Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:21:44.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rebuking the Spirit a New Analysis of the Lazarus Story of John 11

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Barnabas Lindars
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The story of the raising of Lazarus (John 11.1–44) is one of the most dramatic and impressive of the compositions in the Fourth Gospel. For this very reason it raises a host of problems for the biblical critic. There can be no dispute that it has a theological purpose which dominates the whole narrative. This is clearly set out in the first words attributed to Jesus: ‘This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it’ (v. 4). The same point is referred to again just before the climax of the narrative in v. 40. But the more prominent the theological aim, the more difficult it becomes to view the narrative simply in terms of history. It must surely be the case that John has based his composition on a source, which was probably much simpler and briefer than the splendid story which it has become in his hands. But the source must be reconstructed before we can begin to think of it in historical terms. The modern tendency is to give up such attempts as hopeless, and to concentrate on the meaning of the text as it stands. But even that presents pitfalls to the critic. All seems well until we come to v. 33: ‘Jesus…was deeply moved in spirit (ένεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι) and troubled.’ Unfortunately the Greek words do not mean ‘deeply moved in spirit’ (RSV). In his recent commentary on John in the Word Biblical Commentary, G. R. Beasley-Murray marshalls a great array of evidence to show that the meaning must be ‘became angry in spirit’. But why should Jesus be represented by John as angry? The effort to answer this question affects the interpretation of the whole story.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 89 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Beasley-Murray, G. R., John (Word Biblical Commentary; Waco: Word, 1987).Google Scholar

2 Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (2 vols.; The Anchor Bible; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966 and 1970).Google Scholar

3 Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St John (3 vols.; Herders theologische Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, ET, London: Burns & Oates, 1968, 1980 and 1982).Google Scholar

4 Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (New Century Bible; London: Oliphants, 1972).Google Scholar

5 Fragmenta in evangelio Johannis (GCS 10, Werke, ed. Preuschen, 1903) vol. 4, 549 (frags. 83–84). For non-biblical Greek texts in which έμβριμ⋯σθαι occurs I am indebted to Dr Douglas de Lacey, who searched the Compact-Disc corpus of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae on the Ibycus SC. All translations are my own, unless otherwise stated.

6 Story, C. I. K., ‘The Mental Attitude of Jesus at Bethany: John 11.33, 38’, NTS 37 (1991) 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Translation by Musurillo, H., The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford, 1972) 81.Google Scholar The passage is quoted verbatim by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.1.60.

8 See Story for text and for comment on this example. I regard his use of ‘censure’ as a translation of έμβριμ⋯σθαι here and elsewhere as misleading and unfortunate. Story also has a further example from Hermias’ Irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum (2nd to 3rd century), in which Empedocles rages against his former speculations on cosmology. This text was not available to me.

9 Translation from Hennecke, E., New Testament Apocrypha 1 (ET, London: SCM, 1963) 496.Google Scholar

10 Libanii Opera (ed. Foerster, R.; vol. 7; Leipzig: Teubner, 1913) 336.Google Scholar

11 In another fourth-century writer, Macarius (Apophthegmata, MPG 34, 248), the unrecorded word έμβρίμιον is evidently an error through itacism for έμβρ⋯μιον = ‘pillow’.

