Êxodo 9 abre-se como a terceira batida de um martelo que não erra o alvo: depois da água em sangue e da invasão que tomou casa e corpo, o Senhor agora fere o rebanho, a pele e o céu. O capítulo desenha, em três golpes — peste no gado, úlceras na carne, saraiva com fogo —, a recondução da criação à sua verdade, desmontando a cosmologia do império que se havia erguido sobre sangue inocente.
Bíblia Online
1 No princípio era a Palavra, Explicação e a Palavra estava com Deus, Notas Explicativas e a Palavra era um Deus. Notas Explicativas
John 1:1
In the beginning - This expression is used also in Gen_1:1. John evidently has allusion here to that place, and he means to apply to “the Word” an expression which is there applied “to God.” In both places it clearly means before creation, before the world was made, when as yet there was nothing. The meaning is: that the “Word” had an existence before the world was created. This is not spoken of the man Jesus, but of that which “became” a man, or was incarnate, Joh_1:14. The Hebrews, by expressions like this, commonly denoted eternity. Thus. the eternity of God is described Psa_90:2; “Before the mountains were brought forth, etc.;” and eternity is commonly expressed by the phrase, before the foundation of the world.” Whatever is meant by the term “Word,” it is clear that it had an existence before “creation.” It is not, then, a “creature” or created being, and must be, therefore, uncreated and eternal. There is only one Being that is uncreated, and Jesus must be therefore divine. Compare the Saviour’s own declarations respecting himself in the following places: Joh_8:58; Joh_17:5; Joh_6:62; Joh_3:13; Joh_6:46; Joh_8:14; Joh_16:28.
Was the Word - Greek, “was the λόγος Logos.” This name is given to him who afterward became “flesh,” or was incarnate (Joh_1:14 - that is, to the Messiah. Whatever is meant by it, therefore, is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ. There have been many opinions about the reason why this name was given to the Son of God. It is unnecessary to repeat those opinions. The opinion which seems most plausible may be expressed as follows:
1. A “word” is that by which we communicate our will; by which we convey our thoughts; or by which we issue commands the medium of communication with others. 2. The Son of God may be called “the Word,” because he is the medium by which God promulgates His will and issues His commandments. See Heb_1:1-3. 3. This term was in use before the time of John.
(a) It was used in the Aramaic translation of the Old Testament, as, “e. g.,” Isa_45:12; “I have made the earth, and created man upon it.” In the Aramaic it is, “I, ‘by my word,’ have made,” etc. Isa_48:13; “mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth.” In the Aramaic, “‘By my word’ I have founded the earth.” And so in many other places. (b) This term was used by the Jews as applicable to the Messiah. In their writings he was commonly known by the term “Mimra” - that is, “Word;” and no small part of the interpositions of God in defense of the Jewish nation were declared to be by “the Word of God.” Thus, in their Targum on Deu_26:17-18, it is said, “Ye have appointed the word of God a king over you this day, that he may be your God.”
(c) The term was used by the Jews who were scattered among the Gentiles, and especially those who were conversant with the Greek philosophy.
(d) The term was used by the followers of Plato among the Greeks, to denote the Second Person of the Trinity. The Greek term νοῦς nous or “mind,” was commonly given to this second person, but it was said that this nous was “the word” or “reason” of the First Person of the Trinity. The term was therefore extensively in use among the Jews and Gentiles before John wrote his Gospel, and it was certain that it would be applied to the Second Person of the Trinity by Christians. whether converted from Judaism or Paganism. It was important, therefore, that the meaning of the term should be settled by an inspired man, and accordingly John, in the commencement of his Gospel, is at much pains to state clearly what is the true doctrine respecting the λόγος Logos, or Word. It is possible, also, that the doctrines of the Gnostics had begun to spread in the time of John. They were an Oriental sect, and held that the λόγος Logos or “Word” was one of the “Aeones” that had been created, and that this one had been united to the man Jesus. If that doctrine had begun then to prevail, it was of the more importance for John to settle the truth in regard to the rank of the Logos or Word. This he has done in such a way that there need be no doubt about its meaning.
Was with God - This expression denotes friendship or intimacy. Compare Mar_9:19. John affirms that he was “with God” in the beginning - that is, before the world was made. It implies, therefore, that he was partaker of the divine glory; that he was blessed and happy with God. It proves that he was intimately united with the Father, so as to partake of his glory and to be appropriately called by the name God. He has himself explained it. See Joh_17:5; “And now, O Father, glorify thou we with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” See also Joh_1:18; “No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” See also Joh_3:13; “The Son of man, which is in heaven.” Compare Php_2:6-7.
Was God - In the previous phrase John had said that the Word was “with God.” Lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being, here John states that “he was God.” There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible than this, and there could be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God was equal with the Father; because:
1. There is no doubt that by the λόγος Logos is meant Jesus Christ.
2. This is not an “attribute” or quality of God, but is a real subsistence, for it is said that the λόγος Logos was made flesh σάρξ sarx - that is, became a human being.
3. There is no variation here in the manuscripts, and critics have observed that the Greek will bear no other construction than what is expressed in our translation - that the Word “was God.”
4. There is no evidence that John intended to use the word “God” in an inferior sense. It is not “the Word was a god,” or “the Word was ‘like God,’” but the Word “was God.” He had just used the word “God” as evidently applicable to Yahweh, the true God; and it is absurd to suppose that he would in the same verse, and without any indication that he was using the word in an inferior sense, employ it to denote a being altogether inferior to the true God.
5. The name “God” is elsewhere given to him, showing that he is the supreme God. See Rom_9:5; Heb_1:8, Heb_1:10, Heb_1:12; 1Jn_5:20; Joh_20:28. The meaning of this important verse may then be thus summed up:
1. The name λόγος Logos, or Word, is given to Christ in reference to his becoming the Teacher or Instructor of mankind; the medium of communication between God and man. 2. The name was in use at the time of John, and it was his design to state the correct doctrine respecting the λόγος Logos.
3. The “Word,” or λόγος Logos, existed “before creation” - of course was not a “creature,” and must have been, therefore, from eternity.
4. He was “with God” - that is, he was united to him in a most intimate and close union before the creation; and, as it could not be said that God was “with himself,” it follows that the λόγος Logos was in some sense distinct from God, or that there was a distinction between the Father and the Son. When we say that one is “with another,” we imply that there is some sort of distinction between them.
5. Yet, lest it should be supposed that he was a “different” and “inferior” being - a creature - he affirms that he was God - that is, was equal with the Father. This is the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity:
1. That the second person is in some sense “distinct” from the first.
2. That he is intimately united with the first person in essence, so that there are not two or more Gods.
3. That the second person may be called by the same name; has the same attributes; performs the same works; and is entitled to the same honors with the first, and that therefore he is “the same in substance, and equal in power and glory,” with God.
Detalhe sobre "com Deus".
Detalhe sobre "era um Deus".
2 Ele estava no princípio com Deus. Notas Explicativas Todas as coisas vieram a existir por meio dele, e e sem ele nem mesmo uma só coisa veio a existir.
Detalhe sobre "Ele estava".
Detalhe sobre "por meio dele".
New Testament
New Testament
THE (ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ), the general title appropriated by early and inveterate usage throughout the Western Church to the latter portion of the Holy Scriptures — to the collection of writings forming the authoritative records of the Christian, as contrasted with the earlier Jewish, revelation. As the various questions relating to the genuineness of the several books of the New Testament, their title to a place in the sacred volume, and their special characteristics, are discussed in the separate articles devoted to them, SEE CANON, and each book, we have now to speak only of those matters which relate to the collection as a whole. For the title, SEE TESTAMENT.
