Craig S. Keener

Источник

Introductory issues. 13:1–17:26

JUST AS MARK 13 INTERPRETS the imminent passion of Mark 14–15 for the disciples in terms of their future tribulation, so Jesus» final discourse in John's Gospel interprets the meaning of Jesus» passion for his disciples: they will share both his sufferings and his resurrection life.7994

Unity of the Discourse

Source critics have detected a variety of clues, especially alleged changes of focus and editorial seams, that indicate divergent sources in the discourse.7995 Most commonly, scholars divide ch. 14 from chs. 15 and 16, suggesting that they are either alternative versions (perhaps both hallowed by time, or one perhaps older than the other),7996 or a reworked version in addition to an original version (the original is more often thought to be John 14).7997 Talbert suggests that John varies these discourses, since ancient critics recognized that repeating words exactly wearies the hearer.7998 Some scholars have challenged the thesis of duplicate discourses,7999 others have argued for distinct discourses offered by Jesus himself on different nights of the Passover week,8000 and a minority of scholars have argued for the discoursés unity.8001

Some relatively recent source-critical work takes a chronological approach to the development of the discourse: thus Painter thinks that John composed three versions of the Farewell Discourse, the first before conflict with the synagogue (13:31–14:31), the second during rejection by the synagogue (15:l-16:4a) and the third (16:4b-33) in opposition to the synagogue.8002 Berg largely concurs but adapts this position slightly,8003 thinking that 15:1–17 is probably «an independent unit» from the time of that conflict.8004 Such a detailed reconstruction requires so much dependence on hypothetical reconstructions, and assumes John's lack of creative revision of his sources to such a degree, that it is not likely to commend much assent today despite its brilliance. More speculatively, some, especially earlier source critics, also have suggested displacements in parts of the discourse,8005 or alterations made in the the use of the discourse in various recensions of the Fourth Gospe1.8006 Most such source-critical theories remain speculative, although at least one editorial seam (14:31) appears convincing enough to allow the possibility (albeit not the certainty) that John 14 and John 15–16 represent two versions, or two sections, of an original discourse now bound together. This seam in 14may be disputed (see our comment), but it is the strongest argument for the composite nature of the current discourse.8007 Apparent inconsistencies such as 13and 16are also possible indicators,8008 though they may simply reflect John's deliberately ambiguous use of language.

Others have argued in greater detail that authentic sayings of Jesus stand behind the Farewell Discourse(s).8009 John's last discourse, dominated more by realized than by future eschatology, replaces the Synoptic eschatological discourse, but Synoptic tradition also indicates that Jesus provided more general directions for the future (Luke 22:21–38).8010 The vision of form and source criticism naturally gave way to redaction criticism, however, so that one could acknowledge historical tradition in the discourse(s) yet prove more interested in how it (they) fit the community John is addressing.8011

Today scholarship, more shaped by contemporary narrative criticism, would emphasize still more how the discourse fits together and fits the perspective of the Gospel as a whole. As Gail R. ÓDay notes, the claim for two Farewell Discourses (14:1–31; 16:4–33) based on parallels between them «tends to discount the role of repetition as a literary technique throughout the Fourth Gospe1.»8012 Fernando Segovia, who authored one of the leading redaction-critical studies of the Farewell Discourse(s), now affirms much more unity and coherence in the text.8013 He notes that different stages of composition remain feasible,8014 but that repetition was standard in ancient literature8015 and that the farewell speech functions «as a self-contained artistic whole that is highly unified and carefully developed from beginning to end.»8016 Repetition may indicate recycling of a source, but this is unclear. Whatever its origins, the discoursés final form, presumably the form in which it first appeared in the finished Gospel, is the form the final author presented as a finished product, and is available to our analysis without speculation.

In keeping with this trend to understand the finished Gospel as a whole, we speak of «discourse» in the singular. We are not fully persuaded by repetition or «seams» that two discourses stand behind the present one, but even if they do, they provide one unified discourse in the context of the finished Gospe1.8017 Thus one can point to interpretive clues that bind together the beginning and end of the section, for example, the coming of Jesus» hour (13:1; 16:32), his coming from God (13:3; 16:30), and his leaving the world to go to the Father (13:1; 16:28).8018 Frederic Manns elucidates the structure of 14:1–31 as a threefold parallelism:8019


John 14:1–17 John 14:18–26 John 14:27–31
1 Be not troubled 18 Not as orphans 27b Be not troubled
3 I will come 181 will come 28 I will come
10 I am in the Father 20 I am in the Father 28 The Father is greater
12 Go to the Father 28 I go to the Father
Believes in me 21 Keeps my commands
15 If you love me, keep commands 21 One who loves me keeps commands 31 I love the Father, let us so
16 The Paraclete 26 The Paraclete 30 Prince of the world

Although he must omit material to make the pattern fit (and some items do not fit), he at least demonstrates the repetition of ideas, some following clear patterns.