12 Translation by Duffy, J. M., Scholia in Hippocratis Prognosticon (Berlin: Akademie, 1983) 60–1.Google Scholar

13 Pss 7.12; 37(38).4; Jer 10.10; 15.17; Hos 7.16; probably also Num 23.8; Lam 2.6; Ezek 22.24.

14 Ezek 21.31(36) (άπειλή = ‘threat’); possibly Ps 7.12 (άπειλεῖν = ‘threaten’), if this is to be attributed to Aquila.

15 Ps 37(38).4; Jer 15.17; Hos 7.16.

16 Hom, in Ps. 37, MPG 30, 89–93, reproduced by Eusebius, MPG 23, 341.

17 Expositions in Psalmos, MPG 55, 95–6.

18 My interpretation of the passage differs to some extent from Story's, who translates: ‘no longer does he rebuke his spirit but he holds the rebuke in custody in himself … And again he rebukes (his) suffering’ (ούκέτι έμβριμ⋯ται τῷ πνε⋯ματι, αλλ⋯ συνέχει έν έαυτῷ τ⋯ν έμβρίμησιν…πάλιν δ⋯ έπιτιμᾷ τῷ πάθει). This is part of Origen's comment on v. 38. Unfortunately the comment on v. 33 has not survived, and therefore the referent of τῷ πνε⋯ματι is not specified, and we do not know how Origen interpreted κα⋯ί έτ⋯ραξεν έαυτ⋯ν. But the final words, taking up πάλιν from the text, show that έπιτιμᾷ τῷ πᾴθει is his understanding of ένεβριμῄσατο τῷ πνε⋯ματι, and the fact that this is now something that Jesus does within himself suggests that the previous rebuke related to an outward act, whereas now it is his own example of self-restraint which constitutes a further rebuke.

19 Panarion 69.19.7; 77.26. 7.

20 MPG 59, 350: Eἶτα έπιτιμ⋯σας τῷ π⋯θει (τό γ⋯ρ, Ὲνεβριμ⋯σατο τῷ πνεύματι, το⋯τó έστιν) ⋯π⋯σχε τ⋯ν σ⋯γχυσιν…

21 Hom. in Mattheum, MPG 57, 378. The spurious Hom. in Lazarum 2, MPG 62, 777–8, understands the phrase to mean ‘troubled in spirit’. It was then that Jesus prayed (referring to v. 41, which implies that Jesus has prayed earlier).

22 Commentary on the Nichomachean Ethics, ed. G. Heylbut (1892) 119.Google Scholar

23 See most recently Fortna, R. T., The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989) 94–109.Google Scholar

24 The Gospel of John, 398; also Behind the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1971) 58.Google Scholar

25 Cf. the redaction-critical analysis of Held in Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London: SCM, 1963) 223–5.Google Scholar

26 Bonner, C., ‘Traces of Thaumaturgic Technique in the Miracles’, HTR 20 (1927) 171–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, cited classical examples for such abnormal energy, which he felt was readily comprehensible in the case of the Lazarus story in view of the ‘portentous miracle’ involved.

27 Neirynck, F., ‘John and the Synoptics’, L'Évangile de Jean (ed. de Jonge, M.; BETL 44; Gembloux: Duculot, 1977) 73–106.Google Scholar

28 Cf. Lindars, B., ‘John and the Synoptic Gospels: A Test Case’, NTS 27 (1981) 287–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It is of course true that Mark has ένεβριμ⋯ντο αύτῇ in the anointing at Bethany (Mark 14.5), which is one of the sources for the scenario of the Lazarus story. But it seems to me very unlikely that he would take the word from this source and substitute it for πιτιμ⋯ν in the exorcism story. As so often in Johannine study, complete certainty is impossible to attain.

29 It is the basis of the Beelzebul controversy, Mark 3.22–30, combined with Q parallels in Matthew 12 and Luke 11, and is the subject of numerous editorial summaries. In general on this issue see Smith, Morton, Jesus the Magician (London: Gollancz, 1978).Google Scholar

30 Schnackenburg suggests that the repetition of έμβριμ⋯σθαι in v. 38 is a sign that the intervening verses 34–7 are an insertion into the source, which is here resumed from v. 33. But the composition seems to me to require a more radical interpretation.

31 This is argued in my article referred to in n. 28 above.

32 Thus ‘your son lives’ in 4.50 is the basis of the additional episode, giving confirmation of the miracle, in vv. 51–3, in which the same words are repeated twice. In 20.24–9 the Thomas episode has been created out of a tradition closely related to Luke 24.36–43, and has repetitions in vv. 25 and 27 of words used in v. 20, cf. my ‘The Composition of John 20’, NTS 7 (1960) 142–7.Google Scholar