The New Testament differs remarkably from the Old in this respect, that while the writings comprehended in the earlier collection range over a period of a thousand years, those included in the later were produced almost contemporaneously, within the compass of one generation — most of them probably between A.D. 50 and A.D. 70. The collection consists of twenty-seven writings, proceeding either from apostles or from persons who were intimately associated with the apostles in their labors. Five of the works are in the form of historical narratives; four of which relate the history of the Savior's life on earth with such variety of form, and with such differences in the selection and treatment of materials, as seemed needful to meet the wants of different readers; and the fifth describes the formation and extension of the Church by the ministry of the leading apostles. Twenty-one are epistolary. Thirteen of the letters expressly bear the name of Paul as their author; nine being addressed to various Christian communities, three — called the Pastoral Epistles — to office-bearers in the Church, and one to a private individual (Philemon). An anonymous letter addressed “to the Hebrews” is associated with the Epistles of Paul. Seven other letters — one bearing the name of James, two that of Peter, three that of John, and one that of Jude — are frequently comprehended under the common name of Catholic (that is general) Epistles, as having been intended for the use of Christians in general, or as having (most of them at least) no express individual or local destination. The volume closes with a prophetic vision, the Apocalypse ft John.
The writings thus associated in the New Testament seem to have at the first glance a somewhat unconnected and desultory character; and it may readily be admitted that the form in which the inspired records of Christianity have come down to us is not that which the wisdom of man would have conceived or expected. The Christian revelation has not assumed the shape which men might have deemed, a priori, probable or desirable — of an abstract system of truth, of a formal didactic treatise elaborately setting forth doctrines in logical order, like the creeds and confessions in which men have striven at different times to define and comprehend the fullness of the scriptural teaching; or enjoining duties in methodical succession, like those codes of law in which men seek to provide beforehand for misery contingency. Its actual form exhibits a far more admirable accommodation to the conditions of human nature — in its history of a life, its records of personal experience, its teachings by concrete examples, its presenting Christianity in action. The great majority of those for whose benefit a revelation is given have but little interest in pure theory or relish for abstract truth; the pattern affects them more than the precept, and they apprehend the more readily whatever comes into contact with the wants, feelings, and exigencies of their daily life. The form of the New Testament mainly narrative and epistolary — is one especially fitted to stimulate our attention, to enlist our sympathies, to quicken our human interest in its contents, and to bring the matters of which it treats home to us, not as subjects of theory, but as facts of experience, as personal and practical realities. “The book which shall have a deep and practical influence on real life must reflect its image, must present that real mixture of facts, thoughts, and feelings which is found to exist there.”
But we have to recognize in the composition of the New Testament a further peculiarity, deviating from what we should perhaps have expected, but constituting in reality the most remarkable evidence of the divine superintendence that shaped the whole. The books of the New Testament present no formal bond of unity, profess no absolute completeness, make no direct claim, in most cases, to universal acceptance. On the contrary, they seem to have originated independently of each other, and to have been prepared with immediate reference to local or temporary objects — to the special circumstances and wants of churches, or even of individuals. Christ himself wrote nothing; and we do not find in what his disciples have left any professed design of giving a full record of his teaching or a continuous and perfect exposition of his doctrine. No apostle or evangelist avows it as his purpose to furnish an authentic standard of Christian doctrine and duty for all future time.
Their works, moreover, bear no traces of mutual concert or prearranged cooperation towards a common object. They address themselves to matters in which they feel a personal interest, and to persons with whom they have more immediate relations; and they write seemingly with reference to these alone, betraying no consciousness of any ulterior aim or further destination. Their writings present the appearance of having been as casual in origin as they are occasional in form. But this very occasional and seemingly accidental character impressed on the individual elements of the New Testament as human writings will be found, when we examine them more closely, to yield the highest evidence of the divine origin and purpose of the whole, and to furnish varied means for the illustration and confirmation of their truth. The parts, regarded in themselves, seem isolated and fragmentary; but the whole, which results from their combination, reveals a unity and completeness that can only be explained through the hidden but all-pervading agency of one divine Designer. The several narratives and letters have been obviously produced without any concert among the writers; each bears the stamp of individuality and independence; and yet, when they are placed side by side, they are found so marvelously to fit into each other, to sustain such mutually complementary relations, to be knit by so many links of connection, and to exhibit so entire a harmony of general design, that the unbiased reader cannot but recognize in their deeper interdependence a providential arrangement, and refer the whole to the common inspiration of one and the same Spirit guiding the several agents in their parts for the furtherance of his own gracious purposes. These occasional writings, proceeding from different authors, and brought together from different localities, constitute, when combined, an organized body fitly joined together and pervaded by one inward life. “When it is felt,” as has been well said, “that these narratives, letters, visions, do in fact fulfill the several functions, and sustain the mutual relations, which would belong to the parts of one design, coalescing into a doctrinal scheme which is orderly, progressive, and complete, then is the mind of the reader in conscious contact with the mind of God; then the superficial diversity of the parts is lost in the essential unity of the whole; the many writings have become one Book; the many writers have become one Author” (Bernard, Bampton Lecture for 1864, p. 235).
The variety of the individual elements that make up the New Testament serves several important ends. The different parts of Scripture thereby illustrate, support, and explain each other; and it thus carries within itself manifold and varied evidence of its truth self-consistent, harmonious, divine. The four narratives of the life of Christ present that combination of substantial unity with circumstantial variety that marks the testimony of independent witnesses; and, written with special reference to the circumstances and wants of their original readers, and bringing into prominence the different aspects of the Savior's character, they at once supplement and confirm each other. They present to us, as has been observed, “four aspects, but one portrait; for, if the attitude and the accessories vary, the features and the expression are the same.” The Gospel of Matthew — according to early tradition the Hebrew Gospel — exhibits Jesus as the Messiah fulfilling the law and the prophets; that of Mark, deriving its lifelike details from the communications of Peter, and written primarily for Roman use, depicts to us in rapid but vivid outlines Jesus putting forth his mighty power in action; that of Luke, the close companion of Paul, prepared for the use of the Greek world, portrays Jesus as the Friend of man, the universal Savior while that of John, written late in life at Ephesus for the fuller instruction of those already within the Church, completes the picture by presenting Jesus preeminently as the Son of God, and revealing to us the highest aspect of his teaching in the circle of his chosen disciples. In the book of Acts we find that the facts of the Savior's life and death and resurrection have become the fundamental doctrines of the Church; their significance is proclaimed and their power attested. The foundation of the Church is followed by its organization and training, as developed in the Epistles. The truths announced in the Gospels and proclaimed in the Acts are here expanded, defined vindicated in opposition to error or misunderstanding and brought to bear on the manifold relations of life, In the Epistles we find the different aspects of the truth apprehended and applied by men under various phases of experience and with reference to various exigencies; and while the Epistles thus form a practical supplement to the Gospels, they are complementary to each other, and fill up through their combination the perfect image of the faith, hope, and love represented by Paul, Peter, and John.
From various early notices it would appear that the books were, as was natural, first grouped under the two general divisions of evangelic and apostolic writings (εὐαγγέλιον and ὁ ἀπόστολος or τὰ ἀποστολικά). The more detailed information which we obtain from the oldest extant MSS., versions, and catalogues of the books given by the fathers exhibits substantially the same arrangement as that now followed in our Bibles. But few copies contained the whole New Testament; most frequently the Gospels were contained in one volume, the Acts and Epistles in another; while the Apocalypse, which was less employed in public worship, was comparatively seldom associated with the other books. The general order of the books was as follows: Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse. From this arrangement there are, no doubt. individual deviations, especially as regards the position of the book of Acts; and several of the ancient versions and most of the catalogues place the Epistles of Paul, as they stand in the English Bible, before the Catholic Epistles. The order followed within these larger groups seems to have been from an early period very much the same as at present. The four Gospels are almost constantly found in their familiar order; and in the Pauline Epistles the letter to the Hebrews exhibits almost the only variation, being sometimes — and indeed most frequently — inserted before the Pastoral Epistles, sometimes annexed at the close (see Scrivener's Introd. to Criticisme of N.T. p. 60, etc.). the arrangement, in the case of the Gospels, was probably based on the order in which they were supposed to be written; in the case of Paul's Epistles, on the relative importance of the churches or individuals addressed. The Apocalypse has always, when received, been placed appropriately at the end. We can hardly fail to recognize the Providence by which the Church has been guided in the internal arrangement of her sacred records, so that they shall present a consecutive teaching; the main outlines of which are wellset forth by one who has recently applied himself to illustrate the value of the order of the New Testament in this respect. The New Testament “begins with the person of Christ, and the facts of his manifestation in the flesh, and the words which he gave from his Father; and accustoms us by degrees to behold his glory, to discern the drift of his teaching, and to expect the consequences of his work. It passes on to his body, the Church, and opens the dispensation of his Spirit, and carries us into the life of his people, yea, down into the secret places of their hearts; and there translates the announcements of God into the experiences of men, and discovers a conversation in heaven and a life which is hid with Christ in God. It works out practical applications, is careful in the details of;duty, provides for difficulties and perplexities, suggests the order of churches, and throws up barriers against the wiles of the devil. It shows us things to come, the course of the spiritual conflict, the close of this transient scene, the coming of the Lord, the resurrection of the dead, the eternal judgment, the new creation, and the life everlasting. Thus it is furnished for all emergencies, and prepared for perpetual use” (Bernard, ut sup. p. 31).
