No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sir, We Wish to See Jesus Was this an Occasion of Temptation?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Extract
In recent years there has been a renewal of interest in the question of ‘history’ in the Fourth Gospel, an interest exemplified in such books as A. J. B. Higgins's The Historicity of the Fourth Gospel and C. H. Dodd's Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel.1 The serious insistence of these studies on the historical element in the Gospel brings a much needed correction of the tendency to regard nearly everything in it as purely symbolic. On the request of the Greeks to see Jesus (John 12.20ff) Bultmann comments that the fact that the request is conveyed to Jesus by Philip and Andrew ‘must also have symbolic meaning’.2 And the tendency to close the door on inquiry into the historical element is illustrated by the word ‘only’ in G. H. C. Macgregor's comment: ‘The Greeks are brought on the stage only as a cue for Jesus' great discourse upon the necessity of his death and the universal salvation which will result from it.’3
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1967
References
page 75 note 1 Hereafter cited as Historical Tradition.
page 75 note 2 Bultmann, R., Commentary, Göttingen, 1950, pp. 323–324Google Scholar
page 75 note 3 Macgregor, G. H. C., Moffatt Commentary, 1928, p. 264.Google Scholar
page 75 note 4 Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1953, p. 371CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hereafter cited as Interpretation.
page 75 note 5 Preisker, H., ‘Zum Charakter des Johannesevangeliums’, in Luther, Kant, Schleiermacher in ihrer Bedeutung für den Protestantismus, Forschungen und Abhandlungen Georg Wobbermin dargebracht (1939), pp. 379–393.Google Scholar
page 76 note 1 Dodd, C. H., Interpretation, p. 371Google Scholar. Cf. also Historical Tradition, pp. 305, 388–90.
page 76 note 2 ibid., p. 323, citing Jos., ‘Bell.’ VI.ix.3. Cf. also, for a similar view: Windisch, H., T.W.M.T., II, p. 506Google Scholar; M.-J. Lagrange, Commentary, ad loc; Strachan, R. H., The Fourth Gospel, Its Significance and Environment, S.C.M. Press, 1941, p. 252Google Scholar; Lightfoot, R. H., Commentary, Oxford, 1956, ad locGoogle Scholar; Barrett, C. Kingsley, Commentary, S.P.C.K., 1955, p. 351Google Scholar; Hoskyns, E. C., Commentary, Faber and Faber, 1947, p. 423Google Scholar; G. H. C. Macgregor, ibid., p. 264; Bernard, J. H., Commentary, I.C.C., 1928, II, p. 430.Google Scholar
page 77 note 1 ‘Twelve New Testament Studies’, S.B.T. 34, 1962, pp. 107–125Google Scholar. Reprinted from N.T.S. VI (1960), 117–31. References here to the former.
page 77 note 2 ibid., p. 117.
page 77 note 3 ibid., p. 116.
page 77 note 4 Higgins, A. J. B., The Historicity of the Fourth Gospel, Lutterworth, 1960, p. 21.Google Scholar
page 77 note 5 Cadbury, H. J., in The Beginnings of Christianity, V, p. 73.Google Scholar
page 77 note 6 ibid., p. 74. Cadbury notes that both Philo and Chrysostom ‘still seem to call such Greek-speaking Jews 
oι’.
page 78 note 1 Cullmann, O., ‘The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity’ (reprinted from J.B.L. 74 (1955), pp. 213–26) in The Scrolls and the NT, ed. Stendahl, Krister, S.C.M. Press, 1958, pp. 18–32Google Scholar. Cf. also, by Cullmann, The Early Church, S.C.M. Press, 1956, pp. 183–192.Google Scholar
page 78 note 2 Cf. Acts 17.4 τ
ν τε σεβoμ⋯νων Ἑλλ⋯νων, where clearly proselytes are meant.
page 78 note 3 Cf. Moore, G. F., Judaism, 1927, 1, p. 232Google Scholar, n. 2, pp. 348ff. Cf. also Schürer, E., A History of the Jewish People, div. II, vol. II, pp. 304–306.Google Scholar
page 78 note 4 Moore, ibid., p. 233.
page 79 note 1 Schürer, ibid., pp. 302–3.
page 79 note 2 Cf. Lake, Kirsopp, ‘Proselytes and God-fearers’, in The Beginnings, V, p. 86Google Scholar. Cf. also Moore, ibid., pp. 233, 325.
page 79 note 3 Moore, ibid., p. 331.
page 79 note 4 ibid., p. 330, n. 4.
page 79 note 5 ἵνα πρoσκυν⋯σωσιν.
page 80 note 1 Montefiore, C. G., ‘The Spirit of Judaism’, in The Beginnings, I, p. 43.Google Scholar
page 80 note 2 ibid., p. 323: ‘ohne dass ihre Bitte besonders motiviert würde’.
page 80 note 3 Interpretation, p. 371, n. 3. Lagrange has well caught their spirit, ibid., pp. 328–9: ‘Nés dans le paganisme, ils ont acquis la foi en Dieu ensuite du travail personnel de leur esprit et de l'impulsion de leur cœur; ils devaient plus d'autres se sentir pressés de demander a Jésus plus de lumiére. Et enfin, ce sont des Grecs, c'est-à-dire qu'ils sont imbus de l'esprit grec, animés d'une curiosité universelle toujours en éveil.’
