The Good and Evil Serpent (168 page)

118
. As Frey states, crucifixion and exaltation in John are not two events; they are one. Frey, “Die
‘theologia crucifixi’
des Johannesevangeliums,” in
Kreuzestheologie;
see esp. p. 259, “Die Erhöhung des Menschensohns wird hier in eine Analogie zur Erhöhung der Schlange durch Mose in der Wüste (Num 21,8f) gesetzt. Vergleichspunkt ist der Erhöhung, ihre Art und Weise … sowie ihre Ausrichtung auf die Menschen, vor denen sie geschieht.” Since there is no “lifting up” in Num 21, it is clear that the link between the two texts, Num 21 and Jn 3, is the image of the upraised serpent.

119
. That is, seven times in Mt, eight in Mark, ten in Lk, but twelve in John.

120
. According to the
Acts of John
94, “the lawless Jews,” who are governed by “the lawless Serpent,” are responsible for Jesus’ death.

121
. See esp. Jonsson,
Humor and Irony in the New Testament
, Leroy,
Rätsel und Missverständnis
, Culpepper,
Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design
, and Duke,
Irony in the Fourth Gospel
.

122
. That Jesus’ words end in 3:15 seems likely, though not certain. Schnackenburg opined that the monologue ended in 3:12 and that verses 13–21 are the theological reflections of the Fourth Evangelist. Schnackenburg, “Die ‘situationsgelösten’ Redestücke in Joh 3,” 90.

123
. G. R. O’Day,
Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim
(Philadelphia, 1986), p. 25.

124
. See O’Day, ibid., pp. 25–27; Muecke, “Irony Markers,”
Poetics
7 (1978) 365; Booth,
The Rhetoric of Irony;
Duke,
Irony in the Fourth Gospel
, chap. 4.

125
. Smith,
The Theology of the Gospel of John
, p. 114.

126
. Smith,
The Theology of the Gospel of John
, p. 115.

127
. See B. J. Malina,
The Palestinian Manna Tradition
(Leiden, 1968).

128
. See esp. Borgen,
Bread from Heaven
(Leiden, 1965), W. A. Meeks,
The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology
(Leiden, 1967), and S. Pancaro,
The Law in the Fourth Gospel
(Leiden, 1975).

129
. According to the
Gospel of Nicodemus
1:1–2, Pilate tells the Jews no one casts out demons, except by the name of Asclepius.

130
. Commentators habitually miss the
parallelismus membrorum
of Jn 3:14–15. J. Mateos and J. Barreto rightly understand the poetic form and its importance for revealing the synonymity of the serpent and the Son of Man: “Tutttavia il parallelismo e chiaro: al serpente del primo membro corrisponde ‘l’Uomo’ del secondo.”
Il Vangelo di Giovanni
, trans. T. Tosatti (Assisi, 2000 [4th ed.]) p. 184.

131
. Augustine,
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
14.7; trans. R. Stothert, “The Works of St. Augustine: Reply to Faustus the Manichaean,”
NPNF1
4, p. 209. Also see Augustine,
On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism
1.61.

132
. As Mateos and J. Barreto state: “[T]he uplifted serpent” signifies “liberation from death.”
Il Vangelo di Giovanni
, p. 184.

133
. Not only the Fourth Evangelist but also many of his readers knew by heart, in Hebrew or Greek, the text and interpretations of Num 21. So also R. Marrs,
Johannine Studies
, ed. J. E. Priest (Malibu, Calif., 1989) p. 139.

134
. As I. Nowell states, “Linking of a complex of traditions is illustrated by the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Book of Numbers.” Nowell, “Typology: A Method of Interpretation,”
TBT
28 (1990) 73.

135
. As J. Barr stated, typology when controlled and informed is “wholesome and viable.” Allegory is not. Note Barr’s insight: “[T]ypology is based on historical correspondences and thus related to the Bible’s own historical emphasis; while, judged by that same emphasis, allegory is non-historical and anti-historical.” Barr, “Typology and Allegory,”
Old and New in Interpretation
(London, 1966); the quotation is from p. 104. In
Die Erzählung von der ehernen Schlange
, Maneschg sees the “Typus und Antitypus,” but he fails to explore or show any interest in the serpent imagery and symbolism (p. 400).