1. The Original Autographs. — The early history of the apostolic writings offers no points of distinguishing literary interest. Externally, as far as it can be traced, it is the same as that , of other contemporary books. Paul, like Cicero or Pliny, often employed the services of an amanuensis, to whom he dictated his letters, affixing the salutation “with his own hand” (1Co_16:21; 2Th_3:17; Col_4:18).In one case the scribe has added a clause in his own name (Rom_16:22). Once, in writing to the Galatians, I the apostle appears to apologize for the rudeness of the autograph which he addressed to them, as if from defective sight (Gal_6:11). If we pass onwards one step, it does not appear that any special care was taken in the first age to preserve the books of the N.T. from the various injuries of time, or to insure perfect accuracy of transcription. They were given as a heritage to man, and it was some time before men felt the full value of the gift. The original copies seem to have soon perished; and we may perhaps see in this a providential provision against that spirit of superstition which in earlier times converted the symbols of God's redemption into objects of idolatry (2Ki_18:4). It is certainly remarkable that in the controversies at the close of the 2d century, which often turned upon disputed readings of Scripture, no appeal was made to the apostolic originals. The few passages in which it has been supposed that they are referred to will not bear examination. Ignatius, so far from appealing to Christian archives, distinctly turns, as the whole context shows, to the examples of the Jewish Church (τὰ ἀρχαῖα - ad Philad. 8). Tertullian again, when he speaks of “the authentic epistles” of the apostles (De Proescr. Haer. 36, “Apud quas ipse authenticae littere eorum recitantur”), uses the term of the pure Greek text as contrasted with. the current Latin version (comp. De Monog. 11, “Sciamus plane non sic esse in Greco authentico”). The silence of the sub-apostolic age is made more striking by the legends which were circulated afterwards. It was said that when the grave of Barnabas in Cyprus was opened, in the 5th century, in obedience to a vision, the saint was fumnd holding a (Greek) copy of Matthew written with his own hand. The copy was taken to Constantinople, and used as the standard of the sacred text (Credner, Einl. § 39; Assem. Bibl. Or. 2:81). The autograph copy of John's Gospel (αὐτὸ τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ) was said to be preserved at Ephesus “by the grace of God, and worshipped (προσκυνεῖται) by the faithful there,” in the 4th century (?) (Petr. Alex. p. 518, ed. Migne, quoted from Chron. Pasch. p. 5); though according to another account it was found in the ruins of the Temple when Julian attempted to rebuild it (Philostorg. 7:14). A similar belief was current even in the last century. It was said that parts of the (Latin) autograph of Mark were preserved at Venice and Prague; but on examination these were shown to be fragments of a MS. of the Vulgate of the 6th century (Dobrowsky, Fragmentum Praense Ev. S. Marci. 1778). In the natural course of things the apostolic autographs would be likely to perish soon. The material which was commonly used for letters, the papyrus-paper to which John incidentally alludes (2Jn_1:12, διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος; comp. 3Jn_1:13, (διὰ μέλανος καὶ καλάμου), was singularly fragile, and even the stouter kinds, likely to be used for the historical books, were not fitted to bear constant use. The papyrus fragments which have come down to the present time have been preserved under peculiar circumstances, as at Herculaneum or in Egyptian tombs; and Jerome notices that the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea was already in part destroyed (ex parte corruptam) when, in less than a century after its formation, two presbyters of the Church endeavored to restore the papyrus MSS. (as the context implies) on parchment (“in membranis,” Jerome, Ep. 34 (141), quoted by Tischendorf in Herzog's Encykl. “Bibeltext des N.T.” p. 159). Parchment (2Ti_4:13, μεμβράνα), which was more durable, was proportionately rarer and more costly. In the first age the written word of the apostles occupied no authoritative position above their spoken word, and the vivid memory of their personal teaching. When the true value of the apostolic writings was afterwards revealed by the progress of the Church, then collections of “the divine oracles” would be chiefly sought for among Christians. On all accounts it seems reasonable to conclude that the autographs perished during that solemn pause which followed the apostolic age, in which the idea of a Christian Canon, parallel and supplementary to the Jewish Canon, was first distinctly realized.
2. The First Copies. — In the time of the Diocletian persecution (A.D. 303) copies of the Christian Scriptures over sufficiently numerous to furnish a special object for persecutors, and a characteristic name to renegades who saved themselves by surrendering the sacred books traditores, August. Ep. 76. 2). Partly, perhaps, owing to the destruction thus caused, but still more from the natural effects of time, no MS. of the N.T. of the first three centuries remains. Some of the oldest extant were certainly copied from others which dated from within this period, but as yet no one can be placed further back than the time of Constantine. It is recorded of this monarch that one of his first acts after the foundation of Constantinople was to order the preparation of fifty MSS. of the Holy Scriptures, required for the use of the Church, “on fair skins (ἐν διφθέραις εὐκατασκεύοις) by skillful caligraphists” (Euseb. Vit. Const. 4:36); and to the general use of this better material we probably owe our most venerable copies, which fire written on vellum of singular excellence and fineness. But though no fragment of the N.T. of the 1st century until remains, the Italian and Egyptian papyri, which are of that date, give a clear notion of the caligraphy of the period. In these tie text is written in columns, rudely divided, in somewhat awkward capital letters (uncials), without any punctuation or division of words. The iota, which was afterwards subscribed, is commonly, but not always, adscribed; and there is no trace of accents or breathings. The earliest MSS. of the N.T. bear a general resemblance to this primitive type, and we may reasonably believe that the apostolic originals were thus written.