page 80 note 4 Jeremias, J., S.B.T. 24, 1958Google Scholar. Jesu Verheissung für die Völker, 1956.
page 81 note 1 Lohmeyer, E., ‘Die Reinigung des Tempels’, Th. Bl. 20, 1941, pp. 257ffGoogle Scholar; Markus, 1937, pp. 235ffGoogle Scholar; Kultus und Evangelium, 1942, pp. 44ffGoogle Scholar.
page 81 note 2 Jeremias, ibid., p. 65, n. 3.
page 82 note 1 Lohmeyer, Kultus und Evangelium, p. 47: ‘Und er hätte sie an einer Nebensachlichkeit auf dem Vorhofe der Heiden durchgeführt? Und hätte alle wichtigeren Fragen, etwa der Heiligkeit des Priestertumes, des blutigen Opfers, bei Seite gelassen, und seine Tat wäre auch ohne alle weiteren und tieferen Folgen geblieben?’
page 82 note 2 Jeremias, ibid., pp. 65–66. He notes that κληθ⋯σεται is an ‘eschatological future’. Note also that the imperfect tenses in Mark 11.17 κα⋯ ⋯δ⋯δσκεν κα⋯ ἕλεγεν may imply a sustained course of teaching.
page 82 note 3 The Pharisees would agree with Jesus on this issue. Cf. S.-B. II, p. 413.
page 82 note 4 Cf. Lohmeyer, ibid., p. 49, ‘Daraus begreift sich auch, warum der Konflikt mit dem kirchlichen Recht und Brauch der Tempelbehörden völlig unbeachtet bleibt. Denn unendlich wichtiger ist, dass durch Jesu Tat das Heimnis aufgehoben ist, das der vollendeten Wirklichkeit des Tempels als des Bethauses für alle Völker entgegensteht.’
page 83 note 1 ibid., pp. 50–51: ‘Das jüdische Volk hat die von Gottes Anbetung ausgeschlossen, die “zu laden” des Menschensohnes eschatologische Sendung ist. … Das ist seine Schuld, das sein “Raub” an den Völkern.’
page 83 note 2 Cf. Roth, Cecil, ‘The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah 14.21’, Novum Testamentum, IV, Oct. 1960, pp. 176–177Google Scholar. Cf. also Caldecott, A., J.T.S. 24, pp. 382–386.Google Scholar
page 83 note 3 ibid., pp. 176–7.
page 83 note 4 The following scholars take a similar view: Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition, pp. 159–160Google Scholar; Marsh, J. and Bowman, J. W., in Peake's Commentary (1962), pp. 702, 743Google Scholar; F. C. Grant, Interpreters' Bible, on Mark 11.15–17; Cadoux, C. J., The Historic Mission of Jesus, pp. 153–154Google Scholar; Lightfoot, R. H., The Gospel Message of St. Mark, p. 63.Google Scholar
page 83 note 5 Kümmel, W. G., ‘Promise and Fulfilment’, S.B.T. 23 (1957), p. 118.Google Scholar
page 83 note 6 Taylor, V., Commentary on Mark's Gospel, p. 464.Google Scholar
page 83 note 7 Schrenk, G., T.W.N.T. III, p. 243.Google Scholar
page 84 note 1 Cf. Buse, Ivor, Expository Times, LXX, Oct. 1958, pp. 22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 84 note 2 V. Taylor, ibid., p. 461.
page 84 note 3 J. H. Bernard, ibid., ad loc.
page 85 note 1 Dodd, C. H., Interpretation, p. 300Google Scholar, where he is referring to the Cleansing of the Temple.
page 85 note 2 Goguel, M., The Life of Jesus (Vie de Jésus, 1932, trans. Wyon, Olive), Harper Torchbooks, II, p. 413.Google Scholar
page 86 note 1 Cf. Dodd, C. H., Interpretation, p. 300Google Scholar; Historical Tradition, p. 161.
page 86 note 2 Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition, p. 159Google Scholar; Interpretation, pp. 349–50.
page 86 note 3 Cecil Roth, ibid., p. 180, p. 178.
page 86 note 4 Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition, p. 159.Google Scholar
page 86 note 5 Cecil Roth, ibid., p. 181.
page 87 note 1 Doeve, J. W., ‘Purification du Temple et Desséchement du Figuier’, N.T.S. I (1955), PP. 297–308.Google Scholar
page 88 note 1 M. Goguel, ibid., pp. 507ff.
page 88 note 2 Cf. John 10.16. Is there a possible connexion between the λῃστα⋯ of John 10.8 and those of Mark 11.17?
page 90 note 1 The request of the Greeks is not made otiose by the presence of the crowd (v. 29). The crowd makes comments from without, in the manner of the Greek ‘Chorus’. The Greeks are participants in the drama, and wish to speak with Jesus privately.
page 90 note 2 See above, p. 81. The apparent refusal is to be set alongside the Lord's response to the Syro-Phoenician woman and the Centurion (Mark 7.27; Matt. 8.7 may be a question).
page 92 note 1 ibid., pp. 383–4, ‘Weil er davor zittert, von seiner wahren Aufgabe abgezogen zu werden.’ Cf. Seeley, J., Ecce Homo, p. 7Google Scholar, quoted by Wood, H. G. in Jesus in the Twentieth Century, Lutterworth, 1960, p. 116.Google Scholar
page 93 note 1 See above, p. 88, n. 2.
page 93 note 2 ibid., p. 116.