such statement, and there is increasing recognition that John 2:19 is its most primitive form (so e.g. Bultmann, 126 n.l; Lindars, 142; Sanders, 119; Becker, 125). And is the answer so incomprehensible as Mendner made out? This logion is one of the clearest examples in this Gospel of its composition on two planes for two stages of history (or, as Léon-Dufour put it, of the author playing on two keyboards at the same time). The clue to its meaning is not in determining the appropriate signification of the ambiguous terms “destroy,” “temple,” “raise,” “body” (in v 21), but to distinguish between what the hearers could and should have understood and what the readers are to understand (see Léon-Dufour, “Le signe du Temple,” 156-57, and his exposition of the passage on this basis). In its context, “destroy the temple” does not convey a challenge to the Jewish leaders to tear down the stones of the temple; more plausibly it is an ironical call for them to carry on their behavior to its limit, which will end in the destruction of the temple of which they are guardians (for such prophetic irony Bultmann cites Amos 4:4; Isa 8:9; Jer 7:21; Matt 23:32 is particularly apposite: “Go on then, finish off what your fathers began!”, followed by the prophecy of doom in vv 3536). In such circumstances the sign demanded will be given in raising the temple of the new age in three days (i.e., shortly). This would accord perfectly with contemporary Jewish ideas of the new or glorified temple in the kingdom of God. But je s us is more than a Jewish apocalyptist. The expression “within three days” points to a meaning of the words closely in harmony with the unique ministry of Jesus. “After three days” or “on the third day” and the like denotes in Jewish tradition the time when God may be counted on to deliver his people from their troubles. The Midrash on Gen 42:17 contains the dictum, “The Holy One, blessed be he, never leaves the righteous in distress more than three days,” and in its comment

Com m ent

41

on Gen 22:4, it lengthily elaborates the principle from the ОТ. So explicit was this tradition in Israel that K. Lehmann concluded that the third day was not simply a short time, but a time stamped with special meaning: “The third day brings the turning to something new and better. God’s mercy and righteousness creates a new ‘time’ of salvation, of life, of victory; the third day brings a difficult circumstance from decision, through God’s saving action, to a final solution which is creative of history” (Auferweckt am D ritten T a g , 181). It is not to be wondered at that Jesus incorporated the expression in his reference to his destiny of death and resurrection (Mark 8:31, etc.). If, then, the saying of v 19 promises a creative intervention of God through his Son, it is seriously to be considered that the “destruction” of the temple which it rectifies may be of a moral kind, a degradation that destroys the nature of the temple as the temple of the covenant of Israel. The ОТ is acquainted with such thinking; cf. Ezekiel’s denunciation of the profanation of the temple (e.g. chap. 8) and his description of the glory of God forsaking the temple and city of Jerusalem, rendering the temple meaningless (Ezek 10:15-19; 11:22-23); it has a vivid counterpart in Matt 23:38: “Look, there is your temple, forsaken by G od!”

The Jewish leaders understand, or rather misunderstand, the saying of Jesus in terms of demolishing and re-erecting buildings (for this feature of Jewish misunderstanding in the Gospel see O. Cullmann, “Der johanneische Gebrauch doppeldeutiger Ausdrücke als Schlüssel zum Verständnis des vierten Evangeliums,” T Z 4 [1948] 360-7 2; D. A. Carson, “Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel,” T ynB 13 [1982] 59-91; H. Leroy, Rätsel u n d M issverständnis: E in B eitrag zu r Formgeschichte des Johannesevangelium s). Commonly in the Gospel such misunderstandings are corrected by further exposition from Jesus (as in 3:4-12). Here the Evangelist does it with a single comment: “He was speaking about the temple of his body.” This is not a denial of the contextual interpretation of v 19, but a clarification of its nature as sign and a pointer to its mode of fulfillment: the “destruction” of the temple is completed in the destruction of the body o f Jesus, and the building o f the new temple takes place through the resurrection o f Jesus. The Jews will accomplish the former; Jesus will accomplish the latter. This is the interpretation on the second plane, understood in the light of Easter. The risen Lord is the “place” where the glory of God is revealed, where his forgiveness and renewal are experienced, and where fellowship with God is grounded and forever maintained. Note that the temple o f the new age is Christ, not the Church (cf. Bultmann: “It is not possible that σ ώ μ α should refer to the community in a Pauline sense, since the object of Xvew and éyeípew must be one and the same,” 127-28 n.6). The same concept of the risen Christ as the new temple is exemplified in John 7:37-38, with its reference back to Ezek 4 7 :1 -1 2 (cf. Rev 21:22; 2 2 :1 -3 ; see further Bultmann, 127-29; Schnackenburg, 1:352-56; Léon-Dufour, 169-72; Lindars, 144; Gartner, Temple a nd C om m unity , 120-22). 22 The “scripture” which the disciples believed after the Resurrection is presumably Ps 69:9, mentioned in v 17, which enabled them to relate the temple cleansing to the death o f Christ; the “word” o f Jesus is that of v 19, which enabled them to grasp the significance of his resurrection in relation to the temple.

42

J

ohn

2:13-22

Explanation 1. The cleansing o f the temple is a sign o f the nature o f Christ’s mediatorial work as Revealer and Redeemer. For those who witnessed the event and heard the explanatory word (of v 19) it contained a message alike o f rebuke and promise, with evident threat o f judgment for those responsible for the desecration o f the “place” of the Holy One o f Israel. The perspective opened up by the ministry o f Jesus shows that its full significance, and the fulfillment o f the thing signified, were accomplished in the offering o f the body o f Christ and his rising from the dead. If the true nature o f the profanation o f God’s name and place was thereby exposed, with threat of judgment for those who persisted in the same, the primary thrust of the sign is nevertheless fulfillment o f promise. For Jesus came not to destroy Judaism, but to bring it to its destined goal in the eschatological order o f worship in the new creation, initiated through and in his deed and presence as the crucified and resurrected Lord. 2. The new temple is precisely the crucified and risen Son o f God. In this concept there is both close relation with and distinction from the contemporaries o f the Evangelist with whom he had most in common. The Qumran community, a group o f priests zealous for the Kingdom of God and its new order o f worship, protested at the unworthy service o f God in the temple and viewed themselves as the new temple, to which the presence and glory o f God proper to the old temple had been transferred. In the letters o f the NT, that presence and glory were seen as inhering in the Church, the Body o f Christ and the temple o f the Spirit o f Christ. The difference between the Qumran writings and the N T letters is the relation to the Messiah, who has brought into full actuality by his redemptive work and the sending o f the Holy Spirit that which the Qumran covenanters were seeing as dawning. T h e Fourth Evangelist concentrates attention on that point o f difference: the glory o f God and the presence o f God are revealed in the only Son and his redemptive acts; it is in and through him that mankind experiences that presence, is transfigured by that glory, and offers a worship worthy o f his name. All that Paul seeks to convey by his images o f the Church as temple o f the Spirit and the Body o f Christ is assumed by the Evangelist, but he refrains from the use o f such expressions. It is natural that in the context o f the cleansing o f the temple the idea o f Christ as the new temple should bring to consciousness the elements for which the ancient temple stood and the prospect of their consummation in the new age in the unveiled glory o f God and the universal enjoyment o f his presence. The Evangelist, who also looked forward to the resurrection o f the last day, will have recognized that there remain elements o f that ultimate glory yet to come, but he emphasizes that they have become an abiding actuality in the risen Lord and by the Spirit whom he has sent (so 4:21-26). 3. The ultimate significance o f the temple cleansing is therefore Christological, not ecclesiological. As throughout this Gospel forgiveness, unity with the Father, and life under the saving sovereignty o f God and all that flows from it are the fruit o f his redemptive action. It is experienced in union

43

T ran slation

with the Son, and its end is the glory o f God— in him and in those united with him.

3 . The Nicodemus Discourse

(2 :2 3 —3 :3 6 )

Bibliography Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament, 67-72, 226-32. Becker, J . “Joh 3, 1-21 als Reflexion johanneischer Schuldiskussion.” Das Wart und die Wörter. FS G. Friedrich. 85-95. Blank, J . Krisis. 56-108. Boismard, M. E. “Les traditions johanniques concernant le Baptiste.” R B 70 (1963) 25-30. Borgen, P. “Some Jewish Exegetical Traditions in the Fourth Gospel.” L’Evangile de Jean . Ed M. de Jonge. Louvain: Univ. Press. 243-58. Dodd, C. H. Interpretation. 2 7 9 -8 7 .— — . Historical Tradition, 35759. Guthrie, D. “Importance of Signs in the Fourth Gospel.” VoxEv (1967) 72-83. Jonge, M. de· “Nicodemus and Jesus: Some Observations on Misunderstanding and Understanding in the Fourth Gospel.” Jesus Stranger from Heaven, 29-47; also in BJRL 53 (1971) 337-59. Kraeling, C. H. John the Baptist. 123-57. Lindars, B. “Two Parables in John.” N T S 16 (1969-70) 324-29. Odeberg, H. The Fourth Gospel. 48-71. Potterie I. de la. “Naître de l’eau et naître de l’esprit.” ScEc 14 (1962) 417-43. Richter, G. "Zum sogenannten Taufetext Joh 3, 5.” Studien zum Johannesevangelium. 327-45. Schnackenburg, R. Die Sakramente im Johannesevangelium. 1946. Stauffer, E. “Agnostos Christos. Joh 2,24 und die Eschatologie des vierten Evangeliums.” The Background of the N T and Its Eschatology. FS C. H. Dodd. 281-309. Thüsing, W. Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium. NTAbh 21, Münster: Aschendorff, 1960. 4-14, 3137. Topei, L. J. "A Note on the Methodology of Structure Analysis in John 2:233:21.” CBQ 33 (1971)211-20.

Translation 23 N o w while he was in Jerusalem f o r the fe a st o f the Passover m any came to believe in his nam e, f o r they saw the signs that he was perform ing. 24 B u t Jesus him self d id not trust him self to them, 25 because he knew a ll m en, a n d because he had no need that anyone should g ive evidence about m an, f o r he him self knew w hat was in m an. 3:1N o w there was a Pharisee nam ed N icodem us ,a a member o f the Jew ish ru lin g council . 2 H e came to him a t n ig h t a n d said to him , “R abbi, we know that you have come fr o m God as a teacher, f o r no one can perform the signs that you are doin g unless G od is w ith h im .” 3Jesus said in reply to him , “A m en, am en I tell you, unless one is begotten fro m aboveb he cannot see the kingdom o f G od.” 4 Nicodem us says to him , “H ow can one be b o m w hen he is o ld ? H e can't enter a second tim e into his mother's womb a n d be b o m , can h e ?” 5Jesus replied, “A m en, am en I tell you, unless one is begotten o f water a n d Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom o f God.c 6 W h a t is begotten o f flesh is flesh , a n d w hat is begotten o f Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, Y o u people m ust be begotten fr o m above.’ 8 The w in d d blows where it w ants to, a n d you hear its sound, but you do n o t know where it is com ing fro m a n d where it is g o in g to; so it is with

44

John

2:23-3:36

everyone who is begotten of the Spirit. ” 9 Nicodemus said in reply to him, “H ow can these things happen?” 10Jesus answered him , “You are the teacher of Israel, an d you do not understand these things? 11 Amen, amen I tell you, we are talking about what we know, an d we are testifying to what we have seen, an d you people are not accepting our testimony. 12 I f I told you about earthly things an d you all are unbelieving, how w ill you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?” 13N ow no one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down out of heaven, the Son o f M a n .e 14A n d as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son o f M an must be lifted up, 15 order that everyone who believes may have in h im f eternal life. 16For God loved the world so greatly that he gave the only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him may not be lost but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world in order to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. 18 H e who believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe stands already condemned, became he has not believed in the name o f God's only Son. 19 A n d this is the ground of condemnation, that the light has come into the world an d men loved the darkness more than the light became their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who practices wickedness hates the light an d does not come to the light in case his actions should be exposed ,g 21 but he who does the truth comes to the light in order that it may be revealed that his acts are performed through God. 22 After this Jesus came into the Judean country with his disciples, an d there he stayed with them an d baptized. 23 B u t John also was baptizing in Aenon, near Salim , becam e plenty o f water was there, and people were coming to him and gettin g baptized. 24 For John had not yet been thrown into prison. 25 A n argum ent arose between disciples o f John an d a certain J ew h about ritual cleansing. 26 They came to John an d said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you the other side o f Jordan, to whom you bore witness, look, he's baptizing, and everyone is goin g to him !” 27 John said in reply, “A man can have nothing unless it be given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness that I have said to you, ‘I am not the C hrist,' but rather, ‘I am the one sent ahead of h im .' 29 It is the bridegroom who has th e bride; but the bridegroon's frien d , who stands by and listens fo r him, is overjoyed when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That is the jo y I have, a n d I have it to the fu ll. 30 H e must grow greater, but I must grow less.”i 31 H e who came fro m above is over everything. H e who is bom o f the earth belongs to the earth, a n d talks on the earthly level. H e who comes from heaven [is over everything. 32 H e]j bears witness to what he has seen an d heard, an d his witness no one accepts. 33 Whoever has accepted his witness has set his seal to the fa c t that God is true. 34 For the one whom God sent speaks the words of God, for h e k does not g ive the Spirit in a limited measure (to him). 35 The Father loves the Son, a n d has placed everything in his hand. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; but whoever disobeys 1 the Son w ill not see life, but the wrath o f God remains upon him.

Notes aNicodemus, a Gr. name, was adopted by the Jews in the form of Naqdemon. A man of this name is mentioned in Josephus, Ant. 14.37, as an envoy of Aristobulus to the Roman

Form /StructurelSetting

45

general Pompey. Later a certain Gorion, son of Nicodemus, negotiated with the Romans for the conclusion of the war of a . d . 66-70. The Nicodemus of our narrative could have been a member of the same family (for details see Schlatter, 84). b άνωθεν can mean “from above” and “again, anew.” Westcott (1:136) and Bultmann (135) insisted on the latter meaning here, Bernard (1:102) and Schnackenburg (1:367-68) affirmed that it must mean the former; others consider that both meanings are intended (e.g., Bauer, Lexicon, 77; Dodd, Interpretation, 303). In this context “from above” in the sense of “from God” appears to be primarily in mind (this is its meaning elsewhere in the Gospel, including 3:31), the other meaning is naturally subsumed under its primary emphasis. Since άνωθεν relates to God’s action it is best to translate yewrftft as “be begotten,” rather than “be bom” (used of birth from a mother). c For την βασιλείανroöΘεοΟ, some cursives and numerous Fathers read την βασιλείαν των ουρανών. This may be due to the known frequency of the expression in Matt, “to enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:20; 7:21; 18:3; 19:23). dThe play on the two meanings attaching both to Π1Ί (ruah) and to πνεύμα of “wind” and “spirit” cannot be reproduced in English, but it makes possible the production of this very illuminating simile (A. M. Hunter views it as a parable, According to John, 79). e Many authorities add at the end of the verse the phrase “who is in heaven”; some alter it to “who was in heaven,” and yet others to “who isfrom heaven.” The omission is supported by p66 and p75, N В L. The early attestation of the shorter reading inclined the UBS editors to follow it (Metzger, 203-4); but v 13 is probably a Johannine reflection on the preceding dialogue, and the very difficulty of the phrase, felt by later copyists, suggests that it may well be original to the Gospel (so, e.g., Schlatter, 94-95; Hoskyns, 218; Barrett, 213; Brown [hesitantly], 133). fThe expression ό πιστενών έν αύτφ has caused confusion in the textual tradition. The text is read in p 75 B, whereas p66 reads ¿ir* αύτφ, p63 (apparently) Nand most MSS read εις αυτόν, and A reads ¿irαυτόν. In this Gospel πιστεύειν is always followed by εις (34 times). Both the unusualness and the ambiguity speak for the originality of έν αύτφ ; in that case it must be viewed as an adverbial phrase, linked with ¿χη: “may in him have life eternal” (so Metzger, 204, and most recent commentators). g Some MSS, including p 66, add to the verse ότι πονηρά éortv (“because [or “that”] they are evil”). There appears to be no obvious reason for the deletion of the phrase; it could have been added from v 19 (cf. also 7:7). hIn v 25 the attestation for μετά Ιουδαίου and μετά Ιουδαίων is about equal (e.g. p75 and В for former, p66 and N* for latter). It is perhaps more likely that the sing, was changed to pl. than that the reverse happened. Many scholars are attracted to the conjectured alternative μετά ΙησοΟ or τοΰ ΙησοΟ or των Ιησού. In Dodd’s view such emendation is arbitrary and uncalled for (Historical Tradition, 280 n.2). i αύξάνειν, “grow greater,” έλαττοΟσθαι, “grow smaller,” were used specifically of the rising and setting of stars. The Fathers saw in this language an image of the waxing and waning of the sunlight. Becker interprets, “Jesus, according to divine decision, must rise like a star; John however must decrease, or go down” (Johannes, 155). j ¿πάνω πάντων έστίν is omitted by p 75 DOL OS. The phrase could have been carelessly repeated by a scribe after the first clause, or it could have been viewed as needless after that clause, and so omitted. If the phrase be omitted we should translate, “He who comes from heaven bears witness. . . .” kIn the second clause a number of MSS insert ό Θεός as the subject of δίδωσιν. It would appear to be secondary, but serves to clarify (correctly) the question as to who gives the Spirit in this context, God or “the one whom God sent.” l άπειθεΐν = be disobedient; it is tempting to view it here as “not to believe” (so the Lat. tradition; Barrett, 227; Lindars renders, “refuse to believe,” 171), but it is better to retain its proper meaning; the disobedience to the gospel here mentioned is parallel to the disobedience to God’s commands in vv 19-21 (Brown, 158).

Form/Structure/Setting1 1. Just as 2:1 harks back to the events of chap. 1 yet commences a new division of the Gospel, so 2 :2 3 -2 5 is linked with the setting of the previous

46

John

2:23—3:36

episode yet belongs essentially with chap. 3, since it provides a context for the Nicodemus narrative and an important clue to its understanding. The chapter opens with a dialogue between Nicodemus and Jesus concerning participation in the kingdom of God. The address of Jesus in the second person ends in v 12; it yields in vv 13-21 to a meditation on the ascent (ávafkupetp) of the Son of Man (v 13) which entails his “exaltation” (ифсовЦот), i.e., his crucifixion-resurrection (vv 14—15); this in turn leads to a confessional summary of the Gospel in v 16, and kerygmatic reflections on the saving intent of the mission of the Son of God, with its concomitant of judgment on those who reject the redemptive revelation made known therein (vv 1 7 21). 2. The structure of 3 :2 2 -3 6 conforms to that of 2 :2 3 -3 :2 1 . In 3 :2 2 -2 4 we have an introduction, providing the setting for the dialogue of vv 2 5 30; the latter tells of a controversy concerning ritual washings and the final testimony of John the Baptist to Jesus; vv 3 1 -3 6 give a summary of the witness of the One who comes from above. 3. The close parallelism of structure between the two halves of the chapter has been stressed by H. Thyen. Following a suggestion of Yu Ibuki he adopted the following analysis of the discourse: A (1) 2 :2 3 -2 5 , a R eport which also provides the key to the dialogue that follows; (2) 3 :1 -1 2 , Dialogue of Jesus with Nicodemus; (3) 3 :1 3 -2 1 , M onologue, giving “the voice of Christ.” В (1) 3 :2 2 -2 4 , R eport; (2) 3 :2 5 -3 0 , D ialogue of John the Baptist with Disciples; (3) 3 :3 1 -3 6 , M onologue, giving “the voice of Christ” (“Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium,” T R 44 [1979] 112). While this makes the structure of the passage crystal clear, it is doubtful that the Evangelist wished his readers to understand vv 13-21 and 3 1 -3 6 as spoken by Jesus (with the possible exception of v 14); the sayings in both paragraphs look back on the completed work of Christ, and are most certainly self-conscious reproductions of kerygmatic declarations which circulated in the Johannine churches as the essence of the Gospel. 4. Some exegetes, recognizing the affinity of vv 13-21 and 3 1 -3 6 , have sought to link them more closely. Bernard considered that vv 3 1 -3 6 were meant to follow vv 16-21 (l:xxiii); Bultmann in his commentary treated them in juxtaposition; Schnackenburg does the same, but reverses their order (v 31: this suits the responses of Nicodemus well!). Brown maintains that 3:13— 2 1 , 3 1 -3 6 and 12:44-50 are three variant discourses as from Jesus on identical themes; and that 3 :2 2 -3 0 belong to the testimony of John given in 1:19-34 and originally preceded that passage (160); this again has the effect of placing 3 :3 1 -3 6 in immediate juxtaposition with vv 13-21. This procedure fails to observe the relationship of the two paragraphs 3 :1 -1 2 and 2 5 -3 0 ; it can hardly be an accident that the baptisms of John and Jesus are central to the thought of both sections, and that they are immediately followed by expositions of the redemptive significance of Jesus in the Gospel. Dodd expressed similar convictions in affirming that vv 31—36 are not an appropriate continuation of vv 13-21, and that vv 2 2 -3 0 have their place in the flow of thought of the chapter relating to baptism; for him vv 31—36 are less a continuation of the preceding discourse than a recapitulation of its leading ideas ( Interpretation, 309).

47

Comment

Comment In t r o d u c t io n

t o

t h e

D is c o u r s e t o

N ic o d e m u s

(2:23-25)

The impression is given that the context is the Passover at which Jesus cleansed the temple. This caused Tatian, who compiled a gospel harmony in the second century, to set the Nicodemus passage in the last week of Jesus in Jerusalem, a precedent that has attracted some moderns (e.g. Bernard, 1:98). More probably we are dealing with a visit of Jesus to Jerusalem for a Passover festival, without closer definition of time. The comment in v 24 indicates the inadequacy of the faith of those who believed in Jesus solely because of “signs”: “Jesus did not trust them” (Haenchen). This does not mean that faith prompted by the miracles of Jesus is spurious, rather that “such faith is only the first step towards Jesus; it has not yet seen him in his true significance, and it is therefore not yet fully established” (Bultmann, 131). It is noteworthy that the unsatisfactory nature of faith that rests on signs, recorded here in an introduction to a baptismal discourse, is reiterated later in a context that has strong associations with the Lord’s Supper (6:14-15, 25—27); in both cases the inadequacy of such faith is countered by pointing to the redemptive activity of the Son of Man (3:13—21; 6 :3 2 -4 0 , 51-58). Mek. Exod. 15:32 (59b) has a comment that sheds light on v 25: “Seven things are hidden from man—the day of death, the day of consolation, the depths of judgment, one’s reward, the time of restoration of the kingdom of David, the time when the guilty kingdom (i.e., Rome) will be destroyed, and what is within another . ” Scripture proof for this last “unknown” is given in Gen. Rab. 65 (41b) and M idr. Qoh. 11:5: “I the Lord search the heart” (Jer 17:10); on this Billerbeck comments, “Thereby he (Jesus) is set on the side of God” (Kommentar , 2:412). T h e D ia l (x ;u e o f J e s u s w it h

N ic o d e m u s

(3:1—12)

2 That Nicodemus came to Jesus “by night” is less likely to be due to fear than to desire for uninterrupted conversation. If “night” has a symbolical overtone (see especially 11:10 and 13:30), it hints of the darkness in which Nicodemus stood (“a dangerous position betwixt and between”! Hoskyns, 211); whereas de Jonge insists that we are to understand that Nicodemus never got out of it (29-42), other references to him suggest a happier outcome (7:50; 19:38-40). 3 Frequently v 3 is viewed as a Johannine development of Matt 18:3 (cf. Mark 10:15), or a logion similar to it but independent of it (Dodd, H istorical Tradition , 359). Yet a saying similar to vv 3 and 5 was cited by Justin: αν μή ävayevvTjßfjfre ον μή είσέλθητε βίς την βασιλείαν τω ν ουρανών (Apol. 61); since Justin shows no other knowledge of our Gospel, the logion evidently circulated freely. It is likely that the Evangelist found the saying in an earlier source (Becker thinks that both vv 3 and 5 were current before the Evangelist, who commented on v 3 in v 7 and on v 5 in v 8, Johannes, 134). The concept of being begotten from above is not a simple translation of becoming as a child, but an adaptation of the Jewish hope of a new creation. The Jews became

48

John

2:23-3:36

familiar with the application of this concept to people, even in noneschatological contexts (e.g. God is said to make men “new creatures” when he heals them of their infirmities; Str-B, M atthäus, 420-23), but in the tradition stemming back to Jesus the eschatological element was constant. In Matt 19:28 the familiar βασιλεία is replaced by τταλιμγεμεσία, “regeneration,” Matthew’s equivalent of “new world” or “new age.” The LXX renders Job 14:14, “All the days of my service I would wait, till my release should come,” νπομβνω έως αν πάλιν γέμωμαι, literally, “I will endure till I ‘become again,’ ” i.e. until I live again through resurrection; πάλιν уіѵеоѲаi is a verbal form of the noun παλιμγεμεσία. While 1 Pet 1:23 repeats the verb “begotten anew” of Christians (άμαγεγεμμτ/μεμοι), Paul prefers the category of new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). Titus 3:5 combines the two images; “He saved us through the washing characterized by the παλαητεμεσία and άνακαίναχης that the Holy Spirit effects.” The saying in v 3 declares that it is those whom God makes new who will “see” (= experience) the new age. Naturally this saving sovereignty of God will be thought of as coming in the future, as in the Beatitudes of Matt 5 :3 -1 2 . In the perspective of the Gospel, however, the saving sovereignty has come into being through the redemptive activity of the Redeemer (cf. vv 13-16), and those whom God renews experience it now. 5 In the face of the incredulous expostulation of Nicodemus in v 4 the expression “to be begotten from above ” is expounded as being begotten of water a n d Spirit. What is the relation of “water” and “Spirit”? Origen suggested that here “water” differs from “Spirit” only in emma, i.e., in “notion,” not in ύπόστασις, “substance” (Commentary, 2:249 ff. in A. E. Brooke’s edition). Calvin in like fashion interpreted water and Spirit as meaning the same thing, comparable to “Spirit and fire” in the preaching of John the Baptist (John, 1:64—65). Odeberg held that water stands for the celestial waters, viewed in mystical Judaism as corresponding to the semen of the fleshly being; to be begotten “of water and Spirit” therefore means rebirth of spiritual seed, as in 1 John 3:9 (The Fourth Gospel, 63). A popular interpretation has it that water represents human birth, whether semen of man or waters in the womb, in contrast to birth from the Spirit; this, however overlooks that the whole expression “of water and Spirit” defines the manner in which one is born from above. Suggestions like these do not do justice to the text and have not commended themselves to scholarly opinion. It would seem that the text relates birth from above to baptism and the Holy Spirit. In the estimate of some interpreters this is an intrusion, alien to the flow of thought in the passage; they therefore regard νδατος καί as either an interpolation from an early copyist or, more popularly, from the hand of a redactor who sought to make the Gospel acceptable to the churches (so Bultmann, 139, and recently Haenchen, 218, 227). More cautiously Bernard viewed the addition of νδατος καί as due to the Evangelist himself (1:104—5), a suggestion that has been widely taken up of late. De la Potterie holds that the earliest Johannine catechism spoke only of regeneration by the Spirit, which could reflect what Jesus actually said, but in the light of the baptismal commission of the risen Lord and the Christian practice of baptism; the Evangelist added νδατος καί by way of commentary, to indicate how the new life of the Spirit is gained (“Naitre de l’eau et naître de l’esprit,” 424—25). The suggestion is plausible,

Comment

49

but unprovable. If the text is to be read as it stands, there is much to be said for the interpretation enunciated by Bengel, and characteristic of British exposition: “Water denotes the baptism of John into (i.e., preparing for) Christ Jesus” (Gnomon 2:275). Such a view assumes that entry into the kingdom of God requires baptism of water and of the Spirit. The conjunction of water and Spirit in eschatological hope is deeply rooted in the Jewish consciousness, as is attested by Ezek 36:25-27 and various apocalyptic writings (e.g., Jub. 1:23; Pss. Sol. 18:6; Test. Jud. 24:3), but above all the literature and practices of the Qumran sectaries, who sought to unite cleansing and the hope of the Spirit with actual immersions and repentance in a community beginning to “see” the kingdom of God (cf. IQS 3 :6 -9 ; 1QH 11:12-14). T h e need for cleansing and expectation of the renewal of the Spirit, accordingly, was in the air in the period of Jesus and the early Church. The Evangelist’s setting of the dialogue with Nicodemus alongside a second section concerned with the relation of John’s baptism to that promoted by Jesus (vv 25—30) indicates how he wished the first to be understood: Pharisees like Nicodemus should not stand aloof from the call to repentance for the kingdom of God issued by John the Baptist and by Jesus, for a ll stand in need of God’s forgiveness and the recreating work of the Holy Spirit, which is as imminent as the kingdom itself. In Nicodemus’s situation these gifts are separated, but it is a division determined by the tension within the ministry of Jesus of the “now and not yet,” or better the link of “is coming and now is” of the saving sovereignty, and by the fact that the sending of the Spirit awaits the “lifting up” of the Son of Man (7:39). In the time of the Church the gifts are conjoined, since the Lord by his death and resurrection has achieved a once-for-all cleansing and sent the Spirit of the kingdom: he who is baptized in faith in the Son of Man, exalted by his cross to heaven, becomes a new creation by the Spirit, “sees” the kingdom, and in Christ has life eternal (vv 14-15). 6 -8 The radical nature of the birth from above is emphasized by the contrast of flesh and Spirit, v 6. “Flesh” speaks of the weakness of man as creature, “Spirit” of the power of the God of heaven at work in the world below (cf. Isa 3 1:1 -3 , and for the thought, John 1:13). The parabolic saying of v 8 exemplifies the reality yet also the incomprehensibility of the work of the Spirit in man: the wind is invisible and mysterious, yet known in experience. “So it is with everyone begotten of the Spirit” implies, “What those who have been born of the Spirit are, whence they come and whither they go, is incomprehensible to the world; as incomprehensible as Jesus himself is to the Jews” (Hoskyns, 215). 11-12 Nicodemus is manifestly addressed as representative of his people (Xéyco aot. . . dirov ύμα) by the Revealer, who represents all who bear witness to the authentic word of God. The “we know” of Nicodemus (v 2) is tacitly corrected by the “we know” of the Redeemer (οϊδαμβρ), who bears unique witness to heavenly realities (δέω ρεικαμεν), and of the Church that perpetuates his testimony. Tragically the refusal of the witness by Nicodemus is also representative of its rejection by his generation, as by that of the Evangelist’s day (ου λαμβάνετε . . . ού πιστεύετε ). The “earthly things” of which Nicodemus has heard, but which he does

50

John

2:23-3:36

not believe, must denote the teaching on the birth from above, recorded in vv 3—8. It is “earthly” in that it relates to man’s situation in the world and his incapability to “see” the kingdom. The “heavenly things” which have not been declared to Nicodemus will relate to the eschatological dimension of the salvation which the Redeemer brings through his “descent” and “ascent” to heaven via the cross; these form the subject of the reflections that follow in vv 13-21 and 3 1 -3 6 (see further Bultmann, 147-49; Blank, K risis , 62-63). T h e R e d e m pt io n

o f

t h e

Rev ea l er

(3:13-21)

13 The Evangelist’s extension and exposition of the preceding dialogue begins with an ambiguous saying. Most commonly it is considered to be directed against all claims made by or on behalf of individuals who are supposed to have ascended to heaven and received revelations to make known to the world below, whether apocalyptic seers or (especially and above all) Moses (see especially W. Meeks, The Prophet-K ing , 295-301; P. Borgen, “Some Jewish Exegetical Traditions,” 243-58). Barrett states, “The Son of Man descends from heaven in order to convey énovpcwta to men.” But Bultmann is surely right in pointing out that the ascent itself is one of the “unbelievable έπουράιηα,” and that in v 13 “his exaltation is the fulfilment of the work of salvation by which he draws his own to himself” (151). The descent is mentioned in v 13 as the presupposition of the ascent (via the cross) for the salvation of humankind. This is the task of the Son of Man, who alone by virtue of his descent from heaven is authorized and empowered by the Father to achieve the salvation of the divine sovereignty (so essentially Schnackenburg, 1:302; Blank, 7 7 -8 0 ; Becker, 1:140-41). 14-15 The brief kerygmatic formula of vv 14—15 makes evident the presuppositions of v 13. It is closely related to the synoptic predictions of the Passion (Mark 8:31, etc.), but illuminates the meaning of the Passion by the incident of Moses lifting up a bronze snake for the healing of Israelites bitten by snakes (Num 21:4-9). To the lifting up of the snake on a pole that all may live corresponds the lifting up of the Son of Man on a cross that all may have eternal life. The term νψωθήναι is associated with δοξασβήμαι, “be glorified,” (cf. 12:23; 13:31 f.). The opening sentence of the last Servant Song in Isa 52:13 is clearly in mind: Ιδού σννησ€ΐ b π) δς δέδωκέν μα μείξων πάντων έστιν , Koine MSS. T h e UBS com m ittee viewed (i) as best accounting fo r th e o th e r readings: “As to my Father, th a t which he has given to m e is g re a te r th a n all” ; since, how ever, “th a t which he has given to m e” ap p ears to be th e sheep, th e statem en t is surely im probable. (ii) finds wide su p p o rt; B arrett ren d ers it, “My F ath er who gave (them ) m e is a g re a te r pow er th an all, a n d no o n e can snatch them o u t o f th e h an d o f th e F ath er.” J. N. Birdsall accepts th e read in g b u t ren d ers it, “My Father, in reg ard to w hat he has given m e is g re a te r th an all,” viewing th e subject as “th e unassailability o f th e flock o f G od because o f his g u ard ian pow er” (“J o h n x.29,” 344); in this he is followed by Brow n, 403; Lindars, 370; Schnackenburg, 2 :3 0 7 -8 . T h e sim plest reading is undoubtedly (v ), which we now find to be su p p o rte d by p66 (but read in g έδϊοκεν instead o f δέδωκέν). B ultm ann considered it to be th e only read in g th a t m ade sense; b ut o n e m ust ask if it was original, how did th e variants arise? B ern ard th o u g h t th a t th e δ was d u e to th e influence o f 6:39; 17:2, a n d so μεϊξον was w ritten to ag ree with it (2:348); B u ltm an n suggested that μεϊζον was d u e to a copyist’s mistake th ro u g h expecting an object a fte r δέδωκέν, a n d so the relative was altered in ag reem en t with it (386 n.2); Schlatter th o u g h t th a t δ supplied th e object an d μεϊξον ag reed therew ith (242). T h e issue is u n certain ; th e sim plest read in g may be, after all, th e correct o n e (so D odd, interpretation , 433, n .l; B ruce, 232). Most later MSS add μου to πατρός, bu t it is om itted by p66 p 75vid В L O rigen, a n d is likely to be an addition, possibly m ade independently by various copyists. k T h e sam e com m ent applies to th e a p p earan ce in m any MSS o f μου after τοΟ πατρός. 1 υμών is om itted after τ φ νόμψ in p4* N* D etc., p e rh a p s because it seem ed stran g e for Jesu s so to re fe r to th e О Т ; b u t it a p p ears similarly in 8:17 a n d should be retained here. m καί ytvÓJOKrjre is om itted by D O L syr*, a n d replaced by πιοτενσητε in m any m ore MSS (πιατεόψε in N), probably for th e identical reason, nam ely th a t th e term a p p ears needless after y vtjre, b u t its attestation is good a n d early (p45 p66 p 75 В L etc.), a n d is to be accepted.

Form/StructurelSetting 1. The chapter consists primarily o f a discourse on the Shepherd and his Flock, vv 1-18, and a dialogue between Jesus and the Jews during the Festival

166

J

ohn

1 0 :1 -4 2

o f the Dedication, vv 22-39. The former is followed by. a note on a division among the Jews occasioned by Jesus’ teaching, vv 19-21, and the latter by a report o f Jesus withdrawing to the other side o f the Jordan, vv 40-42. Since vv 19-21 make mention o f the healing o f the blind man, it is often thought that the passage should immediately follow 9 :3 9 -4 1 ; and as vv 2 6 -2 9 develop the theme o f the Shepherd and his Flock, it is also proposed that vv 2 2 -2 9 should immediately follow 19-21. The effect o f this is to set the entire narrative o f chap. 10 within the Festival o f the Dedication. This suggested transfer of 10:19-29 before vv 1-18 was proposed by F. W arburton Lewis in his work Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: CUP, 1910) (his findings are discussed by Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism, 13341). It was adopted by Moffatt, in his translation o f the NT, and by Bernard in his commentary (l:xxiv-xxv; 2:341-66). Bultmann accepted the revised order, but set vv 11-13 prior to 1—10, seeing in 11-13 and 1-5 a double parable, the form er a parable of the Good Shepherd, the latter a paroimia contrasting the Shepherd with thieves and robbers. Vv 7-10 are then viewed as an explanatory gloss on 1-5, and 14-18 explanatory glosses on the whole two-part parable (358-60). Com mentators o f late have been m ore cautious. Many are ready to acknowledge that vv 1-18 probably had a separate existence prior to their incorporation into the present narrative, and that vv 19-21 and 22-39 may well have come from a source that included the controversy-dialogues o f chaps. 7-10 (see especially Dodd, Interpretation, 355; Sanders, 246). Nevertheless, they also acknowledge that the present order makes sense, both in relation to chap. 9 and internally, and they assign the redaction of the whole to the Evangelist himself. In this respect the analysis o f J. Schneider is particularly instructive. He sees in vv 1-5 a paroimia that needs explanation; this is given according to a clear plan, which links on to the words that stand at the center of the parable, namely (i) the door, (ii) the Shepherd, (¿ii) his own sheep. Vv 7-10 stand under the doubly formulated sentence, “I am the door” (vv 7, 9); vv 11—18 are controlled by the statem ent twice made, ‘‘1 am the good shepherd” (vv 11, 14), together with the thrice repeated ‘‘1 lay down my life for the sheep” (11, 15, 17, and cf. v 18); vv 27-30 expand the concept “his own sheep”: they hear his voice and follow him, he knows them and gives them life, and they shall never perish. T he last passage (26-29) has been placed by the Evangelist in a different context to illuminate that context; the question of the Messiah is at the center, and the saying in v 26, “You do not believe because you are not of my sheep,” gives the Evangelist the possibility of placing the last section of the Shepherd discourse here (see “Zur Komposition von Joh. 10,” 22025). This is a plausible interpretation o f the schema o f the chapter, and is in harmony with the convictions o f other exegetes who decline to reverse the present order of the text (see Feuillet in his Johannine Studies, 137-38; Jerem ias, T D N T 6:494—95; Barrett, 366-68; Brown, 388-90; Schnackenburg, 2:276-78; Haenchen, 395-96. Becker, while agreeing with this position, emphasizes the independence of 10:1-18 from its context, and with Langbrandtner (Weltferner Gott oder Gott der Liebe) regards it as an addition by the “ecclesiastical redactor,” 311-12).

2. The integrity o f the parable in vv 1—5 has been questioned by several scholars, notably by J . A. T . Robinson. He argued that the parable is a fusion o f two parables on related themes: vv l-3 a are concerned with two figures, a bandit and a shepherd, who seek to enter a sheepfold; the porter opens to the latter alone; vv 3b -5 points to the difference in relationship between the sheep with a stranger and with their own shepherd. The latter parable relates to the claims o f Jesus in his teaching, which is repudiated by scribes

F orm ! Structure! Setting

167

and Pharisees, but recognized by the true people o f God. The Jewish leaders are condemned as άλλότριοι, foreigners to God’s people, and this accords with the setting o f Joh n 10. The parable of vv l-3 a is built around the contrast between the bandit and the shepherd, both o f whom seek to gain access to the courtyard; here the central figure is not the shepherd but the gatekeeper (cf. the θυρω ρός , the porter of synoptic parables, e.g. Mark 13:34; Luke 12:36). This parable, like the latter, warns the Jewish leaders of the urgency o f the present eschatological situation, and challenges them to open up to the true Shepherd o f God’s Flock (“Parable o f the Shepherd,” 68-72). With this analysis Dodd was basically in agreement, though he acknowledged that the joining o f the two parables will have shortened both (“We have in vv 1-5 the wreckage of two parables fused into one, the fusion having partly destroyed the original form of both,” H istorical T radition , 383). Brown is able to build his exposition on the basis o f this postulate o f the two parables (391-93). It appears to us, however, that the distinction drawn between the two halves of vv 1-5 is somewhat tenuous. Becker points out that the positive statement within the parable is actually in vv 2 -4 , which is framed through the negative contrast in vv 1 and 5. The shepherd comes to the sheep (1 3a) and then leads them to pasture (3b-5); the events stand in good succession, and are held together through the essential statement that the sheep know the shepherd’s voice and follow him. Vv 1-5 therefore are explicable as a unity and should not be dissected into several parables (see Becker, 325). This seems the most natural way o f construing the parable, as the majority o f exegetes agree. That which follows the parable in vv 7 -1 8 forms a meditation on the parable, directing attention especially to “the door” and “the Shepherd,” at the same time taking into account the feature o f the “thief” or “stranger,” and the contrast between their relation to the sheep and that of the shepherd to them. Accepting then the present order o f text, we propose that 10:1-21 is set in close association with the narrative o f the healing o f the blind man in the period following the Festival o f Tabernacles, while 10:22-39 falls within the Festival o f Dedication, shortly after the preceding events. We are evidently intended to assume that Jesus spent the time between the two festivals in the area o f Jerusalem. The Dedication festival, with its celebration o f the deliverance from the tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes and the rededication o f the profaned temple, forms a suitable background for “the Jews” to question Jesus whether he is the Messiah, and for the discussion it provoked. 3. The following analysis of the chapter will provide the basis for our exposition: 1.

2.

10:1-21: Discourse on the Shepherd and the Flock i. 10:1-6: T he Parable of the Shepherd, the Flock, and the Robber ii. 10:7-18: Meditation on the parable iii. 10:19-21: Division am ong the hearers 10:22-42: Jesus at the Festival of the Dedication i. 10:22-30: Jesus the Messiah ii. 10:31-39: Jesus the Son of God iii. 10:40-42: Jesus’ withdrawal to T ransjordan

J

168

ohn

1 0 :1 -4 2

Comment Тнк D is c o u r s E o n

the

S h e ph e r d

and t h e

F l o c k (10:1-21)

The P arable o f the Shepherd , the Flock , a n d the Robber ( 1 0 :1 - 6 )

The parable in essence depicts a shepherd as one having authorized access to his flock, in contrast to a thief, who must steal clandestinely into the fold; the shepherd, unlike the thief, has an established relationship with the sheep— he knows them, and they recognize him, and so they follow him as he leads them out to pasture, whereas they run away from a stranger. T h e assumptions o f the picture are reasonably clear. T h e sheep are kept at night in a fold, either one erected in the open country or in a yard surrounded by a wall adjacent to a house. It is possible that several flocks share the one fold. T he shepherd arrives in the m orning and gathers his own sheep, calling to them individually, and leads them out to pasture. O n this “gathering,” “calling,” and leading o f the sheep, cf. the remarks o f G. A. Smith: “On the boundless Eastern p a stu re . . . the shepherd is indispensable. With us sheep are often left to themselves; 1 do not rem em ber to have seen in the East a flock without a shepherd. In such a landscape as Judea, where a day’s pasture is thinly scattered over an unfenced tract, covered with delusive paths, still frequented by wild beasts, and rolling into the desert, the man and his character is indispensable. . . . Sometimes we enjoyed o u r noonday rest beside one of those Judean wells, to which three or four shepherds come down with their flocks. T he flocks mixed with each other, and we wondered how each shepherd would get his own again. But after the watering and the playing were over the shepherds one by one went up different sides o f the valley, and each called out his peculiar call; and the sheep of each drew out o f the crowd to their own shepherd and the flocks passed as orderly as they came” (Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 25th ed. [London: Fontana] 210-11). T he Evangelist describes this as а παροιμία (see Notes on the passage). Fundam entally it is a parable rather than an allegory (so Bultmann, 371); nevertheless it has within it features that recall to any Jew a wealth of biblical associations that make certain applications o f imagery almost inevitable. Four elements in its background may be distinguished, (i) O f the many relevant О Т passages the polemical discourse in Ezekiel 34 is outstanding; Israel’s leaders a r t condem ned for neglecting the sheep, for slaughtering them and leaving them as prey to the wild beasts; the Lord declares that he will be their Shepherd, that he will gather his scattered sheep and pasture them on the mountains of Israel, and set over them as shepherd “my servant David,” i.e., the Messiah, (ii) T h e use o f the imagery of shepherd and sheep in the synoptic teaching o f Jesus is inevitably recalled, especially the parable of the one lost sheep, which depicts the care of God for the lost and justifies Jesus’ seeking them (Luke 15:1-7; Matt 18:12-14), and Mark 14:27, which links the death and resurrection of Jesus the shepherd with Zech 13:7-9. (iii) T h e immediately foregoing narrative o f the healing o f the man born blind, culm inating in his ejection by the Pharisees, finds a reflection in the contrast between the “thief and robber” and the good shepherd in their respective attitudes to the sheep. (iv) As throughout the Gospel, the circumstances o f the church contem porary with the Evangelist are also in mind: the original readers will have recognized in the thief and robber, who is a stranger to the sheep, Jewish opponents who seek to draw them away from their Shepherd, and possibly also schismatic leaders who appeal to them to forsake the orthodox Church (cf. 1 Jo h n 2:18-22; 4:1-6).

Comment

169

1 T h e m e n tio n o f th e “th ie f a n d ro b b e r” (a single figure, as έκβϊνος shows) prior to th e s h e p h e rd in th e p arab le is significant, follow ing as it does im m ed iately o n 9 :4 0 -4 1 . 2 -4 T h e s h e p h e rd e n te rs th e fold as o f rig h t, fo r th e sh e e p a re his. T h e d o o rk e e p e r has n o fu n c tio n o th e r th a n to o p e n th e d o o r to him (contrast th e fig u re in M ark 1 3 :3 4 -3 6 ; L uke 1 2 :3 5 -3 8 ). T h e re p e titio n o f Ιδια in vv 3 -4 (та іЫа πρόβατα . . . та ίδια псшта) p ro m p ts th e th o u g h t th a t m o re th a n o n e flock is in th e fold, a n d th a t th e sh e p h e rd calls “his o w n ” from am o n g th e o th e rs. H e calls th e m κατ όνομα, n o t necessarily by d iffe re n t nam es (th o u g h su ch is n o t u n k n o w n ), b u t “indiv id u ally ” (such is th e m e a n in g o f κατ όνομα in 3 J o h n 15; see D o d d , H istorical T ra d itio n , 384 n.4). As is cu sto m ary in Palestine, th e sh e e p fo llo w th e s h e p h e rd (it is th e b u tc h e r w ho drives them !); follow ing th e s h e p h e rd m akes th e p ictu re peculiarly a p t to C h ristian discipleship. M editation on the Parable (1 0 :7 -1 8 )

7 -1 0 “ I am th e D o o r” is to be re ta in e d as th e a u th e n tic text (see Notes o n v 7). C h ry so sto m ’s c o m m e n t is basically co rrect: “W h e n he brings us to th e F a th e r h e calls h im self a D oor, w h en he takes care o f us, a S h e p h e rd ” (cited by H oskyns, 373). It sh o u ld be n o te d , how ever, th a t th e sym bol o f th e sh e p h e rd is m o re co m p re h en siv e th a n th a t o f th e d o o r, since it includes th e th o u g h t o f b rin g in g p e o p le to G od a n d c a rin g fo r th e m (v 16, hence th e im p o rta n c e o f th e s h e p h e rd laying dow n his life fo r th e sh eep , vv 11,15). T h e saying is p arallel to 14:6, “I am th e W ay, th e tru th , a n d th e life; no o n e com es to th e F a th e r ex c ep t th ro u g h m e.” J e su s is th e D oor to th e life o f th e kin g d o m o f G o d , w hich is given to th o se w ho com e to th e F a th e r th ro u g h him . Various writers, familiar with life in the nearer Orient, have drawn attention to statements of shepherds virtually identical with v 7b. They speak of themselves as a “door of the sheep,” since they habitually lie down across the open entry of a sheepfold, and their body forms a barrier to intruders, whether thieves or wild beasts (E. F. F. Bishop recounts in detail two such instances, “ The Door of the Sheep,” 307, and L. Morris cites another told by G. A. Smith to G. Campbell Morgan, 507 n.30). It is an attractive interpretation and conceivably could have been so understood by readers of the Gospel familiar with such pastoral settings, but they would have been few; more importantly, the idea does not comport with vv 2- 3 , which have in view an actual door in the wall or fence, guarded by a gatekeeper. As the figure of a Shepherd was widely taken up in Oriental thought and religion, so was that o f Door. Barrett marshalls an interesting array of evidence for the latter (372), some of which could have been familiar to some early readers of our Gospel. Curiously Barrett fails to mention the most likely precedent for the figure, namely Ps 118:20: “This is the gate o f the Lord, the righteous shall enter through it.” T he whole passage is capable of messianic application (esp. vv 22-27, elements of which feature prominently in the NT, e.g., Mark 12:10-11 par; 11:9 par; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 7). It is most natural to interpret the Door here in relation to the sheep, who enter by the Redeemer into the salvation of the kingdom of God. This is preferable to the commonly espoused view that in v 7 Jesus is the Door to the sheep, whereby true (Christian) shepherds may have access to the sheep, while

170

J o h n 1 0 :1 -4 2

in v 9 he is the Door for the sheep (so, e.g., Schneider, 222-23; Brown, 371; Morris, 506). Some make no distinction between the two sayings and understand the Door to be the means by which the shepherds and sheep alike enter (e.g., Westcott, 2:53; Lagrange, 282; Hoskyns, 373; Barrett, 371). Schnackenburg dismisses the notion of Christian shepherds as in view here and wishes to keep the figure strictly in line with vv 2, 3, 8: the Door represents a “symbol of the entrant’s legitimacy, the proof o f the Shepherd’s right’’; hence it rules out all other claimants to being saviors of hum ankind (2:289). Perhaps this is a little too rigid; if we take the simpler view o f Jesus as the Door to the salvation of the kingdom o f God, on the analogy o f Ps 118:20, the claimants in view in vv 8 and 10 are automatically eliminated, and the “I am . . .” of vv 7, 9, and 11 is allowed its positive and exclusive significance. Needless to say, the sweeping affirmation of v 8 does not have in mind the notable figures of the О Т, since in the Gospel they are spoken of as witnesses to Jesus, as truly as Jo h n the Baptist is. T he saying is directed against those who claim to be mediators o f salvation. As such it would embrace false messiahs within Judaism and redeem er gods o f the pagan world, and in the present context, perhaps even more obviously, Pharisees who claimed to hold the keys of the kingdom (cf. Matt 23:13 = Luke 11:52) and in the perspective of the Gospel their successors in contem porary Judaism (so Schnackenburg, 2:291). T he positive aspect of v 10 is to be emphasized as an expression of the message of this Gospel: Jesus has come that all in the world may have life in its fullest sense—the eternal life o f the kingdom of God (20:30-31).