3. Early Variations. — In addition to the later MSS., the earliest versions and patristic quotations give very important testimony to the character and history of the ante-Nicene text. Express statements of readings which are found in some of the most ancient Christian writers are, indeed, the first direct evidence which we have, and are consequently of the highest importance. But till the last quarter of the 2d century this source of information fails us. Not only are the remains of Christian literature up to that time extremely scanty, but the practice of verbal quotation from the N.T. was not yet prevalent. The evangelic citations in the apostolic fathers and in Justin Martyr show that the oral tradition was still as widely current as the written Gospels (comp. Westcott's Canon of the N.T. p. 125-195), and there is not in those writers one express verbal citation from the other apostolic books. This latter phenomenon is in a great measure to be explained by the nature of their writings. As soon as definite controversies arose among Christians, the text of the N.T. assumed its true importance. The earliest monuments of these remain in the works of Irenaeus, Hippolytus (Pseudo-Origen), and Tertullian, who quote many of the arguments of the leading adversaries of the Church. Charges of corrupting the sacred text are urged on both sides with great acrimony. Dionysius of Corinth († cir. A.D. 176, ap. Euseb. H. E. 4:23), Ireneus (cir. A.D. 177; 4:6, 1), Tertullian (cir. A.D. 210; De Carne Christi. 19, p. 385; A dv. Marc. iv, v, passim), Clement of Alexandria (cir. A.D. 200; Strom. 4:6, § 41), and at a later time Ambrose (cir. A.D. 375; De Spir. S. 3:10), accuse their opponents of this offense; but with one great exception the instances which are brought forward in support of the accusation generally resolve themselves into various readings, in which the decision cannot always be given in favor of the catholic disputant; and even where the unorthodox reading is certainly wrong it can be shown that it was widely spread among writers of different opinions (e.g. Mat_11:27 “nec Filium nisi Pater et cui voluerit Filius revelare;” Joh_1:13, ὅς-ἐγννήθη ). Wilful interpolations or changes are extremely rare, if they exist at all (comp. Valent. ap. Iren. 1:4, 5, add. θεότητες Col_1:16), except in the case of arcion. His mode of dealing with the writings of the N.T. in which he was followed by his school, was, as Tertullian says, to use the knife rather than subtlety of interpretation. There can be no reasonable doubt that he dealt in the most arbitrary manner with whole books, and that he removed from the Gospel of Luke many passages which were opposed to his peculiar views. But when these fundamental changes were once made he seems to have adhered scrupulously to the text which he found. In the isolated readings which he is said to have altered, it happens not unfrequently that he has retained the right reading, and that his opponents are in error (Luke v. 14 om. τὸ δῶρον; Gal_2:5, οϊvς οὐδέ; 2Co_4:5?). In very many cases the alleged corruption is a various reading, more or less supported by other authorities (Luk_12:38, ἑσπερινῆ; 1Co_10:9, Χριστόν; 1Th_2:15, add. ἰδίους). Where the changes seem most arbitrary there is evidence to show that the interpolations were not wholly due to his school (Luk_18:19, ὁ πατήρ; Luk_23:2; 1Co_10:19 [28], add. ἱερόθυτον). (Comp. Hahn, Evangelium Marcionis; Thilo, Cod. Apocr. 1:403-486; Ritschl, Das Evatn. Marc. 1846; Volckmar, Das Evang. Marc. Leipsic, 1852: but no examination of Marcion's text is completely satisfactory.) Several very important conclusions follow from this earliest appearance of textual criticism. It is, in the first place, evident that various readings existed in the books of the N.T. at a time prior to all extant authorities. History affords no trace of the pure apostolic originals. Again, from the preservation of the first variations noticed, which are often extremely minute, in one or more of the primary documents still left we may be certain that no important changes have been made in the sacred text which we cannot now detect. The materials for ascertaining the true reading are found to be complete when tested by the earliest witnesses. Yet further: from the minuteness of some of the variations which are urged in controversy, it is obvious that the words of the N.T. were watched with the most jealous care, and that the least differences of phrase were guarded with scrupulous and faithful piety, to be used in after-time by that wide- reaching criticism which was foreign to the spirit of the first ages.
4. First Critical Labors. — Passing from these isolated quotations, we find the first great witnesses to the apostolic text in the early Syriac and Latin versions, and in the rich quotations of Clement of Alexandria († cir. A.D. 220) and Origen (A.D. 184-254). SEE VERSIONS.
The Greek quotations in the remains of the original text of Irenmus and in Hippolytus are of great value, but yield in extent and importance to those of the two Alexandrine fathers. From the extant works of Origen alone no inconsiderable portion of the whole N.T., with the exception of James, 2 Peter , 2 and 3 John, and the Apocalypse, might be transcribed, and the recurrence of small variations in long passages proves that the quotations were accurately made, and not simply from memory.
The evangelic text of Clement is far from pure. Two chief causes contributed especially to corrupt the text of the Gospels — the attempts to harmonize parallel narratives, and the influence of tradition. The former assumed a special importance from the Diatessaron of Tatian (cir. A.D. 170. Comp. Westcott, N.-T. Canon, p. 358-362; Tischendorf on Mat_27:49), and the latter, which was, as has been remarked, very great in the time of Justin Martyr, still lingered. The quotations of Clement suffer from both these disturbing forces (Mat_8:22; Mat_10:30; Mat_11:27; Mat_19:24; Mat_23:27; Mat_25:41; Mat_10:26, omitted by Tischendorf Luk_3:22), and he seems to have derived from his copies of the Gospels two sayings of the Lord which form no part of the canonical text (comp. Tischendorf on Mat_6:33; Luk_16:11). Elsewhere his quotations are free, or a confused mixture of two narratives (Mat_5:45; Mat_6:26; Mat_6:32 sq.; Mat_22:37; Mar_12:43), but in innumerable places he has preserved the true reading (Mat_5:4-5; Mat_5:42; Mat_5:48; Mat_8:22; Mat_11:17; Mat_13:25; Mat_23:26; Act_2:41; Act_17:26). His quotations from the Epistles are of the very highest value. In these tradition had no prevailing power, though Tatian is said to have altered in parts the language of the Epistles (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 4:29); and the text was left comparatively free from corruptions.
Against the few false readings which he supports (e.g. 1Pe_2:2, Χριστός (c; Rom_3:26, Ι᾿ησοῦν; 8:11, διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικ. πν) may be brought forward a long list of passages in which he combines with a few of the best authorities in upholding the true text (e.g. 1Pe_2:2; Rom_2:17; Rom_10:3; Rom_15:29; 1Co_2:13; 1Co_7:3; 1Co_7:5; 1Co_7:35; 1Co_7:39; 1Co_8:2; 1Co_10:24). But Origen stands as far first of all the ante-Nicene fathers in critical authority as he does in commanding genius, and his writings are an almost inexhaustible storehouse for the history of the text. In many places it seems that the printed text of his works has been modernized; and till a new and thorough collation of the MSS. has been made, a doubt must remain whether his quotations have not suffered by the hands of scribes, as the MSS. of the N.T. have suffered, though in a less degree. The testimony which Origen bears as to the corruption of the text of the Gospels in his time differs from the general statements which have been already noticed as being the deliberate judgment of a scholar, and not the plea of a controversialist. “As the case stands,” he says, “it is obvious that the difference between the copies is considerable, partly from the carelessness of individual scribes, partly from the wicked daring of some in correcting what is written, partly also from the changes made by] those who add or remove what seems good to them in the process of correction” (Origen, In Matt. t. xv, § 14). In the case of the Sept., he adds, he removed, or at least indicated, those corruptions by a comparison of “editions” (ἐκδόσεις), and we may believe that he took equal care to ascertain, at least for his own use, the true text of the N.T., though he did not venture to arouse the prejudice of his contemporaries by openly revising it, as the old translation adds (In Matt. xv, vet. int. “In exemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi”). Even in the form in which they have come down to us, the writings of Origen, as a whole, contain the noblest early memorial of the apostolic text.