136
. P. Borgen shows how Isa 52:13 and Dan 7:13–14 shaped the thought of Jn 3:14; both were joined to indicate an “installation in a royal office.” Borgen also brilliantly demonstrated how traditions later found in the Midrash to Ps 2 (“you are my son”) were interpreted in light of Isa 52:13 and Dan 7:13–14 to reveal enthronement. See Borgen, “Some Jewish Exegetical Traditions,” p. 252.

137
. Charlesworth, “A Rare Consensus Among Enoch Specialists: The Date of the Earliest Enoch Books,”
Hen
24 (2002) 225–34.

138
. E. Ruckstuhl, “Abstieg und Erhöhung des johanneischen Menschensohns,”
Jesu im Horizont der Evangelien
, pp. 277–310.

139
. O. Hofius, “Das Wunder der Wiedergeburt: Jesu Gespräch mit Nikodemus,” in
Johannesstudien
, ed. Hofius and H.-C. Kammler (Tübingen, 1996) p. 59.

140
. See M. Theobald,
Herrenworte im Johannesevangelium
, pp. 587–88 (New York, 2000).

141
. Ginzberg,
Legends of the Jews
, vol. 3, p. 336. Le Grande Davies also points out that “the serpent as a symbol of YHWH does not appear after the time of Hezekiah in the literature of the kingdom of Judah in the Promised Land.” He rightly stressed that the serpent was “a symbol or token of the saving powers of the God of Israel.” See his “Serpent Imagery in Ancient Israel,” pp. 33 and 34.

142
. Augustine,
The City of God
10.8; trans. M. Dods, “Augustine: The City of God,”
NPNF2
, p. 185.

143
. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, Quaestio LVI; trans. H. R. Percival, “The Seventh Ecumenical Council,”
NPNF2
14, p. 554.

144
. Theobald,
Herrenworte im Johannesevangelium
, p. 588.

145
. Consult Morgenthaler,
Statistik des Neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes
, p. 132.

146
.
Barn
. 12.7; Lake,
Apostolic Fathers
, vol. 1, pp. 384–85.

147
.
Barn
. 12.5; Lake,
Apostolic Fathers
, vol. 1, pp. 384–85.

148
. See the discussion by M. Black,
An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts
(Oxford, 1967 [3rd ed.]) p. 141.

149
. This verbal form is the Ethpe. of
zqp
. My transliterations are designed for those who do not know Semitics and the sophisticated way of transcribing the foreign words. I expect that they can comprehend how the word or words might sound.

150
. See also the discussion by Frey in
Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum
, pp. 186–87.

151
. G. Kittel, “
; Gekreuzigtwerden: Zur angeblichen antioche-nischen Herkunft des vierten Evangeliums,”
ZNW
35 (1936) 282–85. This important article by a luminary in biblical studies is virtually unknown. It is not cited by those who justly are praised for knowing the work of other scholars, notably, R. E. Brown in his
The Gospel According to John
, W. Thüsing in
Die Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium
(Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 21; 1.2) (Münster, 1959; 1970 [2nd ed.]), H. Maneschg in
Die Erzählung von der ehernen Schlange
, M. Hengel in his
Die johanneische Frage
, and J. Frey in his three-volume
Die johanneische Eschatologie
.

152
. Many scholars today trace the beginnings of the Fourth Gospel to Palestine; as G. Theissen states: “[T]he prehistory of the Gospel of John leads to Palestine.” Theis-sen,
Fortress Introduction to the New Testament
, trans. J. Bowden (Minneapolis, 2003) p. 146.

153
. See Whiteley in
ANRW
II.25.3 and E. D. Freed,
Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John
(Leiden, 1965).

154
. J. P. Gabler, “An Oration,” p. 141.

155
. He also knows the traditions preserved in Gen 26 according to which Isaac’s servants find a well of freshwater (for the Evangelist “living water”) in the Land and see it as a sign that “we shall be fruitful in the Land (26:22).” The Evangelist refers to this episode as “the gift of God” (4:10).