11—13 The “noble” (καλό?) shepherd virtually = ό ποιμήν b αληθινός, the “genuine” shepherd, since he contrasts with all who claim, or are claimed to be, the shepherds o f humankind but are powerless to save. Here, however, κ α λό ς relates primarily to the readiness o f the shepherd to lay down his life for the sheep. The comparison with the “hireling,” who neither owns the sheep, nor cares for them, nor defends them from marauding beasts (vv 12-13), invites translating τ η ν ψ υχήν αύτου τίθ ησ ιν as “risks his life” for the sheep. Again, however, the continuing context demands a more emphatic rendering. V 15 speaks explicitly o f the Shepherd laying down his life for the sheep, and vv 17—18 that he does this in obedience to the command of the Father. The language o f metaphor thus gives way to kerygmatic affirmation. 14-15 In vv 14—15 we have a good example of how concepts in different languages can draw close, yet stili require discrimination. In the ('»reek tradition knowledge is thought of as analogous to seeing, with a view to grasping the nature of an object; for the Hebrew, knowledge means experiencing something. In the area of religion, therefore, knowledge of God for the (¿reek is primarily contem plation of the divine reality; for the Hebrew it means entering into a relationship with God. This latter is vividly, if not shatteringly, illustrated in Amos 3:1-2. On this background vv 14—15 have a clear meaning: the mutual knowledge of the Shepherd and his “sheep” denotes an intimate relationship which reflects the fellowship o f love between the Father and the Son. (In 17:21 it not only reflects but is rooted in that relationship, expressed in terms of the Son being “in” the Father and the believers “in” the Son.) Hellenistic Judaism prepared the ground for (¿reeks to approach this way of thinking, so that in the Hermetic literature knowledge of God means mystical communion with God. Bauer adduces, in illustration of vv 14-15, a well-known prayer in a magical papyrus, thought to he taken from a Hermetic cult liturgy: “I know you, Hermes, who you are and whence you are. I

Com m ent

171

also know your barbarous names. . . . I know you, Hermes, and you know me. / am you and you are Г (Bauer, 137). T h e last sentence, however, indicates a wholly

different religion from the Johannine revelation, which emphasizes a union initiated by the C reator in his redeem ing love and by the creature in responsive love through the Christ, in whom God and man alone are one.

16 In V 16 return is made again to the parable o f vv 1-5, where the “fold” to which the Shepherd comes is that o f Israel. If salvation is “o f the Jews” (4:22), it must first come to the Jews, and then proceed from them to the nations (significantly it was in that context that Jesus was described by Samaritans as the Savior o f the world, 4:42). So here, in the context o f Jesus as the Shepherd o f God’s flock and in conjunction with his intention to lay down his life for the sheep, we learn that he has sheep o f other folds than Israel’s. The death o f the Shepherd embraces all people (cf. 11:50-52, also 3:16; 6:51; 12:20, 24, 31-32). The sheep are his before they hear his voice, for they have been given him by the Father (cf. v 29, and the repeated similar affirmations in chap. 6— vv 37-3 9 , 44—45, 64-65). Who, then, is to gather them? None other than the Shepherd himself! I must bring them . . . and they shall hear my voice.” The mission to the nations is that o f Jesus, continuing his mission to Israel’s fold. As he was sent by the Father on mission to Israel, so he will conduct his mission to the nations through his disciples (so 20:21; the thought is embodied in Matt 28:18-20, “Go, and make disciples o f all nations . . . See, I am with you always . . .”; similarly in terms o f action, in the longer ending o f Mark at 16:20). The sheep o f the different folds are not to remain in their separateness, but “they shall become one flock,” under the care o f the one Shepherd. Their unity is the fruit o f his solitary sacrifice (vv 15, 17-18) and his unique relation to God and man (vv 14—15a) as the Pauline epistles joyfully proclaim (Rom 5 :1 2 21; 2 Cor 5 :1 4 -2 1 ; Eph 2:11-18). 17-18 The theme of the Shepherd’s death, announced in vv 11 and 15, is now elaborated, but without reference to the pastoral imagery. The mai n statement is in v 17, which is amplified in v 18. Two points are made. (i) The Father’s love for the Son is linked with the Son’s death for the world. This event is naturally not represented as the origin o f that love but its supreme manifestation and enactment. The Father willed that the Son should lay down his life for humankind (v 18), and the Son obeyed, in freedom, and with sovereign authority from the Father. The mutual love o f the Father and Son thus was seen in a deed o f love for the world, in which the Father in love willed to save all and the Son in love freely gave his all. The significance o f the statement was well perceived by Hoskyns: T he love of the Father for the Son is set in the context neither of the original creation nor o f a relationship which existed before the world was made, but of the love of the Father for the world o f men and women. . . . T he love of the Father is directed towards the Son, because by him, by his voluntary death, the obedience upon which the salvation of men depends has been accomplished (379). (ii) Jesus lays down his life in order to take it again. Here two thoughts coalesce: the unity o f the death and resurrection of the Son for the salvation o f the world, and the attribution o f the resurrection to the Son. Both are

J

172

ohn

1 0 :1 -4 2

characteristic o f this Gospel (cf. the “lifting up” sayings, 3:14—15; 8:28; 1 2:3132; and 2:19-21), but not inharmonious with the others. In the Markan predictions o f the passion (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32), the death o f the Son o f Man is conjoined with his resurrection not, as is often alleged, as a mere prophecy after the event, but because the death o f the Son o f Man in his service for the kingdom o f God is inconceivable without his resurrection for the same end, and because the latter is God’s act, not alone to vindicate the Son o f Man but in God’s completing his work o f establishing his saving sovereignty through the Son o f Man. So also in the Fourth Gospel the Resurrection is the completion o f the works given by the Father to the Son to do; but like the rest o f those works it is ultimately the work o f the Father through the Son (the principle is applied in 5 :1 9 -3 0 to the resurrection and judgment o f the world). Accordingly, “When, in rising from the dead, Jesus takes up his life again, nothing occurs other than that the Father glorifies him” (Schnackenburg, 2:302). For the death o f the Son is his return to the Father, and the resurrection his glorification by the Father (17:1, 5, 11). D ivision a m ong the Hearers (1 0 :1 9 - 2 1 )

This further occasion for division arose “among the Jews,” which appears to mean the people and not the rulers. The ambiguity o f the term has been seen in 7 :1 1 -1 3 : the Jews were looking for Jesus in the temple, but were afraid to speak openly o f him “because o f the Jew s,” and a division among them took place (7:31, 3 2 ,4 0 -4 3 ). Here, as there, the division was occasioned through the sayings o f Jesus (7:40-43); it is unlikely therefore that the paragraph was intended to follow 9 :4 0 -4 1 . The mention at this point of the healing o f the blind man is natural, since it took place in Jerusalem (observe that it is referred to again in 11:37). The mention o f the division indicates the uncertainty and tension in the situation, and so prepares for the following section, where the uncertainty and tension reach explosion point (vv 2 4 39). J esu s a t t h e

F e s t iv a l

o f

t h e

D e d ic a c iO n

(10:22—42)

Two closely related subjects (or, as we may say, two aspects of one theme) are dealt with in vv 22-39. Jesus is asked whether he is the M essiah (v 24). He replies in terms reminiscent o f the Shepherd discourse o f vv 1-18, culminating in the utterance o f v 30, “I and the Father are one.” The second part of the discussion sets out from that statement, and by reference to Ps 82 justifies Jesus’ claim that he is the Son o f God (v 36). The terms in which the latter statement is enunciated may have in view the significance o f the Dedication festival in relation to the mission o f Jesus. Jesus the Messiah (1 0 :2 2 —3 0 )

22—23 T he institution o f the Festival o f Dedication is described in 1 Масс 4:59. Antiochus Epiphanes, in pursuance of his policy to establish one religion throughout his em pire, had forbidden the Jews to maintain their ancestral religion and laws, and ordered them to conform to the pagan worship o f Zeus. T he climax o f his attem pt to eradicate the Jewish worship was to set on the altar in the Jerusalem

Com m ent

173

temple a pagan altar, probably with an image of Zeus in his own likeness, and on the 25th. Kislev ( = December 167 b . c .) sacrifice was offered on this altar. In a heroic series o f military encounters Judas Maccabaeus led the Jews to victory over the forces of Antiochus; the desolated temple was cleansed and refurbished, and on the 25th. Kislev 164 b . c : . , sacrifice was offered “as the Law commands” on the newly built altar of burnt offering. T he people joyously celebrated the rededication of the altar for eight days, and it was decreed that a like festival be held each year for eight days, beginning on the 25th. Kislev (see 1 Масс 4:36-59). It is likely that in earlier times a festival celebrating the winter solstice had been held on that date; its purpose was now adapted to commemorate the deliverance from Antiochus and renewal of the temple worship. T he festival was marked by its use o f lights. Josephus called it φώτα , “T he Festival of Lights,” “because . . . such a freedom shone upon us” (Ant. 12.325). In 2 Масс 1:9 it is called “the Festival o f Tabernacles o f the month Kislev.” 1 Масс 1:9 mentions the lighting again of the temple lamps at the Rededication, as the later rabbis did yet more emphatically. Unlike Tabernacles, the festival could be celebrated at home. A lampstand with eight lamps was used; according to Shammai, the eight lamps were lighted on the first day, and one light was extinguished each day until there were none, but according to Hillel, one lamp should be lighted on the first day and one added each day till all eight were alight. Rejoicing was the keynote of the festival, and no m ourning was allowed during its observance (for the customs of the festival and their explanations accorded them by the rabbis see Str-B 2:539-41).

The mention that it was “winter” could relate to the immediately following clause. It was wintry weather; hence Jesus moved about in Solomon’s Porch, which gave shelter from the cold winds (cf. the significance o f χειμώρος in Mark 13:18). It may, however, relate to the spiritual climate (cf. ήν δέ pv% in 13:30). A great deliverance from an Antichrist and the triumph of true religion was being celebrated, but the frosty temperature without corresponded to the frozen spirits o f “the Jews.” For them there was no sign of the Deliverer, but among them stood Jesus, whom many o f the populace regarded as the Messiah, but who did not observe the Law as the sacred tradition demanded, and whose speech and actions were tantalizing. 24 Despite all that Jesus is recorded as saying to the Jews, including the immediately preceding chapters, he had never publicly stated that he was the Messiah (the admission to the Samaritan woman was no public proclamation). His claims to being the source o f living water (7:37-38), Light for the world (8:12), the Shepherd o f the sheep (10:11) were certainly astonishing, but was he prepared to affirm that he was the A nointed o f God, and so the King of the coming Kingdom o f God? That was the crucial matter. If it be asked why the Jewish leaders posed the question, it is unlikely that they wished to know the answer of Jesus in order to acknowledge him as Messiah, if he so confessed it. While the clause "Βιος πότε την ψυχήν ημών αίρεις; is commonly translated, “How long are you keeping us in suspense?”, Barrett cites authorities in both ancient and modern Greek for the meaning, “How long do you intend to annoy or provoke us?” (380). The similarity between vv 24-25 and the synoptic trial narrative in Mark 14:61-62 and especially Luke 22:67 has often been noticed. It has prom pted the question whether a common source lies behind the Fourth Gospel and the others, and if so w hether the Fourth Evangelist has antedated the proceedings in the trial o r the synoptists have transferred earlier material to the later time (see the discussions in Dodd, Interpretation , 361-62; Historical Tradition ,

174

J

ohn

1 0 :1 -4 2

92; Brown, 405; Schnackenburg, 2:306). We have no means of settling that issue; the differences among the accounts suggest that these exchanges occurred both prior to and during the trial, but the similarities strengthen the view that the passage before us represents a hostile intent, reflecting a desire of the Jewish leaders to discredit Jesus rather than to follow him. This accords with the reply of Jesus that follows: he perceived the real motive of his questioners. 25 Jesus characteristically answers the question in an indirect manner. (The Fourth Evangelist has his own way o f representing the messianic reserve o f Jesus.) But what does he mean by, “I have told you”? No such clear statement has been hitherto recorded. The affirmation may mean, “My teaching makes the answer plain enough for those with eyes to see and ears to hear”; in which case Jesus asserts that his words and his works set forth who he is (so, e.g., Westcott, 65; Hoskyns, 387). O r we must understand that the works done in the Father’s name tell the Jews what they want to know, since they bear clear witness to him (so Bultmann, 362; Schnackenburg, 2 :3 0 5 -6 ; Barrett, 378). 2 6 -3 0 Th e Jewish leaders do not believe, because they do not belong to the flock o f Jesus; i.e., they have not been “given” to Jesus by the Father (cf. 6 :3 6 -3 7 , 44). But note the appeal in vv 3 7 -3 8 to renounce unbelief and to believe in Jesus as the Son o f God; the two aspects o f election and responsible hearing o f the revelation are maintained. In v 27 the thought o f vv 14-15 is echoed: Christ’s sheep listen to his voice; he know s them and they fo llo w him, for they too know him. T h e emphasis falls on the Shepherd’s calling and establishing a relationship with the sheep. He gives eternal life to the sheep, for he lays down his life for them that he may take it again (vv 1 6 17). The reverse aspect o f this is that they shall never be “lost” or “destroyed” (with reference to the last day? but cf. v 10), and no one can tear them out o f his hand, i.e., by attacks upon them (cf. v 12). T h e assurance is reinforced in the sentence that follows: the Father who gave the sheep to the Son is greater than all powers in the universe, and none can tear them out o f his hand. That is why Jesus can say that none can rob him o f his sheep, for he a n d the F ather are one.

The setting of v 30 in relation to vv 28-29 shows that a functional unity of the Son and the Father in their care for the sheep is in mind. From earliest times it has been observed that Jesus says, “I and the Father are b>” not “efc,” i.e., one in action, not in person. Fundamentally the issue would not be different if it be postulated that the Evangelist’s source followed vv 24-25 with v 30 without a break; for then we have the familiar assertion that the works done in the Father’s name show who Jesus is, with the added observation that he and the Father are one in their action. In either case we are presented again with the theology of 5:17-30 (so emphatically Schlatter, 242; Sanders, 258; Haenchen, 392; Becker, 337-38). Nevertheless the observation is justified that in v 30 we have a glimpse of “the metaphysical depths contained in the relationship between Jesus and the Father” (Schnackenburg, 2:308), so long as it is recognized that the Evangelist has not spelled out the nature of those “metaphysical depths.’’ The sentence in v 30 played an important role in the early Church controversies on Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity; these are reviewed by T. E. Pollard in his article “The Exegesis of John x.30 in the Early Trinitarian Controversies,’’ but it is evident that the conclusions drawn from the statement by many of the early Fathers were far from the mind of the Evangelist.

Com m ent

175

Jesus the Son o f God ( 1 0 :3 1 —3 9 )

31—32 The response o f the Jews to Jesus’ utterance in v 30 confirms the doubtful motives in their question (v 24) and Jesus’ observation as to their unbelief (vv 25-26). We recall the reaction to his statement in 8:58. Unlike that occasion, however, Jesus does not immediately withdraw, but challenges their violent action. His question in v 32 is deeply ironical: he performed many ё р у а κ α λ ά “from the Father.” Which o f them were blasphemous, calling for lynching? The relevance o f the question is clear: those “works” were done at the command and by the power o f the Father through the agency o f the Son, and therefore bear witness to the unity mentioned in v 30; and second, the works are one with the words given by the Father to the Son, and attest the truth o f v 30. (For the unity o f words and works o f the Father through Jesus see 14:10-11; for the nuance o f “beautiful, fine, noble” in the expression έ ρ γ α κ α λ ά , see Mark 14:6; Luke 8:15; 1 Tim 4:6, and in this context 10:11, 14.) 33 The anger o f the Jews blinds them to the issues in Jesus’ question; they assert that he has uttered blasphemous words and therefore he should die. This is the sole passage in the Gospel where Jesus is alleged to have blasphemed. Later Jewish ruling held that blasphemy was committed only when the sacred name o f God was mentioned, but the charge that Jesus “made himself God” and therefore blasphemed reflects contemporary thought, and is in line with the judgment scene in Mark 14:61-64. The High Priest’s pronouncement that Jesus had blasphemed was not on the basis o f his confession to being the Messiah, but through his explanatory addition, “You shall see the Son o f Man sitting a t the right h a n d o f p o w er,” so sharing the power and glory o f God, which no human being can do, and “com ing with the clouds o f h e a v e n ” i.e., in a theophany proper alone to God. In the present context the accusation, “You make yourself God,” is that o f 5: 17-18, which is rebutted in the answer o f Jesus in 5:19—30. That answer is pertinent in relation to v 30: his unity with the Father is not a self-exaltation, but proceeds from the Father, who gives him power and authority, and so unity of action and being, with himself. З4 -36 Jesus defends his utterance by citing Ps 82:6, which with the sentence that follows, reads: I said, “You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.” But you will die like mere men; you will fall like any prince.

It is plain from the course o f the argument, as well as from usual Jewish assumptions in quoting the Bible, that the second line is assumed along with the first (the whole passage was well known to the hearers, for its meaning was frequently discussed). A single clear idea is in mind as Jesus cites this scripture: In the “Law” (i.e., the О Т, o f which the Law is the chief part; cf. 12:34; 15:25), the term “god” is applied to others than God himself; if those addressed by God in this passage can be called gods (and sons of God), how much more can he whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world be so termed?

176

J

ohn

1 0 :1 -4 2

So much is plain, and admitted by all. liie r e are, however, considerable differences in interpreting who are addressed in the psalm. T he possibilities o f interpretation were all represented in early Judaism . (f) T he psalm has in view Israel's judges , who fail to maintain justice in their courts (cf. vv 1-4); they are called “gods” by virtue of their exercise, through G ods appointm ent, of the divine function o f judgm ent. T he Midrash on Ps 82 comments on v 1, “These words are to be considered in the light of Moses’ charge to the judges of Israel (i.e., in Deut 1:17); hence the verse ‘He is a judge am ong Elohim' is to read ‘He is a judge am ong judges.’ What can Elohim signify except judges?” (so rendered by W. G. Braude, Yale Judaica Series 13; see also Sank. 6b-7a; Sota 47b; Tg. Ps.-J.). (?i) Ps 82:6 is addressed to the people of Israel at the giving of the Law. Tanh. B. 9(13a) recounts that God spoke to the Angel o f Death, “When I created you, I created you for the nations of the world, but not for my sons; for these 1 have made gods, as it says, ‘I myself have spoken: You are gods and sons o f the Most High, all o f you.’ ” cAbod. Zar. 5a and Midr. Rah. Exod 32:7 make it plain that it was at the giving of the Law that the people were declared to be gods, and that had they remained obedient to it they would not have died; their disobedience however, was almost immediately manifested in the making of the golden calf, and so they became subject to death (hence Ps 82:6-7, “1 said. You are gods . . . nevertheless you shall die like men. . . .”). (in) Those addressed as “gods” are angelic powers who had authority over the nations but misused it. J. A. Em erton has shown that such was the probable understanding o f the LXX translators in their rendering o f Ps 82, and quite certainly that of the Peshitta translators, who rendered El in v la and Elohim in lb by the term malke%“angels” (“Some New Testam ent Notes,” 331). Fundamentally this was adopted in the Qum ran community, but with an astonishing modification: the opening sentence of the psalm is viewed as spoken by Melchizedek. T he Melchizedek fragm ent reads, “. . . it is written concerning him in the hymns of David, who says, ‘The heavenly one standeth in the congregation of God; among the holy ones he judgeth, and concerning him he says, ‘Above them return thou on high; God shall judge the nations.' And that which he says: ‘How long will ye judge unjustly and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah': its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot . . .” (translation by de Jonge and van der Woude, “ 1 IQ Melchizedek and the New Testam ent,” 303). In this passage Melchizedek is viewed as a n angel, with the title of God; and those addressed as “gods”(and “sons of the Highest,” but who act unjustly in the world, are apparently evil angels (“Belial and the spirits of his lot”). Emerton was strongly inclined to see this third understanding of the text as assumed in Jo h n 10:34-36: if angels, fallen or unfallen, could be term ed “gods,” how much more rightly Jesus! (“Melchizedek and the Gods,” 399-401). T he interpretation would be strengthened if the contrast included that between Jesus and Melchizedek: the latter, who is above the other angels, is expected by the Q um ran monks to destroy the powers of evil and save the people of God, but Jesus is greater than Melchizedek, and is the true Son of God, one with God. De Jonge and van d er Woude, in their discussion of the Melchizedek text, consider this possibility, but reject it by reason o f a serious difficulty: the context in the Fourth Gospel makes no m ention o f angels. V 33 makes a clear contrast between god and men, but nowhere in this Gospel do heavenly beings, like those portrayed in 11Q Melch, play a role o f any importance (unlike, e.g., the Letter to the Hebrews; see “ 11Q Melchizedek,” 313-14). T he relation of the passage to Israel’s judges is also unlikely; in Jo h n 10:35

Comment

177

the recipients of the saying, “1 said, You are gods” are said to be, “those to whom the word o f God came (éyévero)”; this is best understood as describing Israel’s gathered tribes about Mount Sinai, as virtually all the Rabbis believed. In this connection we should recall the importance to the Jews o f Exod 4:21-22, “Israel is my first-born son. . . . Let my son go that he may serve me.” T he citation of Ps 82:6 in the context before us accordingly is thoroughly comprehensible in a discussion between Jesus and Jewish teachers and leaders (as also between Christian Evangelist and later Jewish opponents of the Church). T he parallelism within Ps 82:6, “You are gods, you are all sons of the Most High,” explains the reproduction of V 30 (“I and the Father are one”) in the changed form of v 36 (“I said, ‘I am God’s Son’”). If the thought o f Jesus as the representative Son o f the people called to be sons of Cod may be assumed in the context, the “how much more” of v 36 is yet more understandable. A. T. Hanson has modified this third interpretation by suggesting that the “Word o f C od” in v 35 is the pre-existent Logos; the expression in v 35 “to whom the word of Cod came” means “to whom the pre-existent Word spoke” (after Westcott, 2:70). The argum ent then runs: “If to be addressed by the pre-existent Word justifies men in being called gods . . . far more are we justified in applying the title Son of God to the hum an bearer of the pre-existent Word, sanctified and sent by the Father as he was, in unm ediated and direct presence” (“Jo h n ’s Citation of Psalm 82,” 159—61); the argum ent is later elaborated in the light of the Melchizedek fragment (“Jo h n ’s Citation of Psalm 82 Reconsidered,” 363—67). Attractive as this is, it is hardly likely to lx? in the Johannine text. The phrase “to whom the word of God came (суіѵето)" is most naturally to be understood as those to whom the message was spoken, and is frequently so used in the О Т prophets, especially in J e r and Ezek).

The application of the term rpfiaoev (“consecrated”) to Jesus occurs here and in 17:17, 19 only, the latter in the sense of consecration unto death. The concept of Jesus as the one sent by the Father into the world is frequent in the Fourth Gospel; that Jesus is described as “he whom the Father consecrated a n d sent . . in the context of the festival commemorating the dedication or consecration of the temple is highly significant. It suggests that the meaning o f the Festival of the Dedication, like that of the Tabernacles and Passover, finds its ultimate fulfillment in the mission of Jesus. Hoskyns points out that variants of the term та ёукаіѵ ш . (“The Dedication,” v 22) appear in the LXX to describe the dedication of the altar in the Tabernacle (Num 7:10-11), of the temple of Solomon (1 Kgs 8:63), and of the temple built after the return from the Babylonian captivity (Ezra 6:16; LXX, 7:7), and he comments, “ The f east therefore called to mind the whole dignity of Hebrew worship in the commemoration of a particular episode in Jewish history” (385). T he concept of the fulfillment of the Dedication festival in the redemptive revelation in Jesus thus has profound depth. The admitted allusiveness of the reference in v 36 is in line with the allusiveness of the other references to Jesus as fulfilling the feasts of the Jews (e.g., in 6:4; 7:37-38; 8 :12; 19:31-37 is more explicit, yet also ambiguous); the cumulative effect of their testimony is nevertheless clear (so Lightfoot, 21112; Brown, 404, 411; Marsh, 407; Lindars, 375; Newbigin, 136).

37—39 A renewed appeal is made to recognize the testimony o f the “works” of Jesus as pointing to his unity with the Father. That unity, however, is now defined in terms of mutual indwelling, “the Father in me and I in the Father.” The expression conveys the thought of completest unity, a relation su i generis; nevertheless we learn later that it forms the basis o f a union between

178

J o h n 10:1-42

God and man through the Son by virtue o f the redemptive event (cf. 14: 1011, and especially 17:21). The fulsome expression, “that you may know and come to grasp” (iva уѵСэте καί у и н м к г р е ) intimates that the knowledge in view is no mere cognizance o f a dogma, but an experience attainable only in faith. 39 The scene ends as in 8:59; the Shepherd, like his sheep, is in the almighty Father’s hand till his hour strikes (cf. 7:30; 8:20). (1 0 : 4 0 - 4 2 ) The departure o f Jesus from Jerusalem to the territory east of Jordan was doubtless prompted by the virulent opposition o f the Jewish leaders. In going to the place where John the Baptist first baptized and bore his decisive witness to Jesus (i.e., Bethany, see 1:28-34), the wheel has come full circle (Sanders, 261). Here the memory o f Joh n was still fresh. Those who had known and heard him recalled his testimony concerning Jesus, and what they said was remarkable in more than one respect. “John did no sign”; this in itself is notable, in the light o f Jo h n ’s reputation. E. Bammel pointed out that, in contemporary Judaism, a sign was considered decisive for the recognition o f a prophet; indeed, “the praise o f a man o f God who did not performmiracles was completely unknown in Jewish sources” (“John Did No Miracles,” 190-91). But these people added, “Everything that he ever spoke about this man was true,” That was said in the light o f subsequent history; the word and the signs o f Jesus confirmed the word without signs o f John the Baptist. Accordingly the hearers o f Joh n at once confirmed the authenticity o f John as a prophet and the superior authority o f Jesus, in a context o f unqualified appreciation o f the former. Not surprisingly, “Many believed on him there.” We recall what is said o f Joh n in the prologue (1:7) and are prepared for the last and greatest sign o f Jesus which is about to be narrated (cf. Schnackenburg, 2:315: “The reader already senses the renewed swell o f the movement o f faith which will be the outcome o f the Lazarus miracle, 11:45; 12:9, 171 9 )”

J e s u s ' W i t h d r a w a l to T r a n s j o r d a n

E x p la n a tio n

The Christological issue is again to the fore, and dominates both the Shepherd discourse and the dialogue in the Dedication festival. Again the dual perspective o f the Evangelist is apparent: Jesus in Jerusalem, in dialogue with Jewish leaders, whose hostility bursts into threatened violence, and the Evangelist with his churches, opposed by leaders o f the synagogue because o f the claims made on behalf o f Jesus. The Shepherd imagery is peculiarly apt to set forth the significance of Jesus, since it was well known to both Jews and Gentiles as a picture of Leadership and Salvation for humanity; in the Christian setting it has the deeper dimension o f mediation o f the Rule and Redemption o f the Lord of the universe. In the discourse o f Ezek 34 it is God who takes upon himself the role o f Shepherd o f the flock, and this he does in view of the faithlessness o f the shepherds o f Israel; in place o f their devastating rule he brings salvation to the flock. In the time o f Jesus these false shepherds would be seen as

E x p la n a tio n

179

primarily the spiritual guides o f Israel, especially the Pharisees, but the picture o f the Door and the destroyers o f the flock would extend their application to the whole gamut o f religious rulers, teachers, messianic prophets, and Zealotic leaders o f the people. In the time o f the Evangelist and his church, the picture would go beyond them to the pantheon o f savior gods, divinized men, and powers o f the Gnostic pleroma. But the attention paid to the Jewish leaders surrounding Jesus in 10:21-39 and the biblical exposition in response to their charge o f blasphemy, together with the congruence o f the passage with chaps. 5 -8 , suggest that post-A.D. 70 Jam nian Pharisaism is to the fore in the Evangelist’s mind. Not exclusively so, o f course, for the Johannine letters and the Apocalypse, also produced in the Johannine circle, show that the Johannine communities were threatened by the cults of the Mediterranean world, including that o f the worship o f the Emperor, and more dangerous still the Gnosticism that threatened to attack the heart o f the Christian revelation and redemption like a cancer (cf. 1 John 2 :1 8 -2 4 ; 4:1 -6 ). The exposition o f the relation o f Jesus to God and to Israel and the nations provides a definitive answer to these varied movements. Negatively, the picture o f the Door excludes all others who claim (or for whom claims are made) to open the way to God and to bring salvation to the world. Positively, we observe that Jesus as the Good Shepherd is related more closely to God who acts as Shepherd than to “David,” as he is depicted in Ezek 34. The prophetic allegory is one with О Т messianic teaching generally in representing God as the Deliverer o f his people, gathering them into their land, giving them salvation in his kingdom, and then providing them with the Messiah who shall act as Shepherd on his behalf. In the Shepherd discourse o f Joh n 10, the saving activity o f God takes place through his representative Jesus; in the Father’s name he cares for the sheep o f Israel’s flock, he gathers the sheep o f the Gentile folds, and he lays down his life and takes it again for the redemption o f all mankind, that they all may become one flock under one Shepherd. For this reason it is fitting that the question as to whether Jesus is the Messiah is answered in broad terms: he is the Messiah who is the Son o f God and one with the Father. Dodd saw in the Evangelist’s exposition of this theme an advance from Israelite to Hellenistic thought (Interpretation, 361); while that is evident, the relation between the two is closer than is often recognized. The representation o f Jesus as the Son of God, spelled out with reference to Ps 82, has affinity with a stream o f thought within Judaism that emphasized the relation o f Israel to God, and especially the righteous o f Israel, in terms o f sonship to God, a relation which naturally applied especially to the Messiah (see, e.g., Sir 4:10; Wisd Sol 2:18; Ju b . 1:24 f.; for the Qumran development in this direction cf. 4QFlor 1:6 f.; lQSa 2:11 f., and the references to the Son o f God in the Daniel apocryphon o f Cave 4; for the application o f Son o f God to miracle workers and charismatic figures in Israel see G. Vermes, Jesus the J e w [New York: Macmillan, 1983] 206-10, and M. Hengel, The Son o f God [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976] 4 2 43). We are now realizing that the assumed equation o f Messiah and Son of God in the High Priest’s question to Jesus, Mark 14:61, is wholly compatible with contemporary Jewish thought, though for Gaiaphas it will have remained on the plane of representative and adoptive relation to God. The equation

180

J o h n 11: 1-54

in Jesus’ answer o f Son o f God and Son o f Man seated at the right hand o f God is more important (it is assumed also in Mark 8:38; 13:32). Here is a primary root o f the Johannine development o f Jesus as the Son, for throughout this Gospel Son o f God and Son o f Man are one, and the significance o f both is deepened by the concept o f incarnation. It appears that in Joh n 10 it is the function o f Christ who acts as Son o f God, Shepherd o f man, and Door to the kingdom that is to the fore, even in v 30, while the inner relation to the Father is set forth in v 38 and reflects back on the preceding passage. It is not without interest that later Pharisaism retreated from the developments that had earlier taken place in the concept o f the Messiah as Son of God, almost certainly through controversy with the Church and the Christian proclamation o f Jesus as the Messiah and Son o f God. This finds a wellknown illustration in the polemic o f Rabbi Abbahu. He said, “If a man say to you, ‘I am God,’ he is a liar; Ί am the Son o f Man,’ he will finally regret it; ‘I ascend into heaven,’ he may say it, but he will not accomplish it.” And again, in a comment on Exod 20:22: “It is like a king o f flesh and blood, who can rule as king while he has a father or a brother or a son. But God says, ‘With me that is not so. “I am the First,” Isa 44:6, for I have no Father; “and I am the Last,” for I have no brother; “and besides me there is no God,” for I have no Son’ ” (cited Str-B 2:542). Abbahu lived in Caesarea ca. A .D . 300, long after the composition o f the Fourth Gospel, but one sees in him the kind o f opposition that came to be expressed against Christians when the controversy with the Church reached its climax in the ascendancy o f Pharisaic Judaism. T h e interpretation o f Jesus continues to remain the supreme issue separating Jews from Christians, but the discussion may now be conducted in a very different spirit from that o f earlier times. The Christian debt to Judaism is widely acknowledged in the churches, and an increasing number o f Jews are drawn to Jesus, recognizing in him a Son o f their people who opened up to the world the revelation made known to their Fathers. It remains for the followers o f Jesus to demonstrate, in life as well as in teaching, how that revelation reaches its true culmination in Jesus the Son o f God.

G. Jesu s th e R esu rrectio n a n d th e L ife (1 1 :1 -5 4 ) B ib lio g r a p h y

B am m el, E . “ Έ x illa itaque die consilium fecerunt . . (John 11:53).“ The Trial of Jesus. FS C. F. D. Moule. Ed. E. Bammel. SBT 2d ser. 13. London: SCM, 1970. 1140. B ark er, M. “Jo h n 11-50.” The Trial of Jesus. Ed. E. Bammel. 41-46. B evan , E . “Note on Mark i.4l and Jo h n xi.33, 38.“ J T S 33 (1932) 186-88. B o n n er, C . “Traces o f T haum aturgic Technique in the Miracles.“ H T R 20 (1927) 171-81. B rau n , F.-M . “Q uatre ‘signes’johanniques de l’unité chrétienne.” N T S 9 (1962-63) 147-55. C adm an, W . H . “T h e Raising o f Lazarus.“ SE (1959) 423-34. D aube, D. Collaboration with

T ra n sla tio n

181

T y r a n n y in R a b b in ic L a w . London: Oxford, 1966. D odd, C. H . H is to r ic a l T r a d itio n in th e F o u r th G ospel. 2 2 8 -3 2 .---------. “T he Prophecy o f Caiaphas: Jo h n 11:47-53.” M o r e N e u · T e s ta m e n t S tu d ie s. Manchester: Univ. Press, 1968. 58-68. D unkerley, R . “Lazarus.” N T S 5 (1958-59) 321-27. F oretell, I. T . “I Ann the Resurrection and the Life.” C o n te m p o ra ry N e w T e s ta m e n t S tu d ie s. Ed. Rosalie Ryan. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1965. 99-104; also in B iT o d 1 (1963) 331-36. F ortn a, R . T . G o sp el o f S ig n s . 74-87. F u ller, R . H . In te r p r e tin g th e M ira c le s. London: SCM, 1963. 1 0 5 -8 . G rim m , W . “Das O pfer eines Menschen: Eine Auslegung von Jo h 11, 4 7 - 5 3 .” Is ra e l h a t d e n n o c h G o tt z u m T rost. FS S. ben Chorin. Ed. G. Müller. Trier: Paulinus, 1978. 6 1 - 8 2 . M acN eil, B . “T he Raising of Lazarus.” D u n w o o d ie R e v ie w 92 (1974) 2 6 9 -7 5 . M artin, J . P. “History and Eschatology in the Lazarus Narrative, Jo h n 1 1 :1 -4 4 .” S J T 17 (1964) 3 3 2 -4 3 . N icol, W. S e m e ia in th e F o u rth G ospel. 3 7 -3 8 , 1 0 9 -1 1 . O sborn e, В. “A Folded Napkin in an Empty Tomb: Jo h n 11:44 and 2 0 :7 Again.” H e y J 14 (1973) 4 3 7 -4 0 . P ancaro, S. “ ‘People of God’ in St. J o h n ’s Gospel?” N T S 16 (1969-70) 114-29. R e ise r, W . E.

“T he Case of the Tidy Tom b: T he Place of the Napkins o f Jo h n 11:44 and 20:7.” 14 (1973) 47-57. R om aniuk, К . “ i am the Resurrection and the Life’; John 11:25.” Concilium 6 (1970) 68-77. Sand ers, J . N. “Those Whom Jesus Loved: St. Jo h n xi.5,” N T S 1 (1954-55) 29-41. Sass, G . D ie A u fe r w e c k u n g des L a z a r u s : E in e A u s le g u n g v o n J o h a n n e s I I . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. Steng er, W . “Die Auferweckung des Lazarus (John 11:1-45) T T Z 83 (1974) 17-37. T ru d in g er, P. “T he Raising of Lazarus—а Brief Response.” D u n w o o d ie R e v ie w 94 (1976) 187-90. W ilco x, M. “T he ‘Prayer’ o f Jesus in Jo h n xi.41b-42.” N T S 24 (1977-78) 128-32. W ilkens, W. “Die Erweckung des Lazarus.” T Z 15 (1959) 22-39. H eyJ

T r a n s la tio n

1N o w there was a certain m an who was ill , Lazarus fr o m B e th a n y ,a the village o f M ary a n d her sister M artha. 2 It was the M a ry who anointed the Lord with ointm ent a n d wiped his fe e t with her h a ir , whose brother was ill.b 3 The sisters therefore sent to h im , saying , “M aster , we w ant you to know that the one whom you lo v e 1 is ill. ”4 B u t Jesu s , on hearing it , said , “This illness is not with a view to death , but fo r the sake o f the glory o f G od , that the Son o f God may be glorified through it. ” 5 N ow Jesus loved M a rth a a n d her sister a n d Lazarus. 6 W hen therefore he heard that he was ill he continued to rem ain in the place where he was fo r two (lays. 7 A fter this he says to the disciples , “Let us go to J u d e a a g a in .” 8 The disciples say to h im , “R abbi , the Jew s were ju st now trying to stone y o u , a n d are you go in g back there a g a in ? ” 9 Jesus replied , “There are twelve hours in the day , aren't there? I f anyone walks in the day he does not stum ble , because he sees the light o f this world. 0B 1 u t i f anyone walks in the n ig h t he stum bles , because the light is not in h im .” 11 This he s a u f a n d afterwards told them. “O u r frie n d Lazarus has fallen alseep , but I am g o in g to wake him out o f sleep.” 12 The disciples therefore said to h im , “M aster , i f he has fallen asleep he w ill get well. ” 13 B u t Jesus h ad spoken about his death. They however supposed that he had been talking about sleep in the sense o f slum ber. 14 Then Jesus told them p la in ly , “L azarus has died. 15 A n d I am g lad fo r your sakes that I was not there , so that you may believe. B u t let us go to h im .” 16 Thom as , called the T w in , said therefore to his fello w disciples , “Let us also g o , that we may die with h im .” 17 W hen Jesus arrived he fo u n d that he ha d already been in the tomb fo r fo u r days.d 18N ow Bethany was near Jerusalem , about fifteen stadia d istant .e 19M a n y

182

J o h n 11:1—54

o f the Jew s had come to M a rth a f a n d M a ry in order to console them concerning their brother. 20 W hen therefore M a rth a heard that Jesus was com ing she w ent out to meet him , but M ary continued to sit in the house. 21 M a rth a therefore said to Jesus, “M aster, i f you ha d been here my brother w ould not have died; 22 (but) even now I know that w hatever you ask o f God, God w ill give y o u .” 23Jesus says to her, “Your brother m i l rise to life. ” 24 M a rth a says to him , “I know that he w ill rise in the resurrection at the last day. ” 25Jesu s said to her, “l am the resurrection (a n d the life); g whoever believes in me, even though he dies, w ill come to life, 26 a n d everyone who lives a n d believes in me w ill never, never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She says to him , “Yes, M aster; I have come to believe that you are the Christ, the Son o f God, H e who comes into the world. ” 28 A fter she h ad said this M a rth a w ent o ff a n d called her sister M ary, a n d said to her privately, “The Teacher is here a n d is ca lling fo r you. ” 29 W hen she heard that she got u p quickly a n d m ade her way to him ; 39 but Jesus ha d n ot yet come into the village, but was still in the place where M a rth a had met him. 31 The Jew s therefore who were with her in the house a n d were consoling her, on seeing that M a ry h a d arisen quickly a n d h ad gone out, follow ed her, supposing h that she had gone o ff to the tomb in order to weep there. 32 M ary therefore, when she came where Jesus was a n d saw him , fe ll at his fe e t a n d said to him , “M aster, i f you had been here my brother w ould not have died. ” 33 W hen Jesus saw her weeping, a n d the Jew s who had come w ith her w eeping, he became angry in spirit a n d very agitated,i 34 a n d he said, “W here have you laid h im ? ” They said to him , “M a ster, come a n d see.” 35Jesus burst into tears. 36 The Jew s therefore were saying, “Look, how he loved h im !” 37 B u t some o f them said, “Surely he who opened the eyes o f the blind m an was able to do som ething to preven t this m an fr o m dying? ” 38Jesus therefore, again in a state o f anger w ithin, comes to the tomb. N o w it was a cave, a n d a stone was lyin g against it) 39Jesus says, “R em ove the stone. ” M a rth a , the sister o f the dead m an, says to him , “M aster, by now he stinks, fo r it is the fo u r th d a y !” 40Jesus says to her, “I told you, d i d n ’t I, that i f you believed you w ould see the glory o f G od?” 41 They therefore rem oved the stone. B u t Jesus raised his eyes u pw ard a n d said, “Father, I thank you that you heard me. 42 B u t I knew that you always do hear me; but this I said because o f the crowd that is sta n d in g by, that they may believe that you have sent m e .” 43 A n d after saying this he shouted with a loud voice, “L azarus, come out h ere!” 44 The dead m an came out, his fe e t a n d hands bound with strips o f linen a n d his fa c e covered with a cloth. Jesus says to them, “Release him , a n d let him go. ” 45 M a n y o f the Jew s therefore who had come to M a ry a n d seen the things that he h ad donek believed in him ; 46 but some o f them w ent o ff to the Pharisees a n d told them w hat Jesus h ad done. 47 The ch ief priests a n d the Pharisees therefore gathered the Sanhedrin together a n d said, “W hat are we g o in g to do? 1 For this m an is perform ing m any signs. 48 I f we let him go on in this way everybody w ill believe in him , a n d the R om ans w ill come a n d take away fro m us both the (holy) place a n d the n a tio n .” 4 9 B u t one o f them, C aiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know n o th in g at all, 50 nor do you realize that it is to yo u r m ad va n ta g e that one m a n should die f o r the people, a n d that the whole nation should not perish.” 51 H e did not say this o f his ow n accord, but as he was high priest d u rin g that year he prophesied that Jesu s was about to die fo r the n a tio n , 52 a n d not only fo r the nation, but that he should gather into one the

Notes

183

children o f God who were scattered abroad . 53 From that day therefore they m ade a resolution to p u t him to death . 54Jesus accordingly no longer w ent about publicly a m ong the Jew s , but departed fro m that place to the territory near the wilderness, to a town called E phraim ,n a n d there he stayed with the disciples . N otes 1 Lazarus is th e Lat. (and virtually G r.) form o f th e H eb. Lazar, an abbreviation o f £ leazar (= “he w hom G od h elps”). B ethany lies east o f Jeru salem , a n d is now called El-azariyeh, in h o n o r o f L azarus. T h e tom b, said to be th a t o f L azarus, lies w ithin th e village b u t will have been outside its original b o rd ers (graves w ere set o u tside in h ab ited areas to avoid possible un clean ness th ro u g h contact with th e dead). B ethany is d en o te d as “th e village o f M ary a n d M artha” to distinguish it from th e B ethany o f 1:28, which was in Perea. b L azarus is identified as th e b ro th e r o f M ary a n d M artha, since th e latter w ere well know n in C hristian circles (n eith er has been m entioned thus fa r in this G ospel, b u t cf. Luke 10:38— 42). c T h e description o f L azarus as “he w hom you love” has led to th e conjecture th a t he was “th e Beloved Disciple” o f this G ospel; it is an attractive b u t hardly com pelling speculation; v 5 suggests th a t we should think o f th e “beloved fam ily” a n d n o t sim ply o f th e beloved b ro th er. (O n th e issue see J . N. S anders “ ‘T h o se w hom Jesu s loved’: St J o h n xi.5,” a n d the discussion in th e Introduction , pp. lxx-lxxv.) d T h e MSS tradition shows curious variations as to th e place w here ήδη should occur in th e expression τέσσαρας ήδη ημέρας (w h eth er in th e first, second, o r th ird place, o r even om itted). T h e issue is u n im p o rta n t, b u t it provides an instructive instance as to how variants in th e text arise (see M etzger, 233). ’ e 15 stadia = 19A miles. f T h e definite article τ ψ before Μάρθαν каі Μα/κάμ governs both nam es; not surprisingly it is om itted in D a n d in som e MSS o f m ost versions, p 4 - A C s К Δ Θ etc. read τάς жері Μάρθαν, d u e to in te rp re tin g τήι* as th e household o f Mary a n d M artha (cf. Acts 13:13), b u t it is unlikely to have com e from th e Evangelist; th e sim pler read in g is th e best su p p o rte d in th e textual tradition (p66 p75Vid N В C* L W etc.). g In p45vid it l syrs O rigen C yprian T itus-B osra και ή ζωή is om itted, leaving th e sim pler but striking saying, “I am th e R esurrection.” O n th e basis o f brevior lectio potior this sh o rt reading could be original, in which case “a n d the Life” w ould probably reflect a m arginal com m ent, explaining “th e R esurrection” as m eaning “th e Life”; yet it is difficult to resist th e su p p o rt for th e longer read in g in th e mass o f early MSS, an d th e two clauses could be viewed as ex p o u n d in g th e two fu n d am en tal elem ents, R esurrection a n d Life. T h e om ission is generally viewed as accidental, o r possibly d u e to th e fact th a t v 24 m entions only th e R esurrection (M etzger, 234). h δόξαι*τ€ς is read by N В C* D L W X etc., b u t X éyom es occurs in pfl А С2 К Δ θ П etc. p 75 has th e im possible read in g δοξάζοντες, evidently w ritten by a scribe w hen he n odded, but it actually su p p o rts δόξαντες, which should be accepted as th e best attested reading. i T h e m ain sentence (¿νεβριμήσατο . . . каі ¿τάραξα* έαυτόν) is th e strongest statem en t in th e G ospels relating to th e em otions o f Jesus, and from ancient to m o d ern tim es has led to endeavors to weaken its a p p a re n t m eaning (see th e Comment). O n e such en d eav o r a p p ears in th e read ing έταράχθη τ φ πνεύματι ώ ς ¿μβριμσύμενσς, given in p45 p66 (?) D f l it·* copsa ach arm ; this is clearly “a secondary im provem ent, in troduced from a sense o f reverence for th e person o f Je su s” (so th e UBS C om m ittee, M etzger, 235). j If the rock tom b h ad a horizontal shaft Xifa? ¿женато ¿ж' α ντφ = “a stone lay against it,” if it had a vertical shaft th e clause = “a stone lay over it.” k άέπάησει*, read by p 45, p 66 N A* К L W etc., is unexpected, inasm uch as th e context concerns a single d eed o f Jesu s a n d its effect o n th e witnesses (θεασάμενα & . . . ) . T h e singular б ¿πάησεν accordingly is read by p 66 vid А* В C* D etc. T h a t th e latter may be d u e to accom m odating th e statem ent to th e context is indicated by C 2, which reads δ ¿ποίησα* σημειοι* (cf. th e in teresting alternative in p 66* όσα ¿ποίησα*). T h e pi. read in g suggests th a t th e raising o f L azarus was the culm inating sign th at led the Jew s in question to believe in Jesus.