Although there is no evidence that he published any recension of the text, yet it is not unlikely that he wrote out copies of the N.T. with his own hand (Redepenning, Origenes, 2:184), which were spread widely in after-time. Thus Jerome appeals to “the copies of Adamantius,” i.e. Origen (In Mat_24:36; Gal_3:1), and the copy of Pamphilus can hardly have been other than a copy of Origen's text (Cod. H3 Subscription). From Pamphilus the text passed to Eusebius and Euthalius, and it is scarcely rash to believe that it can be traced, though imperfectly, in existing MSS. as C L (comp. Griesbach, Symbole Criticae, 1, 76 sq.; 130 sq.). In thirteen cases (Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, 1:234-236) Origen has expressly noticed varieties of reading in the Gospels (Mat_8:28; Mat_16:20; Mat_18:1; Mat_21:5; Mat_21:9; Mat_21:15; Mat_27:17; Mar_3:18; Luk_1:46; Luk_9:48; Luk_14:19; Luk_23:45; Joh_1:3-4; Joh_1:28). In three of these passages the variations which he notices are no longer found in our Greek copies (Mat_21:9 or Mat_21:15, οἴκῳ for υἱῷ; Tregelles, ad loc.; Mar_3:18 [Mar_2:14], Λεβὴν τὸν τοῦ Α᾿λφ [?]; Luk_1:46; Ε᾿λισάβετ for Μαριάμ; so in some Latin copies); in seven our copies are still divided; in two (Mat_8:28, Γαδαρηνῶν; Joh_1:28, Βηθαβαρᾶ'/) the reading which was only found in a few MSS. is now widely spread; in the remaining place (Mat_27:17, Ι᾿ησοῦν Βαραββᾶν) a few copies of no great age retain the interpolation which was found in his time “in very ancient copies.” It is more remarkable that Origen asserts, in answer to Celsus, that our Lord is nowhere called “the carpenter” in the Gospels circulated in the churches, though this is undoubtedly the true reading in Mar_6:3 (Origen, c. Cels. 6:36). The evangelic quotations of Origen are not wholly free from the admixture of traditional glosses which have been noticed in Clement, and often present a confusion of parallel passages (Mat_5:44; Mat_6:33; Mat_7:21 sq.; Mat_13:11; Mat_26:27 sq.; 1Ti_4:1); but there is little difficulty in separating his genuine text from these natural corruptions, and a few references are sufficient to indicate its extreme importance (Mat_4:10; Mat_6:13; Mat_15:8; Mat_15:35; Mar_1:2; Mar_10:29; Luk_21:19; Joh_7:39; Act_10:10; Rom_8:28). In the Epistles Origen once notices a striking variation in Heb_2:9, χωρὶςθεοῦ for χάριτι θεοῦ, which is still attested; but, apart from the specific references to variations, it is evident that he himself used MSS. at different times which varied in many details (Mill, Proleg. § 687). Griesbach, who has investigated this fact with the greatest care (Meletema, i, appended to Comm. Crit. 2, 9-40), seems to have exaggerated the extent of these differences, while he establishes their existence satisfactorily. There can be no doubt that in Origen's time the variations in the N.-T. MSS., which we have seen to have existed from the earliest attainable date, and which Origen describes as considerable and widespread, were beginning to lead to the formation of specific groups of copies. Although the materials for the history of the text during the first three centuries are abundant, nothing has been written in detail on the subject since the time of Mill (Proleg. p. 240 sq.) and R. Simon (Histoire Critique... 1685-93). What is wanted is nothing less than a complete collection at full length, from MS. authority, of all the ante-Nicene Greek quotations. These would form a center round which the variations of the versions and Latin quotations might be grouped. A first step towards this has been made by Anger in his Synopsis Evv. Matthew Marc. Luc... 1851. The Latin quotations are well given by Sabatier (Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, 1751).
From the consideration of the earliest history of the N.T. text we now pass to the aera of MSS. The quotations of Dionysius Alex. (i A.D. 264), Petrus Alex. († cir. A.D. 312), Methodius (t A.D. 311), and Eusebius (t A.D. 340), confirm the prevalence of the ancient type of text but the public establishment of Christianity in the Roman empire necessarily led to important changes. Not only were more copies of the N.T. required for public use, but the nominal or real adherence of the higher ranks to the Christian faith must have largely increased the demand for costly MISS. As a natural consequence, the rude Hellenistic forms gave way before the current Greek, and at the same time it is reasonable to believe that smoother and fuller constructions were substituted for the rougher turns of the apostolic language. In this way the foundation of the Byzantine text was laid, and the same influence which thus began to work continued uninterruptedly till the fall of the Eastern empire. Meanwhile the multiplication of copies in Africa and Syria was checked by Mohammedan conquests. The Greek language ceased to be current in the West. The progress of the Alexandrine and Occidental families of MSS. was thus checked; and the mass of recent copies necessarily represent the accumulated results of one tendency.
The appearance of the oldest MSS. has already been described. The MSS. of the 4th century, of which Cod. Vatican. (B) may be taken as a type, present a close resemblance to these. The writing is in elegant continuous (capitals) uncials, in three columns, without initial letters, or iota subscript or ascript. A small interval serves as a simple punctuation; and there are no accents or breathings by the hand of the first writer, though these have been added subsequently. Uncial writing continued in general use till the middle of the 10th century. One uncial MS. (S), the earliest dated copy, bears the date 949; and for service-books the same style was retained a century later. From the 11th century downwards cursive writing prevailed, but this passed through several forms sufficiently distinct to fix the date of a MS. with tolerable certainty. The earliest cursive Biblical MS. is dated A.D. 964 (Gosp. 14, Scrivener, Introduction, p. 36, note), though cursive writing was used a century before (A.D. 888, Scrivener, 1. c.). The MSS. of the 14th and 15th centuries abound in the contractions which afterwards passed into the early printed books.
The material as well as the writing of MSS. underwent successive changes. The oldest MSS. are written on the thinnest and finest vellum; in later copies the parchment is thick and coarse. Sometimes, as in Cod. Cotton. (N=J), the vellum is stained. Papyrus was very rarely used after the 9th century. In the 10th century cotton paper (charta bombycina, or Damascena) was generally employed in Europe; and one example at least occurs of its use in the 9th century (Tischendorf, Not. Cod. Sin. p. 54, quoted by Scrivener, Introduction, p. 21). In the 12th century the common linen or rag paper came into use; but paper was “seldom used for Biblical MSS. earlier than the 13th century, and had not entirely displaced parchment at the aera of the invention of printing, cir. A.D. 1450” (Scrivener, Introduction, p. 21). One other kind of material requires notice, redressed parchment (παλίμψγστος, charta deleticia). Even at a very early period the original text of a parchment MS. was often erased, that the material might be used afresh (Cic. Ad Fam. 7:18; Catull. 12). In lapse of time the original writing frequently reappears in faint lines below the later text, and in this way many precious fragments of Biblical MSS. which had been once obliterated for the transcription of other works have been recovered. Of these palimpsest MSS. the most famous are those designated by the letters C, R, Z, Ξ. The earliest Biblical palimpsest is not older than the 5th century. In uncial MSS. the contractions are usually limited to a few very common forms (ΘC, IC, ΠHP, Δ A Δ, etc., i.e. θεός, Ι᾿ησοῦς, πατήρ, Δαυείδ; comp. Scrivener, Introduction, p. 43). A few more occur in later uncial copies, in which there are also some examples of the ascript iota, which occurs rarely in the Codex Sinaiticus. Accents are not found in MSS. older than the 8th century. Breathings and the apostrophe (Tischendort; Proleg. p. 131) occur somewhat earlier. The oldest punctuation after the simple interval is a stop like the modern Greek colon (in A, C, D), which is accompanied by an interval, proportioned in some cases to the length of the pause. In E (Gosp.) and B2 (Apoc.), which are MSS. of the 8th century, this point marks a full stop, a colon, or a comma, according as it is placed at the top, the middle, or the base of the letter (Scrivener, p. 42). The present note of interrogation (;) came into use in the 9th century.
A very ingenious attempt was made to supply an effectual system of punctuation for public reading by Euthalius, who published an arrangement of Paul's Epistles in clauses (στίχοι) in 458, and another of the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 490. The same arrangement was applied to the Gospels by some unknown hand, and probably at an earlier date. The method of subdivision was doubtless suggested by the mode in which the poetic books of the O.T. were written in the MSS. of the Sept. The great examples of this method of writing are D (Gospels), H3 (Ep.), D, (Ep.). The Cod. Laud. (E2 Acts) is not strictly stichometrical, but the parallel texts seem to be arranged to establish a verbal connection between the Latin and Greek (Tregelles, in Horne's Intod. 3:187). The στίχοι vary considerably in length, and thus the amount of vellun consumed was far more than in an ordinary MS., so that the fashion of writing in “clauses” soon passed away; but the numeration of the (στίχοι in the several books was still preserved, and many MSS. (e.g. Δ Ep., K Gosp.) bear traces of having been copied from older texts thus arranged. The earliest extant division of the N.T. into sections occurs in Cod. B. This division is elsewhere found only in the palimpsest fragment of Luke, Ξ. In the Acts and the Epistles there is a double division in B, one of which is by a later hand.