It is also possible that most of the unified Farewell Discourse as a whole yields a chiastic structure as follows:

A Jesus» departure, glory, love in community (13:31–38 or-14:1)

    Β Jesus» coming and abiding presence (14or 14:2–15:17)

        C The World (15:18–16:12)

            a The world's hatred (15:18–25)

                b The Spirit's testimony to the world (15:26–27)

           á The world's hatred (16:1–4)

                b» The Spirit's testimony to the world (16:5–12)

    B» Jesus» Coming and Abiding Presence (16:13–33)

Á Jesus» departure, glory, and unity of community (17:1–26)

If this basic structure is correct, unity (17:21–23) and love (13:34–35) are essentially synonymous images; secession from the community, as in 1 John, would thus prove equivalent to hatred and death.

The discourse provides an interpretive crux, corresponding to the narrator's perspective, though the narrator has often remained silent in this Gospe1.8020 Even before current literary-critical emphases, however, commentators could recognize that the discourse in John 13–17 clarifies the significance of the passion events of John 18–20.8021

A Testament of Jesus?

Scholars have offered various proposals concerning the specific genre or generic associations of this discourse. Given the pervasiveness of the Last Supper tradition in early Christianity (1Cor 11:23), a meal setting for the discourse (mentioned in passing in John 13:2,4) may be presupposed even if John is conspicuous by his lack of emphasis on it;8022 in this case, ancient Mediterranean readers might view the discourse as taking place in a symposium setting.8023 This was in fact a common literary setting for important discourses and dialogues.8024 Most traditional Jews would have continued to discuss Passover among themselves for a few hours after the meal,8025 providing an opportunity for a discourse such as this one after the Last Supper. Some even understand the passage as Jesus» commentary on his Passover meal with his disciples–albeit before John redacted the Passover to the cross (19:36).8026 Because little dialogue occurs, however, the observation of a general symposium setting exercises little influence on interpretation.

Speeches before battle also included exhortations to endure hardship and are standard in ancient literature.8027 Exhortations to face what is coming (14:31) or be encouraged (16:33) could fit this genre, but because Jesus» passion is not a military encounter per se, this genre sheds only peripheral light on John's discourse.

With or without an allusion to the Last Supper, the background of the discourse includes traditional elements of the covenant form probably reminiscent of Deuteronomy, where Moses also gives his final discourses:8028 in the context of the whole Fourth Gospel, the one greater than Moses is providing his testament for the future. The death of a sage frequently became the occasion for paraenesis.8029 Many people thought that shortly before death some people exercised keen prophetic insight, an idea possibly related to those testaments which offer predictions for the future.8030 As in many cultures,8031 a person might leave special instructions before dying; sometimes the same format could be employed for a departure speech not necessarily indicating imminent death.8032 Farewell or departure speeches were a standard biblical8033 and early Jewish literary form;8034 they also appear elsewhere in Greco-Roman works8035 and the NT.8036 Testaments often included, as here, warnings to keep the stipulations of the covenant, mention of a successor,8037 and a prayer.8038 Thus many find a «testament of Jesus» in John's Farewell Discourse.8039

Jesus» «testament» differs from typical testaments in some regards. Often those who delivered such testaments were aged, summoned listeners to hear, recounted much of the future (Jesus tells some about the future, e.g., 16:2–4, but mainly leaves such information to the Paraclete, 16:12–13). Such testaments also often include a blessing, burial instructions, an oath, descriptions of sad parting, and the person's death. But a testament need not (and most testaments did not) include all these characteristics to fit the general context of the genre; thus many NT scholars place Mark 13 and 2 Peter in this category, despite their having only some of these characteristics.8040 John 14 may fit the typical format of a farewell discourse better than John 15–16, but, given the attested variations within the format, there is no reason to doubt that this discourse could be distinctive in some respects.8041 The very fact that Jesus rises as well as dies within the Fourth Gospel requires major modifications in the typical testamentary format in any case.8042 Later rabbis also adapted the earlier testamentary genre to fit their characteristic emphases.8043 Segovia, after surveying dominant patterns in testaments and farewell scenes,8044 finds seven of nine major categories of farewell speech motifs in John 13–17, and notes that those missing would be out of place here.8045

Theologically, the discourse underlines the theme of Jesus» continuing presence with his people.8046 In place of an eschatological discourse preceding the passion, as in the Synoptic traditions and probably traditions known to the Johannine community (which was, however, also capable of eschatological interpretation; cf. Rev), John treats his audience to an emphasis on the present experience of Jesus» presence through his past return to them.8047

* * *

7994

Paul seems to predicate the same goal on Jesus» accomplished mission (Phil 3:9–11).