184

J

ohn

11:1-54

l τί κοωΟμεν is n ot a d eliberative subjunctive (which w ould be τι ποιώμ€ν) b u t a present indicative. W hereas th e latter can be th e equivalent o f th e fo rm er, signifying “W hat are we to do ?”, it is b e tte r to retain th e indicative m eaning. It e ith e r asks, “W hat are we doing?”, assum ing th e answ er, “N othing at all, o u r efforts have been to no avail”; or, with a fu tu re slant, “W hat are we going to do? We m ust act.” т ѵцш is read by p 45 P66 В D L X etc., an d is m ore in keeping with th e arrogance o f C aiaphas, expressed in th e preceding clause, th an iw iíp, read by A К W Δ θ Π Ψ etc. (In N a n d som e C optic MSS n e ith e r p ro n o u n ap pears, possibly because o f th e influence o f 18:14.) n E p h raim is com m only identified with th e village Et-Taiyibc, about 12 miles no rth east o f Jeru salem a n d 4 miles from Bethel. T h e ch an g e o f n am e was d u e to Arabs, to w hom th e later form o f th e nam e Afra indicated th e idea “m isfo rtu n e,” o r “evil sp irit”; hence, they ch an g ed it to Et-Taiyibe = “goo d ,” i.e., “th e place with a good n am e” (see Schnackenburg, 2:351).

Form/Structure/Setting 1. The difference o f form and structure in chap. 1 1 from that in the earlier sections o f the Gospel has been frequently remarked on; instead o f a narrative followed by a discourse on its meaning, we have a narrative interspersed with elements o f dialogue that bring out its significance. Dodd, in his earlier work, Interpretation o f the F ourth Gospel , stated that the interweaving o f narrative and dialogue in this chapter is complete, so that one cannot isolate a piece of pure narrative; “There is no story of the Raising of Lazarus— or none that we can now recover—separable from the pregnant dialogues o f Jesus with his disciples and with Martha” (363). In his later work, however, Dodd modified this position; he observed that the narrative begins and ends in a manner appropriate to a healing pericope; it commences with “A certain man was ill,” gives some additional details about the patient, and ends with his restoration, a note on its effect on spectators, and an indication o f its remoter results. He concluded, “The Story o f Lazarus . . . is not an original allegorical creation. Fundamentally it belongs to the same genre as the two Marcan narratives (the Epileptic Boy, Mark 9 :1 4 -2 7 , and Jairus’ Daughter, Mark 5 :2 1 -4 3) . . . . There is good reason to believe that, like the Marcan pericopae, it has behind it a traditional narrative shaped in the course o f Christian teaching and preaching, and then remolded by our evangelist to convey his own special message” (H istorical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel , 232). Much labor has been spent by other scholars to uncover that “traditional narrative” and the nature o f the “remoulding” carried out by the Evangelist. While the account of the Lazarus episode certainly gives the impression of an interweaving of narrative and discourse, examination reveals rather a narrative interspersed with dialogues at two major points: in vv 7-16 we have brief elements of conversation between Jesus and his disciples subsequently expanded, and in vv 20-27 the crucially important dialogue between Jesus and Martha, followed by the briefer exchange with Mary (vv 28-32); with these are to be conjoined the saying in v 4, which supplies the key to the entire narrative, and the prayer of Jesus just before its conclusion (vv 41—42). Many scholars who hesitate to acknowledge a signs source behind the Gospel nevertheless tend to recognize a simpler narrative here, shorn of the specifically Johan nine passages such as those mentioned in the previous sentence. When these are abstracted, we find a narrative that tells of the illness of Lazarus (v 1), a message sent to Jesus about it (v 3), a delay in the response of Jesus (v 6), his announcement to the disciples of Lazarus' illness and death and his intention to go and “awake” him (11—15), the arrival at Bethany

FormtStructure!Setting

185

(vv 17-19), the lamentation of the m ourners and Jesus’ anger, his arrival at the grave and dem and to remove the stone (vv 33-39a), his calling Lazarus from death to life, and Lazarus’ emergence from the tomb (vv 43-44). With variations, such an outline is advocated by Bultmann, 395-96; Fortna, Gospel o f Signs, 7486 ; Nicol, Semeia in the Fourth Gospel, 37-39; Fuller, Interpreting the Miracles, 105; Schnackenburg, 2:320, 341. T he process of development in the tradition is a subject for further speculation. Bultmann (395 n.4), Fortna (75) and Becker (2:344) postulate an older form of the story before it was taken up in the signs source. W. Wilkens offers a different suggestion as to the postulated threefold strata of the chapter. He takes as his cue the presum ption that Lazarus was not the brother of the two sisters (cf. 12:2), and that Lazarus was the central point o f interest in the narrative, not the two sisters, who play such a leading role in the Johannine revision. On this basis he finds first a Johannine foundational story in vv 1, 3-4, 11-15, 17, 32-34, 38-39, 4 1 44; this was not the earliest form of the story, but the version within the foundation docum ent which formed the basis of the present Gospel of John. To discover the primitive form of the story it is necessary to strip away all the sentences of a Johannine character. When this is done we find a narrative consisting o f the following: vv 1, 3, 17, 33-34, 38-39, 41a, 43-44. This form of the story sets forth Jesus as Lord over death, before whose majesty death must depart, and it gave the Evangelist the opportunity to make it the high point of the signs and to raise the question of faith. T he accent in the revision contained in the foundation docum ent can be seen in v 4: Lazarus’ illness is for the glory of God and the Son, made manifest through the powerful deed of Jesus. For the Evangelist this actually relates to the glory of Jesus on the cross; Jesus is glorified through the raising of Lazarus because he raises him in the authority and power of his cross-glory. Accordingly the Evangelist inserts into his foundation document further passages, namely vv 2, 5-6, 7 10, 16, 18-30, 35-37. T he teaching that provides the real meaning of the sign is in this way set prior to the narration of the sign, above all in the conversation of Jesus with Martha, with which must also be seen the emphasis on faith, especially in the weeping of Jesus through lack of it in those around him. Thus the Evangelist sets the “Christ-word” alongside the “Christ-deed” (“Die Erweckung des Lazarus,” 33). Following on this contribution, and taking the work of his predecessors into account, W. Stenger sought to further the investigation o f the Lazarus story along related lines. He distinguishes between the outer and the inner redaction. T he former makes the raising of Lazarus the immediate cause of the passion of Jesus (vv 46—53); where the passion them e sounds out, there the Johannine redaction may be presumed, viz., in vv 7-10, 16, 18, 28, 30. “T he redactional binding of the Lazarus perico pe and the passion is a means of mutual contextual interpretation. Jesus, who goes to death, awakes a dead man. His life-giving work becomes the occasion of his giving up his life” (“Die Auferweckung des Lazarus,” 22). The inner redaction is indicated in an apparently insignificant mention of Mary and Martha in v 1 (in that order), the attention given to Mary in v 2, and the fact that the Jews come to comfort Mary in v 45. In vv 5 and 19, however, Martha is mentioned before Mary; the revelation embodied in the story is made known to her (vv 20-27), and she informs Mary of the arrival of Jesus (v 28). Stenge observes that the dialogue o f 20-27 is clearly redactional; if one follows v 17 with 20a and replaces the name of Martha with that of Mary, leaving out also the stress on the presence o f Mary in the house, the narrative tells of Jesus’ arrival, of M ary’s hearing o f it, and o f her telling Jesus, “If you had been here my brother would not have died.” In the original story, then, Martha occupied a subordinate position, not

186

Jo h n

1 1 :1 -5 4

the prominent one given her by the redaction. The original story is located in vv 1, 3, 6, 11-15, 17, 20-21 (relating to Mary), 33-35, 38-39, 43-44, 45. The most important mark of its structure is the delay of Jesus; it causes Lazarus to die, and excludes all doubt as to the finality of his death. Everything is directed to the form of the miracle worker and his superhuman abilities; there is no suggestion of the miracle as the beginning and prolepsis of the kingdom of God; the story manifests a Christological concentration, which is due to the Sitz im Leben of missionary preaching. In the Johannine redaction Martha is introduced as the believer whose faith in the God-given power of Jesus does not waver in face of her brother’s death. Her conversation with Jesus gives the story of a new center; whereas the high point of the source was the miracle, this gives another one and interprets the story: the Revealer is identified with the eschatological blessings of salvation and makes them present in his own person (28-30). The postulate of a primitive narrative of the Raising of Lazarus, comparable in its brevity to other Johannine “sign” narratives, having contacts with miracle stories in other traditions (such as the Raising of Jairus’ Daughter and the Epileptic Boy), developed within the Johannine circle, and finally related by the Evangelist in accordance with his profound theological insight is wholly comprehensible and by no means to be dismissed. It is, however, unnecessary in developing this thesis to seek to strengthen it by exaggerating the differences between the postulated strata. There is no real evidence that the story ever circulated among the churches to showJesus simply as a wonder-worker. Indeed, the notion that Jesus was conceived of as a θείος άνήρ, a “divine man” such as the pagans glamorized, or that the miracle stories ever circulated without reference to their eschatological significance is highly debatable; the message of the kingdom of God manifest in Jesus and awaited through Jesus was too deeply rooted in the evangelic traditions and in the churches’ kerygma and catechesis for that ever to have happened, as every identifiable source within the synoptic Gospels illustrates. The estimates of Jesus among imperfectly instructed believers, such as we glimpse in the Fourth Gospel and in some of the Pauline letters, must not lead to the notion that the churches’ leaders and teachers so interpreted him. That the Fourth Evangelist had a firmer grasp of the theological significance of the signs, and developed it in a more profound manner than his contemporaries, gives to this Gospel its peculiar value, but we need not on this account exaggerate the distance between him and his fellow Christians. It is also not to be overlooked that certain of the narrative elements classed as Johannine are likely to have been known in the circle to which he belonged, for example, knowledge of Mary and Martha, their relation to Lazarus, and their part in the whole episode of his illness and death and its sequel. We must not forget that this Gospel reflects Jerusalem traditions, which will almost certainly have contained this story, as well as the narrative concerning the judgment of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (vv 47-53). We may, accordingly, hold in view the strong probability of the development of the tradition relating to the death and recall to life of Lazarus, but be modest in our claims to delimit the strata in the tradition and to define their precise relations to one another. 2. T h e setting o f the Lazarus account is not stated within the narrative itself; the Evangelist places it within the period following the Feast o f Dedication (chap. 10) and before the last Passover o f Jesus (11:55-57). Whether that was the actual time o f the event, and if so how close it was to either Festival named, or whether it was placed here thematically is debated. The Evangelist presents it as the last o f the signs o f Jesus, which brought to a climax all that preceded it and precipitated his own death and resurrection.

Comment

187

This is underscored by the report o f the meeting o f the Sanhedrin, given in vv 4 6 -5 3 , as also o f the immense interest in Lazarus among the pilgrims at the Passover (12:9-10, 17-19). The Sanhedrin decision nevertheless need not have been taken immediately prior to the Passover. Note especially that the plot against Jesus, mentioned in Mark 14:1—2, two days before the Passover, is not an alternative account o f Joh n 11:46-53 but presupposes such an earlier meeting o f the Sanhedrin. Jesus’ withdrawal to Ephraim, mentioned in 11:54, was for an undefined length o f time, but it can hardly have been for a long period. We must be content to acknowledge a certain indefiniteness as to the time when the raising of Lazarus took place, but that it probably occurred in the period leading up to the final Passover. 3. The contents o f the chapter yield a simple division of the material: 1 16, The Illness and Death o f Lazarus; 17-27, The Revelation of Jesus as the Resurrection and the Life; 28 -3 7 , the Wrath o f the Revealer in the Presence o f Unbelief; 3 8-44, The Raising o f Lazarus to Life; 45—53, The Decision o f the Sanhedrin to put Jesus to Death; 54, The Retreat o f Jesus to Ephraim by the Wilderness. Com m ent T h e Il l n ess a n d D ea t h

o f

La za r u s

(11:1-16)

1—2 The narrative begins without reference to preceding events or the circumstances o f Jesus; it simply introduces a person in dire need, Lazarus o f Bethany. He is identified with reference to two well-known members of the circle o f Jesus’ friends. The identification o f Mary in v 2 as the woman who anointed Jesus is made prior to the account o f the anointing (12:1-8), on the assumption that all Christians know o f that event. The sentence is commonly viewed as an explanatory gloss by an editor (cf. 4:2; 6:22—23); it could be such, but there are other comments that interrupt the story and that come from the Evangelist (e.g., vv 5, 13, 18, 30), and this could be another. 4 The thought is akin to that in 9:3— the illness o f Lazarus is not for the purpose o f death (for the disciples it was a temporary illness, for Jesus a temporary death), but for the purpose o f God’s manifesting his glory in powerful and compassionate action through the Son (πρός and ύπέρ have a similar meaning in this context). The immediate reference is to the raising o f Lazarus from death to life. But the event is to be a sign. The Evangelist makes it plain in the course o f the narrative that the end of the story of Lazarus is the death o f Jesus himself (cf. the hints in vv 8—9, 16, and the appended report on the meeting o f the Sanhedrin that resolves on the execution o f Jesus, vv 46-53). In the chapters that follow, the glory o f God in Christ is bound up with the death and resurrection o f Jesus (see esp. 12:23, 2 7 -2 8 , 3 1 -3 2 ; 13:31-32; 17:1). The statement, “This illness is . . . for the sake o f the glory o f God, that the Son o f God may be glorified through it,” finds its ultimate meaning in the glorifying of God through the death and resurrection of Jesus and the glorifying of the Son through God’s exalting him to his right hand. This glorifying action o f God in Christ is the means

188

J

ohn

11:1-54

whereby the revelation in vv 25—26 becomes actualized— the basis of hope for all the world. T h e statement in v 4 accordingly may be viewed as an extended title o f the story o f Lazarus and the key to its meaning. 5 -6 I f v 6 was part o f the primitive account, the assurance in v 5 was certainly needed, for the statement in v 6 appears to be contrary to the character o f Jesus: Jesus really did love Mary and Martha and Lazarus! Yet, curiously, the insertion o f v 5 serves to make v 6 the more astonishing. Various motifs are entailed in the remark. The knowledge o f Jesus as to the death o f Lazarus, made known in v 14, should be assumed here also; v 17 implies that Lazarus had died by the time the message o f his illness reached Jesus (four days—one for the journey to Jesus, two while he remained where he was, one for the journey to Bethany), hence Jesus did not refrain from setting out in order to give time for Lazarus to die (Barrett, 391). Second, v 6 has reference to the reiterated dependence o f Jesus on his Father, whose will takes precedence over his own and over that o f all others (cf. Schlatter, 248: “Jesus dealt with this request in accordance with the rule by which he refused his Mother, 2:4,” and cf. also 7 :3 -9 regarding his brothers’ advice). Jesus in his ministry is prompted at all times by his Father (5:19-20). Third, the issue o f faith is prominent in this chapter; the disciples are to have their faith strengthened through the revelation of the glory of God consequent on Lazarus’ death (v 15), while the sisters o f the dead man are to have theirs tested to the utmost, prior to its being vindicated (vv 21 -2 2 , 26b-27, 32). Alike in the death and recall to life o f Lazarus, and the death and resurrection o f the Christ which it adumbrates, men are sifted accordingly as they believe or reject the glory o f God in Christ manifest in the sign (vv 4 5 -4 6 ; 12:3132). 7—8 Jesus calls on his disciples to accompany him to Judea. The disciples are aghast; so recently as the Festival o f the Dedication had Jewish opponents tried to stone him (10:31, 39); how foolish then to risk his life again! And how needless, since Lazarus’ illness is not “for death”! 9 Jesus replies through a simile. A day has twelve hours (in all seasons, however short or long daylight may last, for the hours are contracted or expanded according to need); it has therefore both opportunity and limitation. One can walk in the day without stumbling, because one is aware o f the light o f this world (the sun) shining on one’s path. This is true o f people generally, and o f Jesus in particular; he must “walk” in the (limited) time appointed for him; while he does so he knows that he will not “stumble,” for he is under the protection o f God. If v 10a is applicable to Jesus in his ministry, v 10b indicates that the thought is applied to others, especially to the disciples; whoever walks in the dark stumbles over unseen obstacles, for he is without the Light o f the World (Jesus) shining within him; the application within the context is the necessity o f the disciples to keep in his company, even though he does advance toward danger and death (Hoskyns, 400). 11—12 A typical “Johannine misunderstanding”: an ambiguous statement o f truth is misunderstood by the hearers, which leads to a clarification that opens up fuller revelation. That Lazarus has “fallen asleep” employs a familiar image o f death, but in the Hebrew heritage it chiefly connoted a sleep from which there is no awakening (cf. the familiar formula in the books o f Kings

189

Comment

and Chronicles, “so-and-so slept with his fathers,” and note Jo b 14:11-12: “As waters fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up, so man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out o f his sleep”). The apocalyptic concept o f death as a sleep from which one awakes (Dan 12:2) had by no means seized the minds of the people, though there are some striking expressions o f it among Israel’s later teachers (cf. Pauly, Real-E ncyclopädie , 32: “Sleep in the night is like this world, and waking in the morning is like the world to come,” cited by Balz, T D N T 8:552). With Jesus the thought is fundamental, bound up with the relation o f God to his people (cf. Mark 12:24—27) and his own role as the Son who is Son o f Man (cf. 5:21, 26-27). Hence he declares, “Lazarus has fallen asleep; / am g o in g to wake him out o f sleep!” The same outlook on death is seen in Mark 5:39, as Jesus advances to wake a child from death, ju st as he was to wake Lazarus. The idea was as ridiculous to the mourners for the child as it was distant from those who mourned Lazarus (v 33). In this context the implication o f v 11 should be taken with utmost seriousness, particularly in light o f vv 2 5 -2 6 : believers are to view death as a sleep from which they shall be awakened through Jesus. 12 The misunderstanding is couched in intriguing terms: “If he has fallen alseep he w ill be saved (σ ο ο θήσ ετα ι)” It is doubtful, however, that we are intended to read into this statement a secondary meaning that expresses the truth beyond the disciples’ grasp; but contrast Mark 5:23, 34; 10:52, where the play on the meaning o f σοοθήραι, “to recover” from illness and “to be saved” in a soteriological sense, is deliberate. 14—15 Having spoken plainly, Jesus expresses his gladness that he was not with Lazarus. His disciples are manifestly unprepared to endure the shock o f faith that lies ahead o f them; the awakening o f Lazarus from his death will grant them a fresh vision o f his glory, and after their trial enable them to grasp the meaning o f it all. 16 Thomas summons his fellow disciples to accompany Jesus and die with him. An utterance o f blind devotion, it expresses more than he realizes: for Jesus the journey will be for death, but one that will mean life for the world; and the Church that arises through the death and resurrection o f Jesus is called to make the journey like its Lord, bearing a cross and revealing thereby the life that conquers death (cf. Mark 8:34; 2 Cor 4:10). The summons o f Thomas accordingly is addressed to every reader o f the Gospel. T h e R e v e l a t io n

of

J esu s

as t h e

R e s u r r e c t io n

and t h e

L if e (11:17-27)

17 The news that Lazarus was now four days in the tomb indicates that he was buried on the day o f his death, as was customary in Israel, but its mention shows that he was dead beyond all doubt. In Sem. 8 it is said that one should visit a burial place o f one newly buried for three days to ensure that the person was really dead. Why three days? Gen. R ab. 100 (64a) supplies the answer: “Bar Qappara taught, The whole strength o f the mourning is not till the third day; for three days long the soul returns to the grave, thinking that it will return (into the body); when however it sees that the

190

J

ohn

1 1 :1 -5 4

color o f its face has changed then it goes away and leaves it” (Str-B 2 :5 4 4 45). Four days in the grave establishes that all was over. 18-19 T h e mention o f the proximity o f Jerusalem to Bethany suggests that the "many Jews” who came to comfort the sisters were from the capital city. T o console the bereaved was an acknowledged duty, but the Evangelist draws attention to the presence o f these sympathizers, since they are to become witnesses o f what happened to Lazarus. 20 While Martha hastened to Jesus, Mary "sat in the house.” Schlatter observed, "Sitting belongs to mourning,” citing R u th R ab. 2:14 (252). 21—22 Martha’s words are not intended as a reproach to Jesus, but simply express her grief; she does not doubt that had he been present he would have saved Lazarus from death. Does her added statement in v 22 imply a conviction that even now Jesus could and should pray that Lazarus be restored to life, since God would do what he asked? Many exegetes think so (it led Sanders to write: "John conveys a wonderfully life-like portrait o f a faithful, but rather managing woman”!). This is a doubtful interpretation; Martha's horrified reaction in v 39 shows that she does not expect Jesus to recall her brother from his tomb. At this point she affirms her continued confidence in the power o f Jesus’ intercession for all eventualities. Her brother’s death has not destroyed her faith in Jesus. 23-24 Here is another ambiguous saying o f Jesus. It can relate to the recall o f Lazarus to life about to take place, or to his resurrection in the end time. For the Evangelist it will have included both, but for Martha it meant the latter only: Lazarus will rise at the end o f the age for life in the kingdom o f God. (Our Evangelist alone among N T writers uses the expression “in the last day,” as in 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48. T h e more common formula, "in the last days,” generally refers to the times preceding the end, as in Acts 2:17; 2 Tim 3:1; Jam es 5:3.) 25-26 Martha has stated the belief o f her people (the Sadducees alone denied it according to Mark 12:18-27); Jesus gives her a new and startling revelation: “I am the Resurrection and the Life!” It signifies not so much a rejection o f Martha’s faith (contrary to Bultmann , 403; Haenchen, 406) as an extension o f it and a setting o f it on a sure foundation. Th e eschatological rule o f God for which Martha hopes, with all its blessings for humankind, is vested in Jesus. T h e greatest gift o f God’s saving sovereignty is precisely life eternal under that sovereignty and entry upon it through resurrection . T h e power to initiate it resides in Jesus ("the Resurrection”) and to grant it in its fullness ("the Life”). Both elements o f this function are his by God’s appointment (5:21, 26). T h e meaning o f this primary statement in v 25a is drawn out in the two parallel clauses that follow. T h e parallelism is not synonymous, despite frequent assertions to the contrary (e.g., by Bultm ann, 403; Cadm an, “T h e Raising o f Lazarus,” 431; Schnackenburg, 2:331; Becker, 2:359-61). T h e first clause takes up the affirmation, “I am the Resurrection,” the second “I am the Life” (Dodd, Interpretation , 365). While it is possible to translate v 25b, “He who believes in me, though he is dead, he will live on” (so R. A. Knox in his translation o f the NT), it is altogether m ore likely that it should be rendered “will come to life” (so n e b ; Dodd, Interpretation , 365; Brown, 421; Barrett, 396). This is its m eaning in 5:25 (for the use o f fijaercu o f

Comment

191

the resurrection of Jesus cf. the confessional statement in Rom 14:9: Χριατός ánédavev каі ёЦтреѵ; Rev 2:8 δς éyévero ικκρος και έξησ€ν\ also the Satanic imitative Antichrist, Rev 13:14 δς έχει την πλτγγήν τή ς μαχαίρης και έξησεν. I n Rev 20:4-5 έξησαν is used of the Christian dead in “the first resurrection”). T he plain m eaning o f the first clause in Jo h n 11:25 is a promise of the future resurrection of the believer through Christ the Resurrection. T he second clause advances on this: “Whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.” What is the force of “lives”? Commonly ό ξών is identified as a living person who believes, so defined in the light of “even though he dies” in the previous line. But what other kind of person believes besides one who lives? ό πιστεύων in v 25 is any and every believer, and all such die; if πάς ó ξών каі пштеіхаѵ is also any and every believer, the term ξών is superfluous. By contrast, however, the ύδωρ ξών (living water) of 4:10-11; 7:38 and ό άρτος ό ξών (living bread) of 6:51 relate to the ζωή αιώνιος of the kingdom of God; so also “the living Father” is the Fount of Life, whose relation to the Son forms the pattern of the Son’s relation to the believer (6:57). T hroughout 5:21-29, which is the background of 11:25-26, ζωή is consistently the life of the divine sovereignty. Accordingly v 26a appears to affirm that everyone who has the life of the kingdom of God and believes on Jesus shall never die. As the clause follows on one relating to ό татеіхаѵ it is not surprising that the subject of the next clause is described as ό ξών καί πιστεύων, the more so, in that the topic is the nature of the life that the believer has, namely one that death cannot destroy since the bdiever is in union with him who is the Life. A close parallel to the ambiguity of language and thought of this passage is in 2 Cor 5:14-15: O n e man died on behalf of all, hence all died; and he died for all in order that ot ξώντες should no longer live to themselves . . . .” n e b renders the latter clause, “. . . that men , white still in life, should cease to live for themselves.” But Paul’s thought has a more comprehensive meaning than this; οί ξώντες are surely the dead who have come to life through the risen Christ, who in v 17 are described as new creatures living in the new creation. J. Héring translates οί ξώντβς in v 15 as “they who have the life” (La seconde épitre de saint Paul aux Corinthiens [Neuchâtel, 1958] ad loc), and Lietzmann paraphrases, “He has given us new life through his resurrection . . . so that we may lead this new life in the practice of pneumatic love” (An die Korinther I—II, 4th ed. rev. by W. G. Kümmel [Tübingen, 1949], 124-25). Paul’s understanding of life in and through the risen Lord is virtually identical with that in the Fourth Gospel.

The revelation to Martha thus is an assurance o f resurrection to the kingdom of God in its consummation through him who is the Resurrection, and of life in the kingdom o f God in the present time through him who is the Life. Both aspects of the “life” are rooted in the understanding o f Jesus as the Mediator o f the divine sovereignty in the present and in the future, whose mediatorial work in earthly ministry reaches its climax in his death and exaltation to the throne o f God, whereby the sovereignty o f God is established in redemptive power for all humanity and the Spirit o f the age to come is released for the world. (This interpretation is in harmony with that given by Westcott, 2 :9 0 -9 1 ; Bernard, 389; Schlatter, 253; Dodd, Interpretation , 364—66; Brown, 434; Bruce, 244—45.) 26b -27 The question, “Do you believe this?”, is asked in the light o f the context o f vv 2 5-26, namely the death of Lazarus, which tested Martha’s faith, and the binding o f the revelation to the person o f the Revealer. It is essential for Martha to grasp and receive this if she is to understand what Jesus is about to do for her brother. Her reply goes beyond a simple “Yes.”

J

192

ohn

1 1 :1 -5 4

It is a fully fledged confession o f faith in Jesus, the wording o f which is frequently thought to reflect the contemporary Church’s baptismal confession o f faith (so Bultmann, citing with approval Dibelius, 404 n.5; Bornkamm, Gesammelte A ufsätze 2 [1970] 192; Lindars, 396). In acknowledging Jesus to be the Christ, the Son o f God, the declaration echoes earlier confessions in the Gospel (1:42, 49) and anticipates the statement o f its purpose in 2 0 :3 0 31. The third element, “He who comes into the world,” takes up the messianic expression (hardly a title) derived from Ps 118:26, which is applied to Jesus by others (see especially Matt 11:3 and the cry o f the crowds in Joh n 12:13 par.); it is possible that the Evangelist intends it to be interpreted in the light o f the coming o f the Christ and Son o f God into the world from heaven (cf. 3:31; 6:33, 51; see Barrett, 397). T h e Wr a t h

of the

Re v e a l e r

in t h e

Pr e s e n c e

of

U n be l ie f (11:28-44)

28-32 Martha’s “secrecy” in speaking to Mary is natural and has no secondary significance (such as a reflection o f the secrecy surrounding Jesus’ miracles [Barrett, 398] or concern for the safety o f Jesus [Sanders, 270]); it will have been to enable Jesus to speak to Mary alone, away from the people surrounding her. The privacy, however, was short-lived. Mary repeats the words o f Martha to Jesus (cf. v 21), but without any affirmation o f continued faith; no revelation from Jesus is given her, and no confession o f faith elicited from her. It is hardly just, however, to conclude from this, “Mary gives the impression of being nothing but a complaining woman” (Schnackenburg, 2:333). Her statement to Jesus does, after all, reflect faith in the Lord’s power to heal, but grief clouds her vision, and the arrival o f the “consolers” prevents further conversation. S3 T he rendering of the main clause, “Jesus . . . became angry in spirit and very agitated“ requires discussion, not to say justification, in view of its departure from most English translations. T here has been an unusual disagreement between the English and German traditions of understanding this passage. “He groaned in the spirit and was troubled” ( a v / k j v , r v ) set the pattern for English translations, i t is echoed by n e b , “He sighed heavily and was deeply moved.” This latter rendering o f έτάρα%εν έαυτόν has, however, been appropriated for έικβριμήσατο τ φ itvevymi in most recent English translations; e.g., r s v “He was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” (similarly Ph, n a s v , n i v ; other renderings are variants of this, e.g., j b , Jesus spoke “m great d i s t r e s s ,”n b , "his heart was touched"). This understanding of έμβριμάσθαι has controlled the expositions of Bernard, Tem ple, Strachan, Sanders, Morris, Marsh, Lindars, Bruce, as also of Lagrange and F. M. Braun. By contrast Luther’s rendering, “E r ergrimmte im Geist und betrübte sich selbst,” i.e., “He was angry in the spirit and distressed,” has controlled German interpretation to the present day, which generally departs from it only by way o f stronger expression (cf. the Zürich Bible: “Er ergrimmte im Geist und empörte sich" = “He became angry in the spirit and was disgusted”; Heitmüller, “Er ergrimmte innerlich und brachte sich in Harnisch" = “He was inwardly angry and became enraged”). Such is the interpretation followed by Bultmann, Büchsei, Strathm ann, Schnackenburg, Schulz, Haenchen, and Becker in their commentaries. T he treatm ent of the term in Bauer’s Lexicon of the Greek N T is revealing. B auer cites evidence from Lucian, LXX and the synoptic Gospels (Mark 1:43; Matt 9:30; Mark 14:5; Matt 12:18 in Egerton no. 2) for translating έν€βριμήσατο τ φ πνεύματι in John 11:33 "bei sich unwillig werden,

Comment

193

innerlich ergrimmen” “be indignant (or displeased) in oneself, be inwardly angry.“ T he translators of Bauer's Lexicon into English, however, have changed this to “be deeply moved." If the reader will consult the latest edition of BGD for the comparative use of the term , he may well come to the conclusion, with the present writer, that the evidence supports the contention o f Schnackenburg: “T he word έμβριμάσθαι . . . indicates an outburst o f anger, and any attem pt to reinterpret it in terms of an internal emotional upset caused by grief, pain, or sympathy is illegitimate" (2:335). With that Westcott, Hoskyns, Barrett, and Brown among English-speaking commentators agree. (Matthew Black has no doubt that such is the meaning o f the Greek term, but he considers it to be a “Syriacism"; i.e., that it represents a Syriac expression *eth “holy Spirit,” w ithout the definite article. W hatever th e reason for th at in th e source, in th e Gospel it is not to be in terp reted in a n im personal sense, o r simply as a gift o f the Spirit (contra W estcott, 350). T h e im p o rtan t saying, 7 :39, also has “spirit” w ithout th e definite article, following a clause in the sam e sentence with it. “H e b reath ed in ” is perh ap s needlessly literal, b u t it harks back to the u nusual term in G en 2:7 an d Ezek 3 7 :9 -1 0 . In the fo rm er passage God “b reath ed into the nostrils o f A dam the b reath o f life,” so com pleting the creation o f m an. In the latter the p ro p h et calls to th e wind to “b reath e into these slain th at they may live,” after which “b reath cam e into them , they

Comment

381

cam e to life an d rose to th eir feet, a m ighty host.” T his is a vision o f the re tu rn o f th e Jew ish people from the lands (“the graves”) to which they had been tran sp o rted , an d th eir quickening by the Spirit on their re tu rn to th eir own. T h e symbolism is a clear application o f the notion o f resurrection, and th at in an eschatological context (deliverance for th e kingdom ). It is not surprising th at it cam e to be viewed as a rep resen tatio n o f resurrection in the tim e o f the kingdom . In v 22 the symbolic action prim arily represents the im partation o f life th at th e Holy Spirit gives in the new age, b ro u g h t about th ro u g h C hrist’s exaltation in d eath an d resurrection. New age an d new creation are com plem entary ideas in eschatological contexts. Strictly speaking, one should n o t view this as the beginning o f the new creation b u t ra th e r as the beginning o f th e incorporation o f man into th at new creation which cam e into being in the Christ by his incarnation, death, an d resurrection, and is actualized in m an by th e Holy Spirit (cf. 2 C or 5:17). T h e significance o f this act, accordingly, is n o t to be lim ited as th o u g h it were solely for th e disciples in relation to vv 21 an d 23. All th ree sentences have to do with th e whole C hurch, like the prom ises o f the Spirit earlier in the Gospel. N either is v 22 to be reg ard ed as a symbolic prom ise o f the gift o f the Spirit later to be bestow ed, i.e., at Pentecost (as T h eo d o re o f M opsuestia m aintained; his view was condem ned by the fifth ecum enical Council at C onstantinople in A .D . 553). Likewise it is inadequate to view the gift o f C hrist as a partial bestowal o f the Spirit who is to be fu lly given at Pentecost, an idea expressed in a variety o f ways. Calvin considered “the Spirit was given to the apostles now in such a way th at they were only sprinkled with his grace an d n o t saturated with full pow er” (Gospel according to S t . John, 1 1 -2 1 [E dinburgh: O liver an d Boyd, 1961] 205, cited by T u rn e r, “Receiving the Spirit in J o h n ’s G ospel,” 32). Bengel viewed th e gift as an “earn est” o f Pentecost, W estcott as the pow er o f new life anticipating the pow er f o r ministry (350-51); Bruce inverts the o rd er, seeing the E aster gift as empowerment fo r ministry , to be followed by th e Spirit’s gift o f new life at Pentecost. It would a p p e ar th at th e fun d am en tal m istake in the exam ples o f exegesis in reg ard to this passage is the dividing o f Easter from Pentecost, an d the consequent placing o f a wedge betw een the F ourth Evangelist an d Luke. B arrett expressed th e view th at it is impossible to harm onize the account o f a special bestowal o f the Holy Spirit with that contained in Acts 2 (570). B ut who said that it was “special”? It is com m only conceded th at we have two representations o f the sending o f the Holy Spirit to the C hurch, because o f two ways o f looking at C hrist’s redem ptive deeds: (a) th at in the F ourth Gospel, which sees his death, resurrection, and ascension as essentially one, an d th e gift o f th e Spirit b o u n d u p with the th ree in the Easter event; (b) an d th at in Luke, which places the Ascension forty days after the R esurrection an d the o u tp o u rin g o f the Spirit on the day o f Pentecost. T h e differences a p p e a r so m arked, it has seem ed to m any eith er th at one Evangelist has m odified the tradition in the interests o f his theology, o r (m ore commonly) th at th ere were two occasions o f the Spirit’s com ing. O n the latter hypothesis it is th o u g h t th at the F ourth Evangelist was aware o f this, for he has m ade no m ention o f th e Paraclete in his resurrection narrative, know ing th at th at en d u em en t cam e in the Pentecostal event (so Porsch, 376—77; J . D. G. D unn,

382

J o h n 2 0 :1 -3 1

Baptism in the H oly Spirit , 177—78; Μ. Μ. B. T u rn e r, w ho sees J o h n 20:22 as

th e com plem ent an d fulfillm ent o f 17:17-19, “Receiving th e Spirit,” 34). By contrast to these views it is a questionable p ro ced u re to distinguish th e com ing o f th e Spirit to th e disciples from th e com ing o f th e Paraclete to th e C hurch. I f th e Spirit is bestowed, the Paraclete has com e. T h e gift o f th e Spirit is m ade to the disciples in th e context o f th e h an d in g to them o f the com m ission; th e Paraclete was prom ised to enable them to fulfill it; accordingly th e Spirit w ho is given is the Paraclete. T h a t th e Evangelist has n o t used the term is o f no consequence; the reality w ithout the w ord is plain. H e re we should recall w hat was w ritten in th e section on the com position o f this chapter. J o h n is not recording in vv 19-23 som ething th at took place in five m inutes on the first Easter Sunday evening. In briefest com pass he sum m arizes th e acts o f the risen L ord, brin g in g to g eth er sayings an d h a p p e n ings u ttered a n d p erfo rm ed in the E aster period. T h e gift o f th e Spirit could have been at any tim e w ithin th e E aster period. Significantly, Luke binds th e sending o f th e Spirit o n the Day o f Pentecost to Easter; P eter’s explanation as to w hat has taken place states: “T h e Je su s we speak o f has been raised by G od, as we can all b ear witness. Exalted th u s at G od’s rig h t han d , he received th e Holy Spirit from th e F ath er a n d p o u red o u t this which you see and h e a r” (Acts 2:32-33). The outpouring o f the Spirit on the D ay o f Pentecost is the act o f the risen Lord! It is im p o rtan t to note th at both J o h n an d Luke are capable o f accom m odating chronology to theology w hen it seem s rig h t to do so. J o h n ’s setting the cleansing o f th e tem ple in his program m atic chap. 2 is a singular exam ple, d o n e fo r the best o f theological reasons. A nd Luke has taken a leaf o u t o f J o h n ’s book, by concentrating his resurrection narratives into his account o f Easter Day w ithout any h in t o f extension o f tim e, even including the story o f the Ascension in the Easter narrative . I f we did not have the Acts o f th e Apostles we w ould m ost surely assum e th at Luke, like Jo h n , set the Ascension within Easter. Theologically he has d o n e so, fo r the Ascension to him is th e last E aster appearance o f Jesus. W hat, th en , is o u r conclusion? T h e F o u rth Evangelist does n o t specify the E aster events according to chronology. H e could perfectly well have been aw are o f th e Pentecostal tradition a n d write exactly as he has done. B ut th ere is no question o f viewing the sending o f th e Spirit as taking place at E aster an d at Pentecost. It is one o r th e o th er, in view o f th e n a tu re o f each Evangelist’s presentation o f th e event. In the ju d g m e n t o f the presen t w riter, the L ukan narrative in Acts 2 is an authentic account o f th e com ing o f the Spirit at th e celebration o f th e giving o f the Law, w hen th e com pany o f the new covenant received pow er to proclaim th e m essage o f th e new covenant in tongues for th e whole world to hear, ju s t as th e w ord o f the old covenant was so proclaim ed am idst flames o f fire (the n arrative is shot th ro u g h with th e symbolism o f the festival, ju s t as J o h n 7 -8 reflects the celebration o f T abernacles; see J . Η . E. H ull, The H oly Spirit in the Acts o f the Apostles , 4 8 56). T h e F ourth Evangelist w rote one volum e only, not two, as Luke. W hat he w rote concerning the com ing o f the Spirit was theologically an d historically sound, as, I am persuaded, was th at w ritten by his b ro th e r in the L ord, Luke. 23 O n e cannot deal with this saying w ithout recalling th e sim ilar M att

Comment

383

16:19b, with its parallel in M att 18:18. T h e saying is clearly in d ep en d en t, an d has been given varied contexts by the Evangelists, o r th eir sources. O u r Evangelist has set it in the context o f th e resurrection com m ission o f Jesus. Significantly its ap p earan ce in M att 16:19b has the n a tu re o f a charge to an apostle. T h e m ajority o f com m entators still in te rp re t the M atthaean saying in the light o f the rabbinic use o f the term s “binding” a n d “loosing” for determ ining w hether actions are “fo rb id d en ” o r “allowed” by the Law, an d so view the saying as relating to a kind o f m agisterial office. C ertainly th at usage was c u rre n t in Rabbinism , b u t th e term s w ere also applied to im posing o r relieving th e “b an ” on offenders, i.e., th eir exclusion from o r readm ittance to the synagogue (see Str-B, 1:738-47). T h e re is increasing conviction am ong o th er scholars, however, th at Schlatter’s ju d g m e n t is right, th at “this m ode o f speech plainly shows th at originally the form ula lo o se a n d bind' describes the activity o f th e ju d g e ” (Der E vangelist M atthäus, 511). T h e language refers to th e ju d g e ’s declaration o f th e guilt o r innocence o f persons b ro u g h t before him , who are “b o u n d ” to o r “loosed” from th e charges m ade against them . In M att 16:19b it would d en o te P eter’s au thority to declare people forgiven o r condem n ed according to th eir response to the m essage o f th e kingdom o f God. W ith this Jerem ias agrees: “T h e authority o f the m essengers includes both the com m unication o f salvation an d the im position o f ju d g m e n t. It is th e ju d g e's authority to acquit an d to p ro n o u n ce guilty th at is described by this pair o f opposites a n d the synonym ous phrases ‘bind an d loose' an d ‘forgive an d retain sins.’ As pairs o f opposites are used in Semitic languages to describe the totality, these pairs o f words m ean th at the m essengers receive total a u th o rity” (New Testament Theology, 238). T h e saying th erefo re, alike in M atthew an d in Jo h n , is fittingly placed in a context o f com m ission to disciples. In terestingly, while th e M atthaean saying is set in th e m inistry o f Jesus, it has in view P eter’s work in th e era following the R esurrection (Peter was certainly no rock-m an on w hom the L ord could build his church in the period ap p ro ach ing his passion!). J o h n ’s context is specifically th at o f the com m ission o f the risen L ord in v 21 an d the gift o f the Spirit in v 22. It entails th erefo re the double context o f th e continuance o f the mission o f Jesu s th ro u g h his disciples in the world, an d the continuance o f th at mission th ro u g h th e Holy Spirit to the world in an d with th e disciples. (This latter aspect is the them e o f 15:25-26; 16:8-11.) W ith th e double context, th ere is a double aspect o f the mission: th at o f declaring salvation an d ju d g m e n t. T h e Gospel m akes it plain th at Jesu s was sent prim arily to reveal God an d to redeem m ankind: “God did not send the Son into the world to condem n the world, b u t th at th e world m ight be saved th ro u g h him ” (3:17). B ut th e rejection o f th e revelation an d o f th e Revealer inevitably entails a negative ju d g m e n t u p o n the rejectors. So we have the paradoxical saying, at the close o f th e narrative o f the healing o f the blind m an: “For ju d g m e n t I cam e into this world, th at those who d o not see should see, an d th at those who see should become blind” (9:39). T h e m inistry itself concludes in th e lifting u p o f Jesus, which is declared to be the ju d g m e n t o f this world an d its prince (12:31)— condem nation fo r those who range them selves with th e crucifiers o f the Christ, and forgiveness for those who receive his word. T his process o f ju d g m e n t continues

J o h n 2 0 :1 -3 1

384

th ro u g h th e witness o f th e followers o f C hrist a n d th ro u g h th e Spirit o f C hrist who works with a n d th ro u g h them . Disciples proclaim forgiveness o f sins a n d so entry into th e saving sovereignty o f God th ro u g h th e red em p tio n o f C hrist, a n d ju d g m e n t on those w ho reject th e revelation a n d red em p tio n o f C hrist. T h e question is o ften raised w h eth er any allusion to baptism is p resen t in v 23. In the light o f th e m issionary com m ission o f M att 28:19, th e record o f th e mission preach in g in the Acts o f the Apostles, an d th e association o f forgiveness o f sins with baptism in th e letters o f th e N T , it is likely th at baptism is assumed h ere, as in Luke 2 4 :4 6 -4 7 ; cf. Acts 2:38. Som e in terp reters are m ore em phatic. G ardner-S m ith wrote: “T h e apostles are here com m issioned to g ran t o r refuse rem ission o f sins, th at is, to g ran t o r w ithhold the privilege o f baptism . It is in keeping with w hat we know o f early C hristian m ission p reaching to suppose th at its aim was to secure candidates for baptism , so th at h ere we have in o th er words th e exact equivalent o f the com m ission recorded in th e first gospel” (The N arratives o f the Resurrection [London: M ethuen, 1926] 84). T h e language o f th e first sentence requires revision in light o f th e link in th e N T betw een proclam ation o f the gospel, h earin g o f faith, rep en tan ce, an d baptism , b u t th e sentim ent o f th e q uotation is otherw ise sound. T h a t raises a fu rth e r question, nam ely, w h eth er th e saying is lim ited to en try into th e C hurch o r w hether it applies also to life w ithin th e C hurch. U ndoubtedly it has the mission to th e w orld prim arily in m ind, b u t this Gospel is directed to th e C h u rch , w herein believers stand continually in need o f forgiveness o f sins, a n d discipline at tim es has to be exercised reg ard in g o ffending m em bers. F or th a t reason the parallel M atthaean saying is placed also in a ch u rch context (M att 18:18). How J o h n 20:23 o p erated in the Jo h a n nine ch u rches we can n o t tell, b u t it is n o t impossible th at it followed an application like th at in th e M atthaean com m unities. T h e re is no evidence th at the pow er to forgive sins o r discipline offenders attached to officers in th e churches, b u t we d o recall th e role played by P eter in th e incident o f A nanias a n d S ap p h ira (Acts 5:1—11) an d th e d em an d o f Paul th at the C orinth ian ch u rch com e to g eth er to discipline an im m oral m em ber in the congregation (1 C or 5:1—5). W hen church organization is sufficiently developed to ord ain officers, it is inevitable th at they play a p a rt in such processes. From this statem ent in v 23 th e Rom an Catholic C h u rch has evolved the sacram ent o f Penance. Protestants find this difficult to accept, n ot to say rep u g n a n t to th eir thinking. It is significant, how ever, th at in the area o f pastoral counseling, w hen dealing with sin an d guilt, an authoritative w ord o f forgiveness is required from a representative o f the L ord o f th e cross an d resurrection. T h e churches have need to learn from one another. J e s u s A ppe a r s t o

T h o ma s

(20:24—29)

24-26 T h o m as has fea tu re d in the Gospel before, in 11:16 an d 14:5. T h e re h e is seen as less a skeptic th an a loyal b u t pessimistic follower o f Jesu s, ready to die with him if need be, b u t slow to co m p reh en d an d ready to say so (14:5). His response to his fellow disciples concerning th e resurrection o f Jesu s is an exaggerated expression o f th e attitu d e they m anifested to th e

Comment

385

wom en who said th at they had seen Jesus. B ut the conditions he lays dow n for believing are unreasonable. T hey are an exam ple o f th e attitude condem ned by Jesu s in 4:48. “A fter eight days” the Lord ap p ears in the same m an n er as before, o r on the “eig h th ” day, i.e., the following Sunday (this according to the Jew ish m ode o f reckoning, counting th e first an d the last days in th e period). T h e language will have rem inded early readers o f th eir own m eetings fo r w orship o n the first day o f the week, m arking the day w hen Jesus rose from the dead. The expression “the Lord’s Day” (Rev 1:10) had just such a nuance of worship. It arose out of a custom in the Middle East, in Asia Minor as well as Egypt, of naming a day in honor of a ruler. In Egypt, in the time of Ptolemy Euergetes, the twenty-fifth day of each month was called “king’s day,” in honor of his ascending the throne of his father on the twenty-fifth day of Dios. In various areas of Asia Minor a day was named “Sebaste,” i.e., “Emperor’s Day,” at first one day in the month and then, in some parts at least, a day a week (Thursday). This precedent led Christians to claim Sunday as the day when the real kurios rose from death to the sovereignty of the universe. “The Lord’s Day” became the day for celebrating the accession of Jesus, the risen Lord, to the throne of God. The slightly later Epistle of Barnabas is witness to this: “We celebrate with gladness the eighth day in which Jesus also rose from the dead and appeared and ascended into heaven” (15:9). 27 T h e L ord whose care extends to his people at all tim es has h eard the declaration o f T hom as, an d takes u p his challenge. As he extends his hands, with th e invitation to touch them an d fo r T h o m as to p u t his h an d in his side, he adds a saying which is h a lf rebuke an d h alf appeal: “Stop being unbelieving, an d show yourself a believer!” Did T hom as extend his finger and hand, as he was invited? T h e tradition early arose th at he did, an d th at others did so with him . Ignatius wrote: “I know an d believe that he was in the flesh even after th e resurrection; an d w hen he cam e to Peter an d his com pany he said to them , ‘Lay hold an d han d le m e, an d see th at I am n o t a dem on w ithout body.’ A nd straightw ay they touched him , an d they believed, being jo in e d to his flesh an d his blood” (Smyrn ., 3.2). T h e scene in which T hom as extends his h an d to touch the L ord becam e a favorite th em e for later artists. N evertheless it is unlikely th at T hom as did any such thing; o th erwise the Evangelist would have m ade the point th at T hom as becam e convinced w hen he touched the body o f the risen L ord. B ut v 29 speaks only o f T h o m as seeing the Lord. T h e im pression given by the narrative is th at T hom as was overw helm ed by th e appearance o f th e L ord an d his words to him , and w ithout any fu rth e r d em onstration he b urst o u t with his confession. 28 His statem ent is not simply a m ode o f address to Jesus, in the vocative (“O my L ord an d my G od!”), still less an exclam ation, to th e praise o f G od, according to T h eo d o re o f M opsuestia (“My L ord a n d my G od!”); th at view was proscribed at the fifth ecum enical Council in a . d . 553. R ath er it is a confession issuing from the d ep th s o f T h o m as’ soul: “You are my L ord an d my G od” (so B ruce, 394). So it com es about th at the m ost outrageous d o u b ter o f the resurrection o f Jesu s u tters the g reatest confession o f the Lord who rose from the dead. His utteran ce does n o t simply acknowledge the reality o f the resurrection o f Jesus, b u t expresses its ultim ate m eaning, i.e., as revelation o f who Jesus is. Yet it is not an abstract theological definition concerning

386

J ohn

2 0 :1 -3 1

th e person o f C hrist. T h e personal p ro n o u n is o f vital im portance: “my Lord, a n d my G od.” H e confesses to th e risen Jesu s th at he belongs to him as his willing subject; he adores him an d hencefo rth will serve him as he deserves. A nd if th e flash o f inspiration in this m om ent o f revelation extended so far, he may have included the th o u g h t th a t this revelation o f w ho Jesu s is has taken place in his exaltation to th e rig h t h a n d o f G od th ro u g h his d e a th an d resurrection an d ascension, a n d th a t h e , T h o m as, is included in th e redem ption achieved by th at event. C ertainly th e rea d e r is expected to take th a t fu rth e r step o f acknow ledgm ent o f Jesus. A t all events, in so confessing Jesus “T hom as fulfils th e L o rd ’s words, ‘T h a t all m ay h o n o u r th e Son, even as they h o n o u r th e F ather' (5:23), an d h u m an faith perceives th e tru th stated in th e first verse o f the Prologue to th e gospel, ‘an d th e W ord was G od’ ” (Hoskyns, 548). 29 W ith a v / k jv , r v , a s v , n e b , n iv , we have translated the o p en in g words o f Jesu s to T hom as as a statem ent. T h e USB text, in ag reem en t with w h , Nestle26, r s v , read it as a question. L indars considers th a t 1:50 a n d 16:31 favor u n d erstan d in g v 29a also as a question (646), b u t th e p resen t context is different. B arrett rem arked, “In this solem n a n d im pressive p ro n o u n cem en t Jesu s does n ot ask questions b u t declares th e tru th ” (573). S chnackenburg agrees, an d points o u t th at with T h o m as’ confession th e th em e o f d o u b t is over. T h e saying o f Jesu s describes the faith o f T h o m as an d th at o f believers who have n ot “seen” in verbs in th e p erfect tense, which indicates a firm faith; an d v 19b b etter follows o n a statem en t th an o n a question (334). T h e em phasis in v 29, o f course, is n o t on T h o m as b u t on those who have n o t “seen.” T h ey have n o t h ad the privilege o f th e disciples in seeing Jesu s alive from the dead, n o r o f having th eir faith quickened in th e extraordinary m an n e r g ran ted to T hom as. T h eirs is a faith called fo rth by th e w ord o f th e Gospel; b u t it is n o n e th e worse fo r that, fo r th e ir tru st in th e L ord revealed th ro u g h the W ord is o f special w orth in his eyes. T h e ir com m endation is set forth in a beatitude, a declaration o f happiness in the sight o f G od th at conveys a revelation. T h e re is a n u m b er o f such in th e synoptic Gospels, especially in M att (in addition to those in th e S erm on on the M ount, see 11:6; 13:16; 24:46; a n d n ote Acts 20:35). T h e F o u rth Gospel contains only o n e o th e r beatitude besides this, nam ely 13:17, a n d curiously b oth have an adm onitory note (in this case d irected to th e privileged like T hom as). Yet th e effect o f this beatitude is to apply th e lesson o f T h o m as to all read ers o f th e Gospel: H appy are they who, w ithout having h ad T h o m as’ experience share T h o m as’ faith! H appy, indeed, fo r “faith has an im m ediate access to the person o f Jesu s C hrist, th e Revealer, a n d on th at account has its own certainty” (P. Sickenberger, 138). An appealing statement attributed to Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish (ca. a .d . 250), is worthy of inclusion, although frequently cited. “The proselyte is dearer to God than all the Israelites who stood by Mount Sinai. For if all the Israelites had not seen the thunder, and the flames, and the lightnings, and the quaking mountain, and the sound of the trumpet, they would not have accepted the Law and taken upon themselves the kingdom of God. Yet this man has seen none of all these things, yet comes and gives himself to God. Is there any who is dearer than this man?” (Tank. 6, 32a; see Str-B, 2:586).