The Epistles of Paul are treated as one unbroken book divided into 93 sections, in which the Epistle to the Hebrews originally stood between the Epistles to the Galatians and the Ephesians. This appears from the numbering of the sections, which the writer of the MS. preserved, though he transposed the book to the place before the Pastoral Epistles. Two other divisions of the Gospels must be noticed. The first of these was a division into “chapters” (κεφάλαια, τίτλοι, breves), which correspond to distinct sections of the narrative, and are on an average a little more than twice as long as the sections in B. This division is found in A, C, R, Z, and must therefore have come into general use some time before the 5th century. The other division was constructed with a view to a harmony of the Gospels. It owes its origin to Ammonius of Alexandria, a scholar of the 3d century, who constructed a Harmony of the Evangelists, taking Matthew as the basis round which he grouped the parallel passages from the other Gospels. Eusebius of Caesarea completed his labor with great ingenuity, and constructed a notation and a series of tables, which indicate at a glance the parallels existing to any passage in one or more of the other Gospels, and the passages which are peculiar to each. There is every reason to believe that the sections as they stand at present, as well as the ten “Canons,” which give a summary of the Harmony, are due to Eusebius, though the sections sometimes occur in MSS. without the corresponding Canons. The Cod. Alex. (A) and the Cottonian fragments (N) are the oldest MSS. which contain both in the original hand. The sections occur in the palimpsests C, R, Z, P, Q, and it is possible that the Canons may have been there originally, for the vermilion (κιννάβαρις, Euseb. Ep. ad Carp.) or paint with which they were marked would entirely disappear in the process of preparing the parchment afresh. The division of the Acts and Epistles into chapters came into use at a later time. It does not occur in A or C, which give the Ammonian sections, and is commonly referred to Euthalius, who, however, says that he borrowed the divisions of the Pauline Epistles from an earlier father; and there is reason to believe that the division of the Acts and Catholic Epistles which he published was originally the work of Pamphilus the Martyr (Montfaunon, Bibl. Coislin. p. 78). The Apocalypse was divided into sections by Andreas of Caesarea about A.D. 500. This division consisted of 24 λόγοι, each of which was subdivided into three “chapters” (κεφάλαια).
The titles of the sacred books are from their nature additions to the original text. The distinct names of the Gospels imply a collection, and the titles of the Epistles are notes by the possessors and not addresses by the writers (Ι᾿ωάννου α῎, β῎, etc.). In their earliest form they are quite simple, According to Matthew, etc. (κατὰ Μαθθαῖον, κ. τ. λ.); To the Romans, etc. (πρὸς Ρωμαίους, κ. τ. λ.); First of Peter, etc. (Πέτρου α῎); Acts of Apostles (πράξεις ἀποστόλων); Apocalypse. These headings were gradually amplified till they assumed such forms as The Holy Gospel according to John; The fist Catholic Epistle of the holy and all- praiseworthy Peter; The Apocalypse of the holy and most glorious Apostle and Evangelist, the beloved virgin who rested on the bosom of Jesus, John the Divine. In the same way the original subscriptions (ὑπογραφαί), which were merely repetitions of the titles, gave way to vague traditions as to the dates, etc., of the bools. Those appended to the Epistles, which have been translated in the A. V., are attributed to Euthalius, and their singular inaccuracy (Paley, Hlore Paulinoe, ch. 15) is a valuable proof of the utter absence of historical criticism at the time when they could find currency. Very few MSS. contain the whole N.T., “twenty-seven in all out of the vast mass of extant documents” (Scrivener, Introduction, p. 61). The MSS. of the Apocalypse are rarest; and Chrysostom complained that in his time the Acts was very little known. Besides the MSS. of the N.T., or parts of it, there are also Lectionaries, which contain extracts arranged for the Church-services. These were taken from the Gospels (εὐαγγελιστάρια), or from the Gospels and Acts (πραξαπόστολοι), or rarely from the Gospels and Epistles (ἀποστολοευαγγέλια). The calendars of the lessons (συναξάρια) are appended to very many AMSS. of the N.T.; those for the saints'-day lessons, which varied very considerably in different times and places, were called μηνολόγια (Scholz, N.T., p. 453-493; Scrivener, p. 68-75). When a MS. was completed, it was commonly submitted, at least in early times, to a careful revision.
Two terms occur in describing this process, ὁ ἀντιβάλλων and ὁ διορθωτής It has been suggested that the work of the former answered to that of “the corrector of the press,” while that of the latter was more critical (Tregelles, ut. sup. p. 85, 86). Possibly, however, the words only describe two parts of the same work. Several MSS. still preserve a subscription which at tests a revision by comparison with famous copies, though this attestation must have referred to the earlier exemplar (comp. Tischendorf, Jude subscript.); but the Coislinian fragment (H3) may have been itself compared, according to the subscription, “with the copy in the library at Caesarea, written by the hand of the holy Pamphilus” (comp. Scrivener, Introduction, p. 47). Besides this official correction at the time of transcription, MSS. were often corrected by different hands in later times. Thus Hischendorf distinguishes the work of two correctors in C, and of three chief correctors in D2. In later MSS. the corrections are often much more valuable than the original text, as in 67 (Ep.); and in the Cod. Sinacit. the readings of one corrector (2 b) are frequently as valuable as those of the original text. The work of Montfaucon still remains, the classical authority on Greek Palaography (Palaeographia Graeca, Paris, 1708), though much has been discovered since his time which modifies some of his statements. The plates in the magnificent work of Silvestre and Champollion (Paliographie Universelle, Paris, 1841; Eng. transl. by Sir F. Madden, London, 1850) give a splendid and fairly accurate series of facsimiles of Greek MSS. (Plates, 54-95). Tischendorf has published facsimiles of several important texts, especially the Codex Sinaiticus, and furnished in the Prolegomeena to his N.T. valuable information on this subject. Scrivener's Introduction gives specimens of many venerable MSS. For other topics relating to the character, form, and preservation of the N.T. text, SEE CRITICISM, BIBLICAL; SEE GREEK LANGUAGE; SEE MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLICAL; SEE RECENSION; SEE VARIOUS READINGS.