156
. Brown,
John
, p. 322. See esp. Fabry’s discussion in
Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament;
vol. 5, pp. 468–73.

157
. Sinaiticus (the first hand) and Epiphanius have “serpent.”

158
. In 1889, E. Schürer rightly pointed out that the Fourth Gospel should be seen within the world of Judaism; he, however, claimed that Philo’s use of Logos was the probable origin of the Fourth Evangelist’s thought. Note these words: “Der Evangelist sei ein Mann von alexandrinisch-philosophischer Bildung.” See Schürer’s publication in
Johannes und sein Evangelium
, ed. K. H. Rengstorf (Darmstadt, 1973) p. 21.

159
. It is disappointing to observe that neither of these significant links between the Gospels and Greek and Latin literature is mentioned or noted in the
Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament
.

160
. See the photograph in L. I. Levine, ed.,
Ancient Synagogues Revealed
(Jerusalem, 1981) p. 130. For a better photograph, see M. Avi-Yonah,
Art in Ancient Palestine: Selected Studies
, ed. H. Katzenstein and Y. Tsafrir (Jerusalem, 1981) Plate 41.

161
. For a photograph see Levine, ed.
Ancient Synagogues
, p. 108.

162
. For a discussion of this indissoluble knot see Avi-Yonah,
Art in Ancient Palestine
, pp. 76–77.

163
. See Levine,
Ancient Synagogues
, pp. 110, 154–55; for a photograph of the lintel with the large snake see p. 156.

164
. More than one Qappar is known, and the period is most likely from the second to the fourth centuries CE.

165
. J. Ma’oz concludes his study of synagogal iconography in the Golan with the claim: “[W]e should emphasize the abundance of faunal reliefs and the complete absence of mythological wildlife scenes, so common in the synagogues at Capernaum and Chorazin.” Ma’oz in Levine,
Ancient Synagogues
, p. 112.

166
. See, e.g., Theobald,
Herrenworte im Johannesevangelium
, p. 201.

167
. Bultmann concluded that the Evangelist derived the interpretation of Num 21 “wohl durch die christliche Tradition.”
Das Evangelium des Johannes
, p. 109.

168
. A work related to these early Christian compositions is the
Didache
. It is heavily influenced by early Jewish thought, as M. Del Verme has shown. See Del Verme’s recent articles:
“DID.16
e la considdetta ‘Apocalittica Giudaica’,”
Orpheus
N.S. 22 (2001) 39–76 and
“Didaché
e origini cristiane: Una bibliografia per lo studio della
Didaché
nel contesto del giudaismo cristiano,”
Vetera Christianorum
38 (2001) 5–39.

169
. See Maneschg,
Die Erzählung von der ehernen Schlange
, pp. 175–82.

170
. For Philo, see F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker,
Philo
(LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1929, 1999) vol. 1
[AllegoricalInterpretation]
and Colson and Whitaker (LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1930, 1988) vol. 3 (On
Husbandry)
.

171
. For reflections on Num 21 and the possible breaking of God’s own commandment against making any images, see Tertullian,
On Idolatry
5; see the translation by Thelwall, “On Idolatry,”
ANF
3, pp. 63–64.

172
. Danby,
The Mishnah
(Oxford, 1933) p. 192.

173
. J. Neusner,
The Mishnah: A New Translation
(New Haven, London, 1988) p. 305.

174
. Brown,
John
, p. 133.

175
. M.-É. Boismard and A. Lamouille,
L’Évangile de Jean
(Paris, 1977) vol. 2, p. 115.

176
. M. J. Lagrange,
Évangile selon Saint Jean
(Paris, 1927) p. 81.

177
. See esp. D. Crossan,
The Gospel of Eternal Life: Reflections on the Theology of St. John
(Milwaukee, 1967).

178
. Ignatius,
The Martyrdom of Ignatius
, 12; trans. A. C. Coxe, “The Martyrdom of Ignatius,”
ANF
1, p. 145 (italics mine).