Comment C o n c l u s io n

387

(20:30-31)

30 Scholars who believe th at th e Evangelist in co rp o rated a “signs source” into his Gospel usually view this passage as th e conclusion o f th at source. B ultm ann th o u g h t th at th e Evangelist h ad no difficulty in using it fo r the conclusion o f th e whole Gospel, since fo r him “signs” a n d w ord are in terch an g eable; th e whole Gospel th erefo re can be com prised u n d e r the term “signs” (698). T his is a questionable position to take. T h e “signs” o f th e first twelve chapters are specifically actions o f Jesus, generally m iraculous, which find th eir exposition in discourses; it is a confusion o f term inology to place the discourse m aterial u n d e r th e um brella o f signs. W here, then, are the signs o f the second p a rt o f the Gospel? A p art from D odd’s belief th at the “lifting u p ” o f th e Son o f M an in d eath an d resurrection is the su p rem e sign, th ere is m uch to be said in favor o f viewing th e resu rrectio n appearances as signs, particularly the last appearance to T hom as. T h e statem ent th at Jesu s did “m any o th er signs” is th en com prehensible. It is evident from a com parison o f this Gospel with th e synoptics th a t o th er m iracles w ere know n in the circles o f those who fashioned the traditions, a n d it is only to be expected th at th ere were o th ers th at they did n ot record. J o h n restricted his choice o f signs to a g ro u p th at were especially instructive. (T o a lesser extent, the synoptic Evangelists p u rsu ed a sim ilar policy; cf. S. H . H ooke: “T h e au th o rs o f the Synoptic Gospels, although they have n o t explicitly stated it, as the Jo h a n n in e a u th o r has, have selected with the sam e en d in view, o u t o f a great body o f m aterial preserved orally in th e kerygm a, o r in writing, certain acts which Jesus was believed to have d o n e ” [The Resurrection o f Christ , 75]). 31 “T hese have been w ritten that you may believe th e G ospel is a testam ent o f faith, w ritten to quicken faith. B ut in w hat sense? In th e Notes m ention was m ade o f th e uncertainty as to w h eth er the verb “believe” was originally an aorist subjunctive (татеіхггіте) o r a p resen t subjunctive (πιστενητβ); the evidence is evenly balanced. Strictly speaking, th e fo rm er should indicate m aking an act o f faith, p u ttin g o n e’s tru st in Jesu s as the Messiah, etc.; the latter, a co n tin u ing to hold th e faith already reposed in Jesus. T h e form er rep resen ts an evangelistic intention in w riting th e book; the latter, a desire to build u p C hristians in the faith. It is increasingly recognized, however, th at a decision like this can hardly rest on a fine point o f G reek gram m ar, not least in view o f the fact th at the Evangelist does n o t always keep the rules in his use o f tenses. H . Riesenfeld p u rsu ed a n o th e r p ath , in th e area o f syntax. H e exam ined th e sentences in the G ospel a n d 1 J o h n which use iva to express p urpose; he fou n d th at in th e latter th e sentences w ere inten d ed to show th e C hristian readers the tru e m eaning a n d im plications o f th eir faith in Jesu s (see 1 J o h n 1:3,4; 3:11, 23; 5:13, an d 2 J o h n 5, 6). In the Gospel sim ilar statem ents a p p e ar in th e U p p e r Room discourses (13:15, 19, 34; 14:19; 15:11, 12, 17; 16:33; 17:13). T h ese w ould im ply th at th e Gospel, like the letter, was w ritten fo r the benefit o f C hristians (“Zu d en jo h an n eisch en iva- Sätzen,” 213-20). Scholars have been im pressed with this arg u m e n t an d have increasingly inclined to believe th at J o h n ’s Gospel was prim arily directed to the edification o f C hristians. It is hardly necessary to oppose th at view. T h e G ospel, like the Bible as a whole, was w ritten for th e sake o f th e people

388

John

2 0 :1 -3 1

o f G od, an d it has been preserved by them th ro u g h th e centuries. B ut th e Bible is also a very pow erful witness to the C hristian faith for non-believers, as th e Bible Societies th ro u g h o u t the w orld can testify; an d so is the Gospel o f Jo h n , as a m ultitude o f evangelistic agencies have experienced. T h e prim ary a n d th e secondary p u rposes ru n close to g ether. B ultm ann, how ever, considere d th a t the Evangelist w ould n ot have been greatly concerned w h eth er his readers were C hristians o r not, inasm uch as faith can never be taken for g ran ted , b u t m ust be perpetually renew ed, a n d th erefo re m ust continually h e a r the w ord anew (698-99). T h a t is a consideration th at C hristians m ust ever b ear in m ind with reg ard to th eir own com m itm ent an d grow th. T h e confession th at th e Evangelist w ould lead th e u ncom m itted to m ake an d th e com m itted to m aintain is th at Jesus is the Christ, the Son o f God . T h a t may a p p e ar as an u nexpected red u ctio n o f the confession o f T hom as, b u t it d e p en d s o n the co n ten t read into the titles. F or Jew s, “M essiah” a n d “Son o f G od” w ould be synonym ous, th e latter being u n d ersto o d in adoptionist term s in line with the second Psalm, w here th e king at his coronation en ters on the status o f the Son o f God. In this Gospel Son o f God is the key concept o f the relation o f Jesus to God, being strictly synonym ous with th e absolute use o f “the Son”; consequently the term M essiah also is raised in significance. H e is the king o f the saving sovereignty w ho belongs to th e new creation, a n d the inscription on the cross im plies th a t he achieves his kingdom in the exaltation via th e cross to the rig h t h an d o f God. T h e co n ten t o f C hristolo gical faith in v 31 is n ot to be viewed as a lower Christology th an th at o f T h o m as’ confession, bu t m ust be u n d ersto o d in its light a n d filled o u t by it. A nd the en d o f such confession o f Jesus, Messiah a n d Son o f G od, is “life in his nam e” : the etern al life o f the new age, “eschatological life,” the life o f the world to com e lived in this life by virtue o f the R edeem er’s gift an d in un io n with him . J . B lank w rote o f vv 30-31: “T his is th e shortest sum m ary o f Jo h a n n in e theology. If one wished to explain every concept o f this concluding rem ark in its full significance on e w ould have to read th ro u g h th e whole Gospel again” (191). A nd yet again! T h e e n d o f the Gospel, as th e beginning, leads into still, d e e p waters.

Explanation 1. T h e resurrection narratives o f J o h n 20 e n d with a beatitude on those who have not seen b u t have believed. Such confessors o f C hrist are viewed to be like the proselyte w ho has n o t been given to stan d at th e foot o f Sinai an d see its awful w onders, yet w ho w orships G od. B ultm ann fo u n d in the episode o f T h o m as an d the com m and to Mary, “Stop trying to touch m e,” an im plied critique o f the E aster narratives: “T h e m iracles o f th e substantial a n d m u n d an e ap p earan ce o f th e Risen Lord, which in v 30 are co m p reh en d ed u n d e r th e term σημεία, ‘signs,’ have only th e relative w orth o f semeia generally, a n d th eir real significance is a symbolic one. C onsequently th ere is som ething peculiarly am biguous an d contradictory attaching to the Easter narratives. F or in tru th , if contact with physical h an d s is d en ied , how can seeing with physical eyes be p erm itted ?” B u ltm an n concluded th at as a m iracle is a conces-

Explanation

389

sion to the weakness o f m an, so is th e appearance o f the risen Jesu s a concession to the weakness o f the disciples. T h e E aster stories can claim only a relative worth. T h e ir significance is symbolic o f the fulfillm ent o f th e prom ise “I am com ing to you” (14:18). T h e event is no t th e fulfillm ent itself; the “day” w hen disciples “see” Jesus an d know th at he is in th e F ather an d they in him (14:20) is the eschatological day that breaks in a t any time fo r the believer (687-91, 695-96). T his view o f the resurrection narratives is du e to B u ltm an n ’s existentialist approach to theology. His stress on en co u n ter with th e living L ord is accom panied by a lack o f interest in the event itself, from which nevertheless, C hristian experience takes its rise. His answ er to the question “How, then, do we com e to believe in the resurrection as an event o f salvation?” is “Because it is p ro claim ed as such.” “T h e crucified an d risen C hrist enco u n ters us in the w ord o f proclam ation, now here else. It is precisely faith in this w ord th at is the tru e Easter faith” (Kerygma an d M yth, tr. R. H. Fuller, ed. H. W. Bartsch [London: SPCK, 1953] 50). B ultm ann wished to be rid o f the dependence o f C hristian faith on historical proofs, which in the n atu re o f things can never be final. B ut this should not lead to devaluing the witness given in the Gospel to the resurrection o f Jesus. N aturally th e Gospels do n o t claim th at the disciples saw the R esurrection take place; they saw the L ord after the event; th e event an d th e witness to it m ust be distinguished. W. K ü n n eth called the R esurrection “th e prim al m iracle,” G od’s act in Jesus th at established the new reality o f life in Christ. It was a creative act, parallel to the prim al m iracle o f creation. B ut such an act o f God calls for its revelation, an d it has been given. “T h e prim al m iracle o f the resurrection has also a face tow ards history” (The Theology o f the R esurrection, 73—81). T h e Lord th erefo re revealed him self to witnesses, able to attest to the world the good news o f G od’s redem ptive act fo r the life o f the world. T h a t redem ptive “act,” o f course, was n ot confined to Easter; it included the life, m inistry, an d d eath o f the Son o f God. B ut E aster let in a shaft o f life from heaven u p o n th e whole. T h e resurrection appearances were not concessions to h u m an weakness; they were revelations o f G od’s action in C hrist for eternal salvation. T h ro u g h the witness b orne to those revelations we may learn o f God, be em ancipated from th e shackles o f sin, an d begin to live in his fellowship. 2. T h e confession o f T hom as to Jesus “My L ord an d my G od,” is startling in its starkness, an d is rightly reg ard ed as th e culm ination o f the revelation o f G od in C hrist recorded in th e F o u rth Gospel. It needs to be set in its context, fo r it is by no m eans isolated. T h e affirm ation “T h e W ord was with G od an d th e W ord was G od” is followed by th e equally startling statem ent “And the W ord became flesh . . . an d we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father’s only Son ” (1:14), b u t we are so accustom ed to the saying it ceases to have its im pact on us. In this G ospel we have been m ade aw are th a t the account o f the m inistry o f Jesu s is th e unfolding story o f how the W ord m ade flesh revealed his glory. H e is shown as th e Son o f M an, an d Son o f G od, com e from G od to reveal G od an d red eem m an. T h o se who “saw” b u t did n ot believe alleged th at he m ade him self equal with G od (5:18). T h e m istake o f such people lay in assum ing th at he gave him self th at status,

390

J o h n 20:1-31

w hereas he em phasized his total d ep en d en ce o n th e F ather, w ho accom plished his works a n d m ade know n his w ords in a n d th ro u g h him (5:19-26). T h e n a tu re o f th e relationship o f th e F ath er a n d th e Son is expressed in th e dictum “I a n d th e F ath er a re o n e” (10:30), a n d is explained in term s o f m u tu al indw elling, “the F ath er in m e a n d I in th e F ath er” (14:9-11). By consequence, “A nyone w ho has seen m e has seen th e F ath er” (14:9). T his revelation o f th e F ath er in th e Son reaches its apex in th e “h o u r” o f Jesu s, which in the light o f E aster proves to be his death-resurrection-ascension to the presence o f God. T h e eschatological n a tu re o f th a t event (cf. 12:31—32) m eans th a t th e “re tu rn ” to th e F a th er entails th e assum ption o f sovereignty with th e F ather. It is n o accident th a t th e status o f Je su s as “M essiah” is em phasized in his Passion; it is as K ing o f th e Jew s th a t he is lifted u p an d en ters o n his reig n a t th e rig h t h a n d o f G od, w here he is King n o t alone o f Jew s, b u t o f all nations. Je su s th u s is seen to be th e M ediator betw een G od an d m an—in revelation, red em p tio n , a n d rule. T hom as’ confession, accordingly, could be m ade only a fte r th e E aster event a n d th e revelation o f th e risen Lord. T h e key term o f his confession is really kurios, L ord. F or th at elastic term , w hich can e x ten d from polite address to o n e’s fellow (“Sir”) to th e acclam ation o f G od A lm ighty (kurios = adonai = yahweh), receives its fullest connotation w hen applied to Jesu s in th e R esurrection. It is instructive to observe th e progress in th e use a n d significance o f kurios in chap. 20. M ary says to th e disciples, “T h ey have taken away the L ord ” (v 2), w here kurios is equivalent to rabbi, “teach er”; it is an identification o f th e Je su s whom they knew. M ary even addresses Je su s with such a w ord w hen she recognizes him as risen from th e dead (v 16). H e r re p o rt afte r th e ap p earan ce o f Jesu s to h er, “I have seen the Lord," still keeps w ithin th a t orbit. O nly its significance has grow n, certainly fo r th e read er, since Jesu s is now th e risen M aster. J o h n ’s record o f th e jo y o f th e disciples on seeing the L ord is, o f course, his own rep o rt, suitable to the context. Finally th e u tteran ce o f T h o m as shows w ho th e Risen O n e is: th e L o rd w ho is G od. T h e Son o f G od-Son o f M an-K ing o f Israel is now seen to be th e kurios in th e fullest m eanin g o f th e term as ap p lied to G od. T h e background to this application o f kurios to G od is com plex. O f prim e im portance is its ap p earan ce in th e translation o f th e О Т into G reek, w here it ren d ers various term s fo r G od (]П К , >ädön; ’П К , adonai; DTl'PN, 'elohîm; Π1Π\ yahweh); the expression κύριος b θεός frequently ren d e rs DTl!?N Π1ΓΡ, yahweh 'elohîm. O f p articu lar im p o rtan ce is its use in Jew ish w orship a n d prayer, fo r kurios was early applied in C hristian confessions a n d hym ns (cf. th e prim itive confession, “Je su s is L o rd ” [kurios] used at baptism , Rom 10:9, an d th e hym n in Phil 2 :6 -1 1 , w here the confession “Je su s C hrist is L o rd ” is to be th e universal acclam ation). T h e use o f the term in th e H ellenistic w orld, alike fo r gods a n d m en, could n o t b u t be p resen t to th e consciousness o f C hristians, a n d th a t n o t only in th e G entile churches. T h e ir answ er to the claims m ade o n b e h a lf o f th e p ag an divinities is reco rd ed in 1 C o r 8 :5 -6 : “I f th ere be so-called gods, w h eth er in heaven o r o n e arth —as in d eed th ere a re m any ‘gods’ a n d m any ‘lords’— yet fo r us th e re is o n e G od, th e F ath er, fro m w hom all being com es, tow ard w hom we m ove; a n d th e re is o n e L ord, Je su s C hrist, th ro u g h w hom all things cam e to be, a n d we th ro u g h him .”

Explanation

391

T h a t answ er ap p lied with especial seriousness to th e claims o f the em p ero rs o f Rom e, especially in Asia M inor, w here em p e ro r w orship was enthusiastically espoused a n d th e C h u rch was num erically strong. D om itian, who was e m p ero r w hen th e F o u rth Gospel an d th e Book o f Revelation w ere w ritten, dem an d ed recognition o f him self as dominus et deus noster , ‘O u r L ord a n d G od” (a favorite title o f his w hen an n o u n cin g executions: “It has pleased o u r L ord an d G od . . T h e C hristian use o f kurios naturally did n o t arise th ro u g h the clash o f loyalties to C hrist an d Caesar, b u t it was firmly set over against th e claims o f Caesar. T h e Book o f Revelation was w ritten to stren g th en C hristian resolution, an d to m ake know n w hat it m eans th a t Jesu s is “ King o f kings and Lord o f lords” (Rev 19:16). It is n o t to be forgotten th at th e book em erged from w ithin th e J o h a n n in e school! In th e churches served by the Gospel an d the Apocalypse, th e confession o f T h o m as played a significant p a rt in stren g th en in g the faith o f the C hristians an d directing them to the L ord o f th e cross a n d resurrection. It perform s a sim ilar service to this day.

IV. Epilogue: The Mission o f the Church and Its C hief Apostles (2 1 :1 —25) Bibliography Ackroyd, P. R. “The 153 Fishes in John XXI.11—A Further Note .” JT S 10 (1959) 10. Agourides, S. “The Purpose of John 21.” Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament. FS K. W. Clark. Ed. B. L. Daniels Sc M. J. Suggs. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1967. 127-32. Bacon, B. W. “The Motivation of John 21:15-25.” JBL 50 (1931) 71-80. Benoit» P. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. 289-312. Boismard, M. E. “Le chapître xxi de saint Jean: essai de critique littéraire.” RB 54 (1947) 473501. Brown, R. E. “John 21 and the First Appearance of the Risen Jesus to Peter.” Resurrexit, Actes du Symposium international sur la Résurrection de Jésus. Rome: 1970; Rome: Librería Editrice Vaticana, 1974. 2 46-60.-------- . Donfried, K. P., Reumann, J. eds. Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. Minneapolis: Augsburg; New York: Paulist, 1973. Braun, F. M. “Quatre ‘signes’ johanniques de l’unité chrétienne.” N TS 9 (1962-63) 153-55. Cassian, Bishop (S. Besobrasoff). “John xxi.” NTS 3 (1956-57) 132-36. Chapman, J, “We Know That His Testimony Is True.” JTS 31 (1930) 379-87. Cullmann, O. “The Breaking of Bread and the Resurrection Appearances.” In Essays on the Lard's Supper by O. Cullmann & F. J. Leenhardt. Ecumenical Studies in Worship. Ed. J. G. Davies and A. R. George. London: Lutterworth, 1958. 8 -1 6 .-------- . Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. New York: Meridian Books, 1958. Dodd, C. H. “Note on John 21.24.” JT S 4 (1953) 212-13. Emerton, J. A. “The 153 Fishes in John x x i.ll.” JTS 9 (1958) 868 9 .-------- . “Some NT Notes.” JT S 11 (1960) 329-36. Grant, R. M. “One Hundred Fifty-three Large Fishes.” H TR 42 (1949) 273-75. Grass, H. Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,31964.74-85. Jonge, M. de. “The Beloved Disciple and the Date of the Gospel of John.” Text and Interpretation. FS M. Black. Ed. E. Best and R. McL. Wilson. Cambridge: CUP, 1979. 99-114. Klein, G. “Die Berufung des Petrus.” ZN W 58 (1967) 1-44. Lee, G . M, “John 21.20-23.” JTS 1 (1950) 62-63. Marrow, S. B . John 21 —An Essay in Johannine Ecclesiology. Rome: Gregorian University, 1968. McEleny, N. J. “153 Great Fishes-Gematriachal Atbash.” Bib 58 (1977) 411-17. Pesch, R. Der reiche Fischfang. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1969. Rissi, M. “ ‘Voll grosser Fische, hundertdreiundfunfzig’: Joh 21, 1-14.” TZ 35 (1979) 7389. Romeo, J. A. “Gematria and John 21:11—The Children of God." JBL 97 (1978) 263-64. Shaw, A. “The Breakfast by the Shore and the Mary Magdalene Encounter as Eucharistic Narratives.” / 7 5 25 (1974) 12-26.-------- . “Image and Symbol in John 21/’ ExpTim 86 (1975) 311. Smalley, S. S. “The Sign in John 21.” NTS 20 (1974) 275-88. Spicq, C. ’ΑΓΑΠΗ dans le Nouveau Testament. Paris: Gabalda. 3:230-37. lliy en , H. “Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium.” TR 42 (1977) 211-70.------ . “Entwicklungen innerhalb der johanneischen Theologie und Kirche im Spiegel von Joh 21 und der Lieblingsjünger Texte des Evangeliums.” L ’Évangile de Jean. Ed. M. de Jonge. 259-99.

Translation1 1A fter this Jesus again revealed him self to the disciples a t the sea o f Tiberias; a n d he revealed him self in this way. 2 Sim on P eter a n d Thom as (whose nam e

Translation

393

m eans “T w in ”), N a th a n a el o f C ana in Galilee, the sons o f Zebedee, a n d two others o f his disciples were together. 3 Sim on P eter says to them, “Г т go in g f i s h i n g ” They say to him , “W e ’ll come w ith you t o o ” They w ent out a n d got into the boat, a n d that n ig h t they caught n o th in g . 4 N o w when day ha d broken, there stood Jesus οn a the shore; the disciples, however, did not know that it was Jesus. 5Jesus then says to them, “Boys, you h a v e n ’t by chance caught any fish , have у о и ? ”b They replied to him , “N o ” 6 H e said to them, “Throw the net to the right side o f the boat, a n d you w ill fin d som e.”c They threw it therefore, a n d now they d id not have the strength to h a u l it in because o f the num ber o f the fish. 7 T h a t disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “I t is the L o rd !” Sim on P eter on hearing that it was the Lord, tied d his outer garm ent a round himself, fo r he was practically naked, a n d threw him self in the sea. 8 B u t the other disciples came w ith the boat, fo r they were not f a r fro m land, about one hu n d red yards, d ra g g in g the net w ith the fish. 9 W hen they got ashore they saw a charcoal fire there, w ith f i s h e lying on it, a n d bread. 10Jesus says to them, “B rin g some o f the fish that you have ju s t now caught. ” 11 Sim on Peter, therefore, w ent aboard a n d dragged the net to la n d f u l l o f great fish , one hundred a n d fifty-three o f them; a n d although there were so m any the net was n ot to m . 12Jesus says to them, “Come a n d have breakfast. ” N o w none o f the disciples dared to inquire, “W ho are y o u ? ” f o r they knew that it was the Lord. Jesus comes a n d tidies the bread a n d gives i t f to them, a n d similarly the fis h . 14 This was now the third occasion that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he had been raised fro m the dead. 15 W hen they had fin ish ed breakfast Jesus says to Sim on Peter, “Sim on, son o f J o h n , do you love me more than these others d o ? ”g H e says to him , “Yes, Lord, you know that I love y o u .” H e says to him , “Take care o f my lam bs.” 16 H e says to him again, a second time, “Sim on, son o f J o h n , do you love m e?” H e says to him , “Yes Lord, you know that I love y o u .” H e says to him , “Look after my sheep.” 17 H e says to him the third time, “Sim on, son o f J o h n , do you love m e?” P eter was p a in ed that he ha d said to him fo r the third time, “Do you love m e?” A n d he says to him , “Lord, you know everything, you know that I love y o u .” Jesus says to him , “Take care o f my sheep. ” 18 A m en, am en I tell you, w hen you were y o u n g ,h you used to p u t on yo u r own belt a n d yo u used to w alk where you w anted to; but when you grow old you w ill stretch out yo u r hands, a n d someone elsei w ill p u t on your belt, a n d take you where you do not w a n t to g o .” 19N o w he said this to signify the kin d o f death by which he was to glorify God. A n d after saying this he told him , “Follow m e.” 20 Peter turned rou n d a n d saw fo llo w in g them the disciple whom Jesus loved, the one who a t the supper h a d leaned back against his breast a n d asked, “M aster, who is the one who is to betray y o u ? ” 21 P eter then, on seeing h im ) says to Jesus, “Lord, a n d w hat about h im ? ” 22Jesus says to him , “I f I should w ill that he rem ain k u n til I come, w hat is that to do with you? You fo llo w m e .” 23 The report therefore spread abroad am ong the brothers that that disciple was n o t g o in g to die. B u t Jesus did not say to him that he was not g oing to die, but, “I f I should w ill that he rem ain till I come, (w hat is that to do with y o u ? )”l 24 This is the disciple who bears witness about these things a n d who wrote these things, a n d we know that his witness is true. 23 N o w there are m any other things which Jesus d id as well; i f they were written one by one, I do not think that the world w ould have room fo r the books that w ould be w ritten.m

394

J o h n 21: 1-25

Notes a F or €ΐς rbV aiyiaK áv (read b y B C E G H K P S W etc.) som e MSS have th e m ore “co rrect” ¿wi rbv aiytaX óv ( s o N A D L M U X etc.); th e la tte r is clearly a scribal im provem ent. b μή expects a negative answ er, o r expresses a d o u b t, o r both. See M oulton, Prolegom ena , 170 n . l . H e cites a m o d e m G r. ballad fo r *αιδία addressed to soldiers, m ean in g “lads.” F or ri . . . έχ€Τ€ as m ean in g “have you caught anything?” see B ern ard , 2:696. c A fter €ύρήσ€Τ€ P66 К Ψ vg1”“ a d d oí δέ eíw or δι όλης ννκτός έκσκιάσαμεν και σύδέν έλάβοματ έπι δέ τ φ σ φ βήματι βαλοΟμεν, i.e., “b u t they said, W e toiled th ro u g h th e w hole n ig h t a n d cau g h t n o th in g , b u t a t y o u r w ord we shall throw it,” clearly in tro d u ced from Luke 5:5. d W hile it is possible to translate rbv έπενδύτην διεζώσατο as “h e p u t o n th e o u te r g a rm e n t,” i.e., a tunic, th e verb διαξώννυμι m o re p roperly m eans “gird oneself,” i.e., tuck o n e ’s clothes in a girdle o r belt. L ag ran g e (525) suggests th a t P eter, w hile fishing, was w earing a kind o f sm ock o r overall a n d n o th in g else (hence “virtually n a k e d ”) a n d th a t he belted him self so as to be able to swim b etter, as well as to be m o re presen tab le ashore. e T h e a u th o r o f this c h a p te r uses προσφάτγιοv (v 5), lit., “som ething to eat,” b u t usually a fish relish eate n w ith bread , ύφάριον, a dim inutive o f rb ύφον, cooked food, tidbit, b u t m ost com m only o f fish, taken w ith b read , a n d ιχθύς (v 10) as synonym ous in m eaning. Brow n suggests th a t th e variety o f term s fo r fish reflects th e com bination o f th e two d ifferen t stories o f th e m iraculous catch o f fish a n d th e m eal o f fish a n d b read (2:1073). C ertainly th e ύφέψιαν o f v 9 rep resen ts fish fo r eating, b u t in th e nex t sentence it is used fo r fish caught, ju s t as in v 5 προσφάτων d en o tes fish w hich th e disciples h ad not caught! T h e interchangeability o f term s is a featu re o f th e a u th o r’s style a n d is observable in a com plex m a n n e r in vv 15-17. f In stead o f και δίδωσιν, D f r 1 (syr*) read εύχαριστήσας ёЬсжеѵ, an in terestin g accom m odation o f th e text to th e L o rd ’s S u p p e r by o n e w ho viewed it as a eucharistic m eal; cf. M ark 14:23 par. a n d J o h n 6:11. g T h e difference betw een th e term s fo r love in th e conversation betw een Jesu s a n d P eter led W estcott to assum e th a t th e changes w ere deliberate: w hereas Je su s uses th e h ig h e r term fo r love (άγαχάω) P eter lays claim only to th e feeling o f n a tu ra l love (φ ιλέω ). B u t w hen Jesu s puts th e question th e th ird tim e, he ad o p ts P eter’s w ord, as th o u g h he w ould test th e tru th o f even th e low er love th a t P eter professed, a n d it was fo r this reason th a t P eter was grieved, nam ely th a t Je su s a p p e a re d to d o u b t th e reality o f even th a t love w hich h e h ad professed (2:3 6 7 -6 9 ). B ern a rd exam ined th e use o f th e tw o verbs in th e F o u rth G ospel a n d concluded th a t w h atev er distinction they m ay have h ad elsew here, in th e G ospel they are synonym ous. B oth term s a re used o f G od’s love fo r m an (3:16; 16:27), o f th e F a th e r’s love fo r th e Son (3:35; 5:20), o f J e su s’ love fo r m en (11:5; 11:3), o f th e love o f m en fo r m en (13:34; 15:19), a n d o f th e love o f m en fo r Je su s (8:42; 16:27). Since th e LXX Syr., a n d O L translations use both verbs indifferently, B ern ard drew th e inference th a t “we m ust tre a t άγαπφς a n d 0tXel? in vv 15—17 as synonym ous, as all patristic expositors d o ” (2:702-4). W ith this alm ost all exegetes con cu r, w ith two recen t exceptions. J . M arsh asserted th a t w hereas B e rn a rd pro v ed th e p o in t o f ro u g h synonym ity, th a t does n o t prove th a t th e w ords a re used synonym ously in this passage (Saint John , 672). Spicq also insisted th a t th e distinction should be m ain tain ed here: “T h e subject is n o t a private conversation o r a m oral lesson given to a disciple, b u t th e establishm ent o f P e te r a t th e h ead o f th e C h u rch , his prim acy; a n d th e Saviour claim s from him n o t an affection o f a frien d b u t th e religious love o f &γάπη, w hich constitutes th e life itself o f his C h u rc h ” (ΆΓΑΠΗ, 3:233). Lofty as this sounds, it does n o t take seriously th e habit o f th e a u th o r o f this c h a p te r to use synonym s. W e have already noticed his tre a tm e n t o f προσφάτων, όφάρνσν, a n d ιχθύς as equivalents, d esp ite th e ir original differences in m eaning. So also in vv 1 5 -17, a p a rt from th e use o f th e two verbs fo r love, we find two verbs used fo r th e sh e p h e rd ’s care fo r his sheep, βόσκω a n d ποιμαίνω, a n d two o r even th re e n o u n s fo r th e sheep, άρνία, πρόβατα , a n d προβάτια (the MS su p p o rt fo r th e last is good, b u t n o t unanim ous). It is difficult to believe th a t th e a u th o r in ten d ed any distinction o f m ean in g in th ese varied verbs a n d n o u n s; th e sam e applies to th e two verbs fo r love. h V€ abro» θέλω pévew , “I f I wish him to rem ain . . th e C lem en tin e V ulgate w ith b c r 1 T a t re a d Sic eu m vole m a n e re . . . , “I wish him to rem ain th u s,” (sic fo r si); d if 2 VgW W re a d si sic , sim ilarly D read s ούτω ς a fte r μένειν. O n this see M etzger, 25 6 -5 7 . l τί προς σέ, is om itted in H* 565 etc. ita e syrs, b u t it is inclu d ed in N1 A В C* W θ Ψ a n d the m ajority o f MSS. T h e sh o rte r text m ay be d u e to th e desire o f copyists to em phasize th e m ain elem en t in th e sentence. W hile m ost in th e UBS co m m ittee w ished to retain th e phrase, it is p u t in brackets to show its u ncertainty in th e text. m A t various tim es in C hristian history v 25 has been th o u g h t to be a m arginal no te which becam e in co rp o rated in th e text (so in various scholia p rio r to th e eig h th cen tu ry , W estcott, 2:377; B row n, 2:1125). T isc h e n d o rf th o u g h t th a t it was originally om itted from C odex Sinaiticus (N) a n d ad d e d by a corrector. C loser exam ination o f th e text has show n th a t th e addition was by th e original scribe, w ho corrected him self. W h e th e r his om ission h ad been accidental o r d u e to his using a n o th e r MS can n o t be know n. T h e re is, how ever, insufficient reason fo r viewing th e passage as a later addition to th e original text o f chap. 21.

Form/Structure/Setting 1. In th e estim ate o f the m ajority o f N T scholars, chap. 21 is an ad d en d u m to th e Gospel, w h eth er it be described as an appendix, a postscript, o r an epilogue, an d w hether it be p u t to the account o f the Evangelist o r to a later ed ito r o f th e Jo h a n n in e school. It is em phasized th at the beatitude o f 20:29 fittingly closes th e accounts o f the resu rrectio n appearances o f Jesu s an d th at 20:30-31 seem s clearly to bring the Gospel to its close. So sure was L agrange o f the latter featu re th at he proposed th at 20:30-31 be m oved to its present place (250). Reasonable as this suggestion m ay appear, it m erely serves to clarify th e realities o f th e situation. For 2 1 :1 -2 3 would n ot be in place after th e T hom as incident, an d still less im m ediately after 20:19-23. C hap. 20 has been carefully stru ctu red to give a b rief b u t total picture o f th e Easter story: the finding o f the em pty tom b by Mary a n d its confirm ation by two disciples; the ap p earan ce o f Jesus to Mary a n d th at to the disciple g ro u p ; th eir com m ission by th e risen L ord, reception o f the Holy Spirit, an d solem n authorization in the proclam ation o f th e gospel—all this form s a succinct sum m ary o f th e events o f th e First Easter. T h e ap p earan ce to T h o m as has a special motive: with his confession o f Jesu s the theology o f the prologue is given definitive expression, an d th e beatitude on all readers o f the G ospel w ho believe is p ro n o u n ced ; this naturally leads to a statem ent m aking known th e p u rp o se o f th e Gospel— th at T h o m as’ faith m ight be shared by its readers, an d so th e etern al life which is at the h eart o f the revelation in the Gospel m ight be gained by all who believe. Accordingly, it is not m erely the unsuitability o f chap. 21 following on 20:30-31 th at has to be faced: it is ra th e r th at th e tw entieth c h ap ter in its form , structure, an d p urpose is conceived as a com plete presen tatio n o f Jesu s in the resurrection. It needs no com plem entation. T h e rem ark in 20:30 about the m any o th er signs th at Jesu s did could ex ten d to th e resurrection appearances also, for the Evangelist chose not to w rite m ore th an he has done. H ad he planned to record the appearance(s) to P eter an d his colleagues n arrated in chap. 21 he would have com posed ch ap . 20 differently. If th erefo re th e Evangelist him self added chap. 21, th ere m ust have been an im p o rtan t reason fo r it com position, n ot a p p a re n t w hen he w rote the Gospel. T h e m ost com pelling g ro u n d could have been th e d eath o f the Beloved Disciple a fte r th e w riting o f chaps. 1-20, an d the consequent dism ay th at it

396

John

2 1 :1 -2 5

caused am o n g th e Jo h a n n in e churches; questions m ay also have arisen concern in g th e distinctive n a tu re o f th e Jo h a n n in e witness in relation to th at o f churches in which P eter was viewed as th e lead er o f th e C hurch. It is, however, sim pler to assum e th at an o th e r th an th e Evangelist w rote the ch ap ter, since it has an em phasis o n the situation o f th e C hurch an d its leaders beyond an y th in g in th e body o f th e Gospel. T h is includes th e m eaning o f the “sign,” which relates to th e mission o f th e C hurch, n o t to th e C hrist a n d his salvation, as in the signs recorded a n d explained in th e m inistry o f Jesu s (see A. Shaw, “Im age an d Symbol in J o h n 21,” 311). T h e issues adm ittedly are com plex, as is a p p a re n t in th e differences o f opinion as to th e linguistic p h en o m en a o f chap. 21 in relation to those o f 1-20, a n d the significant challenge to co n tem p o rary critical views fro m H. T h y en (see his discussion in “Aus d e r L iteratu r zum Johannesevangelium ,” T R 42 [1977] 2 1 3 -6 1 , an d “Entw icklungen inn erh alb d e r jo h an n eisch en T heologie . . . ,” in L 'É vangile de J ea n , ed. M. d e Jo n g e, B E T L 44 [1977] 259-99), w ho believes th at the Evangelist him self is the “red acto r” who p en n ed th e ch a p te r as an integral p a rt o f the Gospel. O n th e question o f the au th o rsh ip o f chap. 21 we refrain from offering any fu rth e r ju d g m e n t. 2. T h e stru ctu re o f the ch ap ter is clear: (i) an appearance o f Jesu s to the disciples by the sea o f T iberias (= Galilee), w hen a m iraculous catch o f fish takes place a n d Jesu s invites the disciples to a m eal, vv 1-14; (ii) a painful conversation betw een P eter a n d Jesu s, vv 15-17; a prophecy o f P eter’s m artyrdom , vv 18-19; a statem ent as to th e destiny o f th e Beloved Disciple, vv 2 0 -2 3 ; (iii) a conclusion to the ch ap ter, which also ro u n d s o ff th e whole Gospel. T h e im pression is given th at th e en tire narrative takes place as a continuous single event, b u t as in chap. 20 th a t may be d u e to the com pressed presen tatio n o f th e w riter. T h e re are indications th at m ore th an one episode may have been b ro u g h t to g eth er here. It is increasingly believed th at vv 1 14 may be com posed o f two app earan ces o f Jesus, one telling o f a fishing m iracle an d the o th e r o f a m eal o f Jesu s with his disciples. T h e conversation o f Jesu s with P eter may well have taken place in th e “ap p earan ce to P eter” refe rre d to in 1 C or 15:5 an d Luke 24:34; the prophecy o f his m artyrdom is perh ap s m ore likely to have been given a p a rt from his rehabilitation by Jesus; th e saying about th e fu tu re o f th e Beloved Disciple would certainly have very suitably followed on th e prophecy o f th e m artyrdom , b u t it is em inently likely th at i t circulated in the churches as a separate tradition and could have been b ro u g h t to its p resen t position by the editor. 3. T h e analysis o f vv 1-14 is sufficiently com plex to call for separate m ention. T h a t it form ed a com plete section in itself is indicated by v 14. B auer proposed a sim ple division: vv 1-8, telling o f the catch o f fish at the risen L ord’s direction; vv 9 -1 3 , describing a m eal o f th e risen Jesu s with his disciples (213). B ultm ann th o u g h t th at th e original n arrative told o f one event only, nam ely, in vv 2 3, 4a, 5 -6 , 8 b -9 , 10-1 la , 12; this includes th e catch o f fish b u t excludes the p rep a re d m eal an d special role o f P eter (702-4). R. Pesch, in a m onograph devoted to 2 1 :1 -1 4 (Der reiche Fischfang ), proposed an analysis entailing two sources th a t have been interw oven by the au th o r: a fishing tradition in vv 2, 3, 4a, 6, 11, an d an ap p earan ce with a m eal, vv 4b, 7 -9 , 12-13; in Pesch’s view th e fo rm er was n o t originally an Easter story b u t an event in th e m inistry o f Jesu s (cf. Luke 5 :1-11). A p art from th e dissociation o f th e

Form /Structure/Setting

397

m iraculous catch o f fish from th e Easter narratives, this approach has found acceptance with m any scholars. T h e setting beside the sea will have been com m on to th e two accounts, with elem ents o f vv 1-4 in each; th e fishing narrative will have followed with vv 5 -8 , 10, 11, an d the m eal narrative with vv 9, 12, 13; th e beginning an d th e en d (vv 1, 14) were provided by the editor. If th e Beloved Disciple were included in th e “two o th er disciples” o f V 2, th ere is no need to suggest th at he ad d ed the reference to th e Beloved Disciple in V 7a, b u t he may have used v 10 as a connection for the two stories. T h e brin g in g to g eth er o f the two accounts is presum ably d u e to the fact th at both re p o rt appearances o f the L ord by th e sea o f Tiberias; the postulate th at th ere are two explains the tension betw een the large catch o f fish an d th e m eal already p rep ared by Jesu s on th e shore. T h e setting o f a resurrection appearance at a m eal rem inds o f Luke 24:41-43, (Acts 1:4? so R s v m g, G N B m g , j B , n i v ) , Acts 10:41, b u t especially th e revelation o f the risen L ord to the Em m aus Disciples (Luke 24:28-31). T h e extraordinarily large supply o f wine in the C ana m iracle is to be com pared; it indicates the fullness o f the risen L ord’s power, b u t has various o th er m otives o f im portance to the w riter. T h e m eal is n arrated in such a way as to suggest eucharistic overtones. 4. T h e setting o f the resurrection narrative(s) in vv 1-14 is in Galilee, beside th e lake. Because o f th e disciples’ lack o f recognition o f Jesus in vv 4, 7, the n a tu re o f the conversation with P eter in vv 15-17, and th e fact th at the Gospel o f Peter (of which we have only a fragm ent) begins an account o f Peter going fishing with others on the last day o f the feast o f unleavened bread, it is assum ed by m any scholars th at this account records the first a p p e arance o f Jesu s to the disciples; the statem ent th at it was th e third ap p earance is set to the account o f the editor. T h e analysis o f the ch ap ter th at we have given, however, does n ot necessarily favor th at conclusion. O n th e contrary two appearances are recorded in the tradition behind vv 1—14, and in all likelihood vv 15—17 give the substance o f an earlier appearance to Peter. T h e setting o f this latter ap p earan ce is n ot stated in the Gospel accounts, an d all possible locations have been suggested—Jeru salem o r its environs, Galilee, an d on the way from Jeru salem to Galilee. Clearly Luke 24:34 is recorded on th e assum ption th at it took place in o r a ro u n d Jerusalem ; this is often th o u g h t to be d u e to L uke’s bringing to g eth er all th e resurrection appearances in Jerusalem an d th erefo re does not rule o u t an appearance o f Jesu s to P eter in Galilee. T h a t is correct, b u t we m ust not overlook th at Paul as well as Luke states th at th e appearance to P eter took place before any app earan ce to the Twelve, a n d Paul has it in association with “raised on th e th ird day” (1 C o r 15:3-5). T h e ap p earan ce to P eter obviously was very early after th e app earan ce to Mary M agdalene in the g arden, an d if it did take place in th e Jeru salem area, it is likely th a t th e first ap p earan ce to the disciples will have taken place th ere also. (R. H . Fuller suggested th at the ap p earan ce to P eter occurred w hen P eter was o n th e way from Jeru salem to Galilee an d th at th e '‘Q u o Vadis” legend arose from it [“T h e Form ation o f th e R esurrection N arratives,” 35]; he points o u t [202 n.51] th at F. C. B urkitt m aintained th e sam e view, in Christian Beginnings [L ondon: University Press, 1924] 87-88.) T h e context o f vv 18-19 can only be stated to be in th e Easter period.

398

J o h n 21: 1-25

T h e am biguous an n o u n cem en t o f P eter’s fu tu re m arty rd o m (cf. 13:36) is p erh ap s m o re likely to have been m ade o n a later occasion th a n his rein statem en t by th e L ord, b u t adm ittedly th a t is a subjective ju d g m e n t. T h e core o f vv 2 0 -2 3 is th e saying o f v 22, which doubtless circulated am o n g th e J o h a n n in e churches independently, b u t is h e re given its setting in a m an n e r rem iniscent o f th e “p ro n o u n cem en t stories” o f th e synoptic Gospels. T h e rectification o f m isu n d erstan d in g to w hich it gave rise will have been an im p o rtan t factor in th e decision to a d d this ch a p te r to th e Gospel. T h e conclusion in vv 2 4 25 was fo r th e p u rp o se o f b rin g in g th e c h a p te r to an e n d a n d to enable a n im p o rtan t statem en t to be m ade reg ard in g th e au th o rity o f th e G ospel as a whole, thereby in teg ratin g the epilogue into th e Gospel. 5. T h e exposition th a t follows will be based on the following outline: i. The risen Lord appears to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (21:1-14) ii. The risen Lord addresses Peter (21:15-23) a. Jesus rehabilitates Peter and confirms him in his pastoral calling, 21:1517 b. A prophecy of Peter’s martyrdom, 21:18-19 c. The destiny of the Beloved Disciple, 21:20-23 iii. Conclusion (21:24-25) Com m ent

T h e R is en L o r d Appea r s

to the

Dis c ipl e s (21:1-14)

by t h e

Sea

of

T ibe r ia s

1 T h e a u th o r begins a n d ends th e narrative with th e statem ent, “Jesu s revealed him self” (or “was revealed,” v 14). T h e term is n ot used o f resurrection ap p earan ces in chap. 20, n o r in any reco rd ed in th e synoptic Gospels, o th e r th an M ark 16:12, 14 (the longer ending). W hereas th e verb фаѵероѵ» (“reveal”) occurs in th e synoptics only a t M ark 4:22 (of th e revelation o f m en ’s deeds in the ju d g m e n t), it is fre q u e n t in th e F o u rth G ospel with reference to Jesu s (see esp. 1:31, J o h n th e B aptist cam e “th at he m ight be revealed to Israel”; 2:11, “he revealed his glory”; 17:6, “I revealed yo u r n am e”); it is accordingly fitting th at a t E aster th e risen L ord “revealed h im self” “T h e w hole verse m akes th e effect o f an an n o u n cem en t o f a th em e” (S chnackenburg, 3:352). 2 T h e g ro u p o f disciples is described in an u nusual m anner. Sim on P eter heads th e list. T hom as follows, an d we are again told th at his nam e m eans “the T w in ” (cf. 20:24); his m ention is doubtless to link w hat follows with th e im m ediately p reced in g narrative. N ath an ael is described as “th e m an from C ana o f Galilee”—an item o f inform ation not given earlier. So also the two sons o f Z ebedee have n o t been m en tio n ed in th e G ospel, b u t are assum ed to be well know n. “Tw o o th e r disciples” conclude th e list; th eir nam es are n o t given, b u t since th e disciple w hom Jesu s loved is refe rre d to in v 7, th e a u th o r clearly wishes us to realize th a t h e is o n e o f th e two u n n am ed . O n this H an ech en rem ark ed : “T h ey (the two u n n am ed ) m ake th e identification o f th e Beloved Disciple im possible. O nly in this way is his secret kept” (595).