7995

E.g., Becker, «Abschiedsreden.» For a thorough summary of views on composition and redactional questions, see Segovia, Farewell, 20–47.

7996

Berg, «Pneumatology,» 99, cites C. K. Barrett, Porsch, and R. Brown.

7997

Berg (ibid.) cites Wellhausen, Becker, Schnackenburg, and Painter (holding John 14 as original); and Sasse (holding John 14 as a revision). Borig, Weinstock, sees John 15–17 as an alternative of 13:31–14:31, but both as stemming from the evangelist (Segovia, Relationships, 87).

7998

Talbert, John, 211, citing Rhet. Ad Herenn. 4.42.54.

7999

Reese, «Structure,» accepting the composite character of the material but arguing, from the six question-answer exchanges, that John 14 and 16 are not discourses in any case.

8000

Witherington, Wisdom, 244.

8001

Berg, «Pneumatology,» 98, citing especially Dodd and Wilckens.

8002

Painter, «Glimpses»; idem, «Discourses.»

8003

See Berg, «Pneumatology,» 85–89.

8004

Ibid., 87–88.

8005

Strachan, Gospel, 174, places John 15–16 between 13and 13:31b, following Moffatt; more recently, see Lattke, Einheit.

8006

Bacon, «Displacement,» thinks John 14 was not originally a part of the Gospe1. Boyd, «Ascension,» thinks that the original edition of the Gospel included the teachings of John 14–17 after the resurrection but that the final edition displaced them to their present setting.

8007

See Segovia, Relationships, 82; Witherington, Wisdom, 244.

8008

Boyle, «Discourse,» 210.

8009

For various sayings of Jesus in this Gospel, see Dodd, Tradition, 315–420.

8010

Bürge, Community, 116 n. 9, who also compares Luke 22and John 17.

8011

Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 127. First John has more in common with this discourse than with the rest of the Gospel (perhaps because this discourse focuses on Jesus» message to disciples), though this need not imply the Epistlés author redacting this discourse (Smalley, Epistles, xxix).

8012

0'Day, «John,» 770; see further 736–37. Similarly Witherington, Wisdom, 248, who attributes the repetition to sapiential style and «successive discourses given in a short span of time.»

8013

See Segovia, «Tradition History.»

8014

Segovia, Farewell, 320–27; also Smith, John, 263, following Segoviás argument for stages.

8015

Segovia, Farewell, 51

8016

Ibid., 288; cf. also 320, 328.

8017

See Boyle, «Discourse,» 210–11, 221–22.

8018

Manns, «Paraclet,» 104, reporting this «triple inclusion »

8019

Ibid., 105.

8020

Culpepper, Anatomy, 38.

8021

Lightfoot, Gospel, 319.

8022

The lack of emphasis may, however, speak against a eucharistie interpretation (pace Moloney, «Reading»).

8023

E.g., Witherington, Wisdom, 232–34.

8024

E.g., Plato Symp.; Xenophon Symp.; Cicero Tusc; Plutarch Dinner; T.T.; Athenaeus Deipn.; Aulus Gellius 7.13. For elements of a mock symposium, see Trimalchiós dinner in Petronius Sat. In a Diaspora Jewish setting, see Letter of Aristaeus (specifically, Hadas, Aristeas, 42–43), which may draw on 1 Esd 3–4 (the latter is not, however, a dinner setting); in the Gospels, Luke 7:36–50; 11:37–54; 14:1–24 (Aune, Environment, 122).

8025

Stauffer, Jesus, 118. Even after a main meal (perhaps occurring here in 13:2) had been finished, people could drink more (Xenophon Cyr. 8.4.9).

8026

Cf. Laufer, «Commentary.»

8027

E.g„ Homer I1. 13.95–124; Battle of Frogs and Mice 110–112, 132–159; Polybius 15.10; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.6.1–6.9.6; Appian R.H. 8.7.42; 8.17.116; C.W. 4.16.126; Arrian Alex. 3.9.5–7. Such exhortations, however, also occur outside military contexts (e.g., P.Tebt. 703.40–43).