The following list comprises nearly all the strictly exegetical helps on all the N.T. separately, exclusive of introductions (q.v.); to the most important we prefix an asterisk (*): Chrysostom, fonmilime (in Gr., in Opp. 3:1 sq.); Augustine, Exegetica (in Opp.; also tr. Sermons, Oxf. 1844-5, 2 vols. 8vo); Damianns, Excepta (in Mai, Script. t. t. VI, 2:226 sq.); Alulfus, Expositio (in Gregory Magn. Opp. IV. 2); Cramer, Catena (Oxf. 1844, 8 vols. 8vo); Valla [Romans Cath.], Adnotationes (Par. 1505, fol.; Basil. 1526, 1541,1545; Amst. 1638, 8vo); Erasmus, Adnotationes (Basil. 1516, fol., and often later; also in separate parts); Cajetan [R. C.], Commentarii (Ven. 1530-1, 2 vols. fol., and often later); Zeger [R. C.], Scholia (Colon. 1553, 8vo; also in the Critici Sacri); Zwingli, Adnotationes [on most of the books] (in Opp. iv); Bullinger, Commentarii (Tigur. 1554,1587, 1593, 1600, fol.); *Beza, A cdnotationes (Genev. 1556, 1565, 1582, 1588, 1598; Ca.mbr. 1642, fol.; Par. 1594, 8vo); *Marloratus, Expositio (Par. 1561, 1564, 1570; Genev. 1583, 1585, 1593, 1596, 1620; Heidelb. 1604, fol.); Strigel, Hypomemnata (Lips. 1565, 2 vols. 8vo; also 4to; 1583, 4to); Flacius, Glossa (Basil. 1570, 1659, Francf. 1670, fol.); Montanus [R. C.], Elucidationes (Antw. 1575, 3 vols. 4to); Aretius, Commentarii (Morg. 1580-84, 11 vols. 8vo; s. . 1589-96; Par. 1607, fol.; Bern. 1612; Par. 1618, 2 vols. fol.); Salmeron [R. C.], Commentaria, (Madrid, 1597-1602; Colossians Ag. 1604, 6 vols. fol.); Tossanus, Commentarii [on certain books] (Hanov. 1604, 1614, 4to); Drusius, Adnotationes (Franeck. 1612; Amst. 1632, 4to); also his Commentarimus Duplex (Franeck. 1616, 2 vols. 4to); De Dieu, Animadversiones (Lugd. Bat. 1633-46, 3 vols. 4to; also in Commentary on the Bible, Amst. 1693, fol.); Piscator, Commentarii (Herb. 1638, fol.); Ileinsius, Exercitattiones (L. B. 1639, fol.; Cambr. 1640, 4to); Camerarius, Commentarius (Cambr. 1642, fol.); Leigh, Annotations (Lond. 1650, fol.; also in Latin by Arnold, Lips. 1732, 8vo); Hammond, I'Paraphrase (Lond. 1653, 1659, 1660, 1680), 1681, 1689, 1702, fol.; Oxf. 1845, 4 vols. 8vo; in Latin by Le Clerc, Amst. 1798, fol.); Trapp, Commentary (Lond. 1656, fol.; 1868, 8vo; also in his Commentary on the whole Bible); Crell [Socinian], Commentarii [on most of the N.T.], supplemented by Schlichting (Amst. 1656, fol.; also in other forms); J. Capellns, Observationes [includ. L. Capellus's Spicilegimtm] (Amst. 1657, 4to; also in the Critici Sacri); Schmidt, Notte (Norib. 1658, fol.); Price, Conmmentarii (Lond. 1660, fol.; also in the Crit. Sac.); Morus, Noto (Lips. 1661, fol.); Pean [R. C.], Commentaire (Par. 1670, 8vo); Quesnel, Reflexions (Paris, 1671 sq.; Amst. 1736, 8 vols. 12mo; tr. Reflections, Lond. 1719-25, 4 vols. 8vo); Bauller, Miark und Kern (Ulm, 4to, vol. 1:1683; vol. 2:1684); Baxter, Paraphrase (Lond. 1685, 4to; 1695, 1702, 1810, 8vo); Przipcov [Socinian], Cogitationes (Amst. 1692, fol.); Knatchbull, Annotations [on certain texts] (Camb. 1693, 8vo); Hure, Canones (Par. 1696, 12mo); Paulutius iR. C.], Commentarius (Romans 1699, 2 vols. fol.); *Whitby, Commentary (Lond. 1703, 1705, 1708, 1718, 1728, 1744, 2 vols. fol.; 1760, 2 vols. 4to; also in several other forms); *Burkitt, Notes (Lond. 1704, and often, fol. and in other forms); Laurent, Erkluarumg (Goth. et Hal. 1705-26, 4to); *Michaelis, Note (ed. fil. et Fecht, Rost. 1706, 1728, 4to); Hunnius, Thesaurues (Vitemb. fol., vol. 1:1706; vol. 2:1707); Fabricius, Observationes [on certain passages] (Hamb. 1712, 8vo); Hombergh, Observationes [on certain passages] (Traj. 1712, 4to); Bos, Exercitationes (Franc. 1713; Leov. 1731, 8vo); Beausobre, Notes (Amst. 1718, 2 vols. 4to); also Remarques (La Haye, 1742, 4to); Scultetus, Paraphrasis (ed. Borcholt, Lumneb. 1720, fol.); Fox, Explanation? (Lond. 1722-42, 2 vols. 8vo); Albert, Observationes (L. B. 1725, 8vo); *Wolf, Culr (Hamb. 1725-35; -Basil. 1741, 4 vols. 4to); Schittgen, Horme Hebr. [Talmudic illustrations] (Lips. 1733, 2 vols. 4to): Wall, Notes [critical] (Lond. 1730, 8vo); Simon [R. C.], Remarks (from the French, Lond. 1730, 2 vols. 4to); Lindsay, Notes [extracted from earlier writers] (Lond. 1736, 2 vols. fol.); Meuschen, N.T. ex Talm. illustr. (Lips. 1736, 4to); *Doddridge, Expositor (Lond. 1738-47, 3 vols. 4to; and in many other forms since); Guyse, Expositor (Lond. 1739-52, 3 vols. 4to; 1775, 1814, 6 vols. 8vo); Hardouin [R. C.], Commentarius (Amst. 1751; Haj. 1741, fol.); *Bengel, Gnomon (Tubing. 1742, 1759, 4to; and often later, both in Lat. and Germ.; transl. in Clarke's Library, Edinb. 1857-8, 5 vols. 8vo; and enlarged, Phila. 1860-2, 2 vols. 8vo); Marchant, Exposition [extracted] (Lond. 1743, fol.); Gill, Exposition (Lond. 1748, 3 vols. fol.); Heumann, Erklrung (Hanov. 1750-63, 8vo); *Wetstein, Commentarius (Amst. 1751-2, 2 vols. fol.); Palairet, Observationes (L. B. 1752, 8vo); Munthe, Observationes [illustr. fr. D. Siculus] (Hafn. 1755, 12mo); Keuchen, Adnotata (L. B. 1755; 8vo); Kvpe, Observationes (Vratisl. 1755, 8vo); Krebs, Observationes [illustr. fr. Josephus] (Lips. 1755, 8vo); Damm, Anmerk. (Berlin, 1765, 3 vols. 4to); Grotius, Annotationes (ed. Windheim, Bel. 1769, 2 vols. 4to; Gron. 1826, 8 vols. 8vo); Lisner, Observationes [illustr. fr. Philo] (Lips. 1777. 8vo); Ashdowne, Key [on most of the books] (Canterb. 1777, 8vo); *Rosenmüller, Scholia (Norimb. 1777-1831, and several eds. intermediate, 5 vols. 8vo); Kuttner, Scholia (Lips. 1780, 8vo); Seiler, Erklar. (Erlang. 1782, 1822, 8vo); Fischer [R. C.], Erkliar. (Prag, 1782; Trier, 1794, 8vo); Langendults [Socin.], Aanteekeningen (Amst. 1787, fol.); Moldenhauer, Erkliar. (Quedl. 1787 sq., 2 vols. 8vo); Roper, Exeg. landbuch (Lpz. 1788 sq., and later, 19 pts. 8vo); Wesley, Notes (Lond. 1790, andl often since, 12mo); Gilpin, Exposition (Lond. 1790, 4to, and often since); Rullmann, Anmerk. (Lemgo, 1790 sq., 3 vols. 8vo); Thiess, Erklar. [Gosp. and Acts] (Hamb. 1790-1800, 4 vols. 8vo; also as Commentar, Halle, 1804, 6 vols. 8vo); Bolten, Anmerk. (A1tona, 1792-1805, 8 vols. 8vo); Kuhnol, Observationes [illustr. fr. Apocrypha] (Lips. 1794, 8vo); Weston, Comments [on various passages] (Lond. 1795, 4to); Wilson, Illustration [archaeological] (Lond. 1797; Camb. 1838, 8vo); Schnappinger [R. C.], Erklad. (Minch. 1797-9, 1807, 4 vols. 8vo); Bahor [R. C.], Anmerk. (Vien. 1805 sq., 3 vols. 8vo); *Koppe, Annotationes [completed by others] (Gott. 1809-21, and several eds. intermediate, 10 vols. 8vo); Preiso, Anmerk. (Leips. 1811, 2 vols. 8vo); Kistemaker [R. C.], Erklar. (Miinst. 1825 sq., 8vo); *Bloomfield, Critical Digest (Lond. 1826 sq., 8 vols. 8vo); also Notes (Lond. 1830, and often later, 3 vols. 8vo); Boys, Exposition (Lond. 1827, 4 vols. 8vo); Scholz [R. C.], Erliut. (Frkf. 1828-30, 2 vols. 8vo); Holdenl, Expositor (Lond. 1830, 12mo); Marks, Reflections (Lond. 1830, 4to); *Olshausen, Comnentar (Konigsb. 1830 sq., and later, 7 vols. 8vo; tr. in Clarke's Cabinet, Edinb. 1847-53, 9 vols. 8vo; repub. [except. Rev.], ed. Kendrick, N. Y., 1856-8, 6 vols. 8vo); Hardman, Commentary (Dublin, 1830-2, 2 vols. 8vo); Mrs. Thomson, Commentary (Lond. 1832, 2 vols. 8vo); Bliss, Notes (Lond. 1832, 12mo); Bockel, Evlaut. (Altona, 1832, 8vo); *Meyer, Kommentar (Gott. 1832 sq., and later, in 18 pts.; tr. Edinb. 1873 sq., 8vo); a Clergyman, Comments (Dublin, 1833-4, 2 vols. 8vo); Patten, Notes (N.Y. 1834, 18mo); Lisco, Erklar. (Berlin, 1834, 1836, 8vo); Keyworth, Expositor (Lond. 1834, 18mo); De Wette, IHandbuch (Lpz. 1836, 2 vols. 8vo); Penn, Annot(ations (Lond. 1836-8, 2 vols. 8vo); Alt, Anmerk. (Leips. 1837-9, 4 vols. 8vo); Dallas, Guide (Lond. 183945, 6 vols. 12mo); Dalton, Comnmentary (Lond. 1840, 1844, 1848, 2 vols. 8vo); Barnes, Notes (N. Y. 1840 sq.; Lond. 1850 sq., 12 vols. 12mo); Baumgarten- Crusius, Exeg. Schriften (Jena, 1844-8, 3 vols. 8vo); Bisping, Handbuch (Miinch. 1864 sq., 8vo); Morrison, Commentary (Lond. 1868 sq., 2 vols. 8vo). SEE COMMENTARY.