Comment

399

So seven disciples have com e to g eth er, doubtless a symbolical n u m b er, re p re senting the whole disciple g ro u p , a n d indeed th e whole Body o f disciples, the C hurch. 3 “I’m going fishing,” says Peter, an d the rest agree to go also. N ever has a fishing trip been so severely ju d g ed ! “T h e scene is one o f com plete apostasy, an d is th e fulfillm ent o f 16:32,” w rote Hoskyns (552). Brow n m ore mildly com m ented: “T h e scene is ra th e r o ne o f aim less activity u n d ertak en in d esp eratio n ” (2:1096). O n e is constrained to ask how th e learn ed professor knows that. T h e re is n o t a h in t o f “aim lessness” o r “d esp eratio n ” in the text. T h a t a one-tim e fisherm an should tell his friends one evening, “I’m going fishing,” does n o t imply, “Г т finished with p reach in g th e kingdom o f God, an d I’m going back to my old jo b .” Even th o u g h Jesu s be crucified and risen from th e dead, th e disciples m ust still eat! A n ig h t o n th e lake, w hen fish are best caught, is an obvious recourse fo r such m en. O ne should ask first w hat P eter a n d com pany are doing in Galilee: th e answ er, o f course, is given in M ark 14:28 an d 16:7: th e disciples w ere told th at Jesu s w ould go ah ead o f them to Galilee a n d th a t they w ould see him th ere. Acknow ledging the com plexity o f the resurrection accounts a n d th e difficulty o f sorting o u t the traditions th at lie behind them , let us also bear in m ind th at two o f them re p o rt th at P eter saw th e em pty tom b, a n d th at certain w om en saw Jesu s alive; th at could well have led P eter to being baffled but hardly to despair. T h e narrative o f chap. 21 can be read differently from the way com m only advocated. A ccording to L uke 24:34 P eter has already seen the risen L ord, a re p o rt in harm ony with th e tradition recorded by Paul in 1 C or 15:5. T h e deduction o f the Beloved Disciple recorded in v 7 o f this ch ap ter im plies knowledge o f at least that disciple th at Jesu s was risen from the dead; the fact th at P eter does n o t expostulate b u t leaps into the w ater to reach him as soon as possible assum es th at it was n o t news to him also. We m o d em s are extraordinarily unim aginative in o u r endeavors to u n d erstan d the th inking o f th e disciples in a situation th at h ad never existed in the w orld before. T h e only th in g th at they knew ab o u t th e resurrection o f the d ead was th at it com es at the en d o f th e world; a n d on e place w here it may confidently be expected not to be revealed was Galilee! T h e h e a rt o f the world was Jerusalem , the navel o f th e earth , the place w here M essiah’s th ro n e would be set u p , an d all nations would flow to it a n d seek him . T h e disciples need ed to u n d erstan d before the d eath o f Jesu s th at his conquest o f d eath would n o t m ean fin is to history, a n d they need ed to be told th a t even m ore urgently after th e resu rrectio n o f Jesus; fo r in tru th , th e en d o f all things had com e into history, n o t as its conclusion, b u t fo r its rem aking. T h e new eon was proving to be d ifferen t from an y th in g th at any Jew , including p ro p h ets an d apocalyptic seers, h ad grasped, so it is n o t surprisin g th at P eter an d his friends were finding it difficult to com e to term s with w hat they w ere experiencing. Acts 1:6 is com pletely com prehensible o n th e lips o f Jew ish disciples o f the risen Jesus; hence the wisdom o f Η . B. Swete, w ho long ago com m ented on M ark 16:7: “It was im p o rtan t to dispel at the outset any expectation o f an im m ediate setting u p o f th e kingdom o f G od in a visible form at Jeru salem ” (‘The Gospel according to St. M ark [London: M acm illan, 31927] 398). In the som ew hat confused narrative o f vv 3 -1 4 we glim pse som ething o f the p erp lex -

400

J o h n 21:1-25

ity o f followers o f Jesu s in the u nique period betw een Easter S unday a n d Pentecost. 4 T h e failure o f the disciples to recognize Jesu s o n th e shore is n o t to be taken as an indication th at they h ad n o t seen him since his resu rrectio n ; ra th e r it points to the m ystery o f Jesu s in his resurrection state. It is, as Brow n suggested, a n o th e r instance o f th e tran sfo rm ed ap p earan ce o f Jesu s (2:1070). W h eth er we should also add, with B ultm ann, th a t th e eyes o f th e disciples were “held,” like those o f th e E m m aus disciples (707), is less certain. W hat is plain is th a t th e Jesu s w hom they were m eeting in his E aster glory was living in a different m ode o f existence from th at o f his fo rm er earthly conditions, which his followers o f necessity shared, a n d th erefo re th at all his com m unications with th em w ere accom m odations to the earthly plane which they occupied. 5*-6 T h a t Jesu s directed th e disciples to throw th eir n e t o n the right side o f the boat is hardly likely to be d u e to th e notion th a t the rig h t side is the lucky on e (a banal suggestion! T h e G reeks so viewed it, see BGD, 174); we are to assum e a knowledge o f th e risen L ord beyond th at o f this o rd e r (lit., “super n a tu ra l”!— “transcending th e powers o f the ordinary course o f n a tu re ,” Oxford English D ictionary).

7 T h e Beloved Disciple recognizes by the m iracle th at th e M an o n the shore is th e risen Lord. Characteristically, he tells P eter o f his intuition, an d equally characteristically P eter throw s him self into th e sea—n o t to b rin g th e fish to shore, b u t to reach th e L ord as quickly as h e can. T h e scene is curiously akin to the episode at th e em pty tom b (20:4-8); if this c h a p te r com es from an o th e r th an the Evangelist, we are clearly dealing with a J o h a n n in e tradition at one with th e fo rm er narrative an d with a w riter whose m ind is at one with th e Evangelist’s. 8 -1 1 T h e narrative at this p o int is held u p by th e statem en t in v 9 th at the disciples, on com ing to land, see fish an d b read p rep a re d by Jesus for them . We have suggested th at vv 9, 12, 13 p ortray a separate scene, which is h ere conjoined with th e conclusion o f the fishing m iracle. I f v 9 fo r the m om ent be rem oved a n d connected with vv 12-13 it will be seen th at the fishing narrative moves naturally, even speedily. P eter h u rries to get ashore to be with Jesu s (v 7), while the rest o f the disciples b rin g th e boat to land, drag g in g the net with them (v 8). Jesu s at once tells P eter to bring som e o f the fish th at have been caught (v 10), w h ereupon he goes to the boat and hauls in the net (v 11). T h e question th a t is often asked, “W hat was P eter d o in g w hen he reached th e shore?” has no place in this sequence. T h e re is no question o f his stan d in g a ro u n d , w h eth er in em b arrassm en t o r joy, o r o f a conversation taking place betw een him an d Jesu s in anticipation o f vv 1517. T h e narrative is b rief an d to the point. I f v 10 originally was integral to the fishing story (as seem s to be d em an d ed by v 11), th en it will have concluded with th e rep o rt o f a m eal with Jesu s which the disciples provided . 9 ,1 2 —13 T h e provision o f a m eal o f fish an d bread by Jesus, particularly in light o f the language used in v 13, im parts to the occasion som ething o f the quality o f the Last S upper. D odd observed, “T h e m eal o f bread an d fish is treated in early C hristian a rt as an alternative expression o f the eucharistic idea,” b ut he added, “th e text o f th e gospel gives no h in t o f this“ ( Interpretation ,

Comment

401

431 n .l). If we confine ourselves to th e text o f chap. 21 this is tru e, b u t the link betw een this narrative an d th at o f the feeding o f the m u ltitude in J o h n 6 adds a n o th e r dim ension. In early C hristian art, meals o f bread an d fish are frequently depicted as representations o f th e L o rd ’s S upper, but it is unclear w h eth er the feeding o f the m ultitude o r the resurrection m eal o f the disciples with Jesu s has provided th e symbolism. P erhaps that is not im portant, for the two events were in ten d ed to be linked in th e C hristian’s m ind. Alan Shaw m aintained th at the eucharistic significance o f o u r present passage is shown by “the similarity o f 21:13 to 6:11 a n d by the contents o f the m eal (21:9), fish an d bread (or a fish an d a loaf); for only two meals are described in th e F o u rth Gospel, an d they are both m eals o f bread an d fish, an d with the fo rm er is associated the eucharistic teaching o f chap. 6” (“T h e Breakfast by the Shore . . . ,” 12). At this p oint we may recall th at chap. 6 can be read o n two levels: the one recounts the signs o f the feeding o f the m ultitude an d walking on th e water, leading to an exposition o f Jesu s as the B read o f Life, whom one m ust receive as the C rucified an d Exalted L ord to gain the life he brings; the o th er conveys a portrayal th ro u g h sign an d w ord o f the significance o f th e L o rd ’s S upper. A sim ilar u n d erstan d in g o f the narrative in vv 9, 12, 13 probably accords with th e a u th o r’s intention. O ne curious featu re o f v 12 is its statem ent th at the disciples did not d are to ask th e nam e o f th eir host, because, o r although, they knew it was the Lord. It is, in fact, a characteristic featu re o f the resurrection appearances in the Gospels. It is related to, yet different from , the experience o f the Em m aus disciples, who did not know the identity o f the L ord until he broke th e bread; h ere the disciples know the L ord as he invites them , before participating in the m eal, yet th ere is a peculiar reticence in their relationship tow ard him , which we presum e m ust have disappeared d u rin g the meal. B ultm ann caught the m ood o f the narrative well: “Since they have indeed recognized him , the m eaning o f the question obviously m ust be, ‘Is it really you?’ This is in ten d ed to describe the peculiar feeling th at befalls th e disciples in the presence o f the risen Jesus: it is he, an d yet it is not he; it is not he, whom they h ith erto have known, an d yet it is he! A peculiar wall is erected betw een him an d them . T his p artition is set aside, as Jesu s now distributes bread an d fish am ong the disciples to eat. For even th ough he, as th e risen Lord, does not him self participate in the m eal, the sense can hardly be o th er than th at table fellowship betw een the Risen Jesu s an d the disciples is now established” (709-10). Few statements in the Fourth Gospel have teased the minds o f its readers so much as that in v 11, namely, that the fish caught in the disciples’ net num bered 153. It could, o f course, be simply an exact reminiscence, a genuine fisherman’s story— 153 great fish, and the net unbroken! Almost certainly, however, the writer intended some further significance to be seen in the num ber, as with all the signs perform ed in the ministry o f Jesus and in the record o f the meal in vv 9, 12, 13. T he most popular solution of the conundrum am ong m odern scholars goes back to Jerom e. In his commentary on Ezek 47 he links the miracle of the fish with the prophet’s vision o f the stream o f living water that flows from the Tem ple to the Dead Sea, making the latter teem with life, and he states: “Writers on the nature and properties o f animals, who have learned ’fishing’ in either Latin or Greek (one of whom is the most learned poet O ppianus Cilix) say that there are

402

John

21:1-25

one hundred and fifty-three species of fish” (C om m , x iv in E zech iel , Migne, P L 25, 474C). O n the basis o f this inform ation it is natural to assume that the author of Jo h n 21 saw in the miraculous catch o f fish an acted parable of the mission of the apostles and of the Church after them to all nations, and its success as it proceeds in obedience to the risen Lord. R. M. Grant, however, queried w hether this could have been in the author’s mind. He maintained that Jerom e’s reference to “writers” in the plural was a generalization from O ppian’s writing; O ppian does not give the num ber of fish as 153, but states that there are countless myriads of species of fish; when, however, the various kinds of fish which he describes are counted up they num ber 157 (see “O ne H undred Fifty-Three Large Fish,” 273). G rant adm itted that it is difficult to be confident in counting O ppian’s nam ed species, but he assumed that Jerom e must have reached his figure with Jo h n 21 already in mind. This has led recent scholars to believe that Jerom e’s information m ust be discounted. An alternative theory, to which scholars have been attracted, was propounded by none other than Jerom e’s friend Augustine. He pioneered the mathematical solutions to the problem by observing that 153 is the sum o f the num bers one to seventeen which is a triangular num ber. (If one represents the num bers 1 to 17 by dots on separate lines, they form a triangle, see Hoskyns’diagram, 553.) A ugustine then pointed out that 17 = 10 + 7; the form er represent the ten commandments, the latter the sevenfold Spirit of God (T ra ct, in J o ., 122). More simply, it is evident that ten and seven were im portant num bers in Jewish tradition. P irq e ’A b o t 5:1-9 lists features o f the sacred history in which ten occurs: e.g., by 10 sayings the world was created; there were 10 generations from Adam to Noah, and 10 from Noah to Abraham; by 10 trials Abraham was tested; 10 wonders were done for Israel in Egypt, 10 by the sea, and 10 in the sanctuary. Verses 10-11 go on to speak o f significant sevens: seven things concern a rude man, and seven concern a wise man (they are listed); so also seven kinds o f punishm ent come upon the world for seven transgressions—the punishm ents and the transgressions are itemized. Grant, accordingly, sees in the num ber 153 a symbol whose significance derives from its components, 17 as the sum o f the two most sacred numbers, the importance of which is increased when it is triangulated. From this it is deduced that 153 is a numerical symbol for perfection, and so for the perfection of the Church. Augustine added to this mathematical m eaning an allegorical interpretation of the num ber: 153 = 3 x 50 + 3, the num ber of the Trinity. Cyril of Alexandria modified that by proposing that 100 represents the fullness of the Gentiles, 50 the rem nant o f Israel, and 3 the Trinity (In J o . XII: P G , 74, col.745). Rupert of Deutz brought the idea closer to home; 100 represents the m arried, 50 the widows, and 3 the virgins (cited by Brown, 2:1075)! Such proposals hardly commend them selves to the m odern mind. T he m odern mind, however, has its own esoteric expressions, am ong which gematria exercises a fascination for some. G em a tria is a term derived from geometry, but it makes play with words in languages wherein num erals are represented by letters o f the alphabet (a = 1, b =2, c = 3, etc.). Both the Greeks and the Hebrews represented num bers in this way; accordingly any name (or even any word) could be added up and represented by its total. Deissmann cites an example from the graffiti o f Pompeii which reads, “I love the girl whose name is 545” (L ig h t fr o m the A n c ie n t E a s t , 276). T he most famous example o f gematria is the num ber o f Antichrist, given in Rev 13:18 as 666; all kinds o f names have been found to total 666, but the most likely candidate is N e ro C a esa r written in Hebrew letters, for the cipher almost certainly originated in a Jewish apocalyptic circle. J. A. Emerton, perceiving the weaknesses of the traditional explanations of 153, sought a solution along

Comment

403

this path. He observed that Ezek 47, and especially v 10, could have been in the mind of the author o f Jo h n 21: the stream o f living water from the temple is to bring life to the Dead Sea, which will be full o f fish; fishermen will stand along the shore and they will spread their nets from En-gedi to En-eglaim. “En” (]P) is the Hebrew for “spring”; gedi (’ТЛ) provides the total 17, eglaim (1Г7ЛУ) 153. These two num bers are mathematically related. Emerton suggested that the num ber of fish may thus represent the places where, according to prophecy, fishermen are to stand and spread their nets in the time of messianic fulfillment (“T he H undred and Fifty-Three Fishes in Jo h n XXI. 11,” 86-89). P. R. Ackroyd followed up Emerton’s suggestion; he pointed out that in a Greek gospel an allusion to the place names in Ezek 47 would have been m ore understandable if they had been written in Greek; am ong the varied modes of spelling the two names in the LXX he noted that ηγγαδι = 33, and 'A yaW eip = 120; the two together give the desired num ber 153 (“T h e 153 Fishes in Jo h n XXI. 11—A Further Note,” 94). Emerton was not impressed, for the two transliterations cited by Ackroyd come from different MSS of the LXX; no one MS offers them both; in any case the link between 17 and 153, provided in the Hebrew text, disappears in the Greek (“Gematria in Jo h n XXI. 11,” 335-36). He accordingly preferred to keep to his original proposal based on the Heb. text. O ther interpretations o f 153 based on gematria have been suggested. H. Kruse proposed two possible explanations; the one ПДПКП 7np, “the church of love,” the o ther 0 ЧП7НП ’l l , “the children of God” (“Magni Pisces Centum Quinquaginta T res,” 143-47). He did not know that the form er had earlier been proposed by D. R. Ahrendts (Z W T 41 [1898] 480); and J. A. Romeo, working by the same method, independently suggested the latter (“Gematria and John 21:11,” 26364). Kruse preferred his first solution, but the expression nowhere occurs in the Johannine writings. Romeo felt justified in adhering to the latter one, for the expression occurs in Jo h n 1:12 and 11:52, and in his view it is well suited to the context o f 21:1-14. An altogether more complicated proposal was made by N. J. McEleny on the basis of what he called “Gematriachal Atbash.” T he latter term refers to a replacing of letters in words by a reverse order of the alphabet; in English it would mean reading z for a, у for b, x for c, and so on. T he Jews apparently were acquainted with this kind of substitute writing in О Т times (an example is given in turning Babel [7ЛЛ] into λυλυΆ [JtOtD] in J e r 25:26; 51:41). When gematria is applied to “atbash” then z represents 1, у = 2, x = 3, etc. On this principle McEleny found that ΙΧΘ, an abbreviation of ΙΧΘΤΣ (ichthus, fish), has the value of 153. Ichthus, of course, is the well-known acrostic for Ίιτσοϋς Χρίστος ѲеоО υιός σω τήρ ,“Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior”; the short term McEleny assumed to represent “Jesus Christ, God.” So the author of John 21 is thought to have concealed the holy name of the Risen in acrostic fashion under gematriachal atbash; those with eyes to see will understand that Christ, as the first of his brethren going up from the waters o f baptism and later from the tomb of the Father, is identified with his C hurch under the symbolism of the fish (“ 153 Great Fishes [John 21:11] . . . ,” 413-17). This example o f gematria from McEleny illustrates in an extrem e m anner the unlikelihood o f this type of esoteric writing being employed by the author o f Jo h n 21. It is altogether too complicated for the ordinary reader o f the Gospel to perceive, and too much even for most modern scholars to guess without being initiated into this particular mystique. M. Rissi, in an article on Jo h 21, turned from all these notions and urged that one presupposition alone suffice to provide the clue to the fishing miracle, namely, the observation o f Augustine that 153 was the triangular num ber of 17. T here is

404

J o h n 2 1 :1 -2 5

a clear link between the narrative of vv 1-14 and the feeding o f the m ultitude in Jo h n 6. In the latter we read o f five loaves, multiplied, from which twelve baskets full o f broken pieces were taken up: 5 + 12 = 17! T he figure 153 thus builds a bridge between the feeding miracle o f the ministry and that o f the Resurrection, and enables the theological weight o f the one to be carried over to the other. In the ancient world fish were a symbol o f fruitfulness, life, and immortality. If the eucharistic taking o f bread and wine celebrated Jesus’ death, the eating o f bread and fish was a celebration of his resurrection, which made fellowship with the Lord after his death possible. So the eucharistic m eal in chap. 21 depicts an epiphany celebration o f the risen Lord (“Voll grosser Fische . . . ,” esp. 81-86). This is a downto-earth interpretation which seeks to do justice to the theological significance o f the narrative. Its elucidation of the eucharistic elem ent in the narrative is actually independent o f the interpretation offered, for the link with Jo h n 6 is given in the narrative itself. But it is questionable w hether justice is done by Rissi to the sign o f the great catch o f fish, and to the combination o f two major motifs in the single narrative. T he epiphany of the Lord by the lake, manifest in the granting of so great a haul of fish, should not be subm erged in the eucharistic manifestation. W hen two such motifs are combined, it is not surprising that a clash o f symbolism arises, namely, the ingathering of a m ultitude o f fish, symbolizing the success of the C hurch’s mission to the nations, and the giving of fish with bread to eat in a eucharistic meal. We do not ask for consistency in the symbolism of parables, still less in descriptions o f the eschatological hope voiced by prophets o f the Old and New Testaments; we should not be offended by the like in the composite representation of Jo h n 21:1-14. Accepting Rissi’s contribution we may yet see in the sign of the catch of fish a symbol o f “the breadth or even the universality o f the Christian mission’’ (Brown, 2:1075). Despite G rant’s objections, we are not sure that Jerom e should be dismissed out o f hand. He did, after all, refer to “writers” in the plural, not solely to Oppian, whose work was in any case a century later than the Fourth Gospel, and yet whose description o f varieties o f fish came very close to 153. It is possible that one of these days some ancient writing will come to light containing a comparable tradition to the varieties o f fish attested by Jerom e. Till then we must allow the secret of 153 to remain, yet acknowledging its attestation to the greatness of the sign it emphasizes. T h e R is e n

L o r d A d d r esses Pe t er

(21:15-23)

Jesus Rehabilitates Peter a n d Confirms H im in H is Pastoral Calling (2 1 : 1 5 - 1 7 )

T he situation in vv 15-23 is quite different from that in vv 1-14. Whereas in the earlier passage Jesus appears to the disciple group, from v 15 on he deals with Peter alone, who is later joined by the Beloved Disciple; the rest of the disciples disappear entirely from the scene. Verses 1-14 form “a disciple pericope,” vv 1519 “a Peter fragm ent” (Schnackenburg, 3:361). T he threefold questioning o f Peter by Jesus is highly unusual. T he impression is given that Jesus is not satisfied with Peter’s avowals o f his love for him, so that even after apparently restoring him to fellowship with himself, and enjoining on him ministry in the Church, the renewed questions of Jesus query the reality of Peter’s protestations of love. Most students o f the Gospel agree that the procedure stands in relation to Peter’s repeated denials of Jesus. Some, it is true, have sought a different explanation for this threefold repetition. P. Gaechter saw in it a reflection o f a near-O rient custom of making a declaration three times before witnesses, notably in relation to contracts and legal dispositions (see “Das dreifache ‘Weide meine Läm m er,’ ” 328-44). Undoubtedly

Comment

405

such a legal slant to the threefold declarations to Peter would give a peculiar authority to Peter’s installation as Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, but it imputes to the narrative a more formal nature than the context warrants and to the Lord’s words a questionable notion of the pastoral ministry to which he appoints. Similar objections apply to the notion that the threefold question and answer reflect a liturgical form, such as would be used in an ordination (G. Stählin in T D N T 9:134 n.194). T he question o f Jesus is conditioned by the relationship that had existed between Jesus and Peter during the ministry o f Jesus and the peculiar rupture of it at the trial o f Jesus, together with Peter’s undoubted grief, not to say shock, caused by the crucifi xion o f Jesus and the guilt that m ust have haunted him on account o f his own behavior. Peter must have been conscious o f the fact that he had forfeited all right to be viewed as a disciple o f Jesus, let alone a close associate o f his in his ministry, through his repeated disavowal o f any connection with him. W hen one contemplates how Jesus had prepared Peter for responsible leadership am ong the people of the Kingdom and for the mission to Israel and the nations, this was a profoundly serious failure, which called for a process of re-establishment commensurable with the seriousness o f the defection.

15 T h e o p en in g phrase is an editorial link with th e preceding p arag rap h . T h e one issue th at Jesus m ust clarify with P eter is his relation to him after the debacle in th e H igh Priest’s court; the sole elem ent o f th at relationship concerns Je su s’ love, fo r w ithout it all else is vain (cf. I C or 13:1—3)· T h e question, “Do you love m e more than these?”, in the context m ust surely m ean, “. . . m ore th an your fellow disciples do?” (rath er th an , “m ore th an you love th em ,” o r “m ore th an you love your Ashing eq u ip m en t”). It is n o t th at Jesu s w ould distinguish th e d e p th o f P eter’s love from th at o f th e others, b u t th at P eter h ad brashly asserted his loyalty to Jesu s as m ore steadfast th an theirs (see M att 26:33, which has n o real c o u n te rp art in Jo h n 13:3637, b u t which in som e form could well have been know n in the Jo h a n n in e circles). T h e question is w hether he is p rep ared to m ake such a statem ent now. P eter does n ot attem p t to answ er it in relation to his friends, b u t in his em barrassm ent he appeals to th e L ord’s know ledge th a t he truly loves him , despite his failure. T o his relief th e L ord accepts his avowal, an d indicates his reinstatem ent with th e declaration, “T ak e care o f my lam bs”; P eter’s love for his L ord is to be m ade m anifest in his care for the L ord’s flock. 16-17 T h e unexpected repetitions o f the L ord’s question to P eter have the effect o f searching him to the d ep th s o f his being. We have seen (in the Notes) the im probability o f th e variety o f term s having any m ajor signifi cance, alike in the repeated question o f Jesus, th e answ er o f Peter, a n d the L ord’s com m ission to him . T h e pain o r g rief o f P eter was n ot d u e to Jesu s’ fram ing his question with the use o f P eter’s own w ord (фікеі? instead o f άγαπφ?), b u t is explained by Jesus* act w hen for the third tim e he p u t th e sam e question to him , as th o u g h to ask w h eth er th ere was any substance in his avowal o f love, any g ro u n d for his accepting its reality. By this tim e all the old selfconfid ence an d assertiveness m anifest in P eter before th e crucifixion o f Jesus h ad d rain ed away. H e could only appeal to th e L o rd ’s totality o f knowledge, which included his know ledge o f P eter’s heart; he m ore th an all people could tell th at he was speaking th e tru th . H e really did love him , a n d m ore th an th at he could n o t say. M ore th an th a t was n o t necessary; th e L ord accepted his protestation o f love.

406

J o h n 2 1 :1 -2 5

How, then, are we to u n d erstan d th e com m ission given to the p en iten t an d chastened Peter? T h e endeavor to answ er th at question appears to be th e one issue in th e entire Gospel w here m em bers o f different C hristian confessions not only divide, b u t find difficulty in u n d erstan d in g the answers o f th e others. L agrange, for exam ple, speaks o f “som e narrowly confessional Protestants, lagging behind the tim es,” who hold th at Peter only figures here as rep resen tin g th e apostles, a n d so a prim us inter pares , a first am ong equals, in contrast to m ore in d ep en d en t critics who acknow ledge the ancient Catholic exegesis an d recognize th at Jesu s is choosing P eter as the sole repository o f his pastoral auth o rity (528, 530). Hoskyns cites a typical expression o f this view given by C ornelius a Lapide: “O n his d e p a rtu re into heaven C hrist h ere designates his Vicar u p o n earth an d creates P eter the S uprem e Pontiff, in o rd e r th at one C h u rch may be governed by o ne Pastor” (557). T h e key issue is the m eaning o f the term “sh e p h erd ” in th e statem ent to Peter. J . F. X. Sheehan u rg ed th at it has to be u n d ersto o d in the light o f its use in the О Т . Sheehan has no difficulty in d em o n stratin g its association in Israel’s history with rulers an d with ruling. For exam ple, it is reco u n ted how the elders o f Israel cam e to David an d said, “T h e Lord told you, ‘You shall sh ep h erd my people Israel an d you shall be prince over th em ’ ” (2 Sam 5:2); on this S heehan com m ented, “T h e position o f sh ep h erd an d prince in such a citation m akes th e two words alm ost equal in m eaning” (“Feed my Lam bs,” 22-23). O n th at basis, said Sheehan, it is com prehensible to in te rp re t the L ord’s comm ission to P eter to “sh e p h erd ” the flock as m eaning th at he should “ru le” over it. W ith this Brown agrees, an d believes th at it is in line with fundam ental principles. God is S hepherd; he delegates authority to rule; as in 20:21 Jesu s sends his disciples in the m an n er th at he was sent, so h ere he, as th e m odel S hep h erd , makes Peter the same. “T h e ideal o f 10:16 is carried over into ch ap ter 21: one sheep herd, one sh e p h erd .” In harm ony with this M att 16:19 is in terp reted as m eaning th at “the gift o f the keys m akes P eter the Prim e M inister o f the K ingdom ” (2:1114-16). W hat is so surprising in this discussion is the neglect to observe the significance for o u r passage o f the concept “sh e p h erd ,” with its closely sim ilar term “bishop,” in the N T C hurch (here Schnackenburg is a conspicuous exception, 3:364). In 1 Pet 2:25 Jesus is said to be “th e S h ep h erd and Bishop o f your souls”; in context this denotes Jesus as the one who gave his life for the sheep an d cares for them in the present. In th e hortato ry p art o f the letter (5:2) Peter as “a fellow eld er” (= bishop, pastor) appeals to the elders: “S heph e rd the flock o f God th at is am ong you” (ποιμάνατ€ то . . . πάμνιον του 0eoü), so virtually citing the words o f the risen Lord to him , “S h ep h erd my sh eep ” (πάμανν€ та πρόβατά μου). By way o f ex p o u n d in g his m eaning he adds, “W atch over it (έπισκοποϋντβς), not because you have to, b ut willingly . . . not acting as lords over G od’s people (τώι> κλή ρω ν ), b u t becom ing exam ples to the flock” (1 Pet 5:3). A sim ilar charge by Paul to the elders o f Ephesus is recorded in Acts 20:28: “Keep watch over yourselves an d over all the (lock (ποιμνών) o f which th e Holy Spirit has m ade you g uardians (έπιακόπους) to sh ep h erd the C h u rch o f the L ord” (ποιμαίvetv την έκκλησίαν του κυρίου). Both passages speak in th e sam e m an n er as the risen Lord spoke to Peter on restoring him to fellowship an d to the service o f pastor. T h e verbs are the sam e, ποιμαίνω o r variants o f it; the scope o f the m inistry is the sam e— “my lambs, my sheep

Comment

407

. . . the flock o f God, th e C h u rch o f the L ord.” T h e re is no form al difference o f m eaning in the language by which the risen L ord confirm ed P eter in his calling to be a sh ep h erd o f his sh eep from th at by which P eter and Paul ex h o rted the pastor-elders to fulfill th eir calling as sh ep h erd s o f the flock o f G od in 1 Pet 5 :1 -3 a n d Acts 20:28. T his applies also to th e representative n a tu re o f the sh e p h erd ’s office a n d the auth ority which it carries. T h e re is no g ro u n d for denying th at Jesu s in th e resurrection scene o f J o h n 21:15— 17 en tru sted his sh eep to P eter as the F ath er en tru ste d th em to him , and th at thereby he gave him th e au th o rity th at goes with th e sh e p h e rd ’s office. B ut th at is an essential elem ent o f the concept o f m inisterial calling within the C hurch. T h e risen L ord as su p rem e S h ep h erd o f his sheep exercises his m inistry th ro u g h those w hom he calls to be his u n d er-sh ep h erd s, an d to them he delegates authority over th e flock. T his is a p p a re n t not only in the apostolic exercise o f authority in the N T C h u rch (particularly plain in the Pauline letters), b u t in th at assum ed also fo r th e presbyter-bishops o f the churches (e.g., 1 T im 3 :4 -5 ; H eb 13:17). It is the exclusive authority claim ed to be given to P eter in J o h n 2 1 :1 5 -1 7 th at is so puzzling to on e n o t in the C hristian trad itio n th at assum es it as self-evident, fo r th ere is n o t a h in t o f such a singular authority in th e text. P art o f th e explanation fo r the in te rp re ta tion, especially am o n g m od ern exegetes, has b een the tendency to in te rp re t J o h n 2 1 :1 5 -1 7 in light o f M att 16:18-19a, b u t th at is surely a m istake in herm eneutics. T h e functions an d figures em ployed in th e M atthaean passage are quite d ifferen t from those in th e Jo h a n n in e passage. T his is n ot the place to e n te r into a detailed discussion o f M att 1 6:1819a, b u t we co n ten t ourselves with two observations: First, th e un iq u e role o f Peter in the fo u n d in g o f the C hurch, according to M att 16:18, is n o t in question, b u t th at is o f no help to elucidate J o h n 2 1 :15-17. Second, the figure o f the keys given to P eter requires m ore th an Isa 2 2 :1 9 -2 5 for u n d e rstanding its application in M att 16:19a. In M att 23:13, with its parallel in Luke 11:52, an d in Rev 1:18; 3 :7 -1 2 , the notion o f keys o f th e kingdom has th e th o u g h t o f persons au th o rized to o pen th e d o o r into the kingdom o f G od, so allowing o th ers to e n te r u p o n th e etern al life o f th e kingdom , an d that is to the fore in M att 16:19a (see th e a u th o r’s exposition in Jesus an d the Kingdom o f God [G rand Rapids: E erdm ans, 1986] 179-85). T h e one clear connection betw een th e figures em ployed in M att 16:19a a n d J o h n 2 1 :1 5 -1 7 lies in the aspect o f th e S h e p h e rd ’s calling to seek th e lost sheep an d g ath er th em into the flock, hence th e aspect o f mission . By general consent th at is n o t th e prim ary em phasis o f J o h n 21 :1 5 -1 7 , w here the concern is ra th e r fo r th e care o f those w ho belong to th e flock o f Jesus. By reason o f his devastating experience o f fall an d restoration to th e fellowship o f his Lord, P eter is peculiarly fitted to carry o u t th a t aspect o f the pastoral office, referred to by Jesu s in Luke 21:32: “O nce you have recovered, you in your tu rn m ust stren g th en your b ro th ers” (j b ). T h e letter know n as 1 P eter is an excellent exam ple o f th e A postle’s fulfillm ent o f th at com m ission. A Prophecy o f the M artyrdom o f Peter (2 1 :1 8 —19 )

18 We have earlier stated th at th e prophecy o f v 18 may have circulated independently in the churches. B ultm ann observed th at it has no in n er connection with vv 15-17 (713); Brow n agreed, ad d in g th a t th e fact th a t vv 15—17

408

J o h n 2 1 :1 -2 5

deal with P eter’s fu tu re m ade a p p ro p riate th e ad d itio n o f an in d ep e n d e n t saying concerning his d eath (2:1117). T w o u tteran ces o f Jesu s w ould have h elp ed to m ake this connection: “T h e good sh e p h erd lays dow n his life fo r th e sh eep ” (Jo h n 10:11), an d , “N o o n e has g rea ter love th an this, th a t o n e lays dow n his life fo r th e sake o f his frien d s” (15:13). T h e contrast betw een Peter's freedom in his youth a n d th e lim itations im posed o n him in later life has led to th e belief th a t such is th e prim e in te n t o f th e saying. B ern ard in terp rets it thus: “T h e w ords ‘you girded yourself . . . a n o th e r will gird you’ m ay p oint only to th e contrast betw een th e alertness o f youth a n d the helplessness o f old age, which can n o t always d o w hat it would; a n d ‘you will stretch you h an d s’ m ay refe r m erely to th e old m an stretching o u t his hands th a t others m ay help him in p u ttin g o n his garm ents, w hereas th e young m an girds him self unassisted, befo re he sets o u t to walk,” (2:708). O n th a t u n d erstan d in g v 19 is viewed as affirm ing th a t P eter will glorify G od th ro u g h a life o f obedience till ripe old age, with th e possibility o f an a d d ed in terp retatio n given by th e editor, in applying it to the o u tstretch ed arm s o f th e crucified. B u ltm an n m odifies this ap p ro ach in an ingenious m an n er; he saw the saying as a prophecy by parable, at th e base o f which lay a proverb: “In youth a m an is free to go where he will; in old age a m an m ust let him self be taken w here he does n o t will.” B ut th e p ro v erb is cited with a special application to Peter: w hereas at o n e tim e he freely chose his way, he will be unwillingly led to his last jo u rn e y by m artyrdom ; th e details o f th e picture, how ever, belong to th e proverb, a n d are n o t to be tak en as a forecast o f d eath by crucifixion (713-14). B u ltm an n ’s view o f an a d ap ted proverb in v 18 is widely accepted, b u t it m ust be recognized as p u re hypothesis, w ithout any evidence behind it, an d its application to P e ter’s d eath is hardly convincing (so H aenchen, em phatically, 590). T h e “stretching o u t” o f th e h an d s has proved th e m ain difficulty. T h e expression was actually em ployed by classical w riters with reference to th e crucified m an (illustrations g ath ered by W ettstein m ay be fo u n d in com m entaries, m ost fully in H aen ch en , 590), a n d C hristian w riters from th e second century on so in te rp re te d it, n o t only in this passage, b u t in w hat seem ed to th em p e rtin e n t О Т passages; e.g., Moses lifting u p his arm s to pray in th e battle with A m alek (Exod 17:12) was viewed as a type o f C hrist o n th e cross (so B a m . 12; Ju stin , Trypho , 90, 91); a n d Isa 65:2, “I have sp read o u t my hands all th e day to a rebellious p eo p le” was taken as a prophecy o f th e crucifixion o f Jesu s (B a m . 12; Ju stin , Apology 1, 35; Iren aeu s, Dem. 79). M odern exegetes have frequently observed th a t th e application o f v 18 to crucifixion is contrary to th e text o rd er, which places th e stretching o u t o f th e hands prior to one being girded an d being led away to death. T h e clue to the language, how ever, was n o ted by B auer, who recognized th at it has in view th e binding o f th e patibulum , the crossbeam , to th e o u tstretch ed arm s o f th e d elin q u en t, w ho h ad th e n to carry it to th e place o f crucifixion (232). T h e hesitation o f exegetes to accept this in terp retatio n is a m ystery, S chnackenburg, citing B au er’s view, rem ark ed , “refuted by W ellhausen, who already knew this explanation, as ‘an tiq u arian sophistry’ ” (482 n.75). A n tiq u arian sophistry indeed! It has becom e com m on know ledge o f late th at w hat B auer described was th e general p ro ced u re for crucifixion by th e R om ans (see M. H engel, Crucifixion, o n m eth o d s o f crucify-

Comment

409

ing). T his is w hat h a p p e n ed to Jesus; J o h n 19:17 states th at he “carried the cross fo r him self,” i.e., he carried the cross-beam , which will have been placed on his neck, an d he will have held it in position as his outstretched arm s an d han d s were b o u n d to it on eith er side. B o rn h äu ser, with this in m ind, com m ented o n o u r passage: “T his u n d erstan d in g o f the stretching o u t o f th e hands m akes it quite plain th at Jesu s predicts to P eter th at he will die fo r him as an old m an o n the stake o f sham e. T h e n is clear also why the m ention o f being guided by a n o th e r comes after th e spreading o u t o f the hands. N ot ‘o thers,’ but ‘one o th e r’ will gird him an d guide him to a place to which P eter does n o t w ant to go. T his ‘o th e r’ is he am o n g those w ho carry o u t th e death sentence, who girds th e g arm en t o f the condem ned and leads him to the place o f execution” (The Death an d Resurrection o f Jesus Christ , 250-51). T h e explanation in v 19, therefore, is in accord with the saying it seeks to explain. “T h e kind o f death by which he was to glorify G od” echoes 12:33 (cf. 18:32 also); th at P eter’s death will be for the glory o f God recalls the teaching in the Gospel th at God is to be glorified th ro u g h the death o f Jesus (cf. 12:27-28; 13:31-32; 17:1). In a m an n e r akin to the glorification o f God in Jesus, th o u g h n ot to th e sam e d egree, G od is glorified in those who lay dow n th eir lives fo r th e n am e o f Jesu s (see fu rth e r 1 Pet 4:16; th e language is freq u en t in early C hristian m artyrologies). T h e final w ord to Peter, “Follow m e,” form s a transition to the next p arag rap h , for it is evident th at its m eaning is in the first place literal: Peter is asked to go along with Jesus. B ut in view o f the d rift o f the entire context it is likely th at a fu rth e r m eaning is to be understood. P eter is to “follow” Je su s’ undeviating discipleship for the rest o f his days, an d at the last in death. It will be as P eter so follows Jesu s th at the declaration in 13:36b will receive its fulfillm ent. By the tim e th at this ch ap ter was w ritten Peter had indeed glorified G od by a m arty r’s d eath, an d th at o n a cross. T h e obscurity o f th e saying was clarified by the event, an d thereby it becom es the earliest witness we possess to the d eath o f P eter by crucifixion. M ore im portantly, P eter’s m artyrdom will have been known am ong the churches; the sham e o f P eter’s denials o f Jesu s will have been obliterated by his blood, and the renow n o f his leadership in th e C h u rch b ro u g h t to a notable climax with the gaining o f the m artyr’s crown, t h at may be o f significance for the next p arag rap h , vv 20-2 3 . The Destiny o f the Beloved Disciple (2 1 :2 0 —2 3 )

20 T h e previous p arag rap h ends with the com m and o f Jesus to Peter, “Follow m e”; the present p arag rap h is linked to it th ro u g h P eter’s observation th at the Beloved Disciple was also “following.” W hile th e them es o f vv 2 0 23 are closely related to th at o f vv 18-19, the introduction o f the Beloved Disciple with reference to th e Last S u p p er (13:24), which was n o t felt necessary w hen m entioning him in v 7, suggests th at this is an in d ep en d en t p aragraph. T h e recollection o f 13:24 is significant, inasm uch as it rem inds the read er th at this disciple was in closest relation to Jesus, in a m an n er rem iniscent o f th e relation o f Jesus to the F ather in revelation (1:18), a n d th at his request to know the identity o f th e betrayer was d u e to P eter’s w anting to know it;

410

J o h n 2 1 :1 -2 5

P eter w ent to Jesu s via th e Beloved Disciple. It is a rem in d er, along with o th e r related passages, o f this disciple’s special place alongside Peter. T h a t is o f im portance in a passage th at deals with the contrasting destinies o f th e two disciples. 21—22 W hile P eter’s question is som etim es viewed as trifling, posed m erely to enable the saying o f Jesus to be a n n o u n ced in v 22, it is com prehensible eno u g h , given the freq u en t association o f P eter a n d th e o th e r disciple in the Gospel. If P eter’s p ath in life has now been m ade know n to him , it is n atu ral for him to be curious as to w hat is in store for his colleague. B ut the answ er o f Jesus is unexpectedly sh arp in tone. H e m akes it plain th at his will for his friend is o f no concern to Peter, n o t even if th at disciple is called to tread a q u ieter an d less d em an d in g way th an his; if instead o f the call to m artyrdom it be the L ord’s will for the Beloved Disciple to rem ain till the L ord him self shall com e, th at should m ake no difference to P eter in the p u rsu it o f his vocation. T h e one th in g th at m atters is th at he should follow his Lord—in the present m om ent—to h e a r w hat fu rth e r w ord may yet be addressed to him , an d in th e days an d years ahead, as th e risen L ord guides him an d reveals his unfolding task, till the final call to follow him in a d eath to the glory o f God. Accordingly th e com m and given in v 19 is repeated, only yet m ore em phatically: “As for you, you follow m e.” It is evident th at this issue is o f im portance to the a u th o r o f chap. 21. T h e way in which he has p resen ted th e scene shows th a t he was n o t solely concerned to correct the m isapprehension about the survival o f th e Beloved Disciple till th e Parousia o f Christ. H e is at pains to rem ind th e rea d e r o f the u n iq u e relation to the L ord o f this disciple, an d th erefo re his special m inistry to the rest o f the disciples an d to the C hurch: his record o f the L o rd ’s b rusque correction o f Peter, w hen he w anted to know w hat service was ap p o in ted for th at disciple an d w hat w ould h a p p en to him , is p a rt o f th at representation. O n the o th er h an d , th ere is no h in t o f a desire to d en ig rate P eter in th e interest o f the Beloved Disciple; the a u th o r has ju st p en n ed vv 15—17 an d 18-19, an d he will have been responsible for jo in in g all th ree paragraphs together. P eter’s hum iliation was recorded to show th at the sham eful past was all forgiven, an d th at the L ord had recom m issioned him with the pastoral care o f his flock. M oreover, vv 18-19 should be read with th o u g h t for the reaction o f early Christians to the passage: P eter was being given the privilege o f laboring for C hrist to old age, an d to com plete it with the crow n o f m artyrdom . No such h o n o r was given to the Beloved Disciple. By the tim e chap. 21 was w ritten and the Gospel w ent into circulation both disciples had died, one with th e glory o f m artyrdom an d one with a peaceful en d at E phesus (we w ould certainly have h eard to the contrary h ad it been otherwise). Is it reasonable to suggest th at this presentation o f the relations o f Peter an d the Beloved Disciple, to the L ord an d to each o th er, was m ade for the benefit o f churches which were inclined to exalt one over against the other? T h e tendency to favor one apostle m ore th an a n o th e r is seen in the C orinthian correspondence o f Paul—an all-too-hum an tendency, as Paul him self wryly rem arked (1 C or 3:3-4). A nd th at would be the m ore n atural in circles w here one apostle was known an d loved, and others were known only th ro u g h

Comment

411

secondhand reports. T h e anonym ity o f th e Beloved Disciple indicates th at he was so well know n in the churches he served th at th ere was no need to use his p ro p e r nam e, b u t it is well possible th at he was quite unknow n in m any areas o f th e C hurch, w hereas P eter was know n to all. It was desirable th erefo re fo r C hristians elsew here to learn how th e fam ous P eter an d the com paratively unknow n Beloved Disciple were related. So th e a u th o r endeavors to show th at both m en were gifts o f the risen L ord to the churches, very different in gifts an d calling, b u t with im p o rtan t tasks to p erfo rm for the benefit o f all. In C ullm ann’s words, “H e sets the two disciples face to face an d shows how th e Risen O n e assigns a uniq u e position to each one o f them for th e fu tu re, b u t gives each o f them a different role” (Peter: Disciple , Apostle , M artyr [New York: M eridian Books, 1958] 29). If it be asked precisely w hat th e different roles were, th e answers diverge som ew hat. T h e au th o rs o f P eter in the N ew Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant an d Rom an Catholic Scholars state th at P eter was called to feed th e sheep an d the Beloved Disciple to “rem ain ”; “In the Jo h a n n in e tradition this com m and to feed the sheep is specifically addressed to P eter an d not to the Beloved Disciple (or to anyone else)” (143). T h a t sentence is strictly tru e, b u t it is m isleading. N ot only were others in the N T C hurch called to be shepherds, it is evident th at the Beloved Disciple was the notable S h ep h erd o f the sheep in the churches o f his area. J e te r ’s com m ission to serve th e Lord as a sh ep h erd o f his sheep is p a rt o f his rehabilitation as a leading disciple o r apostle; b ut he needed a fresh comm ission, an d the Beloved Disciple did not. W e com e closer to the h eart o f the F o u rth Gospel, clearly sh ared in this respect by the a u th o r o f chap. 21, w hen we recognize the calling o f the disciples to be witnesses (cf. 15:16, 26-27; 16:7-11; observe th at the verb μαρτυρέω, “witness,” occurs 33 tim es in th e F o u rth Gospel, as com pared with once in M atthew, once in Luke, an d n ot at all in M ark; see J . C hapm an, “We Know T h a t His T estim ony Is T ru e ,” 380). H ow ever m uch o r little may have been known about the Beloved Disciple in churches beyond his area, all knew th at P eter was the great witness to C hrist, th at th ro u g h his witness the C hurch was launched on its mission, an d th at his faithful testim ony was com pleted in a m artyr’s d eath (martyr = “witness”). T h e Beloved Disciple appears to have walked in a q u ieter way an d in a m ore restricted area; he, too, was a witness for Christ, b u t in a different m anner. H aving uniquely associated with th e L ord in his m inistry, he was uniquely tau g h t by the Paraclete-Spirit, thereby gaining com p rehension o f God in C hrist, an d his witness was com pleted in the Gospel o f which he was the inspiration. T h e vocations o f Peter an d the Beloved Disciple thus were im m ensely im p o rtan t to the C hurch; the a u th o r o f chap. 21 w rote to enable the churches to recognize both, and to be grateful for both. 22—23 T h a t the saying o f v 22 circulated am ong th e Jo h a n n in e churches is evident from th e reference to “th e bro th ers,” who u n d ersto o d it as a prom ise from the Lord th at the Beloved Disciple would survive till the Parousia. T h e saying has caused some com m entators as m uch p ertu rb atio n as “the b ro th ers,” to ju d g e from th eir anxiety to em pty it o f real eschatological content. W estcott, fo r exam ple, was anxious to show th at the com ing o f C hrist includes the th o u g h t o f his com ing in d eath to the believer, to the Society, an d to Jeru salem

