No abstract

The paper provides a study of the disciples and family of Jesus in Mark 3.13–35. It argues, against the prevailing interpretations, that (1) Mark 3.13–35 should be viewed as a subsection of 3.13–6.13, thus 3.20–35 should not be read in isolation from 3.13–19. (2) Recognising the connection of 3.13–19 to 3.22–35 by 3.20–21 points the way to identifying the twelve as those who sought to restrain Jesus. (3) On this basis an outline reading of 3.20–35 is given. Four groups fall under critique here: the twelve, the crowd, the scribes from Jerusalem and the family, the last of these less severely than the other three groups. (4) Family is redefined in terms of discipleship and discipleship in terms of family. (5) The study also argues that, according to Mark, the households of supporters were the strategic centres of the Jesus movement. These are contrasted with synagogues and Temple, which are places of opposition to the Jesus movement.

No abstract

That John 6 was intended as a self-contained unit is clearly signalled by the evangelist, who has commenced chapters 5, 6 and 7 with μετά ταûτα, a formula that marks a new beginning. Yet there has long been controversy regarding the unity and integrity of the chapter and its present place in the Gospel. In this paper it is argued that, though independent of the Synoptics, John has made use of Synoptic-like tradition and that chapter 6 provides evidence of a developing and yet unified interpretation of that tradition. The tradition was the basis of two editions of the chapter. Recognition and characterization of the tradition is an important beginning in the attempt to understand John 6. A second step is to note the signals indicating changes of time, place and audience which coincide with changes of literarygenre. Changes are signalled from the crowd at Capernaum (6. 22–36) to the Jews in the synagogue at Capernaum (6. 41–59) to the disciples and ‘the twelve’ at some unspecified location (6. 60–71). There are two references to each audience in thenarrativeof these sections (6. 22, 24, 41, 52, 60, 66, 67, 71) and a Son of Man saying in each of Jesus' responses, to the crowd (6. 27), the Jews (6. 53), and the disciples (6. 62). Changes ofgenrefrom quest (6. 1–36) to rejection (6. 41–59 and 6. 60–66) to commendation (6. 67–71) stories confirm these divisions. There is also a transition from the emphasis on the emissary christology in the quest story to the soteriology of the rejection stories.

The articles by Severino Pancaro 1 discussing the understanding of the Church in the Gospel of John are a constructive attempt to elucidate the Johannine situation. He suggests that the author was a Jew writing for Jewish readers 2 towards the end of the first century. 3 ' Normative Judaism' claimed that those who believed in Jesus no longer belonged to Israel. In response John and Jewish Christians affirmed that ' only those Jews who believe on Jesus constitute (the true) Israel... '. 4 A conflict of views The situation as outlined is expressed in the second of the two articles by Pancaro and seems to be in conflict with the situation implied in the first article. In the second article he writes 'John is not at all concerned with the Gentiles... '. 'There is no question of having to explain how non-Jews can be said to have become the "people of God".' The reason for this is 'that John is a Jew who is writing for a Jewish audience'. 5 But in the first article there is a strong emphasis on the inclusion of Gentile believers in the new people of God. 6 Here he argues that believers of all nations had become the Aocos, the 'children of God'. There has clearly been a change of emphasis and this is reflected in a note 7 which indicates the problem but does nothing to overcome it. Does John have two conflicting ecclesiologies ? According to Pancaro he does. In the first article on John xi. 50-2 he argues that the people of God (Aocos) is constituted by believing Jews (from the I0vos) and believing Gentiles (among TO TEKVOC TOU GEOU TCC SieuKopiriapiEva). In the second article, believing Jews from metropolitan Judaism and the diaspora constitute (the true) Israel. John, unlike Paul, was not concerned with the place of the Gentile Christians because he was writing for a Jewish audience. An interpretation involving such a conflict is surely suspect. If the ' other sheep' of John x. 16 are believing Jews of the diaspora then surely this is also true of'the scattered children of God' of xi. 52. Pancaro argues that it would 1 '"