8028

See esp. Lacomara, «Deuteronomy,» 66–67,82; also Smith, John (1999), 265. This may suggest that early readers educated enough to contemplate such distinctions may have viewed the discourse as deliberative rhetoric, though Kennedy, Interpretation, 73–85 (see esp. 77), makes a case for epideictic rhetoric; and one could identify even elements of forensic rhetoric (questioned by Burridge, «Gospels and Acts,» 519, because it «is not a single speech»). But John 13–17 does not fit expected patterns for any «rhetorical» speech (rightly Stamps, «Johannine Writings,» 618).

8029

Perdue, «Sage.»

8030

Cf., e.g., Xenophon Apo1. 30; Aune, Prophecy, 178; many references in Malina and Rhorbaugh, John, 221–22. People also believed that deities sometimes warned people in advance of their own death (e.g., Plutarch Alc. 39.1–2; but contrast Xenophon Symp. 4.5).

8031

E.g., 1 Kgs 2:1–9; Mbiti, Religions, 109.

8032

Cf. Paul's Miletus speech (Acts 20:18–35; Michel, Abschiedsrede).

8033

E.g., Gen 47:29–49:33; Deut 31:1–33:29; Josh 23:1–24:30; 1 Kgs 2:1–10; cf. 1Sam 12. On Genesis, cf. Endres, Interpretation, 199–201.

8034

Jub. 36:1–11; 4Q542 (on which see Falk, «4Q542»); Tob 4:3–21; 14:3–11; 1Macc 2:49–69; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs; 2 En. 2:2; p. Ketub. 12:3, §§12–13; Tacan. 4:2, §8; Tg. Onq., Tg. Seof. 1, and Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49 (in each case the most expansive part of the Targum); Bauckham, Jude, 131–35; in conjunction with deathbed visions, e.g., p. cAbod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Sotah 9:16, §2; Tg. Neof. on Gen 49:1; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49:1. On testaments, see further McNamara, Judaism, 89–92; Kolenkow, «Testament»; Collins, «Testamentary Literature»; in the rabbis, cf. Saldarini, «Deathbed Scenes.» T. Ab. may be a nontestament because of Abraham's refusal to die, hence failure to prepare (see Kolenkow, «Role»; cf. T. Ab. 15:7–10).

8035

E.g., Plato Phaedo; Xenophon Cyr. 8.7.6–28; Babrius 47; cf. Menander Rhetor 2.15, 430.9–434.9. These differ from the farewell speech genre (propemptikon) in which one wishes farewell to a traveler (Menander Rhetor 395.4–30; Stowers, Letter Writing, 55–56).

8036

E.g., Luke 22:14–38 (Kurz, «Luke 22:14–38»); Acts 20 (Michel, Abschiedsrede); Mark 13 (Rob-bins, Jesus, 174–75); 2 Peter (Bauckham, Jude, 131–35).

8037

Testaments typically sought to provide for those left behind, which Jesus does especially through the Paraclete; see Müller, «Parakletenvorstellung.»

8038

See Robbins, Jesus, 174–75.

8039

E.g., Käsemann, Testament, 4; ÓDay, «John,» 737–38.

8040

Robbins, Jesus, 174–75; Bauckham, Jude, 131–35.

8041

E.g., Bürge, Community, 27–28, critiquing Müller, «Parakletenvorstellung.»

8042

Neusner, «Death-Scenes,» rightly notes the similarity of structure but divergence in other respects between Jesus» and rabbinic farewell scenes.

8043

See Goshen Gottstein, «Testaments.»

8044

Segovia, Farewell, 5–20.

8045

Ibid., 308–9; although there are thirteen farewell motif categories, only nine appear in speeches.

8046

Woll, Conflict, 33 (on the «first» discourse); cf. pp. 48, 79–80 on the Paraclete as Jesus» successor. Jonge, Jesus, 172, finds the emphasis on «the life of the community in the interim,» summarized especially in 13:31–38 and 17:20–26, which together frame the discourse.

8047

Future eschatology thus becomes not primarily anthropology (cf. Becker, «Abscheidsreden,» 219–28; see 228 on 14:3,19) but Christology and pneumatology, in which eschatology's focus is realized (cf. also 1Cor 2:9–10; 2Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13–14; Heb 6:4–5).


Источник: The Gospel of John : a commentary : Volumes 1-2 / Craig S. Keener – Massachusetts : Baker Academic, 2003. – 1636 pages.

Комментарии для сайта Cackle