412

J o h n 2 1 :1 -2 5

in ju d g m e n t (to which the Beloved Disciple “rem ain ed ”!), an d th at th e Beloved Disciple abides still, insofar as th e history o f the C hurch is im aged in the history o f the apostles (2:373; cf. also the in terp retatio n by Hoskyns o f “rem ain ” = “abide” in the sense o f J o h n 15 an d 1 J o h n 3:14, 558-59). J. A. T . Robinson offered a m ore realistic view in suggesting th at v 22 reflects the im m inent expectation o f th e first g eneration C h u rch , an d th at it was possible to m aintain it in th e Jo h a n n in e churches since the B eloved Disciple was still alive; th e correction in v 23 suits best th e tim e shortly afte r P eter’s death, about a . d . 65, w hen th e Gospel was w ritten (The Priority o f Joh n , 70, 71). Critical scholars are n o t inclined to share this inference from o u r passage as to the date o f th e Gospel, b u t they ten d to agree th at the im m inent expectation o f the com ine o f C hrist in th e first generation C hurch was fostered in som e m inds by th e continuance o f the Beloved Disciple into old age. Surely th e Lord was to com e before he, the last o f the original disciples, should die! It is not dem onstrable, b u t it is likely th at the em phasis o n the m istaken n a tu re o f this belief indicates th at th e Beloved Disciple has now died , and th at this resulted in b itter d isap p o in tm en t a n d was a blow to faith. T h e co n trary notion, that th ere would have been no reason to com bat the expectation if th e d isciple had died, is th e reverse o f th e tru th . T h e history o f such groups as the Millerites in th e nin eteen th century illustrates the terrible offense to faith w hen hopes n o u rish ed by m isguided p ro p h ets prove false. W hat, th en , has the a u th o r o f the epilogue do n e to counteract the m istaken belief o f “the bro th ers”? O n e th ing he did not do: he did not state that belief in the prom ise o f the L o rd ’s com ing is a m istake. T h e prom ise stands, an d it m ust be cherished still. T h e a u th o r co n ten ted him self ra th e r with correcting the w ording o f th e statem ent th at had been in circulation, an d refrained from any fu rth e r com m ent: the Lord said, not, “I w ill th at he rem ain . . . ,” but, "I f I w ill th at h e rem ain. . . .” T h a t is, he an n o u n ced a possibility o f the fu tu re, in harm ony with the eschatological hope o f the entire N T , gospels an d epistles, in o rd e r to etch indelibly on P eter’s m ind th at th e fu tu re o f the Beloved Disciple was n o t his concern b u t th at o f the risen L ord, an d o f him alone. This interpretation o f v 23 does not satisfy some m odern exegetes. Schnackenburg has been severely critical o f it, judging that it makes the saying sophistic. After the death o f the disciple it is clear that Jesus did n o t want the disciple to live to the Parousia, and prior to his death it has no weight (3:371); accordingly he follows those who wish to interpret “rem ain” in a figurative m anner; the B e lo v e d D iscip le “re m a in s” in h is S p irit-b o rn e p ro c la m a tio n em b o d ied in the G o sp el (3:371). This latter is an attractive interpretation, but it appears to us more sophistic than the simple reading o f the saying. It imports the meaning o f v 24 into v 23, but v 24 was added for different reason, and is m ore pertinent to the issue o f the relation of Peter and the Beloved Disciple than to the time of the Parousia. Not infrequently the question as to the relation o f the eschatology o f vv 22-23 to that o f the Gospel has been raised. In the view of some the eschatology which has been jettisoned by the Evangelist has here been re-established by the author o f the epilogue. O n this view two observations may be made. First, it is illegitimate to evaluate the eschatology o f an author on the basis o f one sentence—as truly as it is to interpret Paul’s eschatology solely by 1 Thess 4:13-18; that passage was directed to a single problem in the community, and so also is Jo h n 21:22-23. How the writer would have related future expectation to present realization o f

Comment

413

the blessings o f the kingdom of God cannot be know n,from this one sentence (assuming that he was not the Evangelist). Second, the view that the Evangelist rejected the fundam ental elements o f Christian eschatology and transm uted them into something different can be held only on a selective reading o f the Gospel. In our exegesis we have seen how eschatology is fundam ental to the entire Gospel, for it is the gospel of life—the life of the kingdom o f God! T he Evangelist has emphasized beyond all other N T writers present eschatological realities, which are im portant also in the synoptic Gospels and the epistles. But he has given clear expression to the cardinal elements o f eschatological hope, judgm ent, resurrection, and Parousia, while om itting expressions that could imply an imminent coming of the kingdom of God (for example, he has nothing comparable to the parables o f “watching” in the synoptic Gospels, Mark 13:33-37; Matt 24:32-33, 36-41, 42-44, 45-51). Yet the Evangelist at no point presents eschatological hope as dogma without reference to life; both present and future aspects of resurrection to eternal life, judgm ent, and Parousia are related to the individual and to the Church. O n this Schlatter has a down-to-earth comment we do well to heed. Noting the reserve o f the Evangelist, alike regarding the eschatological glory of the Church and its condition in the present, it is clear where the emphasis lies, namely, “that and how the work o f Jesus is continued through the disciples, and the Vine becomes fruitful through its branches. T he C hurch is not thereby given a substitute for prophecy, but rather the capacity to treasure that which she has received and to do that which she has to do now in the name o f Jesus for the fulfillment of his will” (375). Co

n c l u s io n

(21:24—25)

T hese two sentences are ap p en d ed to the narratives o f vv 1-23 to attest the origin o f the Gospel in the Beloved Disciple (v 24), an d to ro u n d off the epilogue an d give the book a final conclusion (necessitated th ro u g h the addition o f chap. 21 after the conclusion o f 20:30-31). In view o f the different n atu re an d p u rpose o f the two sentences, it is possible th at they com e from two different sources. T h e prio r question, however, is to determ ine who the subject is o f “we know” in v 24. 24 T h e following answers are possible as to the identity o f the person o r persons. (i) T h e elders o f the ch u rch at Ephesus. So W estcott believed— he th o u g h t that the form o f v 24, as contrasted with th at o f 19:35, shows th at it was not from the Evangelist, and th at v 25, spoken in the first person singular , cam e from one who perhaps had h eard the Apostle say som ething like this (2:374). (ii ) T h e au th o r, using the “editorial ‘we’,” as he does at tim es in the Gospel (e.g., 3:2, 11; 20:2) an d in his epistles (1 J o h n 1:2, 4; 3 Jo h n 11).J. C hapm an, convinced o f this view, wrote, “T h e w riter uses ήμ€ϊς (we) an d the plural verbs for the sake o f solem nity, an d always does so when referring to his μαρτυρία, (witness)” (“We know that his T estim ony is tru e ,” 379-85). (iii) T h e w riter and others closely linked to him. So, e.g., Schlatter: “T h e speaker stands in this ‘we’ in the first place, but he knows th at he is not alone, b u t sees him self in a g reater circle o f such as share his knowledge with him ” (376). T his accords with the fam ous passage in th e M uratorian

414

J o h n 21:1-25

C anon, which states th at J o h n w rote th e F o u rth Gospel at th e entreaties o f his fellow disciples an d bishops, b u t n o t until h e h ad asked th em to pray with him concerning th e m atter; th en “it was revealed to A ndrew , o n e o f th e Apostles, th at J o h n should write dow n all things in his own nam e with the recognition o f a ll.” (tv) T h e a u th o r an d th e church to which he belonged. So B ultm ann: “T h e

idea is th at th e com m unity knows th a t th e testim ony o f th e Beloved Disciple is always tru e . . . accordingly th e read ers o f th e gospel will receive as tru e th e testim ony th at is b orn e in the gospel” (717-18). (v) “We know” is an indefinite expression m ean in g “as is well know n,” o r “it is a m atter o f com m on know ledge,” th erefo re, virtually, “o n e knows” (so D odd, “N ote on J o h n 21.24,” 212-13). T h e plausibility o f each o f these solutions leads to som e u ncertainty, b u t perh ap s th e second on e should be taken m ore seriously th an it has been in recent tim es (see Comment o n 20:2). Its im plications, how ever, vary according to o n e ’s ideas about th e a u th o r. J . C h apm an, fo r exam ple, believed th a t the w riter is n o n e o th e r th an J o h n the son o f Zebedee, th e Beloved Disciple. H e p arap h rases v 24 thus: “This person (n.4: in th e C hinese sense; ‘this person* = I) is th e Apostle, who is th e witness o f these things a n d is th e w riter o f this book, an d I, even I (whose high place am o n g th e A postles has been described in it) know th at it is all perfectly accurate” (385). W e have already given o u r reasons why we find this position difficult to receive (see Introduction, p. lxx, an d this p arap h rase well exem plifies th e inconceivability o f th e Beloved Disciple w riting o f him self like this. From a very different view point, H. T h y en considers th at v 24 provides th e key to all th e Beloved Disciple passages in the Gospel: th e w riter is th e Evangelist, w ho intro d u ced all th e passages relating to the Beloved Disciple into th e earlier form o f the Gospel, an d who created this figu re f o r the purpose o f g iv in g a divin e authorization f o r his work (T hyen’s developing views o n this subject m ay be seen in his T R article, “Aus d e r L iteratu r zum Jo h annesevangelium ” 42 [1977] 2 1 1 -7 0 ; “Entw icklungen in n erh alb d e r jo h an n eisch en T heologie u n d Kirche im Spiegel von J o h 21 u n d d e r L ieblingsjünger T ex te des E vangelium s,” L ’E van gile de J ea n , ed. M. de Jo n g e, B E TL 44 [1977] 259 -9 9 ; his views on J o h n 21 w ere sum m arized in a SN TS sem inar p a p e r in 1984 bearing th e significant title, “Jo h 21: Nicht ‘N achtrag,’ sondern ‘Schlüssel’ zum V ierten E vangelium ” = “J o h n 21: N ot ‘Supplement* b u t ‘Key’ to the F o u rth G ospel”). H e re we have sw ung to the opposite pole o f criticism, attach in g g reat significance to J o h n 21 an d to v 24 in particular. T h e view th a t th e Beloved Disciple is th e creation o f th e Evangelist o r R edactor o f th e Gospel, is, how ever, extrem ely unlikely. His freq u en t association with P eter indicates th at we are dealing with an individual am o n g th e earliest disciples o f Jesus. (O n his role in th e J o h a n n in e Circle, see J . Roloff, “D er Jo h an n eisch e ‘L ieblingsjünger’ u n d d e r L e h rer d e r G erechtigkeit,” N T S 15 [1968-69] 129-51). W e go o n to investigate th e m eaning o f the statem ent th at th e Beloved Disciple is th e o n e “w ho bears witness o f these things a n d w rote these things.” D odd’s idea th at “these th ings” d en o te th e n arro w er context o f vv 2 0 -2 3 , o r at m ost chap. 21 (“N ote o n J o h n 21:24,” 2 1 2 -1 3 ; H istorical Tradition, 12) has little to com m end it; th ere is general

Comment

415

agreem ent th at the entire G ospel is in view here. T h e Gospel, th en , is stated to be a transcription o f the witness o f the Beloved Disciple to Jesus, the C hrist and Son o f G od (cf. 20:31). Did the a u th o r o f 21:24 m ean to say th at the “transcript,” i.e., the w ritten Gospel, as well as the witness it bears was the work o f the disciple? T h a t was the conviction o f m ost scholars in earlier years. B arrett stated it to be “the m ost n atu ral m eaning o f these words, an d th erefo re the m eaning to be ad o p ted unless very stro n g reasons are b ro u g h t against it” (587). S trong reasons do exist against this view, n o t least the unlikelihood th at the a u th o r was claim ing th at the Beloved Disciple wrote 21:1 -2 3 (vv 2123 may well imply his death!) T h e Disciple could, o f course, have supplied m aterials fo r the ch ap ter. A nd th at may well apply to a g reat deal o f chaps. 1-20 (we have observed the difficulty o f accepting th at th e Beloved Disciple wrote the Farewell Discourses as they now exist in th e two versions, chaps. 13—14, 15-16, as distinct from acknow ledging th at they reflect his testim ony). For this reason m any have followed B ern ard in in terp retin g “w rote” as having a causative sense, “caused to be w ritten.” B ern ard cited 19:19 as an exam ple o f this; th at “Pilate wrote a title an d p u t it on th e cross” presum ably m eans th at Pilate was responsible for its w ording; so also the apostles in the N T letters speak o f th eir “w riting” them , w hereas we know th at they consistently used am anuenses (2:713). T h e suggestion should not be dism issed o u t o f hand, as Η. P. V. N unn did, in pointing ou t th at any scribe who ventured to p u t into shape Pilate’s words would have got into serious trouble, and in affirm ing th at scribes who wrote apostolic letters will always have w ritten the exact words dictated to them (The A uthorship o f the Fourth Gospel [1952] 8, cited by M orris, 880 n.63). O n the contrary, considerable freedom was accorded am anuenses in the ancient world, who often were left to convey in their own language the substance o f w hat they were told to write, especially in letters (there is no o th er way o f linking the pastoral Epistles with Paul except on such a basis, unless one took the contrary view an d m aintained th at they were the only letters th at he actually wrote, all the rest reflecting the language an d style o f am anuenses; so Μ. P. Prior, in an u n p u b lish ed dissertation, “Second Tim othy: A Personal L etter o f Paul,” King’s College, L ondon, 1985). T his m ode o f com position in the ancient world was so com m on a p h en o m en o n th at it is not necessary to change the m eaning o f “w rote” in v 24 to “caused to w rite”; b u t the statem ent may be u n d ersto o d simply as “an assertion o f spiritual responsibility for w hat is contained in the book” (G. Schrenk, T D N T 1:743). M ore specifically, it asserts th at th e book reproduces the witness o f the Beloved Disciple; it is this which m ost concerns the a u th o r o f v 24; h en ce he adds, “We know th at his witness is tru e .” T h e saying is rem arkably close to 5:32, which refers to the witness that God bears concerning Jesus (extended th ro u g h 5:33—40; cf. also 8:14, 18). T h e Fourth Gospel is suprem ely a book o f witness to Jesus, based on the witness borne by Jesus, an d to Jesus by the Paraclete Spirit, who enabled the Beloved Disciple to grasp it and h an d it on to the C hurch. 25 So the epilogue, an d the Gospel to which it is ad d ed , com e to a form al conclusion. Its similarity with the Evangelist’s conclusion in 20:30-31 is a p p a re n t w hen one sets them side by side:

J o h n 2 1 :1 -2 5

416

T here are many other signs which Jesus did which are not written in this book . . . T hese have been written that you may believe . . .

T h ere are many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, the world would not contain the books that would be written.

Significantly, th e Evangelist’s conclusion in 20:30-31 bears th e m ark o f his p u rp o se in w riting—th at people m ay believe a n d live; by contrast, th e a u th o r o f the epilogue is im pressed with th e literary p h e n o m e n o n o f th e life a n d work o f Jesu s (so Schnackenburg, 3:374). In harm o n y with this interest, the a u th o r expressed him self with th e hyperbole th at was characteristic o f ancient writers. W ettstein cited a n u m b er o f parallels to v 25, am o n g which a statem ent o f Philo is rem arkably close: “W ere he (God) to choose to display his own riches, even the en tire e a rth with th e sea tu rn e d into dry land w ould n o t contain (χω ρήσαι) th em ” {de posteritate C aini, 144). F rom th e Jew ish traditions Str-B cite a saying a ttrib u ted to J o h a n a n b en Zakkai, a co n tem p o rary o f th e Beloved Disciple (died ca, a .d . 80): “I f all th e heavens w ere parch m en t, an d all th e trees were pens, an d all th e seas w ere ink, th a t w ould n o t be e n o u g h to write dow n my wisdom which I have learn ed from m y teachers; a n d yet I have tasted o f the wisdom o f th e wise only so m u ch as a fly w ho dips into th e ocean an d takes away a little o f it” (Гг. Sopherim 16 § 8; see Str-B, 2:587). It m ay be observed th a t n o p erso n o n e a rth can encom pass a n d assim ilate all th at has been a n d is being w ritten about this G ospel, w hich is a trib u te to th e achievem ent o f th e Evangelist, a n d still m ore to th e subject o f w hom he wrote. T h e greatness o f the revelation o f G od in the Logos-Son is vaster th an th e cosmos created th ro u g h him . B u t he sent us th e Paraclete-Spirit, th ro u g h w hom th e Beloved Disciple was given to grasp the revelation in a u n iq u e m easure. By th a t sam e Spirit, a n d with th e aid of testim ony o f the disciple w hom Jesu s loved, we m ay e n te r m ore fully in to th e revelation in th e Son, an d in to th e experience o f being a disciple whom Jesu s loves. E x p la n a tio n

H aenchen rem ark ed on th e narrative o f 2 1 :1 -1 4 , “T h e a u th o r has created a m ysterious twilight in which o n e can n o t distinguish w hat ap p ears as real an d w hat is symbolic” (595). T his expresses in an ex ag g erated fashion an u n d o u b ted fact: th e L o rd ’s ap p earan ce to th e disciples is so described th at th e rea d e r m ay g a th e r varied lessons from it reg ard in g the L o rd ’s will fo r his C h u rch a n d o f his ow n p a rt in it. It is o u r p u rp o se briefly to indicate som e o f these secondary lessons, n o t alone o f vv 1-14 b u t o f th e c h a p te r as a whole. 1. T h e declaration o f Jesu s to Peter, which L uke conjoined to his account o f the m iraculous catch o f fish (Luke 5:10), could stand as a title to vv 1 14: “Do n o t be afraid, from now on you will be catching m en .” O n th at u n d erstan d in g th e a u th o r o f chap. 21 viewed P eter a n d his friends n o t as retreatin g to th eir old calling as fisherm en, b u t as advancing to th e ir vocation to be fishers o f m en on a new plane m ade possible by the resu rrection o f

E x p la n a tio n

417

Jesus. T h e ir lack o f success as m ere m en is tu rn e d to m iraculous effectiveness th ro u g h th e guidance o f th e risen Lord. T h e em phasis accordingly is not o n th eir earlier unsuccessful fishing b u t on th eir success th ro u g h th e direction o f Christ, fo r such is their calling in the new age o f the Resurrection . T h e feature o f th e u n to m n e t is com m only in terp reted as indicating th e unity o f the C h u rch as a concom itant o f engaging in mission u n d e r the leading o f th e risen L ord. A n o th er way o f expressing th at is to view th e event as illustrating th e pow er o f th e C h u rch to hold to g eth er m en an d w om en o f every race in th e unity o f C hrist (so W. F. H ow ard, IB 8:805). 2. W hile we have been at pains to distinguish th e two appearances o f Jesus th at lie behind vv 1-14, th eir conjunction m ust have had a purpose in th e a u th o r’s m ind. In th e setting o f the C h u rch o f his day th at may well have been th e desire to show th e goal o f mission as fellowship with th e risen Lo rd , such as is experienced in the C hristian love feasts an d in the w orship o f the C hurch generally, which naturally included the reg u lar g athering for the L ord’s S u p p er (see Alan Shaw, “T h e B reakfast by th e S hore,” 17-18; on th e link betw een th e resurrection appearances o f Jesu s at meals an d the varied expressions o f eucharist in th e early C hurch, see C ullm ann, “T h e B reaking o f B read an d th e R esurrection A ppearances,” 8-16). 3. T h e im portance o f the pastoral office assigned to P eter is plainly em p h asized in vv 15-17, together with love on the p a rt o f the pastor as the suprem e req u irem en t o f his office. T his applies n ot alone to Peter, b u t to all called to the office o f pastor. T h e conjunction o f P eter’s com m ission to be shepherd with the prophecy o f his fu tu re m artyrdom suggests that readiness to walk in the footsteps o f th e C hief S hepherd, who gave his life for the sheep, is integral to th e pastor’s office. T h a t is w hat is m eant by being a good shepherd. Paul M inear sets at the head o f his m editation on “Feed My S heep” a citation from A rchbishop O scar R om ero o f San Salvador: “As a pastor I am obliged by divine com m and to give my life for those whom I love—and that is for all Salvadorans, even for those who may assassinate me. If the threats should com e to pass I offer G od, for this very m om ent, my blood for the redem ption an d resurrection o f El Salvador.” Shortly after th at utterance he was assassinated while celebrating mass in the cathedral (John, The M artyr's Gospel [New York: Pilgrim ’s Press, 1984] 153). Such willingness to follow the Christ is an inspiration an d challenge to C hrist’s servants everyw here to obey his injunction “Follow m e.” 4. T h e a u th o r’s desire in 21:18-23 to set forth Peter and the Beloved Disciple as having different yet equally significant vocations is generally recognized. Peter is viewed as th e m odel S h ep h erd for all o th e r sh epherds o f the L ord’s flock. Is it out o f the question th at the a u th o r saw in the Beloved Disciple a m odel sh ep h erd o f a n o th e r kind? Peter is presen ted in the F ourth Gospel, as in the o th er Gospels, as th e spokesm an o f th e disciples o f Jesus, th e m an o f action whose qualities o f leadership are needed for th e mission an d service o f the C hurch. T h e qualities o f the Beloved Disciple, however, are equally needed in the leadership o f the C hurch. W hoever the a u th o r o f chap. 21 was, he knew the content o f chaps. 1-20 an d com pleted its picture o f the Beloved Disciple in harm ony with it. T h e re is a rem arkable similarity betw een the functions o f the Paraclete-Spirit an d those o f the disciple whom

418

J o h n 21:1-25

Je su s loved. R. A. C u lp e p p e r sum m arized th em in th e following m an n er: “ T h e Paraclete was to rem ain with th e disciples (14:7), teach th em everything (14:26), rem in d th e disciples o f all th a t Je su s h a d said (14:26), declare w hat h e has h e a rd (16:13), a n d glorify Jesus, because he will ‘receive from m e (Jesus) an d declare to you’ (16:14). F rom all indications this is exactly w hat th e Beloved Disciple has done. H e has com e from th e bosom o f Jesu s a n d has m ad e him know n to those w ho now affirm his testim ony. H e has taught, rem inded, a n d b o rn e a tru e witness. T h e w ords o f Jesu s in th e gospel are th e w ords th at h e has received fro m th e L ord a n d w ritten o r caused to be w ritten. . . . T h e Beloved Disciple is th e re fo re n o t only th e auth o rity a n d representative o f th e Jo h a n n in e tradition vis-à-vis Peter, he is the epitome o f the ideal d im p le. In him belief, love, a n d faith fu l witness are jo in ed . H e abides in Je su s’ love, a n d th e Paraclete works th ro u g h him ” (Anatomy o f the Fourth Gospel, 122-123). So surely as th e early ch u rch n eed ed th e m inistry o f th e Beloved Disciple to com plem ent th at o f P eter, so surely does the C h u rch at all tim es n eed th e m inistry o f those w ho p o n d e r the revelation o f th e L ord attested in the Gospel a n d seek th e guidance o f th e Paraclete-Spirit w ho m ade it possible. P erhaps it needs even m ore u rg e n tly shep h erd s w ho unite in th eir m inistries th e qualities o f P eter a n d th e Beloved Disciple. I f they ask, as well they may, “W ho is equal to such a calling?” (2 C or 2:16), they m ay also echo th e w ords o f th e apostle w ho raised th e qu estion: “O u r com petence com es from God. H e has m ade us co m p eten t as m inisters o f a new covenant” (2 C o r 3 :4 -5 ). 5. In th e thrilling b u t storm y gen eratio n th at saw th e birth a n d advance o f th e C hristian C h u rch a n d en d ed in th e terrible events o f th e fall o f Jeru salem , C hristians n eed ed to u n d erstan d rig h tly th e eschatological teaching o f Jesus. T h a t necessity rem ains in every g en eratio n , n o t least in light o f th e constant clam or o f voices claim ing to give th e last w ord o f th e Spirit on th e en d tim es. In th e period w hen the Gospel was sent o n its way th ere was n eed fo r o n e p articu lar p roblem to be cleared u p , a n d this th e a u th o r so u g h t to d o in vv 2 0 -2 3 . His exam ple is to be followed, a n d th a t in two respects: to listen carefully to w hat th e L ord actually said, a n d n o t to be content with secondhand repetitions o f his w ord an d op inions ab o u t it; a n d to give heed to its content, letting th e teaching o f th e kingdom o f G od a n d the com ing o f C hrist have its d u e effect o n o u r life a n d service. In this endeavor the a u th o r was a t o ne with th e spirit o f th e Evangelist, even if his accent was m o re Galilean th a n Jerusalem ite. H appy is th e congregation whose sh ep h erd in terp rets the w ord o f th e L ord fo r today’s w orld in its tru th a n d power!

Index o f Ancient Authors Aquinas 138 Aristotle Esh. Nic. 9 8 274 Esh.N ic. 1169a 274 Athanasiue 262 Augustine 6, 12,140,143,144, 262,402, 403 Confessions 9.13-14 6 De Consuig. Adult. 2.6 144 In Ioan. Ev. Tract. 9.1 162 In Ioan.. Ev. Tract. 76.4 260 In Ioan.. Ev. Tract. 101.5-6 286 In Ioan.. Ev. Tract. 116.200.648 339 In Ioan.. Ev. Tract. 122 402

Heraclitu s 6 Hippolytus 151 Homer Iliad 5.340-341 357

Origen x, 20,48,6 9 ,114-115,135,165, 333 Contra Celsum 2.8-9 320 Contra Celsum 2.24 320 Contra Celsum 2.37 320 Contra Celsum 6.11 136 In Jo. 28.12 197

Ignatius lxxv, lxxix Asneas 5:3 273 Smyra 3.2 385 Smyra 7:1 95 P45 164, 165, 183, 184 Irenaeus lxvi, lxvii, lxviii, 143 P 5 2 lx x v , lx x ix Again st Heretics 2.22.6 139 P66 2, 33, 38, 45, 58, 69, 70, 85, 105 Against Heretics 3.1,2 lxvi, lxxix 121, 126, 151, 165, 183, 184, 204, Against Heretics 3.3, 4 lxxix 205, 229, 230, 242, 243, 268, 293, Against Heretics 5.22.2 357 318, 366, 367, 394

A gB asila i n s t H e r e t i c s 5 . 3 3 . 4 l x v i i P 7 5 2 , 3 8A gainstH ,eretics15.2415 5 , 5 8 , 6 9 , 7 0 , 8 121, 4 , 8126, 5 , 151, 1 0 164, 5 165,183, 205, Corderius-Catena 295 195 Dem. 79 408 243 Jerome 143,165,401,402,404

C alistraus34

Papias lxvii, Chrysosto lxviii m139,357

Josephus16,69,88,125,317,318,336,344,362Philoliv-lv,ixvi,lxxix,6-7,60,317,318

Cicero 344 1 Clement lxxv Clement of Alexandria lxvii, lxvii,lxxxvii

H om .inIoan.9.6.715 Hom. in Ioan. 85.4 372

JewishAntiquities 3.161347 5.4D e rtio n 1 1Caini, 0 -1 1144 2 3416 47 Jewish Antiquities 4358e F u g a e t In vDe Posteritate JewishAntiquities 17.74 34 De Semniis 2.242 60 Jewish Antiquities 8.100 106 Q u o d D e u s s ic im tabls143 297 u Jewish Antiquities 11.2lxxxv De vite Mosis 2.65 lxxxv2:134liv

T he R ich M an's S alvation 2 3 Clementine Recognitions 23 Cyprian 85, 143 DeUnitateEcclessiae7347

JewishAntiquities12.35173 LegumAlegorise1:31-32liv Jewish Antiquities 1 4 .3 7 4 4 Legum Allegorise 3:79ff 35-36 Jewish Antiquities 14.107198 De Мutatione Nominum 92 Jewish Antiquities 15. 396-97 165 PhilonidesVita22274

Jewish Antiquities 14.385 329 Jewish Antiquities17.199 359 Jewish Antiquities 18.63-64 362-363 JewishAntiquities20.200 278 Didache lxxv Jewish Antiquities 21.3824 Egerton Papyrus 2 lxxv, lxxix, 192 TheJewish War 2.166196 Polycarp lxvi, lxvii, lxviii Ephraim the Syrian lxxix TheJewish War 3.375 130 130 E p ip h a n iu s The Jewish War 5.449 345 Cyril of Alexandria 262,402 In. Jo. XII: PG 74 402

Panarion51.25.6107V ita59

1 2 4 0 8 1 5 : 9 Epistle of Diognetus lxxix Eusebius lxvii, lxviii, 143, 144 Ecclesiastical History 3.29.4 331 Ecclesiastical History 3.31.3 lxvii Ecclesiastical History 3.39.3-4 lxviii Ecclesiastical History 3.39.17 14308ialoguew ryp9D thT 4 Ecclesiastical History 4.14.7 lxvii E clesiasticalH istory5.4-8lxvi Ecclesiastical History 6.44 346 Gospel of Peter 397

3

Plato Phacdo 65 243 Plutarch The Divine Vengcance 554 A/B 344 Moralia 180e 357 Martyrdom of Polycarp 13.1 278 Shepherd of Hermas lxxv

8 5 Apology 1:35 408 A p o lo g y 2 6 :1 Apology 35:1 24 Apology 61 lxxv, 47 Dialogue with Trypho 69 107

J u s t i n M a r t y r T a c itu s 3 4 4 1 3 6 A n n a ls 6 .8 3 4 0 T atian(includinhEphraem 'sC om m entary)151 Harmony of the Gospels lxxv, 47,58,66, 106 Tertullian 2, 85, 143, 262, 376 D ialoguewithTrypho133.6278 De Bept. 1 162 S p e c t . 3 0 3 7 6 Marcion lxvii, lxvii Theodore of Mopcestia 381, 385 Muratorian Fragment lxvii-lxviii, 413414 Valentinus lxxv

Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal W ritings Assumption of Moses 12:6 2 Baruch 48 Ben Sirach 4:10 24 24:6-8

79

24:21 24:24-27 39:3 48:10

60, 02 60 164,286 23

293 2 5 ,179 8 8

1 Enoch 37-71 37:2 42:2

164,287 287 8

48:6 49:2-4 62:1-10 4 Ezra 2:14 7:28-29 8:19b-36 13:51-52

110 26 112 138 215 293 110

420 Jubilees 1:19-21 1:23 1:24-25 10:3-6 16:20-31 19:9 20-22 36:17 1 Maccabees 1:9 4:36-59 4:59 13:51

In d e x o f An c ie n t A u t h o r s 293 49 25, 179 293 114 274 293 293

173 173 172 210

2 Maccabees 1:9 5:19 10:6 Odes of Solomon 7

148, 173 196 114

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs Benjamin 3 Joseph 19:8-9 Judah 20:1-5

49 210 349

223 24 24 257

Wisdom of Solomon 2:10-5:23 2:10-24 2:18 2:24 5:1-5 7:20 7:22-8:1 8:19-20 9:1 9:1-4 18:14-16

lx 355 112 25, 179 135 112 27 lx 155 8 lx 8

21 lxi 49 lxii lxii 257 lxii lxii

9:11 10:19-21 11:2-9 12:10 1QSa 2:11 ff 4QDan 4QFlor 1:6-7 11QMelch

24, 117 120 lxii 21 25, 179 25, 179

lxxv, lxxix, 7 7

Psalms of Solomon 18:6

24:3 Naphtali 5 Tobit 7:12

49

Qumran Materials IQH 3:19-23 6:34 11:7-14 11:10-12 11:12-14 11:12 16:6-12 16:11-12

lxii 214 lxii lxi 49 214 lxii lxtii

1QS lxiii 1:20 3:1-12 3:6-9 3:6-8 3:15-4:26 3:18-21 3:21-24 9:6

25, 179 176

Jewish Targum s and Rabbinic Writin g 176 Aboda. Zara. 5a Abot 62 2 (Id) 120 2.5 158 5:19 B. Abod. Zar 14d 157 156 28b B. Bat. 126b 155 lxxvii, 153 Ber. 28b 63a 296 28 Ber. Rab. 70:12 134 Besa 32b 15 Chag. 5b, 32 Eighteen Benedictions xlvi, lxxvii, lxxviii Benediction 12 xlvi, lxxvii, 153, 154, 277, 289 Exod. Rab. 134 19.81c 120 21:3 Gen. Rab. 1 9 79 1.19 74 il.8c 138 44.28a 345 56.4 47 65 (41b) 196-197 91 (58a) 197 94 (60a) 100 (64a) 189 Ger. Rab. 63:939c 155 118 J. Ber. 5a Jerusalem Targurn on Deuteronomy 21:20 154 JSanh. 309 1.1 309 7.2 332 18a 129 Ketub 2.9 20 96a Lev. Rab. 53 15.2 357 15:115c

36 (133a) 272 Mek. of Rabbi Ishmael 345 Mek. Exod 13:17 92 14:15 274 14:35b 274 198 15 47 15:32 (15b) 17 (41a) 198 233 21.2.82a Memar Markah (Samaritan Writing) lv lxiv 3:3 lxiv 4:1 65 111.3 Midr. Gen. 21:14 233 371 Midr. Gen. 42:17 Midr. Pi. 82 176 Midr. Pft. 118 210 244a 210 Midr.Qoh. 1:9 91 220 7:1 (31a) 47 11:5 118 Midr. Rabba 51 118 Midr. Rab. Exod. 32:7 176 Midr. Sam. 120 5:9 Ohaloth 18:7 327 Pe’a 1.15c. 14 233 Pesah 91a 334 118 Pirqe R. El. 3[2b] Pirqe 'Abot 2.15 152 5:1-9 402 27 78 pSanh 1.18a 37 309 Qjdd. 70a 62 53 Rabbi Aha Rabbi Akiba lxi Rabbi Chijja 15 Rabbi Eleazar lxi Rabbi Jehoshua b.Levi 20

Ruth Rab. 2:14 190 Sabb. 69 7.2 15 19:2 109 Sanh. 6b-7a 176 9.6 278 38b 138 43a 108, 224, 319, 325, 338 99a 99 107a 108 Sem. 8 189 Shab. 23.5 360 S. OlamRab 21 121 Sou 22a 108, 136 47a 108 47b 176 Sukk. 5:1 113, 127 5:55a 117 27b 121 Tanh. 6 386 l Qb 109 32a 386 Tanh. В 75 6. (60a) 138 9(13a) 176 Tg. on Isaiah 44:3 60 176 Tg. 14. J. Toledoth Jeshu 135 Tos. Sanh. 12:10 155 Tr. Sophe rim 16:8 416 T.Shabb 15 109 16 109 Yalkut Shimoni 2,480 59 Yoma 4a 158 85b 109

421

Index of Ancient Authors Gnostic, Mandaean and H erm etic W ritings Basilides Commentary on John

345

Concerning Regeneration 13 13:21-22 Ginza 59:39-60:2 301:11-14

352 293 271 272

Gospel of Thomas 18 19 31 38 85 Gospel of Truth

137 137 137 73 112 137 lvi, lxxv, lxxix

P. Oxyr. 1 Poimandres 1:31-32 The Second Treatise of the Great Seth

73 lvi 293 345

Index of Modern Authors Abbott, E, A, xxviii Ackermann, J , S, 162 Ackroyd, P, R, 392, 403 Adam, J , 6 Agourides, S, C, 291, 293, 392 Ahrendu, D, R, 403 Aland, K, bcxv, 1 Albright, W, F, 58, 375 Alford, H, 38 Allen, J , E, 312 Allen, W, C, 100 Argyle, J , 56, 63 Arndt, F, W, (See W, Bauer for the entries of BGD) Auer, E, G, 364, 372 Bacon, B, W, 227, 240, 392 Bajsk, A, 312, 334, 337 Balagué, M, 364, 372 Balz, H, 189 Bammel, E, 18, 28, 162, 178, 180, 196, 198, 199, 265, 280, 310, 312, 340, 341 Bampfylde, G, 312, 353 Baibet, P, 356 Barbour, R, S, 201, 207 Barclay, W, xxvi Barker, M, 180 Barrett, C, K, xi, xxvi, xxviii, xxxvxxxvii, xli, xlii, Ivi, bcxv, Ixxxiv, IxxxviU, 18, 21, 33, 35, 45, 50, 63, 64, 73, 81, 84, 87,94,106,107,108, 110, 115, 125, 126, ISO, 131, 135, 153, 154, 159, 165, 166, 169, 170, 173, 174, 188, 190, 192, Г93, 194, 196, 197, 204, 213, 229, 231, 234, 235, 240, 243, 250, 257, 262, 268, 275, 276, 283, 286, 287, 293, 295, 296, 297, 299, 302, 305, 310, 317, 331, 334, 337, 339, 349, 355, 357, 366, 371, 378, 386, 415 Barton, G, A, 227, 312 Bauer, W, xxvi, 45, 58, 69, 115, 126, 151, 159, 170, 171, 192, 193, 197, 209,234, 243, 250, 268, 293, 331, 342, 346, 357, 394, 396, 400, 408 Baur, F, C, bcxv Beare, F, W, 364 Beasley-Murray, G, R, 43, 407 Becker, J , xxvi, xxxviii, 21, 22, 34, 38, 40, 43, 45,47, 50, 51, 59, 71, 87, 132, 156, 166, 167, 174, 185, 190, 192, 194, 197, 224, 229, 231, 232, 235, 238, 243, 244, 251, 254, 270, 275, 283, 291, 295, 303, 305, 310 Becker, U, 144, 145 Behm, J , 256 BeM, H, I, txxv Bengel, j , A, 49, 381 Benoit, P, 364,368, 392 Berger, K, 18,27 Bernard, J , H, xxvi, xc, 3, 21, 38,45, 4 6,47,48, 58, 89, 125, 126, 131, 165,166, 191, 192, 196, 197, 224, 229, 243, 250,268,275,279,284, 295, 310, 318,322, 342, 374, 376, 394, 408, 415

Benrouaid, M, F, 265, 281 Bertram, G, 201, 214 Betz, O, 284 Bevan, E, 180 Bevan, T , W, 201 Bietenhard, H, 255 BiUerbeck, P, be, lxxvi, 15, 20, 27, 35, 47, 48, 53,60, 62,63, 70, 74, 75, 76,99,106,108,109,116,118,119, 120, 121, 127, 128, 134, 136, 145, 151, 155, 157, 158, 173, 180, 190, 195, 196, 198, 210, 233, 243, 246, 272, 274, 278, 309, 317, 318, 327, 334, 346, 359, 375, 383, 386, 416 BirdsaU, J , N, 162, 165 Bishop, E, F F, 162,169, 227, 236 Black, M, 164, 193 Blank, J , xxvi, xxviii, lxxxiv, 43, 50, 66, 77, 123, 128, 129, 131, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 156, 160, 161, 201, 212,223,235,256, 265, 270, 280, 282, 290, 297, 312, 327, 337, 374, 376, 379, 388 Blass, F,, Debninner, A,, Funk, R, W, 3, 125, 126, 240, 360, 366, 377 Blenkinsopp, J , 100, 115 BUgh, J , 56,66,81,152, 156 Blituler, J , 144,145,195,310,312,317, 334, 335, 340, 342, 343, 346, 354, 358,360 Bode, E, L, 364, 371 Boice, J , M, xxvi Boismaad, M,-E, xxvi, 2, 3, 22, 32, 34, 43,86,100,162,201,227, 229,231, 235, 240, 250, 342, 392 Boman, T , I, 8, 9, 201 Bonner, C, 180 BonsirvenJ, 312,341,342 Borgen, P, xxviii, xli, 1, 43, 50, 81, 86, 87, 91,201,240,312 Borig, R, 265, 269 Boring, M, E, 240 Bornhäuser, К, 199, 324, 372, 402 Bomkamm, G, 81, 149, 155, 160, 192, 291 Bouyer, L, xxvi Bowker, J , W, xxviii Bowman, J , xxviii, lxiii, lxv, 56, 136 Braude, W, G, 176 Braun, F, M, 2, 37, 56, 100, 180, 192, 227,229, 312,392 Bream, H, N, 265 Bright, J , 149 Brooke, A, E, 48, 357 Brooks, O, S, 81 Brown, R, E, xi, xxvi, xxviii, xxxvi, хlii, lxi, lxxviii, xc, 2 0 ,2 1 ,22, 32,45, 46, 53, 59,67, 81, 84, 86, 87, 90, 105, 107, 108, 118, 119, 126, 131, 135, 146, 148, 151, 153, 162, 165, 166, 167, 170, 174, 177, 190, 191, 193,197,205,206, 207,218, 223, 224, 226, 229, 230, 231, 235, 248, 251, 255, 259,269, 273, 279, 280, 281,283, 286, 294, 295, 297; 299, 303, 310, 312,318, 322, 325, 328, 331, 340, 342, 345 349, 350, 353,

355, 357, 360, 366, 368, 369, 370, 372, 374, 378, 392, 394, 395, 399, 400,402, 404, 406, 407 Brownlee, W, H, xxviii, lxxvii, lxxix Bruce, F, F, xxvi, 94,125,131,134,138, 165, 191, 192, 223, 229, 243, 250, 253, 276, 299, 310, 328, 329, 330, 334, 342, 357, 381, 385 Bruns, J , E, xxviii, 162, 202, 265 Buchanan, G, W, xxviii, Ixiv Büchse!, F, xxvi, 192, 280, 281 Bukmann, R, xi, xxvi, xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xxxix, xlii, xliii, lv, lvii, lxxiii, bcxv, lxxix, lxxxvi, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 20, 21, 24, 26, 31, S3, 38, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 59, 60, 62,63, 67, 71, 74, 75, 76, 78, 84, 87, 88, 89,90,92, 93, 97,103, 105, 110, 112, 116, 118, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138, 139, 145, 148, 156; 160, 165, 166, 168, 174, 185, 190, 192, 196, 197, 209, 219, 224, 225, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 235, 237, 238, 243, 250, 253, 254, 257, 258, 268, 269, 271, 273, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 283, 284, 293, 296, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 305, 318, 319, 322, 326, 330, 331, 336, 337, 339, 340, 342, 345, 348, 352, 355, 357, 363, 369, 371, 373, 374, 376, 379, 387, 388, 389, 396, 400, 401, 407, 408, 414 Burkill, T , C, 310 Burkin, F, C, 141, 202, 289, 397 Burney, C, F, lxxix, 2, 3, 28, 100 Buse, I, 37, 312 Bussche, H, Van De 265 Cadbury, H, J , 364,367 Cadier, J , 291 Cadman, W, H, 180, 190 Cafad, G, B, 202, 240, 246 Calvin, J , 381 Camerarius, J , 318 Campenhausen, H, von 144, 227, 235, 365,376 Carroll, K, L, 149 Carson, D, A, xxviii, xli, 41, 265, 281 Cassian, Bishop (S, Besobrasoff) 364, 392 Catchpole, D, R, 310 Cerfaux, L, 162, 164, 240 Chapman, J , 392, 411, 413, 414 Charles, R, H, 250 Charlesworth, J , H, xxviii, lxii Charher, C, 240 Charlier, J , P, 123 Chave!, C, B, 334 Chevalier, M, A, 312 Christie, W, M, 227 Chytraeus, D, 294 Cilix, Oppianus 401, 404 Coleman, B, W, 144 Coipe, C, xxviii Conybeare, F, C, lxxix Conaelmann, H, xxxiv, 128 Cortes, J , B, 100

Index of Modem Authors Comen, P, 312, 342 Cottam, T , 100 Cribbs, F, L, xxviii, lxxvi, lxxvii Cullmann, O, xxviii, xli, xlvii, Ivii, lxxiv, btxvffi, 18, 25, 37, 41, 56, 59, 64, 136, 234, 235, 272, 357, 392, 411, 417 Culpepper, R, A, xxviii, lxxiv, 1,4,324, 418 Dahl, N, A, xxviii, 123, 311 Dalman, G, 371 Daniélou, J , 100, 117 Danker, F, (See W, Bauer for the entries of BDG) Daube, D, 56, 58, 90, 180, 197 Dauer, A, 310, 311,312, 337,342, 343, 346, 347, 350, 351, 352, 361, 362 Davies, W, D, xlvi Debrunner, A, 126,230, 243 (also see Blass, F, for BDF and BDR entries) Deissmann, A, 151, 274, 340, 402 Dekker, C, 100 Delorme, J , 291 Demke, C, xxviii, 1, 3 Derretí, J , D, M, 32, 34, 144, 146, 162, 202,227 Dibelius, M, 192, 265, 308 Dodd, C, Η, X, xi, xxvi, xxviii, xxxiii, xxxvi, xli, xlii, xliii, xliv, xlv, li, liv, Ivi, Ivii, lix, lxxi, lxxii, lxxvii, xc, 1, 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 22, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 52, 58, 59, 63, 66, 67, 71, 73, 74, 75, 87, 8 8 ,9 0,92,97,98, 104, 123, 128, 131, 132, 134, 149, 152, 165, 166, 167, 169, 173, 179, 180, 184, 190, 191, 198, 202, 205, 206, 209, 211, 212, 214, 217, 222, 223, 227, 231, 235, 240, 244, 250, 263, 271, 272, 275, 276, 277, 279, 293, 295, 297, 308, 310, 312, 317, 318, 319, 322, 328, 331, 335, 345, 351, 352, 353, 358, 359, 360, 364, 369, 370, 378, 387, 392, 400, 414 DunkeHey, R, 181 Dunn, J , D, G, 81, 227, 229, 364, 381 Dupont, J , 2, 123 Dürr, L, 7 Edwards, R, A, xxvi Edwards, W, E, 312, 356 Emerton, J , A, 162, 176, 392, 402, 403 Evans, C, F, 312, 364 Fanner, W, R, 202 Farrer, A, lxxviii Fascher, E, 265 Fee, G, D, 100 Fensham, F, C, 240 Fenton, J , C, xxvi, 312 Feuillet, A, 67, 81, 149, 162, 166, 202, 291, 295 Filson, F, V, xxviii, lxxxiii Findlay, j , A, xxvi, 66 Finegan, J , 318 Fischer, G, 240, 249, 250, 251 Fitzmyer, J , A, 206, 312 Fluster, D, 26 Ford, J , M, 312 Foretell, 1, T , 181 Fortna, R, T , xxix, xxxix, xl, 34,67, 71, 8 1,88,90, 149, 152, 181, 185, 202, 312 Fowler, D, C, 364

Fraser, J , 336 Freed, E, D, xxix, btiv, Ixv, 202 Fridrichsen, A, 227 Fuller, R, H , xxxiv, 181, 185, 194, 364, 397 Gabel, W, J , 312, 356 Gaechter, P, 67,75, 404 Gardner-Smith, P, x, xxix, xxxvi, 322, 342,384 Gürtna, B, 81 Gärtner, E, 41 George, A, 163, 240, 291, 297 Geyser, A, 32 Giblet, J , 81, 163, 291 Giffon, G, 81, 89 Gingrich, F, W, (See W, Bauer for the entries of BGD) Gnilke, J , xxvi, 145 Godet, F, xxvi Gollwitzer, H, 240 Goodspeed, E, J , 318 Gore, A, 201 Gourbillon, J , G, 207 Grant, R, M, lxxvi, 392, 402, 404 Grass, H, 364, 392 Griffith, F, L, 200 Grimm, W, 181 Grelot, P, 100 Green-Armytage, A, H, N, xxix Grobei, K, 200 Grossouw, W, K, 227, 229, 230, 232 Grundmann, W, xxvi, 265 Gundry, R, H, 240, 249, 250 Guthrie, D, 43 Haenchen, E, xi, xxvi, xxix, lxxix, 10, 21, 22, 36, 47, 48, 56, 58, 59, 72, 74,87,103,115,131,132,137,139, 152, 166, 174, 192, 196, 197, 229, 231, 232, 235, 238, 243, 251, 254, 259, 280, 297, 310, 312, 322, 326, 332, 339, 342, 345, 352, 398, 408, 416 Hahn, F, 101, 163, 190 Hanson, A, T , 163, 177 Hare, D, R, A, lxxvii Haring, N, M, 227 Harris, R, 101 Han, H, S, J , 312, 336 Haningsveld, L, Van xxix, 202, 213 Hanmann, G, 364, 368, 369 Harvey, A, E, 310, 312 Haas, N, 354 Hatch, W, Η, P, 265 Hauck, F, 234 Hawkins, D, J , 265 Hawthorne, G, F, 239 Heer, J , 132 Hegermann, H, xxix, lxxxvi Heitmüller, W, xxvi, 67, 192, 251, 255, 299, 357 Hendriksen, W, xxvi Hengel, M, 26, 179, 309, 344, 408 Hennecke, E, 143 Héring, J , 191 Hien, R, H, 37, 39 Higgins, A, J , B, xxix Hobbes, T , 330, 331 Hobbs, Η, H, xxvi Hofrichter, P, 2, 14 Holland, H, S, xxix, xxxiii Holtzmann, O , lxxv Hooke, S, H, 101, 364, 387 Hooker, M, D, 1

423 Horbury, W, 149, 154, 320 Horsley, R, A, 81, 88 Hon, F, J , A, lxix, 252 Hoskyns, E, C, x-xi, xxvi, 1, 5, 10, 13, 18, 45, 47, 53, 61,67, 73, 74, 78, 84, 87,91,107, 110, 113, 130,131, 132, 135, 139, 159, 169, 170, 177, 188, 193, 196, 197, 209, 212, 229, 235, 243, 248, 250, 262, 273, 274, 279, 280, 284, 286, 288, 294, 296, 298, 299, 322, 330, 342, 345, 347, 353, 357, 359, 375, 386, 399, 402, 406,412 Hotmer, F, E, 312, 356 Howard, J , K, 81 Howard, W, F, xxvi, xxix, xxxviii, 132, 166, 239, 250, 279, 417 Huckle, J , xxvi Hulen, A, B, 18, 26 Hull, J , H , E, 72, 382 Hull, W, E, J , xxvi Humphries, A, L, 250 Hunter, A, M, xxvi, xxix, lxi, 45, 209 Ibuki, Y, 46 Iersel, B, M, F, Van 18, 21 Jacobs, L, 265 Jauben, A, xxix, Ixiii, 225,265,272,313 Jeremias, j , xxix, 1, 67, 81, 116, 120, 144, 145, 146, 163, 166, 196, 200, 225, 229, 310, 313, 318, 383 Jocz, J , xxix, lxxvii, 149 Johnson, E, D, 82, 284 Johnston, G, 240, 257, 265 Jonge, M, De xxix, lxxxviii, 18, 24, 43, 47, 101, 176, 251, 392, 396, 414 jUlicher, A, lxxv Juster, J , 308, 310 Kähler, M, xxxiii, 306 Käsemann, E, xxix, xxxix, lv, lxxxi, xc, 1,3, 13, 79,291,297,306 Keim, T , lxxv Kelly, J , 227 Kenyon, F, C, lxxv Kenyon, K, Μ, 318 Kern, W, 123 Kilmartin, E, J , 82 Kilpatrick, G, D, xxix, liv; 67, 69, 101, 115,310,313,318 Kimelman, R, 149 Kittel, G, 202, 214 Klein, G, 313, 326, 392 Klos, H, 82 Knox, R, A, 190 Knox, W, L, 197, 227 Kossen, Η , B, 202 Kraeling, C, H, 18, 43 Kragerud, A, xxix Krauss, H , 376 Kreitzer, L, xi Kremer, J , 265 Kruse, H, 403 Kugelman, R, 240 Kuhn, H,-W, Ixii Kuhn, K, G, 149, 207, 330 Kuhn, K, H, 101 Kümmel, W, G, lxi, lxvi, lxxix, lxxxiv, 67, 191 Kundsin, K, xlv, 240 Künneth, W, 364, 389 Kurfess, A, 313 Kysar, R, xxvi, xxix, xxxvi, lxxvii, lxxxiv

424 Lacomara, A, 223 Lagrange, M, J , xxvi, 103,165,170,192, 209, 229, 243, 250, 275, 279, 295, 296, 299, 302, 318, 332, 342, 359, 377, 394, 406 Lake, K, lxxix Lamarche, P, 355 Lamouille, A, xxvi Langkammer, H, SIS Lapide, C, 406 Lategan, В, C, 123 Latham, H, 372 Laurentin, A, 291, 292, 295 Lazure, N, 240 Lee, G, M 265, 392 Leenhaidt, F, J , 82,86 Legault, A, 206 Lehman, K, 41 Léon-Dufour, X, xxix, xlix, 1, li, 37, 40, 41, 67, 72, 82, 85, 98, 99, 202 Leroy, H, 41, 137 Lewis, F, W, 166 Uetzmann, H , 308, 309, 310, 313 Lightfoot, R, H, xxvi, lxix, lxxx, 115, 177, 229, 235,243, 250, 332 Lindare, В, xxvi, xxix, xxxvi, xlii, 3, 32, 33, 35, 40, 41, 45, 58, 59, 73, 82, 94, 108, 115, 134, 135, 137, 139, 145, 158, 165, 177, 192, 197, 224, 229, 231, 243, 251, 262, 265, 276, 286, 297, 299, 310, 313, 340, 355, 364, 369, 375, 386 Linnemann, E, 32 Uoyd-Jones, D, M, 291 Lofthouse, W, F, lxxxiii Lohmeyer, E, xlv, 227, 229, 235 Lohse, E, 310 Loisy, A, xxvi, 342, 374 Lorenzen, T , xxix Luther, M, 192, 249 Lyonnet, S, 281 MacDonald, J , xxix, Ixiii-lxiv, 56,62,65 MacGregor, G, H, C, xxvi, 82, 207, 347 Macneil, B, 181 Macrae, G, W, xxvi, xxix, 101, 106 Macuch, R, Ivii Mahoney, A, 313, 324 Mahoney, R, 364, 374 Malatesta, E, x, xxix, 291, 295 Malina, В, J , 82 Manson, T , W, xxix, lxxx, lxxxii, 144, 146 Mamey, J , R, 364, 366,367 Marrow, S, B, 392 Marsh, J , xxvi, 177, 192,394 Marshall, I, H, 56, 206, 326 Martin, J , P, 163, 181 Martyn, J , L, xxix, xlii, xliv, xlvii, xlix, 1, li, lxxvi, lxxvii, lxxviii, lxxx, 73, 101, 117, 123, 136, 149, 152, 153, 159, 251, 277 Mason, R, A, 355 Mastín, В, N, xxvi, xxxvi-xxxvii, 293, 310 McCasland, S, V, 240 McEleny, N, J , 392, 403 McNamara, M, 202, 214, 364 Meeks, W, xxix, xliv, xlv, Ixiv, bcv, lxxvii, lxxviii, 50, 79, 112,275, 342 Mein, P, 313 Mendner, S, 37,40 Metzger, B, 21, 45,70, 84,85,126,151, 165, 183, 229, 230, 242, 243, 268, 269, 292, 293, 317, 318, 333, 395

In d e x o f Mo d e r n A u t h o r s Meyer, P, W, 163 Michaelis, W, xlii, 364 Michaels, J , R, 313 Michl, J , 227, 229,234,239 Minear, P, S, 163, 291, 417 Miranda, J , P, xxix, lxxxiv Moflan, J , lxxv, 166, 227, 243, 318 Mdlat, D, 82, 149, 163 Moloney, F, J , 202,207, 240 Montefiore, H, 82, 88 Moore, G, F, 120 Moore, W, E, 202 Moreton, M, J , 67 Morgan, G, C, 169 Morris, L, xxvi, xxxvi, lxxvi, 169, 170, 192, 243, 250, 330, 342, 415 Morrison, C, D, 291 Moule, C, F, D, xxx, 18, 151, 243 Moulton, j , H, 58, 126, 132, 151, 243, 268, 318, 329, 394 MüUer, К, 149 Munck, J , xxx Munroe, W, 202 Mussner, F, xxx, 1, li, In, liii, 227 Neirynck, F, xxx, xxxvii, 324, 364 Nestle, E, 202, 318 Nestle, W, 313 Neugebauer, F, lxxxviii Newbigin, L, xxvi, 177, 238 Newman, B, 243 Nichol, W, xxx, xxxix, xlii, 34, 67, 181, 185 Nicholson, G, C, 202 Nida, E, 243 Noetzel, H, 32, 35 North, C, R, 226 Nunn, H, P, V, 415 Odeberg, H, xxvi, xxx, 43, 48, 59, 92, 128 Оке, С, C, 101 O’Connell, M, J , 218 O’Grady, J , F, 265 O’Neill, J , C, 18, 24 Osborne, B, 181, 195 Osborne, R, E, 144 Pancaro, S, xxx, 181, 198 Painter, J , 18 Parrot, A, 318 Pas, H, L, 240 Patrick, J , G, 265 Pauly, A, F, Von 189 Pesch, R, 392, 396 Phillips, J , B, 318 Pollard, T , E, xxx, lxxxiii, 163,174,262, 291 Porech, F, xxx, 56, 82, 240, 256, 257, 265,270, 277, 280, 281, 283, 284, 381 Porter, C, L, 149, 151 POtterie, 1, De la 43, 48, 202, 241, 252, 265, 281, 283, 313,342 Prior, M, P, 415 Pusey, E, B, 6 Quasten, J , 163 Quispel, G, Iviii Rad, G, Von lx, 156, 216, 378 Radermacher, L, 345 Randall, J , F, 291 Reese, J , M, 241 Reiser, W, E, 181, 195

Richardson, A, xxvi Richter, G, 1,13,43, 227,235, 315, 320, 356, 358, 364 Riedl, J , 123, 132 Riesenfeld, H, 144, 364, 387 Riosetti, G, 241 Rissi, M, 32, 392, 403, 404 Robinson, J , A, xxx, xxxiii Robinson, J , A, T , xxx, XXXV, lxxvi, lxxvii, 1, 18, 23, 56, 163, 166, 227, 235, 310, 318, 325, 359, 360, 363, 412 Roloff, J , xxx, lxxiv, 37, 82, 149, 414 Romaniuk, K, 181 Romeo, J , A, 392, 403 Romero, Archbishop 417 Rosscup, J , E, 265 Ruckstuhl, E, xxx, xxxix, xl Rudolph, W, 355 Sabbe, M, 313 Sanders, J , N, xxvi, xxx, xxxvi-xxxvii, lxxvii, lxxix, 21, 40, 94, 135, 165, 166, 174, 178, 181, 183, 192, 194, 195, 202, 293, 310 Sanders, J , T , xxx, 1, 9 Sandvik, B, 265 Sass, G, 181, 193 Sava, A, F 313, 356 Schaeder, H , H, 317 Schaefer, O, 241, 249 Schilling, F, A, 144 Schlatter, A, xi, xxvi, 45, 52, 62, 63, 69, 78, 79,95, 138, 165, 174, 188, 190, 191, 197, 205, 208, 209, 229, 233, 238, 250, 284, 287, 298, 299, 332, 346, 350, 357, 383, 413 Schmiedel, P, W, lxxv Schlier, H, 327 Schmithals, W, xxxviii, Ivii, lxxv, lxxix Schnackenburg, R, xi, xxvii, xxxvi, lx, txxi, lxxii, lxxx, lxxxii, lxxxiv, 3, 13, 21, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 38, 41, 43, 46, 50, 52, 53, 58, 59, 61, 64, 71, 76, 82, 84, 85, 88, 90, 94, 95, 96, 107, 111, 115, 116, 119, 130, 132, 133, 135, 139, 140, 145, 159, 162, 165, 166, 170, 174, 178, 184, 185, 190, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 205, 209, 212, 214, 218, 224, 226, 229, 231, 235, 236, 241, 244, 247, 251, 252, 253, 257, 261, 268І 269, 273, 276, 279, 280, 281, 286, 291, 295, 297, 299, 300, 302, 303, 304, 305, 310, 313, 327, 330, 334, 338, 339, 340, 342, 346, 347, 348, 352, 353, 355, 357, 358, 360, 368, 369, 373, 377, 378, 380, 386, 398, 404, 406, 408, 412, 416 Schneider, J , xxvii, 101, 163, 166, 170, 313 Schottrof, L, xxx, lv Schräge, W, lxxvi, 149 Schrenk, G, 415 Schulz, S, 67, 77, 192, 229, 250 Schürmann, H, lxxi, 82,85,94, 96, 222, 313, 350 Schwank, В, 265 Schwartz, E, lxxv Schweitzer, A, xxxiv Schweizer, E, xxx, xxxix, lxxix, 67, 82, 90, 357 Scobie, С, H, H , xxx, Ixiv, 18, 23 Scott, E, F, xlviii, 37, 39 Seidensticker, P, 364, 380 Segal, j , B, 225

425

Index of Modem Authors Segovia, F, F, 244 Sevenster, G, xxx Shaw, A, 392, 396, 401, 417 Sheehan, J , F, X, 406 Sherwin-White, A, N, 309, 310, 313, 327, 329, 335 Sickenberger, P, 386 Sidebouom, £ , M, 99 Sjöberg, E, 110 Skeat, T , C, lxxv Skemp, J , B, 9-10 Smalley, S, S, xxx, 18, 241, 260, 304, 357, 392 Smith, C, W, F, 101 Smith, D, M, xxvii, xxx, xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix, xliii, xlvii, 265, 312 Smith, G, A, 58, 168, 169 Smith, M, lxxviii Smothers, E, R, 101, 123, 125 Solages, B, De xxx Spicq, C, 347, 392, 394 Stagg, F, 241 Stählin, G, 250, 274, 277, 373, 406 Stanley, D, M, 313 Stauffer, E, 43, 144, 341, 349 Stenger, W, 181, 185, 265 Strachan, R, H, xxvii, xlii, 192, 232,250 Strack, H, L, lx, lxxvii, 15, 20, 27, 35, 47, 48, 53, 60, 63, 70, 74, 75, 76, 99, 106, 108, 109, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 127, 128, 134, 136, 145, 151, 155, 157, 158, 173, 180, 190, 195, 196, 198, 210, 233, 243, 246, 272, 274, 275, 278, 309, 317, 318, 327, 334, 346, 359, 375, 383, 386, 416 Strathmann, H, xxvii, 74, 192,243,250, 295 Stroud, W, 356 Swete, Η, B, 399

Tasker, R, V, G, xxvii Teeple, Η, M, xxx, xxxviii Temple, P, J , 97 Temple, S, 32, 67, 313 Temple, W, xxvii, xxxv, 192 Tenney, M, C, xxvii Theissen, G, 32 Thompson, F, 30-31 Thüsing, W, xxx, 43,123,202,212,265, 284, 291 Thyen, Η, X, xxx, lxxii, lxxiii, lxxiv, lxxxiii, xc, 1, 2 ,3,5,46,82,98,224, 227, 229, 231, 265, 306, 392, 3%, 414 Tischendorf, N, 396 Titus, E, L, xxx Topel, L, J , 43 Тоггеу, C, C, xxx, 164, 202, 214 Trocmé, E, 37, 38 Trudinger, P, 181 Turner, C, H , 101 Turner, H, E, W, Ivii Turner, Μ, Μ, B, 364, 381, 382 Turner, N, 126,151,243,265,318,329 Twomey, J , J , 313, 334 Tyndale, W, 249 Unnik, W, C, Van xxx, lxxxviii, 202,215 Vanhoye, A, 67, 72 Vergote, A, 202 Vermes, G, 26, 179 Vielhauer, P, 143 Visokay, P, xxvi Vogels, H, 37 Volkmar, G, lxxv Walker, R, 56 Watson, G, W, E, 56, 64 Wead, D: W, 313, 338

Wedel, A, F, 56 Weiser, A, 227 Wellhausen, J , xxvii, 408 Wenger, L, 335 Westcott, B, F, xxvii, Iviii, Ixix, lxx, lxxii, 45, 111, 132, 170, 174, 177, 191, 193, 213, 229, 234, 250, 275, 294, 295, 332, 349, 357, 375, 377, 379, 380,381, 394,395, 411, 413 Westermann, C, 226 Weitstem, J , J , 408,416 White, H, J , 37 Widengren, G, 241 Wieand, D, J , 67, 70 Wiefel, W, 265 Wilcox, M, 181, 194, 227 Wiles, M, F, xxx Wilkenhauser, A, xxvii, 229, 284 Wilkens, W, xxxi, lii, 181, 185 Wilkinson, J , 313 Williams, A, T , P, 318 Williams, F, E, 18, 21 Wilson, R, MacL, xxxi Windisch, H, xxxi, txxxviii, 226,258,284 Wink, W, 18, 23 Winter, P, 310, 313 Woodhouse, H , 101 Woude, A, S, Van De 176 Wrede, W, 238 Wroge, Η, T , 202 Yamauchi, E, xxxi, Ivii Yates, N, B, 365 Ysebaert, J , lxxxv Zahn, T , xxvii Zerwick, M, 126, 265 Zimmermann, H, 90 Zinxendorf, N, Von lxxxi

Index of Principal Topics Authorship XXXV, xlii, xlv, lxvi-lxxv, 143-44, 395-96 Christology xxxiv, xliv, Iv, lxv, lxxvi, lxxxi-lxxxiv, lxxxix, 3,6-10,16-19, 42, 55-56, 74-75, 79-81, 86, 88, 89-90, 98, 131, 139-40, 178, 186, 235, 245, 251, 262, 280, 380 Date of the Gospel lxxv-lxxxi Docetism xc, 14, 95, 356 Eschatology xxxiv, lxxx, txxxiv, lxxxvlxxxvii, 40, 54, 62,63-66, 73, 7677, 79-80, 92, 93, 116, 117, 130, 131, 190-91, 213, 218, 219, 251, 258, 285, 305, 381, 388, 389, 412, 413 Gnostics/Gnosticism xxxviii, xxxix, IvIviii, bcv, lxxv, lxxix, lxxx, lxxxviiixc, 2,7 ,1 3 , 135,179,239,250,271, 293, 321, 357 Hellenistic Background xliv, xlv, liii— Iviii, lxv-lxvi, 6-10 Hermetic Literature Ivi, 352 Jamnia xlvi, lxxvii, lxxx Jerusalem xlv, lxxxi, 20, 22, 37-42, 59, 72, 73, 104, 145, 208, 209-10 Jewish/Christian tensions xlvi-xlviii, lxxxviii-xc, 104, 106, 122, 141-42, 153, 158, 362-363 John the Baptist xxxviii, xlv, lii, Iviii, lxv, lxxii, lxxvi, lxxxviii, 4, 11-12, 15, 18, 22, 23-26, 28, 46, 49, 52-53, 58,64, 72, 78, 79, 111, 199, 210, 332, 398 Johannine School xliv, 29-30 Kingdom of God lxxx, lxxxii-4xxxiii, lxxxv-lxxxvii, 15, 24,33,36, 39,40,

42, 45, 46, 48-49, 50, 52, 55, 5859, 61-62, 64, 65, 66, 74, 76, 7980, 88-89,92,93, 98,106,116,117, 128, 130, 133, 137, 143, 147, 164, 169, 170, 172, 173, 191, 198, 199, 206-7, 210, 215, 216, 218-21, 234, 237, 239, 248, 255, 258, 262, 273, 278, 280, 284, 287, 288, 296, 329, 330-31, 332, 371, 378, 379, 381, 399,413 Literary sources behind John xxxviiixliii Logos liv, Iv, Ivi, lxxxi-lxxxiv, 2-17, 128, 139-40, 177, 199, 215, 217, 219, 252, 289, 297, 337, 356, 389, 416 Lord’s Supper (Last Supper) 94-96,9899,222-23,225,226,230,231,23435, 247, 269, 294, 301, 305, 306, 357,400,401,409 Mandaism lvii—lviii, 271, 293 Muratorian Canon lxvii, lxviii, 413-14 Nag Hammadi lvi Palestinian Background xliv, xlv Paraclete xlviii, I, li, liii, lxii, 16, 29,215, 220, 223, 226, 227, 245, 256-57, 258, 261, 264, 270-71, 276, 277, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 288, 290, 304, 353, 377, 380, 382, 411, 416,417 Parousia lxxxvii, 198,220,244, 245,247, 250, 251, 258, 259-60, 264, 286, 304,305,410,411,412, 413 Purpose of Writing lxxxviii-xc Qumran xlv, lxi—lxiii, lxxiv, lxxvi, lxxx, 25,42, 70, 120, 176, 179, 215, 257, 302,309

Rabbinic Judaism lx-lxi, lxiv Revelation (The Book of) (Relationship of John to) lxix-lxx, xc-xcii Revelation-discourse xxxiii-xxxix, Iv Samaritan Religion lxiii— lxv, 64-65 Signs-source xxxix, xl-xlii, xc-xcii, 22, 33-34, 71, 104, 185, 206,217, 219, 230, 231, 247, 254, 286, 360 Son of David xlvii Son of God xlvii, lvi, lxv, lxxxi-lxxxiv, 4, 5, 14-15, 16, 17, 22, 26, 27, 30, S3, 36, 41, 46, 51, 54-55, 75-77, 79-80, 85, 93, 95, 129, 134, 140, 151, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175-78, 179-80, 185, 187, 192, 200, 212, 245, 249, 254, 255, 260, 262, 271, 272, 273, 276, 280, 282, 289, 295, 296, 297, 300, 302, 303, 305, 309, 319, 329, 338, 344, 350, 351, 352, 356, 361, 362, 379, 388, 389, 390, 416 Son of Man liv, Ivi, Ixv, lxxxi-lxxxiv, lxxxv, 22, 28, 30, 35, 46, 49, 50, 75-77, 79-80, 96, 131, 132, 151, 154, 159, 160, 161, 172, 175, 17980,211,212, 213,214, 215, 219, 246, 249, 251, 272, 280, 282, 287, 297, 327, 328, 333, 343, 355, 361, 389 Soteriology/lxxxiv-lxxxv, 46-47, 50, 51, 252 Structure of Gospel (Outline) xc-xcii Synoptic Gospels (Relationship of John to) xxxii-xxxiii, xxxv-xxxvii, xl-xli, xliv, lxiii, lxxvi, lxxviii, S3, 36, 3839, 50, 71-73, 87-88, 104, 141-42, 143, 160, 167, 168, 169, 173, 211, 217, 222, 224, 225, 226, 248, 275, 306,310-12,325-26,335,336,338, 347, 348, 360 Wisdom lx, 8-9, 11-12, 60-61, 98

Index of Biblical Texts A, Old Testam ent Genesis 1 1:1 1:3 1:6 1:9 2—4 2 2:2 2:7 3 4 5:1 9:5 12:1-4 17:17 18:17 22 22:2 22:4 22:6 22:10-13 22:12 22:15-18 22:16 24:1 25:22 27:35 29:30-31 40 40:13 40:19 42:17 49 49:10

Exodus 3:12 3:14 4:1-9 4:21-22 4:22-23 4:22 4:21 7:1 8:15 8:32 12:22 12:46 13:21-22 14:19-25 15:24 16:2 16:15 17:1-6 17:3 17:12 19:3-6 19:5 19:10 19:16-25 20:15 20:22

6, 10 10 7 7 7 349 liv, 6 74 151, 155, 380 135 135 138 130 134 138 275 51, 138 14 41 345 25 14 134 14 lxi, 138 155 27 211 50 214 214 40 223 156 24 33 90, 139 33 177 25 135 216 lxv, 75 216 216 352 lix, 87, 355 128 127 93 93 86, 91 114, 116 93 408 247 13, 292 208 78 154 180

23:1b 23:7 28:41 32:30-32 33:7-11 33:11 33:13 33:18-23 33:18 34 34:6 34:18-20 34:21-23 40:34-38

Leviticus 16:17 18:5 19:18 23:34-36 25:39 26:16

146 146 301 79 14 158, 274, 275 259 253 259 lxiv 14 15 15 14 327 295 156 247, 274 106, 114 233 64

16:15 17:2-5 18:15-18 18:15 18:18-19 18:18 18:19 18:20-22 19:15-19 19:15 21:22 21:23 27:3 27:15-26 28:30 29:2-4 30:15-20 32 32:39 32:47 33 34:10-12

114 120 62, 79, 65 lxiv, 24, 88, 103, 117, 157 218 lxiv,24, 117, 157 218 40 120 70, 78, 129, 372 353 328, 353 61 120 64 216 218 293 lix 78 293 157

Joshua Numbers 4:2-3 4:39 7:10-11 8:10 8:24-25 9:6-12 9:9-11 9:12 11:1 11:4-6 11:13 14:1-3 19:11 20:3 21:4-9 25:13 27:18 29:12-39

Deuteronomy 1:16-17 1:17 4:11-12 4:33 5:9 6:4-5 6:4 11:29 12:1-4 13:1-10 13:1-6 13:1-5 14:1-2 15:19 15:21 16:13

139 139 177 275 139 327 208 87, 355 93 93 84 93 327 94 50 278 275 114 223, 226 120 176 78 78 154 274 70, 135, 247 61 61 325 107, 338 40, 157 135 301 301 114

7:19 12:25 22-24

151 85 223

Judges 11:12 11:34

34 14

Ruth 1:16

378

I Samuel 10:1-9 31:9-13

33 374

2 Samuel 5:2 7:14 7:25-26 12:5 20:1 21:17

406 25 292 299 197 78

1 Kings

189

4:26 8:63 11:29-30

210 177 347

2 Kings

189

3:13 4:42 5:10-14

34 84 155

428 6:8-12 7:24-41 10:11 14:25 17:50-31

In d e x o f Bibl ic a l T e x t s 27 60 317 121 61

1 Chronicles

189

28-29

223

2 Chronicles

189

16:14 20:7 50:15-20 35:21

359 274 208 34

Ezra 5:16 6:1617:7) 10:2 10:11

38 177 120 120

N ehemiah

3:1 9:15

Job 9:8 14:11-12 14:14 Psalm s

2:7 7:9-11 9:14 18:7-16 22 22:11 22:18 22:1 23:2 27:1 27:2 33:6 34:4 34:20 35:19 35:22-28 40:10 41:7 (42:7) 41:9 44:3 45:8 54:1 55:14 56:9 57:4 58:4 60 69 69:4 69:9 69:22 77:16 77:19 78:24 78:15-16 80:1-7 80:8-18 80:14-19

69 91 154 89 189 48 8,1 25 136 214 213 288, 351, 352 351 347 288 27 128 323 7 323 lix, 355 276 136 95 207 236, 299 128 359 299 317 323 299 155 352 276, 351 276 39, 41, 261 351 89 89 91 116 128 272 128

80:14-18 82 82:1-4 82:1 82:1b 82:6-7 82:6 89:26-27 89:37 89:48(88:49] 90:2(89:2) 96:10 105:4041 110:1 113-118 118 118:20 118:21 118:25 118:26 122:8 132:17-18 139:17

272 172,176, 179 176 І76 176 176 75, 175,176,177 25 215 137 139 346 116 329 113,210 113,210 169,170 194 113, 131, 210 20, 192,210 274 78 138

Proverbs

8, 286

1:6 3:19 3:6 6:5 7:17 8 8:22 8:22-31 8:27-31 10:27

286 lx 296 92 359 10 9 8 8 128

Ecclesiasles 1:9 8:15

118 99

Song of Solaman 4:14 Isaiah 2:11 4:12 5 5:1-7 6:1-4 6:9-13 6:9-10 6:10 7:10-16 8:6 8:9 9 9:6-7 10:25 11 11:1-10 11:1-2 12:3 21:2-3 18:19-25 25:6-9 25:6 26:16-21 26:20 27:12 28:21-22 29:17

359 lvi 258 258 164,286 272 217 216 207, 216 216 S3 155 40 259 262 285 259 280 25 113, 114,117 285 407 88,379 195 286 258 63 216 285

31:1-3 32:14-18 34:5 40:3 41:4 41:8 41:21-29 42:1-4 42:1 43:3 42:5-8 42:6-13 42:9 43:10-13 43:10-11 43:10 43:11-13 43:11 43:25 44:1-5 44:6-11 44:6 44:7-9 45:5-6 45:18 45:21-22 46:4 46:9 48:12 49:1-6 49:6 49:7-12 49:22 50:4-9 50:4 50:10-11 52:1-8 52:7 52:13-53:12 52:13-15 52:13 53 53:1 53:7 53:12 54:1-5 54:1 54:13 55:1 55:11 57:19 60:14 60:19-22 61:1-3 62:4-5 63:8-9 65:2 66:7-14 66:7-11 66:19

280 299 20 lix 274 284 65 226 78 226 90 139 90 280 29 90 90 65 139 97 226 275 226 349 226 29

216

49,210

226,802 25,26

lix,29 90,301 130,65

139,140

26,26

lxxxiv, 50, 131,214 207,152

339 346 379 93 92 8 262 xlvii 128 379 53 65 408

Jeremiah

285177,

1:5 1:18 2:13 2:21 6:14 7:11 7:21 7:32 9:25-26 9:25 13:21 16:14-15

349155,

33 60 262 309 40 278 134 278 285 278

272,289

Index of Biblical Texts 17:10 17:13 25:26 31:1-4 31:31-40 31:34 51:33 51:41

47 60,146 403 280 278 93 285 403

Lamentation 1:16

34 36:24-27 36:25-27 37:1-14 37:9-10 37:26-27 37:26 45:25 47 47:1-12 47:1-11

lv, 168, 178, 179 280 49 280 380 260 262 114 401,402 41, 114 116

1:4 1:13 1:26-26 1:28 8 8:1-18 10:15-19 11:17-20 11:22-23 13:7 13:17 15 15:1-5 16 17 17:1-21 19 19:10-15 21:21-23 22:29 23

Micah , 4:9-10 5:2 6:15

285 110, 118, 119 64

Habakkuk 2:33-34 3:3-15 3:3-4

258 259 128

Haggai

262

118

Daniel Еzekiel

429

61,177 128 128 128 323 41 27 41 280 41 288,326 326 286 272,273 286 286 272 286 272 27 120 286

7 7:13 10:9 12:2

lxxxíi, 77 110, 131,329 323 189

Нosea 1:4 2:14-20 6:2 10:1-2

285 53 371 272

Joel 2:28-32 3:18 4:13

280 118 63

39

2:10 6:11-12 8:20-23 9 9:9-10 9:9 12:10 13:7-9 13:7 І4:5b-7 14:8 14:11 14:16-17

260 337 264 259 210 206,210 355 168 355 128 114 116 114

Malachi 3:1 4:5

Amos 3:1-2 4:4

Zecheriah

23 23

170 40

В, New Testament Matthew

xxxiii, xxxv-xxxvii, xlvii, lxxviit, 119, 308,311, 336, 343, 349, 351

2:4-6 2:5-6 3:7-12 3:9 3:10 3:11-12 3:11 4:1-4 4:5-7 4:8-9 4:12 5-7 5:3-12 5:6 5:11-12 5:17 5:20 5:25 6:13 7:1 7:21-23 7:21 7:24-27 7:28-29 8:2 8:5-13 8:7 8:11-12 8:12

110 118 25 134 273 29 15 63 106 205 58 247, 386 48 36 154 lix, 160 45 343 293 147 236 45 236 119 159 69, 71, 73 69, 73 36 92, 134

8:13 8:20 9:18 8:27-29 9:30 9:37 10 10:1-42 10:4 10:5-15 10:5-6 10:17-23 10:16 10:19-20 10:23 10:24-31 10:24 10:32-38 10:32-33 10:37 10:40 11:2-14 11:2-3 11:3 11:5 11:6 11:12-13 11:12 11:17 11:18-19 11:20-24 11:25-26 11:25

71 77 159 xxxvii 192 63 xlvi 222 243 xlvi 211 xlvi xlvi 226 xlvi xlvi 236, 275 xlvi 80, 154 211 217 297 29 20, 192, 210 xxxiv, 199, 331 386 331 xxxiv 285 28, 77 297 297 299

11:27 12-13 12:18 12:28 13:16-17 12:38-40 13:16 13:24-30 13:30 14:25 14:33 16 16:13 16:16 16:18-19a 16:18 16:19 16:19a 16:19b 16:22 17:1 18 18:3 18:12-14 18:18 19:23 19:28 21:12-14 21:22-14 23 23:1-3 23:13-36 23:13

lxxxii, 54, 80, 297 29 192 xxxiv, 331 331 40 386 63 273 89 85 367 159 85 407 407 366, 367, 406 407 383 229 250 367 45, 47 168 367, 383, 384 45 lxxxv, 48 347 200 141, 142 236 236 156, 170, 407

430 23:32 23:35-36 23:38 23:39 24-25 24:26-27 24:30 24:32-33 24:36-4i 24:42—44 24:45-51 24:46 24:51 25:1-46 25:26 25:31-46 25:31-33 26:11 26:25 26:26 26:29 26:31-32 26:33 26:39 26:42 26:61 26:64 26:73 27:16-17 27:19 27:25 27:40 27:50 27:51 27:53 27:55-56 27:56 27:57 27:66 28:2-3 28:5 28:7 28:9-10 28:9 28:10 28:11 28:12-14 28:13-15 28:17 28:18-20 28:19

Mark

1:1 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:7 1:11 1:14 1:16 1:22 1:29 1:40 1:43 2:1-3:6 2:1-12 2:5 2:10 2:14 2:17 2:19

In d e x 40 40 41 230 222 110 355 413 413 413 413 386 234 200 64 28, 77, 80 51 205 317 230 230 248 405 323 323 38, 40 21, 230, 317 325 333 342 362 38, 40 353 358 lxxxvii, 259 348 348 358 53 374 374 377 368, 369 376 376, 377 366 376 320, 371 369 171 lxxxii, 384 xxxiii, xxxiv-xxxvii, lxxviii, 20, 199, 308, 311, 317, 336, 349, 351 11 21 11 110 15 14 89 148 108, 119 21, 25 159 192 104, 105, 141 147 74 28 148 160 36

o f

2:28 3:1-6 3:18 3:20-21 3:21 3:22 3:31-35 3:32-35 4:1-9 4:10-20 4:11-12 4:11 4:22 4:26-29 5:21-43 5:22 5:23 5:34 5:39 5:40 6 6:3 6:7-13 6:31 6:32 6:36 6:37 6:47 6:51 7:3-4 7:24-30 7:27 7:33 8:1-8 8:2-3 8:11-12 8:11 8:14-21 8:23 8:27-33 8:27-30 8:27 8:29 8:31-33 8:31 8:32-33 8:32 8:33 8:34-37 8:34 8:35 8:37 8:38 9:1-13 9:1 9:7 9:14-27 9:19 9:31 9:33-41 9:37 10:15 10:17 10:21 10:23-45 10:23 10:27 10:29-30 10:32-45 10:32 10:45 10:51 10:52 11:1-11

Bibl ic a l T e x t s 28 71 243 107 109 91, 109 35 107 63 222 216, 331 287 216, 398 63 184, 199 159 151, 189 189 189 250 87 10, 106, 243 222 87 87 87 204 89 85 35 71 73 155 87 88 200 40, 87, 91 87, 222 155 222 21, 87 159 85 323 lxxxiii, 28, 41, 50, 77, 131, 159, 172, 371, 373 233 212 97 220 129, 189, 231 211 154 lxxxii, 23, 77, 80, 180 222 137 213 184 71, 73, 125 131, 172 222 217 47 lxxxv lxxxv 222 lxxxv lxxxv lxxxv 235 131, 172 160, 165 375 189 208

11:9 11:15-19 ll;17 11:27-12:40 11:27-12:37 11:27-33 11:30 12:1-12 12:1-11 12:10-11 12:13-37 12:17b 12:18-27 12:24-27 12:28-31 12:28 12:29-31 12:32-34 12:37b 12:41 13 13:9-13 13:9 13:10 13:11 13:13 13:18 13:21-22 13:24-27 13:27 13:32 13:33-37 13:34-36 13:34 14 14:1-2 14:3-42 14:3-9 14:3 14:5 14:6 14:7 14:10-11 14:12 14:17 14:18-21 14:18 14:22 14:23 14:24 14:25 14:27-28 14:27 14:28 14:31 14:34 14:35 14:36 14:36a 14:41-42 14:43-50 14:47 14:53-54 14:55-65 14:58 14:61-64 14:61-62 14:61 14:62 14:66-71 14:67 14:69 14:70 15:2

20, 169 38 37 104, 105 141, 145 38 52 200 272 169 38 119 190 189 247 247 274 119 119 125 lxxviii, 222, 227 278 270, 277 226 226, 227, 270, 277 276 173 no 250 198 lxxxii, 80, 180, 258 413 169 167 222 112, 187, 199, 208 222 206, 208 205 192, 204 175 205 208 224 lxx 232 229 230 394 247, 301 229, 269 248, 326 168, 277 399 229 207 207 207, 323 207 263 322 323 325 309, 325, 327 38, 40, 309 175, 338, 340 173, 329 179, 339 lxxxiii, 28, 77, 131, 309, 317, 329, 339 325 324 325 325 339

Index of Biblical Texts 15:5 15:7 15:8 15:15 15:21 15:22 15:24 15:25 15:27 15:29-55 15:29 15:55 15:54-56 15:54 15:56 15:57 15:58 15:59 15:40 15:42 15:45 15:46 16:1 16:5 16:6 16:7 16:9-11 16:9 16:10 16:12 16:14 16:20 16:24

Luke

559 555 554 555, 556, 557, 545 545 551 547 518 546 545 58,40 545 551 288,545 552 555 544 544,552 548 555 558 560 559 574 574 571, 599 569 259 578 566, 575, 598 598 171 tA Q

xxxiii, xxxv-xxxvii, xlvii, belli, lxxviii, 20, 119, 508,511, 517,551

2:26 2:49 5:15-16 5:15 5:25 4:6 4:16-50 4:16-20 4:22 4:50 5:1-11 5:5 5:10 6:22-25 6:22 6:40 7:1-10 7:10 7:11-17 7:15 7:52 7:56-58 8:5 8:15 9:24 9:49 9:51 9:55 10:16 10:18 10:22 10:58-42 11:29-50 11:52 12 12:8-9 12:11-12 12:55-58

157 59 21 25 159 205 59 551 108 126 597 594 416 154 lxxvii, 277 275 69, 71, 75 71 199 71 285 2 06, 208 21 175 211 217 214 64 217 205, 215 lxxxii, 80 185 40 156, 170, 407 226 25, 77, 80, 154 226, 270, 277 169

12:56 12:49 15:1-5 15:10-17 15:12 14:1-6 14:26 14:27 16:19-51 15:1-7 15:12 17:20-21 17:22 17:25-24 19:10 19:11 19:25 19:45 19:47-48 20:1-2 21:6 21:15-15 21:52 21:57-58 21:58 22:14-58 22:15-18 22:15 22:16 22:18 22:19 22:20 22:29-30 22:29-30a 22:29 22:51-58 22:51-52 22:54 22:59 22:40 22:45 22:44 22:54-62 22:54 22:55 22:58 22:59 22:67 25:2 25:8-9 25:16 25:25 25:26 25:27-51 25:27 25:29 25:55 25:54 25:50-45 25:46 25:47-49 25:49 25:50-51 25:51 24:4 24:5 24:7 24:10 24:11 24:12 24:15 24:16 24:21a 24:24 24:25-27

167 160 152 71 71 71 211 545 199 168 254 331 278 110 28, 160 571 250 278 145 145 278 277 407 145 145 222 56 224 88 88 94, 250, 301 88 88,254 56 80 248 526 526 88,522 88 207 81 425 88 524 525 525 175 527 40 554, 555, 559 545 545, 551 544 285 278 518 544 544 555 544 548 558 558 574 574 575 21 566,569 250,568 578 575 571 568 575

4SI 24:27-28 24:28-51 24:51 24:52 24:54 24:55-56 24:56-42 24:56 24:59 24:41-45 24:41 24:44-47 24:46-47 24:46 24:50-51

John

569 597 575 575 596, 597, 599 575 578 575 569, 579 597 569 575 584 575 577 xlvii

1 xc, 18, 30, 51, 45, 64 1-20 lxxii, lxxiii, 595, 596,415, 417 1:1-18 xxxviii, lxxii, xc, xci, 1-17, 262, 570 1:1-5 xxxviii, 5 ,5 , 10, 11,297 1:1-2 4 1:1 lxxxi, lxxxiii, 5,9, 10, 125, 159 1:1c 5, 11 1:2 5, 11 1:5-4 80, 159 1:5 2, 4, 11 1:4 lxxxiii, 2, 11, 12, 128, 217,252 1:4-5 4, 161 1:5 lxxxiii, 11, 55, 217 1:6 11,111 1:6-8 xxxviii, 5 ,4 , 5,11, 15,18, 22 l:6-8a 5 1:6-7 78 1:7 51, 178 1:7a 22 1:7c 22 1:8 lxxxix 1:8a 22 1:8c 22 1:9-15 5, 12 xxxviii, 11 1:0-12 1:9-10 4 1:9 lxxxiii, 5, 12, 51, 217, 252 1:10-15 55 1:10-12 5, 4, 11, 12 l:10-12b 5 1:10-11 5 1:10 lxxxiii, 5, 12 1:10a 12 1:10b 12 1:10c 12 1:11 4 ,1 2 , 207,215,252, 281 1:12-14 11 1:12-15 5, 12, 252 1:12 lxxxiii, 2, 15, 405 1:12a 4 1:12b 4 1:12c 4 1:15 lxxxiii, 2, 4, 6, 12, IS, 14 1:14-18 5 ,4 , 5, IS, 218 1:14 li, liv, lv, lix, lxxxi, xc, 5,4 , 5, IS, 14, 15, 55,94, 262, 298, 556, 589 l:14e 5 1:15 5,4,, 15, 18, 22, 25, 217,250,268 1:15a 2 1:16 lxxxiii, 4, 14, 15 1:16-17 5, 11,55 1:17 lix, lxi, 4, 14, 15, 56, 87,92 lx x x i, lx x x ii, lx x x iii, x c i 1:18 2, 5, 4, 11, 15,18,95, 217,255, 262, 505, 550, 409 1:10-12:50 xci

432 34 1:19-2:1 1:19-51 xci, 18-31,67 1:19-37 12 1:19-36 78 1:19-34 21,46 1:19-28 21, 23-24, 78 1:19-24 22 1:19-23 lxxxix, 52 1:19-21 22 20,23 1:19 1:19b 21,22 l:19c-22a 21 l:19ff 11,22 1:20 23 21, 23 1:21 1:22-24 21 1:22-23 22 20 1:23 1:24-25 24 1:24-25a 21 1:25-28 22 1:25-26 21 1:25 21,22, 117,261 l:25b-26 21 1:26-27 24 21,22, 24, 26 1:26 1:26c 22 1:27 21 178 1:28-34 1:28-30 21 1:28 21, 183 29 1:29-36 22,24-26 1:29-34 lxxxix 1:29-31 li, lii, lix, lxxxi, lxxxiv, lxxxv, 1:29 xc, 24, 85, 87, 94, 224, 306, 352, 380 30-34 22 30 15, 21, 25, 250, 268 30b 22 31 21, 22, 24, 398 Ivi 32-43 32-34 24 32-33 29 32 21,25 33-34 21 S3 21, 22, 66, 354 33b-34 21 33b 22 34 li, lxxxi, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 35-51 26 35-50 22 35-40 lxx, lxxii, lxxiii 35-36 21 S5ff 22 36-39 26 36 lii, lxxxi, lxxxvi, 24, 87, 352 37 26 38-39 26 39 21 41 lxxxi; 26 27, 192 42 43-46 27 43 26 44 70,200 45 317 46 73 47-50 27 48-49 63 48 61 49 lxxxi, 192 50 34,386 51 lx, lxxxi, lxxxiii, Xci, 22, 23, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 80 2-12 xlii, xc, 207, 254

In d e x o f Bibl ic a l T e x t s 31,67 2-4 xci, 31 2:1-4:42 2:1-3:6 105 31, 58, 67, 206, 231 2 xxxii, 31, 32-37 2:1-12 22, 31, 67 2:1-11 33 2: l-3a 31, 34, 36, 39, 45, 67 2:1 34 2:2-3 33 2:3b-5 2:4 34,73, 103, 107, 188, 278, 296, 349, 350 2:6-8 33 35 2:6 2:8 35 2:9-10 33 35 2:10 xl, 5, 14, 33, 35, 398 2:11 33,71 2:12 2:13-22 37-43 223 2:13-14 39 2:13 2:14-17 39 38 2:14-16 2:14-15 38 2:15-17 39 40 2:15b 38 2:16 117,306 2:17-19 38, 41, 261,276 2:17 38, 40 2:18 lxxxv 2:19-22 Ixii, 40, 172, 249 2:19-21 2:19-20 37 38, 40, 41, 42, 198, 261 2:19 38 2:20-21 40 2:21 2:22-23 135 38, 41, 233, 261 2:22 2:23-3:36 43-56 46 2:23-3:21 52 2:23-3:12 2:23-32 80 2:23-25 xl, 31, 45, 46, 47, 70, 73 2:23 33, 39, 132, 276 47 2:24 47,61 2:25 2:28 160 3-4 xl, 206 3 lii, 31, 46, 58, 67 13 3:1-21 46, 47 3:1-12 3:1-10 119 276 3:1-2 3:1 20 3:2-3 73 3:2 lxxxi, lxxxii, 47, 49, 70, 152, 371, 413 3:3-8 50 3:3-7 129 3:3 lxxv, lxxxv, 13, 4 7,48,52, 117, 330 3:4 48 3:5 xxxviii, xli, lxxxv, 47, 48, 52, 117, 330, 354, 357 3:6-8 49 3:6 49, 117 3:7 47 3:8 47,49, 117 3:9 55 3:11-12 49 3:11 216, 371, 413 3:12 lii, 46 3:13-21 46,47, 50, 53 3:13-16 55,94 3:13 lii, lv, lix, 45,46, 50, 55

207 3:14-21 lxxxv, 55, 80, 306 3:14-16 3:14-15 lii, lxxxii, lxxxiii, lxxxiv, lxxxv, lxxxviii, 46, 49, 50, 131, 159, 172, 207, 213 lix, 46, 96, 131, 137 3:14 51,54 3:15 lii, lxxxiii, lxxxv, 46, 76, 77, 3:16-21 207, 234, 289, 332 lxxxi, 213, 276 3:16-17 xliv, lxxx, lxxxi, lxxxii, lxxxiv, 3:16 lxxxvii, lxxxviii, 4, 5, 12, 14,46, 51, 66,76, 159, 171,198, 218, 252,259, 263, 274, 284, 296, 300, 301, 354, 380, 394 46, 51, 55, 142, 161 3:17-21 3:17 lxxxi, lxxxii, 51, 129, 147, 160, 218, 383 lxxxvii, 147, 160, 342 3:18-21 3:18 lxxxi, lxxxii, 14, 51, 76 12,51, 119, 129, 159,217, 3:19-21 300 3:19-20 235 45, 129, 281 3:19 213 3:20-21 280 3:20 lxxxvii 3:21 46,357 3:22-30 46, 51 3:22-24 39, 51, 58 3:22 3:23 52, 236 3:25-30 lxxxix, 46, 49, 52 3:25-26 52 20, 45, 52 3:25 xxxix, 52, 53, 106 3:26 3:27-29 52 3:28 159 47 3:29-42 3:30 lii, 53 3:31-36 lii, 46, 50, 53, 55, 217, 218, 332 55 3:31-35 158 3:31-34 45, 46,53, 111, 192,275 3:31 3:32-35 283 29, 53 3:32 3:33-35 53 53 3:33 lxxxi, 216 3:34 3:35 232, 394 3:36 lxxxi, lxxxv, lxxxvii, 54, 76, 159 4 xxxii, 31, 66, 67 56-66 4:1-42 4:1-6 59 58 4:1-3 xxxix, 52, 59 4:1-2 4:1 39, 52, 73, 106 187 4:2 4:3 58 4:4 59 4:5-« 59 4:6-18 59 4:7-26 59,60 4:7-18 60 20,60 4:9 4:10-11 191 4:10 60 60 4:11-12 229 4:11 137 4:12 60 4:13-14 4:14-15 59 235, 358 4:14 4:15-18 61 4:15 92,229

Index of Biblical Texts 4: 19-26 59, 61 4:19 lxxxi, lxxxii, 27, 61, 157, 229 42 4:21-26 61, 250, 269, 278 4:21 151 4:22-24 lviii, 13, 20, 62, 171, 363 4:22 lxxx 4:23-24 4:23 36, 62, 250, 269, 278 62 4:24 62, 64, 250, 269 4:25 62, 159 4:26 59,62 4:27-30 62 4:27 59 4:28-30 63 4:28-29 250 4:28 lxxxi, 27,64 4:29 59, 63 4:31-38 63 4:31-34 59 4:32 4:34 xl,lx x xiii, 59, 261, 262, 273, 297, 302 63 4:35-38 63 4:35-36 lxlli 4:35 63 4:35a 63 4:35b-36 58, 63 4:36 63 4:37-38 63 4:37 63,64 4:38 59, 64 4:39-42 59,64 4:39 132 4:41 4:42 li, Ixiii, lxxx, lxxxii, xci, 65, 70, 171, 276, 289 xci 4:43-5:57 xcii, 66-81 4:43-5:47 xxxii 4:43-54 70,73 4:43-45 73 4:43 70,73 4:44 73,80 4:45 79 4:46-5:47 76,80 4:46-5:9 xliii, 67, 71, 73 4:46-54 69,71 4:46 69,73 4:47 71 4:48-19 71, 73, 373, 385 4:48 229 4:49 71 4:49ff 69, 71, 73 4:50 73 4:51 71 4:51ff 69,73 4:53 xliii, 33, 71, 73 4:54 179 5-8 104 5-6 xl, xliii, 67, 72, 73 5 xliii, lx, 67, 71, 72, 109 5:1-9 73 5 :l-9 b 71 5:1-5 xliii 5:1 lxxvi 5:2 70 5:3 70 5:4 74 5:6-8 34 5:6 229 5:7 76 5:8 74 5:9 109 5:10-18 72,74 5 :9c-l8 xliii 5:10-29

5:13 74 5:14 74 5:16-18 338 5:17-47 67 5:17-30 74, 79, 80, 122, 174 lxxxiii 5:17-29 5:17-18 74, 175, 338 5:17 xl, lx,lx x xiii,lx x xvii, 72, 75, 217 5:18 72, 74, 137, 327, 389 5:19-47 lxxxix, 207 5:19-30 72, 75, 172, 175 5:19-29 218 5:19-27 lxxxi, 283 5:19-26 390 5:19-24 lxxxii x l, lx x x iii 5:19-23 5:19-21 72 5:19-20 53, 75, 188 5:19-20a 75 5:19l x x xiii, 75, 76, 77, 137, 262,273, 354 5:19a 75 5:20 76, 255, 394 5:20b 75 5:21-29 28, 37, 191 5:21-27 262,296 5:21-23 76 5:21-22 lx, 218 5:21 lxxxvi,lx x xvii, 67, 73, 75, 80, 189,190 5:22-30 72 5:22 75, 76, 342 5:23 261, 386 5:24-27 77 5:24-26 72, 76, 255 5:24 Iv,lx x xv, lxxxvi, 73, 76, 137, 261 5:25-27 77 5:25-26 lxxxiii, 73 5:25 lxxxii, lxxxvi, 36, 62, 76, 80, 190, 195, 200, 278 5:26-27 75, 77, 159, 189 5:26 lxxxii, 80, 93, 190, 252 5:27-29 72 5:27 lxxxiii, 79, 342 5:28-29 xxxviii,lx x xiii, lxxxvi, 62, 73, 77, 80 5:28 79 5:29 77 5:30l x x xi, 53, 75, 77, 108, 129, 137, 261, 273 5:30a 72 5:30b 72 5:31-47 29, 73, 77, 80 5:31-32 78 5:31 70, 129 78, 415 5:32 415 5:33-40 78 5:33-35 Ixiii 5:34-47 78 5:34 354 5:35 78, 297, 302 5:36 78 5:37-40 70, 130, 261, 354 5:37 78, 79, 273 5:38 30, 81, 93,96, 218 5:39-40 lxi, 78, 79, 276 5:39 79 5:40 78 5:41-47 79 5:41-44 79 5:42 79, 261 5:43 79 5:43b 373 5:44 lxv, 79, 276 5:45-47

433 5:45-46 109, 158 5:45 109 5:46 354 6-7 xxxviii 6:1-7:1 xcii 6 xxxii, xl, xliii, lix, lxxxi, lxxxv, xci, 60, 8 7,99, 225, 226, 352, 401,404 6:1-71 81-99 6:1-21 86,92 6:1-20 231 6:1-15 85,88 6:1-13 86 6 :l-5 a 85 6:1 xliii 6:2 84 6:3 87 6:4 84, 87, 88,94, 177, 208 6:5-8 27 6:5 88 6:5b-9 85 6:5ff 34 6:6 88 6:7 204 6:10-11 85 6:11 88, 394, 401 6:12-13 85 6:14-15 47, 85, 86, 88, 118, 196, 210 6:14 lxxxi, 88, 147 6:15 lxxxi, 73, 87, 88, 89, 196 6:16-21 8 5 ,8 6 ,8 9 6:16-18 85 6:16 87,89 6:19-21 85 6:19 89 6:20 lxxxiv, 13, 62, 86, 89, 322 6:21 85,97 86 6:22-35 6:22-26 85, 86, 90 6:22-24 90 6:22-23 187 90 6:22 6:23-24 90 6:23 58,90 6:24-33 196 6:25-27 47 6:25-26 86 6:25 86,90 6:26-51 85,94 90 6:26 6:27-31 85, 86, 91 6:27 lxxx, 53 6:28-29 xliii 6:30-59 lix 6:30-31 86 6:30 87 lxxxv, 88 6:31-33 6:31-58 xli 6:31-59 85 6:31-33 86 6:31 86, 93, 95, 96 6:32-58 lxxxii 6:32-51 93,94 6:32-40 47 6:32-35 86, 87, 91, 93, 96, 99 6:32-33 91 6:32b 85 lxxxv, 192, 276 6:33 86 6:34-40 6:34-35 92 6:34 92,229 87 6:35-50 6:35-47 85 6:35 lxxxiv, 60, 85, 89, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 113, 115 6:36-47 86

434

In d e x

6:36-40 86,92, 217 6:36-37 92, 174 6:37-39 171 6:37 93, 268, 296 6:38-40 92, 218, 261 6:38 93 6:39 xxxviii, lxxxvi, 92, 93, 165, 190, 268 6:39-40 lxxxv, 205, 296 6:40 xxxviii, 11,lx x xv, lxxxvi, 92, 95, 190, 217, 218, 278 6:41-48 86 86,93 6:41-47 96 6:41-42 6:41 20, 85, 86, 89, 91, 93, 94, 97, 107 171 6:44-45 6:44 xxxviii, lxxxvi, 92, 93, 174, 190, 217,220,296 217 6:45 lxxxv 6:47-51 89, 93, 137, 217, 373 6:47 6:48-71 86 85 6:48-58 86,93 6:48-51 89 6:48 87 6:49-58 lxxxv, 93 6:49-51 85,93 6:49 93,95 6:50 306 6:51-62 xc, 47, 87, 98, 306 6:51-58 lxxxv, 60, 89, 93, 94, 95, 6:51 171, 191, 192,217, 276 xxxviii, xli 6:51b-58 94 6:51c 86,94 6:52-59 85,99 6:52-58 8 6 ,9 1 ,9 4 , 97,99 6:52 lxxxv, 94, 96 6:53-58 96 6:53-57 357 6:53-56 85, 94 6:53 xxxviii, lxxxvi, 92, 95, 190 6:54 93, 95, 357 6:55 95 6:56 6:57 95, 99, 191, 223 lxxxv, 26,94, 95 6:58 86,87 6:59 6:60-71 86,96 6:60-69 xc 6:60-65 85 6:60 99 6:61 86, 107, 277 6:62-63 96,97 96 6:62 6:63 96, 137 171,296 6:64-65 6:66-71 xxxvii, 85, 87 6:66-70 xci 157, 196 6:66-69 8 6,8 8 ,9 7 6:66 6:67-71 86 5 ,97 6:67-69 6:68 lxxxi,lx x xv, 137, 218, 229, 254 6:69 lxxxi, lxxxii, 97, 137, 293, 323 97 6:70-71 6:71 204, 229, 236, 243 166 7-10 7-8 xl,, xci, 104, 105, 141, 142, 144, 147, 149, 153, 382 7 lix, 100, 104, 106, 115, 121, 122, 123, 140, 141, 142 7:1-8:59 xcii, 100 7:1-8:11 100 100 7:1-52

7:1-13 7:1 7:2 7:3-9 7:3-5 7:4 7:5 7:6-7 7:6 7:6ff 7:7 7:8 7:9 7:10-13 7:10-11 7:10 7:11-13 7:11-12 7:11 7 :llb ff 7:12-13 7:12 7:13 7:13b 7:14-18 7:14-17 7:14-16 7:14-15 7:14 7:15-19 7:15 7:16-18 7:16-17 7:16 7:17 7:18-30 7:18 7:18b 7:19-24 7:19 7:20 7:21-23 7:21 7:22-23 7:24 7:25-31 7:25-27 7:25 7:26-27 7:26 7:27-29 7:27 7:28-30 7:28-29 7:28 7:29 7:30-32 7:30-31 7:30 7:31 7:32-36 7:32 7:32a 7:33-36 7:33-34 7:33 7:34 7:35-36 7:35 7:35b 7:36 7:37-44 7:37-39 7:37-38

o f

B ib l ic

al

T ex t

s

105, 106 xliii, 106, 121 106 35, 188 106 107 107 107 103,296 34 45 103, 107, 296 147 196 147 103, 104, 107 20, 172 107 20,208 34 106, 119, 157 119, 121, 325, 327 106, 142, 157 107 105, 108 218 158 108 129 107 122, 142 lxxxi, 283 108, 129, 216 129,261 108, 116, 122, 132 21 108, 122 108 105, 109 109, 122, 142 109, 110 lx, 109 108, 121 122 122, 129, 144 105, 110 110 107,208 110, 118 104, 106, 110 217 110, 112 130 111, 122 75, 217 111 196 111, 119, 157 35, 110, 119, 178,211,278, 296 110, 172 105, 112 107, 142, 157, 172, 208 106 105 112, 130,217 105, 112, 282, 284 52, 105, 246 112 130, 142 113 105, 143 141 96, 105, 113, 353 41, 60, 61, 106, 113, 114,

115, 116, 117, 119, 122, 127, 128, 129, 140, 142, 173, 177, 235 7:37 114, 217,353 7:37a-38b 115 7:38 191, 358 116 7:38b lxxxv, 49, 60, 115, 116, 117, 7:39 133, 280, 380 7:40-52 104, 127 7:40-44 105, 117, 196 7:40-43 114, 122, 172 7:40-41 117,118 7:40-41a 129 7:40 lxxxi, 147 7:41-42 121 7:41 118 7:42 111, 119, 122 7:43-44 119 7:43 157 7:44 119, 143 105, 119 7:45-52 7:45-46 119, 142 142, 144 7:46-52 7:46 114, 119, 129, 157,323 106, 196 7:47-52 7:47-48 119 119, 121,325, 327 7:47 119,217 7:48 lxi, 119, 120,363 7:49 120 7:50-51 47 7:50 73, 121, 122 7:52 100, 127, 143-147 7:53-8:11 145 7:53-8:3 8 100, 104, 105, 121, 140, 141, 142, 363 87 8:1-8 145 8:3 146 8:4-6 119, 146 8:7-9 145 8:7 8:11 87,229 123 8:12-59 207 8:12-26 8:12-20 105, 126, 141 xlix,lx x xiv, 5, 89, 106, 125, 8:12 126, 127, 128, 130, 140, 141, 142, 148, 152, 155, 173, 177, 217, 276 140 8:13-20 78 8:13-18 125, 129, 144, 157 8:13 87 8:14-21 8:14-18 130 217 8:14-17 125, 129, 140, 415 8:14 8:15-16 129, 144, 218 141 8:15 78, 125, 140, 141, 249, 261 8:16 78, 129 8:17-18 125, 165, 276 8:17 261, 415 8:18 129, 140, 243 8:19 35, 119, 130, 178,211, 278, 8:20 296 105, 130 8:21-29 105, 130 8:21-22 105, 246, 282 8:21 20, 105, ISO, 157 8:22 158 8:23-29 130 8:23-24 lv, 263, 275 8:23 lxxxi, 89, 105, 130, 139, 140 8:24 131 8:25 125 8:25b

Index of Biblical Texts 8:26-29 131, 218, 283 8:26 131, 141, 216, 261 8:27-80 87 8:27 131 8:26-29 132, 134, 217 8:28 li, lxxxi, lxxxiii, lxxxiv, 50, 62, 75, 78, 89, 181, 133, 189, 140, 172, 207 322, 343 8:29-40 134 8:29 lxxxiii, 131, 262, 273, 288 8:80-59 132, 133 8:80-86 105, 132 8:80-82 132, 133, 141, 142 8:80 132 8:81-59 105, 148 8:31-86 275 8:31-32 133, 256 8:31 132, 137, 139, 276 8:32 132, 134 8:38-59 141, 142 8:33 132, 133, 142 134 8:33a 8:34-36 133, 134, 142 8:35-36 134 8:85 134 8:37-40 105, 133, 134 8:37-88 134 8:37 132, 142 8:41-47 105, 135 8:41 126, 133, 135 8:42-43 135, 217, 283 111, 276, 354, 394 8:42 8:43 132 8:44 126, 135 8:45-47 136 8:46-47 290 8:46 263, 280 8:47 136 8:48-59 105, 109, 136 8:48 133, 136, 142, 157, 327 8:49-50 136 8:50 137, 141 8:51 137, 139, 142, 218 8:52-53 138 133 8:52 8:54-55 137 8:54 lxi, 322 137 8:54a 8:55 218, 273 8:56 138, 139, 217 8:57-58 139 8:57 133, 142, 157 8:58-59 xci lxxix 8:58ff 8:58 lxxxi, lxxxiv, IS, 62, 89, 131, 140, 149, 175 8:59 100, 104, 119, 140, 178, 208 9-10 xc i, 148 xcii, 148-180 9:1-10:42 149 9:1-10:21 9 xl, xllx, 1, lxxvii, 104, 148, 149, 151, 153; 154, 161, 162, 166 149-162 9:1-41 9:1-38 148, 160 9:1-7 xlix , 151, 152, 154 74 9:1-4 126, 148, 151, 153 9:1 154 9:2 151 9:2-5 152 9:2-3 152 9:3-4 9:3 155, 187, 229, 268 155 9:3b 152 9:4-5 xl, 152, 155 9:4

9:5

148, 152, 155, 160, 161, 201, 217, 276 151, 155 151, 155 152, 156 152 xlix 161 156 152, 156 157 156 156, 157 119, 157, 161, 327 157, 161 152, 157 157 lxxxi, lxxxii xlü, 157 lxxvi, 153, 154, 158, 277 152, 158 161, 327 158 134 158 109 161 158 160 371 161 159, 161 277 152, 159 159 154, 159 229 159, 161 151 151 151, 160 148, 151 76, 148, 152, 159, 160, 161, 166, 216, 217 9:39 129, 151, 160, 161, 342, 383 9:40-41 169, 172 9:41 160 9:51-55 lxiii 10 xl, lvi, lix, lxxxi, 104, 148, 166, 167, 179, 180, 186 10-11 хххѵш 162-180 10:1-42 148, 149, 167, 168 10:1-21 165, 166, 172 10:1-18 166 10:1-10 167, 168 10:1-6 166, 167, 171, 269 10:1-5 166, 167 I0 :l-3 a 167, 169 10:1 167, 169 10:2-4 169 10:2-3 170 10:2 169 10:3-4 170, 375 10:3 166, 167 10:3b-5 148 10:4 lxiii, 167 10:5 169 10:6-18 167, 169 10:7-18 166, 169 10:7-10 lxxxiv, 89, 166, 169, 170 10:7 169 10:7b lxxxxviii, 170 10:8 92 10:9-11 89, 164, 166, 170 10:9 9:6 9:7 9:8-12 9:8 9:8-41 9:11-12 9:11 9:16-17 9:13 9:14-16 9:15 9:16 9:17 9:18-23 9:18-21 9:19 9:22-23 9:22 9:24-34 9:24 9:24-25 9:25-26 9:26-29 9:28 9:29 9:30-33 9:31-33 9:31 9:33 9:34 9:35-41 9:35-38 9:36-36 9:35 9:36 9:37-38 9:37 9:36-39 9:38 9:39-10:9 9:39-41

435 10:10-18 306 10:10 lxxxv, 174, 300 10:11-18 166 10:11-13 166, 170 10:11 lxxxiv, 89, 94, 166, 169, 170, 171, 173, 175, 248, 408 10:12-13 170 10:12 174 10:14-18 166 10:14-15 170, 174 10:14-I5a 171 10:14 89, 166, 175 10:15 94, 165, 166, 169, 170, 171, 248 10:16-17 174 10:16 lxxx, 148, 169, 171, 289, 306, 406 10:17-18 lxxxv, 38, 170, 171, 199, 263, 273, 301I 10:17 165, 166, 171 10:18 103, 166, 171, 353 10:19-29 166 10:19-21 166, 167, 172 10:19 119, 157 10:20 109 10:21-39 179 10:22-42 167, 172 10:22-39 148, 149, 166, 167, 172 10:22-38 xci 10:22-30 167, 172 10:22-29 166 10:22-27 169 10:22 177 10:24-39 172 10:24-25 173, 174 10:24 20, 172, 175, 290 10:25-26 175, 373 10:25 174 10:26-39 148 10:26-30 92, 174 10:26-29 166 10:26 166 10:27-29 166 10:27 174 10:28-29 174 10:28 323 10:29-30 lxxix 10:29 171 10:30-39 338 lvi, lxxxiii, 79, 149, 172, 10:30 174, 175, 176, 100, 233, 202, 390 10:31-39 167, 175 175 10:31-32 20, 188, 208 10:31 175 10:32 10:33 175, 176 10:34-36 175, 176, 217 10:34 276 176, 177 10:35 10:36 lxxxi, 97, 172, 177, 300, 306 177 10:37-39 10:37-38 174, 253, 254 10:38 85, 132, 180 178, 188, 208 10:39 xc i, 166, 167, 178 10:40-42 199 10:41-42 11 xl, xc i, 104, 184, 193, 195, 199, 200, 306 xcii, 180-201 11: 1-54 187 11: 1-16 187 11: 1-2 184, 185, 186 11: 1 58, 185, 187 11: 2 185 11: 3-1 184, 185, 186, 229, 394 11:3 3

436

In d e x

11: 4

194 11 38a 194 11 39-40 11 39 190,229 11 41-44 185 184, 194 11 41-42 11 41 194 185 11 41a 194 11 41b 11 43-44 xci, 185, 186, 195 360 11 44 11 45-54 196 11 45-53 187,311 11 45-46 188, 196 11 45 178, 185, 186 11 46-53 185, 187 11 47-53 186, 208, 310 196 II 47-48 48 196 11 340 II 49-53 336 11 49-52 11 49-50 112,, 130, 196, 311, 346 196, 197 11 49 lxxx, 171 11 50-52 94 11 50-51 11 50 xxxiii, 362 lxxxii, 197, 198 II 51-52 16, 94, 403 11 52 198,311 11 53 187, 199 11 54 11 55-12:50 xcii, 201-221 11 55-57 xci, 186, 205, 208 208 11 55 208 11 56 II 57 199,208 xl, хc,:, 205, 206, 207, 218, 294, 12 306 206,208 12: 1—8 208 12:l 185 12:2 208 12:S-4 205 12:3 204, 205 12:5 205, 208, 209, 268 12:7 205, 209, 218, 229 12:8 209 12:9-19 196 12:9-IS 12:9 -l 1 209 12:9-10 187 12:9 178, 205, 276 12:1 1 220,276 12: 12-32 289 12, 12-19 206 12: 12-14 206 12: 12-13 208 12:12 209 12: 13-14 206 12:1S lxxxi,, 192, 209, 210, 220 12: 14-15 210 206 12:I4 15 12: 206, 210 12: 16-18 210 233, 261 12:I6 12: 17-19 178, 187, 196 206,209 12: 17-18 206,211 12:I9 207, 211 12:20-36 66, 246 12:20-32 lxxx 12:20-23 207,211 12:20-22 171,220 12:20 26,27 12:2 l-2 2 229 12:21 213 12:23-28 12 23-26 lxlx

151, 184, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 200 11 5-6 185, 188 lxxiv, 183, 185,, 187, 188, 394 11 5 11 6 184, 186, 188 11 7-16 184 11 7-10 185 11 7-8 188 11 8-9 187 11 9 152, 188 47 11 10 188 11 10a 188 11 10b 184, 185, 186 11 11-15 188 11 11-12 lxxxi, 189, 274 11 11 189, 229 11 12 187 11 13 189 11 14-15 61, 188 11 14 188 11 15 11 16 185, 187, 189,, 252, 320, 384 187, 189 11 17-27 11 17-19 185 11 17 185, 186,, 188, 189, 194 11 18-30 185 190 11 18-19 11 18 185, 187 11 19 185 11 20-27 184,185 186 11 20-21 lxxxi, 190 11 20 185 11 20a 188, 190 11 21-22 192,229 11 21 190 11 22 190 11 23-24 11 23 194, 249 251 11 24-27 195 11 24-25 183, 371 11 24 188, 189, 190, 191, 194, 11 25-26 200,201 11 :25 lxxxi, lxxxiv, lxxxvi, lxxxvii, 5, 80, 89, 128, 191 , 201, 220, 278 11 25a 190 190 11 25b 11 26 137, 201, 258 11 26a 191 11 26b-27 188, 188 11 27-12:40 105 11 27 229 11 28-44 192 187 11 28-37 11 28-32 184, 192 11 28-30 186 11 28-29 195 11 28 185 30 11 185, 187 11 31 lxxxi 11 32-34 185 11 32 188,229 11 33-35 186, 212 11 33-34 185 11 33-39a 185 11 S3 189, 192, 193 11 33b 193 11 34 229 11 35-37 185 11 35 193 11 36-38 194 11 36 lxxiv, 194 11 37 172,194 11 38-44 187 II 38-39 185, 186

o f

B ib l ic

al

T ex t

s 12:23-24 lxxxv, 107, 137 12:23 50, 131, 187, 207, 211, 212, 213, 232, 246, 273, 278, 280, 282, 284, 296 12:24-26 64, 129, 207, 211,232, 274 12:24 171,212, 213,297 12:25-26 260 12:25 212 12:26 212, 243, 248 12:27-29 212 12:27-28 lxxxiii, 187, 207, 211, 220, 273, 280, 284, 294, 296, 320, 323, 408 12:27 193, 212, 232, 237, 246, 249, 278 12:27a 194, 207 12:27b 194 12:28 211,212, 219, 273, 294 12:28a 207 12:29-30 207, 212 12:29 207 12:30-31 36 12:31-34 lxxxiii, 80 12:31-33 137 12:31-32 lv, lxlx, lxxlx, 5, 16, 29, 76, 96, 107, 119, 131, 157, 159, 171, 172, 187, 188, 198, 207, 211, 213, 218, 219, 232, 246, 273, 278, 280, 282, 288, 289, 296, 300, 329, 380, 390 2:31 llx, lxxxiii, lxxxiv, lxxxvi, 94, 130, 207, 212, 213, 219, 232, 282, 288, 289, 383 2:32 51, 131, 205, 207, 214, 220, 249, 359 2:33 215, 328, 409 2:34 lxi, 131, 159, 175, 207, 215, 276 2:35-36 216 2:35-36a 207, 215 2:35 11 2:36-50 230 2:36-43 lii 2:36b-50 xci 2:36b-43 207 2:36b 215 2:37-50 215 2:37-43 119, 207, 215 2:37-42 296 2:37 xl, 215, 220 2:38-41 220 2:38-40 217 2:38 215, 323 2:39 216, 217 2:40c 217 2:41 5, 217 2:42-43 358 2:42 lxxvi, 217, 220 2:43 221 2:44-50 46, 207, 208,221, 276 2:44-49 261 2:44 217 2:46-49 119 2:46 216, 217 2:47-50 283 2:47-49 256 2:47 217, 249, 289 2:48-49 262 2:48 lxxxvi, 190, 218, 219, 278, 342 2:49 75, 78, 216, 218,229 2:49-50 218 2:50 221 2:50a 218 3-20 xc, 230

Index of Biblical Texis 13-17 13-1 6 13-14 13 13:1-20:51 13:1-17:26 13:1-50

xc, 222, 223, 229, 294 279, 306 223, 224, 269, 279, 415 lxx, 222 xcii, 222-391 xci i , 222-307 xcii, 223, 227-240, 230, 269, 13:1-20 230, 231, 232, 237 13:1-5 230, 232 13:1-2 231 13:l lxx, 35, 119, 230, 232, 233, 239, 269, 276, 296 13:1a 229 13:2-3 230 97, 230, 233, 238, 243 13:2 13:2a 229 13:3 lvi, 112, 129, 231, 233, 236, 276 13:4-20 231 13:4-11 230, 231 13:4-5 231, 282, 233 13:6-10 231, 236, 323 13:6 229, 333 13:7 229, 253 13:8 229, 230, 239 13:9-10 234 13:9 229 13:10 229, 230, 234, 236, 272 13:12-20 230, 231, 236 13:12-15 231, 233, 235 13:12 235 13:13-20 236 13:13 236 13:14-15 239 13:15 230, 236, 237, 387 13:16 236, 275 13:17-19 231 13:17 236, 386 13:18-19 233, 237 13:18 95, 236, 238, 299, 323 13:19 89, 236, 263, 387 13:20 217, 236, 379 13:21-30 97, 230, 231, 232, 237, 240 lxx 13:21-26 232 13:21-22 193, 212, 237, 249, 340 13:21 I3:2la 231 13:21b 231 15:23-27a 232 13:25-26 lxcx, 232 324 13:23-24 13:23 lxx, lxxiii, 4, 16, 232, 237, 350 409 13:24 13:25 229, 238, 354 13:26-27 232 13:26 229,238 229, 232,237 13:27 231 13:27a 231 13:27b 15:28-30 232 232, 238 13:28-29 13:28 299 13:30 47,173, 231, 232, 239, 327 13:31-14:31 xcii, 223, 231, 240-264, 244, 261, 269, 270, 279 13:31-38 244,245,246 224,279 13:31-35 13:31-33 245,246 lxxxiv, 50, 54, 131, 187, 13:31-32 211 ,244,246,247, 268, 273, 280, 282, 284, 296,409 lxxxiv, 50, 246, 279, 296 13:31

13:31b—14:31 279 13:31ff 224 13:32 29, 242, 246 13:33-36 112 13:33 246,247, 263,279,282 13:33a 284 13:34-35 245, 247, 263, 274 13:34 236, 303, 305, 387, 394 13:35 248 13:36-38 224, 245, 247,248, 263, 279 13:36-37 406 13:36 229, 246, 248, 252, 279 13:36b 409 13:37 165, 229, 248 13:37b 248 13:38 61, 165, 269 14-16 xliii, 117 14 224, 244, 250, 263, 264, 279, 305 14:1-26 244, 245, 248 14:1-11 252 14:1-6 252, 278 14:1-4 243 14:1-3 244, 245, 248,263 14:1 193, 212, 248, 251 14:2-3 26, 244, 246, 249, 250, 251, 252, 258, 259, 262, 264, 304, 305 14:2 ISO, 245, 249, 377 14:2b 243 lxxxvi, lxxxvii, 28, 220, 234, 14:3 249, 251, 254, 258, 260 14:4-17 244 14:4-14 244 14:4-6 244, 245,251 14:4 112, 244, 252 229, 243, 244, 252, 279, 371, 14:5 384 14:6-11 252 14:6-10 251 14:6 lxxxi, lxxxiv, 89, 244, 252, 257, 263 253 14:6b 14:7-11 244, 245, 253, 258 14:7-9 244, 253, 263 14:7 230,244, 248, 253, 418 14:8-11 263 27 14:8-10 243 14:8-9 14:8 229, 244, 253 390 14:9-11 14:9-10 245,283 244, 253, 390 14:9 244 14:10-14 175, 178, 302 14:10-11 xl, 75, 244, 253, 271 14:10 254 I4:l0bc 244,254 14:11 254 14:11b 251 14:12-17 244, 245, 250, 254, 273, 14:12-14 377, 380 1,255 14:12-13 33, 155, 254 14:12 254 14:12a 255 14:12c 254,258 14:13-14 243,255 14:13 255 14:13a 243, 255 14:14 244 14:15-27 226, 244, 245, 256, 258 14:15-17 245,250 14:15-16 243,244, 256, 259 14:15

437 14:16-17 I4:l6-17a 14:16 14:17 I4:17b-d 14:18-26 14:18-25 14:18-24 14:18-23 14:18-21 14:18-20

264, 270, 276 244 lxxxi 255 244 244 260 251,263 245,278 244 244, 245, 251,258, 259, 263 14:18-19 258,377 14:18 lxxxvii, 220, 245,250, 258, 260, 379,389 14:19-24 250 14:10-20 245, 258 14:19 246, 258, 282, 387 14:20 lxxxvii, 245, 258, 302, 389 14:21-24 245,259 14:21-23 245, 377 lxxxvii, 247,256,259, 260, 14:21 264,285 14:21a 244 I4:21bc 244 14:22-23 244,251 229,244,259 14:22 14:23-24 218,261 14:23 lxxxvii, 26, 220, 247, 256, 258, 259, 260, 284 14:23ab 244 244 I4:23cd 14:24-27 244 14:24 244,256, 260 14:25-31 xlii 14:25-26 226, 244, 245, 256, 261, 271 14:25 261 14:26 li, 256, 261, 264, 283, 285, 418 14:27-31 244, 245, 262, 263 14:27 193, 262, 263, 379 I4:27ac 244 244 14:28-31 14:28 lxxxiii, 79, 112, 262,279 14:20-30 263 245 14:29 14:30-31 244,263 14:30 205,289 14:31 132, 151, 223, 242, 263, 273 223, 224,231 15-17 15-16 223, 224, 262, 269, 279, 288, 290,415 15:1—16:331 265-291 15 llx, 263,412 xcii, 16, 223, 269,271 15:1-17 269 15:1—11 lxxxi, 269 15:1-10 15:1-8 269 269,273 15:1-6 lxxxiv, 89, 271 15:1 233 15:2-10 272 15:2-4 271 15:2 234,268 15:3 89, 273, 275 15:5 271,273 15:6 269 15:7-17 271 15:7-11 273 15:7-10 133,273 15:7 268,273 15:8 269,273 15:9-17 273,287 15:0-10 274 15:10

438 269 269, 274, 299, 387 247, 269 274, 275, 387 287 165, 274, 275, 408 274 283 273, 275, 411 275, 387 219 xcii, 223, 269, 270, 275 269, 270, 277 270, 278 276 275, 289 276, 394 275 268, 276 276 276, 281 268, 276 3 8 0 ,383 151, 175, 276, 289, 323 16, 226, 2 2 7 ,270, 271 27 6 ,281, 411 256 15:26 125 15:27 xlvii, 289 16:1-4 270, 279 16:1-4a 261, 269, 270,277,279 16:1 16:2 lxxvi Іххѵіі, lxxlx, 17, 250, 269, 277, 278 278 16:5-4 261 16:4 16:4a 269, 270, 279 16:4b-33 xcii, 223, 269, 270, 279, 286 270, 284 16:4b-6 279 16:4b-5 279 16:4b 16:5 112, 279,285 279 16:6 16:7-11 226, 256, 281,411 16:7 270, 271, 279, 280 16:8-11 5, 29, 256, 257, 270, 271, 277, 301, 380, 383 130, 136, 160 16:8-9 280, 281 16:8 137, 280, 281 16:9-11 16:9 281, 282 16:10 112, 282 lxxxvi, 130, 205, 282, 289 16:11 16:12-15 li, 226, 256, 271, 287, 305 16:12-13 233 16:12 282, 283 16:15-14 256 250, 283, 284, 418 16:13 16:14-15 283, 284 16:14 284, 290, 418 16:15 284 16:16-50 258 16:16-24 1lxxxvii, 270, 271, 279, 284, 286, 287 112,377 16:16-22 16:16-19 284 16:16-18 279, 285 16:16 282, 284, 285, 286 16:17-18 286 16:17 112, 268 16:20-22 286, 379 16:20 258, 268, 282, 285, 286 16:21-22 285 16:21 285, 286, 349 16:22-23 258, 284 15:11-17 15:11 15:12-17 15:12 15:15-15 15:13 15:14 15:15 15:16 15:17 15:18-16:4 15:18-16:4a 15:18-27 15:18-25 15:18-20 15:18-19 15:19 15:20 15:21 15:22-24 15:22 15:24 15:25-26 15:25 15:26-27

In d e x

of

B ib l ic

al

T ex t

s

270,288 16:22 285, 286, 287, 377 16:23-24 243 16:23 288 16:24 271 16:25-33 164, 250, 261, 271, 286, 287, 16:25 290, 305 287 16:26-27 394 16:27 16:28 232, 268, 287 16:29-30 287 287 16:31-32 386 16:31 lxxi, 288, 399 16:32 288 16:32b 16:33 xci, 29, 229, 261, 262, 269, 270, 288, 387 112, 223, 224, 293, 294 17 17:1-26 xcii, 291-307 17:1-8 295 17:1—5 295, 296, 303 295 17:1-4 17:1 29, 35, 54, 119, 131, 172, 187, 205, 211, 232, 273, 278, 282, 284, 292,294, 296, 409 295 17: lb —2 165, 268, 296, 298, 303, 304 17:2 111, 296, 297 17:3 xl, 63, 297, 298, 302 17:4 295 17:4-5 17:5 lxxxii, 5, 54, 172, 205, 211, 217, 233, 282, 284, 297 5, 295, 296 17:6-19 295 17:6-13 296,298 17:6-11a 298 17:6-9 17:6-8 295,299 17:6 218, 292, 293, 298, 398 295 17:7-12 17:8 111, 276,302 17:9-19 295 17:11 13, 172, 293, 300, 302 17:11a 297,298 17:1 lb-16 296, 298 17:11b 297, 298, 300, 301 17:12 215, 256, 299, 323 17:13-23 295 17:13-15 299 17:13 297, 387 17:14-19 295 17:14 302 17:15 219 17:16 300 296, 299, 300, 301, 303, 17:17-19 382 17:17 177, 300 17:18 lxxx, 298, 300, 302, 379 17:19 lxxxv, 94, 97, 177, 294, 296, 297, 300, 301, 302, 303, 305 17:19» 301 17:19b 301 17:20-26 295 17:20-24 295 17:20-23 lxxx, lxxxii, 295, 296, 301, 304 17:20-21 302, 303 17:20 234 17:21-23 271 lxxxvii, 170, 178, 248, 276, 17:21 298, 301, 302 17:22-26 295 17:22-23 302, 303, 304 17:22 302,306 17:22» 303 17:23 248, 298, 301, 302, 303, 304

xci, 220, 295, 296, 304, 306 lxxxii, 198, 205, 234, 260, 268, 292, 295, 301, 303, 304, 305 295, 305 17:25-26 304, 305 17:25 17:26 304, 306 306 18-20 18:1-20:31 xcii, 308-391 308-364 18:1-19:42 18:1-27 321 18:1-11 xcii, 321 18:1-3 208, 321 321 18:1-2 18:1 223 18: Iff 223, 263 322 18:2b 18:3-9 322 18:5-6 119 18:3 322 18:4-9 311,321 322 18:4-6 320 18:4 320, 323 18:6 18:7-9 323 18:8-9 320 18:9 322 18:10-11 321, 323 18:11 301 18:12-27 xcii, 321, 323 311, 321, 323 18:12-14 317 18:13-27 xxxvi 18:13-24 317, 324, 340 18:13 317 18:14-15 20 18:14 18:15-18 321, 325 lxxii 18:15-17 lxx, lxxiii, 324 18:15-16 317 18:15 317 18:16-18 lxxii 18:16 324 18:17-18 354 18:17 325 18:18-24 311, 321 18:19-24 317, 338 18:19-23 324 18:19-21 324 18:19 290 18:20 325 18:22-24 317, 323, 326 18:24 18:25-27 317, 321, 325 354 18:25 18:28-19:16 xxxvi 18:28-19:16a xcii, 321, 326 321, 327 18:28-32 18:28 224, 225, 326, 327, 340 18:29-30 328 18:30 327, 329 lxxv 18:31-33 20, 308, 310, 327, 328 18:31 328, 409 18:32 18:33-38a 321,329 18:33-37 329, 338 326, 329, 330 18:33 18:34-35 329 18:35 329 20, 330 18:36 18:37-38a 363 lxxxii, 318, 327, 329, 331 18:37 18:37a 329 18:37-38 lxxv 18:38-39 332 18:38b-40 321, 332 17:24-26 17:24

439

Index cf Biblical Texts 18:38 18:38b 18:39-40 18:40 19:1-3 19:1 19:2-3 19:4-7 19:4-6 19:4-5 19:5 I9,*6 19:7 19:8-12 19:8 19:9 19:10-11 19:10 19:11 19:12 19:13-16a 19:13-16a 19:13-14 19:13 19:14-15 19:14 19:15-16 19:15 19:16 19:16b-42 19:16b-18 19:16b—17 19:16a 19:16b 19:17 19:18 19:19-22 19:19-20 19:19 19:20-22 19:20 19:21-22 19:23-24 19:23 19:24 19:24c 19:25-27 19:25 19:26-27 19:26 19:27 19:28-30 19:28-29 19:28 19:29 19:30 19:31-37 19:31-36 19:31-35 19:31 19:32-34 19:34 19:34-37 19:34-35 19:34b-35 19:34b 19:35 19:36-37 19:36 19:37 19:38-42 19:38-40

2 0 ,332 136, 332 334 332, 333, 346 321, 334 334, 335 336 321, 337, 341 136,342 337 lxxxi, 362 327, 332, 337 327, 329, 337, 338 321, 338 323, 338 339 339 103 52, 339, 362 332, 340, 341, 343, 362 321,341 321, 341 341 342, 353 362 225, 318, 332, 342 324 327, 332, 343, 363 343 xcii , 321, 343 3 2 1 ,344 344 344 311 318, 345, 409 344, 345 321, 344, 346 346 lxxxxi, 415 311 345 346 321, 347 344 32 3 ,344 348 lxx, lxxi, 321, 344, 348 350 348 311, 348, 349, 350 34 373 321, 350 344 320, 349, 350, 353 352 36, 2 9 7 ,3 0 1 ,3 1 1 ,344, 352, 353 xli, 25, 39, 116, 177, 224, 321, 353 344, 352 324 225, 353, 358 354 xc, 94, 116, 353, 357 lxx, lxxi 358 xxxviii, 357 xxxviii, 14, 354, 373, 413 344, 354, 356 87, 323, 354 llx, 355 321, 358 47

19:38-39 218 19:38 217, 358 19:39 3 5 8 ,360 19:40 359 19:41-42 360 20 xxxvi, 195, 367, 388, 390, 395, 396, 398 20:1-31 xcii, 364-391 20:1-18 367, 368 20:1-10 lxx, lxxi, 367, 368, 370 20:1-2 368 20:1 317, 370 20:2-10 324 20:2 lxxii, 229, 368, 371, 375, 390, 4 1 3 ,414 20:3-10 368, 369, 373 20:3-9 360 371 20:3-5 20:4-8 400 20:4 lxxii 20:6-7 195, 360, 368 20:8 lxxii, 368, 373 20:9 lxxi, 373 20:10 373 20:11-18 367, 370, 374 368 20:11-13 374 20:11-12 20:11a 368 2 0 :llb -l4 a 368 20:13-14 374 20:13 229 20:14-18 369 20:14b-18 368 20:14b-l6 368 20:15 229 lxxxi, 390 20:16 lvi, 30, 107, 366, 368, 376, 20:17 377 366 20:17b lxxxi, 229, 369, 378 20:18 367, 369, 370, 378, 382, 20:19-23 395 20:19-20 369, 370 369, 378 20:19 386 20:19b 250, 369, 379 20:20 369 20:20a 380 20:21-22 lxxx, 66, 155, 369, 379, 380, 20:21 381, 383, 406 xli, 16, 117,280, 285, 353, 20:22 369, 370, 380, 381, 382, 383 366, 367, 369, 370, 380, 20:23 381, 382, 384 14, 367, 369, 370, 384 20:24-29 xci 20:24-28 384 20:24-26 398 20:24 2 2 9 ,369 20:25 369 20:26 369, 385 20:27 lxxxi, lxxxiv, 229, 262, 369, 20:28 375, 385 li, xci , 373, 385, 386, 395 20:29 x, xl, lii, lxxxviii, xc, xci , 5, 20:30-31 33, 152, 170, 192, 367, 370, 387, 388, 395, 413, 415, 416 xl, 5, 29, 387, 388, 395 20:30 lxxxiv, lxxxv, 16, 318, 387, 20:31 388,415 21 xxxviii, lxxi, lxxii, lxxiii, lxxvi, xc, 66, 354, 373, 395, 396, 399, 401, 402, 403, 4 0 4 ,4 0 6 ,410, 411, 413, 4 1 4 ,4 1 6 ,417 xcii , 392-418 21:1-25

24:1-23 21:1-20 21:1-14 21:1-11 21:1-8 21:1-4 21:1 21:2-3 21:2 21:3-14 21:3 21:4 21:4» 21:4b 21:5-8 21:5-6 21:5 21:6 21:7-9 21:7 21:7a 21:8-11 21:8 21:8b-9 21:9-13 21:9 21:10-11 21:10-11a 21:10 21:11-14 21:11 21:12-13 21:12 21:13 21:14 21:15-23 21:15-19 21:15-17 21:15 21:16-17 21:18-23 21:18-19 21:18 21:19 21:20-23 21:20-24 21:20 21:21-24 21:21-23 21:21-22 21:22-23 21:22 21:23 21:24-25 21:24 21:25

Acts 1:4 1:6 1:9 1:21-22 1:25 2 2:14-36 2:17 2:23 2:32-33

395, 413, 415 lxxi lxx, lxxii, 396, 397, 398, 403, 4 0 4 ,4 1 6 ,417 lxxx 396 397 89, 397, 398 396 396, 397, 398 399 396, 398 89, 397, 400 396 396 397 3 9 6 ,400 394 396 396 lxxi, lxxxi, 354, 397, 398, 39 9 ,4 0 0 ,409 397 400 400 396 396 394, 397, 400, 401 402 396 394, 397, 400, 403 396 396, 397, 400, 401 396, 400 396, 397, 400, 401 397, 400, 401 397, 398 39 8 ,404 404 374, 394, 396, 397, 398, 400, 407, 410, 417 404, 405 405 417 248, 396, 398, 407, 409, 410 407, 408 408, 409, 410 lxxi, 396, 398, 409, 414, 418 lxx, 324 409 lxxiii lxxii, lxxxvi 410 4 1 1 ,412 3 9 8 ,410, 411, 412 lxxi, 354, 412 xci , 398, 413 lxxi, lxxii, lxxiii, 354, 371, 412, 413, 414, 415 143, 395, 413, 415, 416 xlvii, lxxx, 39, 384 397 399 377 277 239 381, 382 319 190 308, 362 382

440 2:38 4:6 4:11 4:12 5:1-11 5:12 5:31 6 6-7 6:1 6:13 7 8 8:52-35 9:4 10:6 10:25 10:36-43 10:36 10:37 10:40 10:41 10:45 13:13 13:23 13:47 13:50 14:11 15:39 17:23 18:24-19:7 19:1-7 20:28 20:35 20:38 21:8-9 21:20-24 21:20 24:24-25 26:24

In d e x 384 324 169 97 384 165 65 xlv lxxvii 307 196 278 xlv 25 323 89 159 367 262 11 259 397 132 183 65 275 lxxvii, 154 338 250 10 23 lxxxlx 406 386 407 lxviii xlvi 132 281 370

o f

10:12 10:16-17 11:23 11:24 11:26 12:12-13 12:14-27 13 13:1-3 14:24 15:3-4 15:5 15:51-52

B ib l ic

al

T ex t

s

240 269 230 94, 301 222 272 272 3 405 281 liii, 319, 367, 370, 397 396,399 305

2 Corinthians 2:7 2:16 3:4-5 3:12-18 3:18 4:4 4:10 5:1 5:6-8 5:14-21 5:14—15 5:15 5:17-21 5:17 5:19

1-11 1:3 2:28-29 3:25 4:18 4:25 5:12-21 8:1 8:34 9-11 9:6-8 10:9 11:1 11:28-31 11:32 12:1-2 13 13:8 14:7 14:9 14:23 15:8

147 118 134 319 249 319 171 246 2 8 7 ,294 216 134 390 364 216 296 147 339 367 262 191 367 13

1 Corinthians 1:14-17 3:3-4 3:16-17 5:1-5 5:5 8:5-6 10:4

58 410 249 384 238 390 114

2:1 2:3 2:8

1:12 3:4-5 3:16 4:6 6:13 2 Timothy 2:8 2:11-13 3:1 3:16 Titus 3:5

Galatians 1:6-9 2:19-20 3:28 4:4-6

Hebrews 132 95 307 261

1:7 1:22-23 2:2 2:11-18 2:20-22 3:18 5:11 5:25-27 5:33

246 272 205 171 249 11 281 53 151

Philippians 1:6 1:21 2:1-11 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:6-11 2:9 3:12 3:20-21 3:20

Colossians 1:13 1:15-20 1:16-17 1:18 2:19

305 305 239 239 239 239 xxxiv, xliv, lxxvi, 3, 54, 367, 390 50, 214 11 305 65 lxxx 76 xxxiv, xliv, lxvi, lxxvi, 3 205 272 272

lxxvii 412 193 250 198 11

2 Thessalonians

1 Timothy 151 418 418 1 305 205 189 249 305 171 191 191 246 lxxxvi, 31, 48, 191, 381 319

Ephesians Romans

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 4:13-18 4:13 4:15-18 4:17 5:4

1:1-3 1:1 1:3 1:4ff 5:7-10 5:7 5:17 7:13 7:25 9:14 10:27-28 11:5 11:17 12:22 13:7

198 299 299 lxxx, 65, 415 275 407 3, 1 3 ,2 1 4 ,282 175 30 lxxx, 65, 415 118 3, 129 190 xliv 6 5 ,415 48 176 xliv, 230 253 214 230 212 207 194 xxxii 2 8 7 ,294 294 258 137 14 249 407

James

236

1:22-25 2:20 2:23 5:3

236 367 274 190

1 Peter 1:1 1:11 1:23 2:4 2:5 2:7 2:12 2:25 3:18 3:22 4:15 4:16 5:1-3 5:2 5:3

198 268 48 169 249 169 317 406 319 319 317 409 407 406 406

Index o f Віblical Texts 2 Peter 1:4

Jude 1John 1:1 1:2-3 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:7 2:1 2:3-5 2:5 2:13-14 2:15-27 2:13-24 2:13-27 2:13-22 2:13-19 2:10 2:13 2:24 2:23 3:2 3:4-10 3:7-10 5:9 3:11 3:12 3:14 3:16 3 :l7 3:23 4:1-6 4:2 4:4 4:5-6 4:7-12 4:8

lxxx 11 lxxx, 243 xxxlx, lvi, lxxx, lxxxi, 13, 2 5 5 ,288, 305 277 10 413 387 387, 413 62 358 256, 287, 294 137 367 288,293 240 179, 356 97 168 273 277 277 277 304 304 240 97 48 2 7 7 ,387 293 412 137 70 387 97, 168, 179, 240, 273, 356 xc 288 136 70 62

4:11-12 4:16 4:19 4:20-21 5:1 5:4-5 5:6-9 5:6-8 5:6 5:7-8 5:8-12 5:13 5:16-17 5:18-19

2 John 5 6

3 John 11 15

Revelation 1:1-3 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:7 1:8 1:10 1:17-18 1:17 1:18 2-3 2:7 2:8 2:9-10 2:9 3:7-17 3:7-12

3:8 274 3:9 137 14, 274 3:21 274 5 7:17 135 8:5 288 11:5 356 xc, 358 11:15 11:19 356 12 356 12:1-17 78 12:4 387 273 12:9 12:10 293 12:12 13:14 lxxiv, lxxx, lxxxi 13:18 387 14:13 387 14:14—16 16:18 lxxiv, lxxx, lxxxi 17:17 19-21 413 19:7 169 19:12 19:16 xlv, xlvii, lvi, lxxviii, lxxx, 20:4-5 284, 321, 391 20:6 lxviii 20:9 21:2-4 30 137, 218, 256 21:2 21:3 250 30 21:4 21:9-22:5 250, 355 21:9-10 250 385 21:13-14 21:22 25 22:1-3 323 22:1-2 25,407 22:3-5 lxxx 22:7 13 191 22:9 22:10 xlvi 22:17 lxxx, 142, 278 xlvii 22:18 22:20 407

441 137 lxxx, 142, 159, 278 13 25 194 213 38 282 213 213 lxlx 38 205 211 205 191 402 230 63 213 233 251 53 339 391 191 234 58 198 53 2 6 0 ,297 194 249 53 lxx 4 1 ,61 41 116 297 137, 256 lxviii, 137 53 53 lxviii 250