Significado de João 1
João 1
1.1-18 Esses primeiros versículos são os mais lindos e profundos descritos em toda a Palavra de Deus. Eles nos transportam para antes do início da criação e nos fazem viajar no tempo e no espaço da história humana. Eles revelam, como em nenhuma outra parte das Escrituras, que o Jesus que fez parte da história da humanidade (Jo 1.14) é o Deus Criador, descrito em Gênesis 1.1. O texto em João 1.1-18 revela a relação eterna entre Pai e Filho e mostra que podemos andar na luz e ter a vida eterna quando aceitamos aquele que é a maior revelação do Pai: Jesus Cristo!
1.1 No princípio. A narrativa em Gênesis 1.1 começa com a criação do universo e prossegue até a criação do homem (Gn 1.27; 2.22, 23). O relato em João 1.1 relembra criação e revela a eternidade, enfatizando que, antes da criação deste universo material, o Verbo (gr. Logos) já existia. A Palavra já existia antes de tudo (compare com o versículo 14, em que o Verbo eterno se fez carne).O substantivo palavra significa aquilo que é falado, discurso, pregação. Na tradução do Antigo Testamento do hebraico para o aramaico, esse vocábulo é traduzido por Deus. Já o termo grego Logos [que consta na Septuaginta] era usado nos círculos intelectuais gregos para expressar a força imaterial que rege todo o universo, a mente soberana que governa e dá sentido a todas as coisas. [Contudo, apesar de o Novo Testamento ser escrito em grego] O conceito que havia na mente de João era o do Antigo Testamento. O Verbo aqui é a expressão ou a manifestação de Deus (Jo 1.14, 18). Sem dúvida alguma, João se referia a Jesus (Jo 1.14; Ap 19.13). E por isso que esse Evangelho começa com a ideia de que Jesus, o Verbo, a maior manifestação de Deus ao homem, já existia quando o universo material foi criado. O fato de que o Verbo estava com Deus expressa um relacionamento íntimo, uma ideia de comunhão face a face. No mundo antigo, as pessoas de mesma classe social deviam sentar-se no mesmo nível, uma de frente para a outra; e isso era algo muito importante. Portanto, a preposição com indica relação pessoal e também situação de mesmo status. O Verbo, o próprio Jesus Cristo, é alguém que tem íntima comunhão com o Pai (1 Jo 1.2). Além disso, o Verbo estava com Deus. A construção grega dessa frase enfatiza que o Verbo tem as mesmas características de Deus. Desse modo, o Evangelho de João começa com uma frase simples, singela, confirmando a preexistência (a eternidade), a personalidade e a divindade do Logos, Jesus Cristo. Ele é diferente do Pai, mas ainda assim é Deus.
1.2 Cristo não veio a tornar-se uma Pessoa ou Filho de Deus em algum momento da história. Ao contrário, o Pai e o Filho sempre existiram e tinham um relacionamento amoroso um com o outro.
1.3 Todas as coisas foram feitas (gr. ginomai) por ele. Antes da criação, o Verbo já existia (Jo 1.1). O tempo verbal aqui aponta para a Sua existência eterna. A criação, contudo, teve um início (Jo 1-3); ela não é eterna. Deus Pai criou o mundo (Gn 1.1) por meio do Filho (Cl 1.16; Hb 1.2). Jesus não foi parte da criação. Todas as coisas foram criadas por Jesus; Ele é o Deus Criador. O ensinamento bíblico sobre a criação, confirmado por esse versículo, esclarece que ela foi completa. Aqueles que creem na teoria da evolução e em reencarnação afirmam que a criação é uma obra contínua. No entanto, a criação foi realizada de forma plena, completa, por Deus, como vemos em Génesis 1; Ele agora está apenas cuidando de tudo que criou (Jo 5.17).
1.4 Veja que não está escrito aqui que a vida foi criada; ela já existia em Cristo (Jo 5.26; 6.57; 10.10; 11.25; 14.6; 17.3; 20.31). O homem depende de Deus para viver. Nossa existência, física e espiritual depende do poder provedor de Deus. Mas o Filho, por outro lado, em si mesmo tem a vida por toda a eternidade. A vida, Jesus Cristo, também é a luz dos homens. Essa figura de linguagem nos traz o conceito da revelação. Por ser a luz, Jesus Cristo releva ao homem tanto Deus como o pecado (Sl 36.9). Ainda nesse evangelho, pouco mais à frente, Jesus declara que é a vida (Jo 11.25) e a luz (Jo 8.12). A morte cessa, e as trevas se dissipam quando a vida chega e a luz começa a brilhar. Os mortos se levantam, e os cegos passam a ver, tanto física como espiritualmente.
1.5 A luz resplandece nas trevas. Jesus veio a este mundo de trevas para trazer a luz espiritual (Is 9.2). O verbo compreender pode ser traduzido por (1) tomar posse, (2) dominar, ou (3) entender. Sendo assim, as trevas não sobrepujaram a luz; embora não a entendessem, não conseguiram vencê-la. Apesar de o homem [em trevas espirituais] não entender a luz nem a receber; apesar de Satanás e seus aliados resistirem à luz, eles não podem superar o poder da luz. Em suma, Jesus é a vida e a luz, e aqueles que o aceitam tornam-se filhos da luz (Jo 12.35-36). Quando os cristãos recebem a luz, Cristo, eles passam a fazer parte de uma nova criação (2 Co 4.3-6).
1.6 Esse versículo mostra a diferença entre João e Jesus Cristo. Jesus é Deus (Jo 1.1), João Batista foi um homem enviado por Deus. Jesus é a luz dos homens (v. 4), João veio para testificar da luz (v. 7,8). Nossa função, assim como a de João, não é atrair as pessoas para nós mesmos, mas para Jesus. A escuridão era tão intensa que Deus teve de enviar Seu Filho para nos mostrar a luz. E a decadência moral não estava apenas no mundo, mas também em Israel e nos seus líderes religiosos.
1.7, 8 Não era ele [João Batista] a luz, mas veio para que testificasse da luz. A locução para que testificasse significa dar testemunho ou declarar. João usou o verbo testemunhar cerca de 39 vezes e o substantivo testemunho aproximadamente 14 vezes em seu Evangelho. Isso era muito importante para ele alcançar o seu propósito, ou seja, dar testemunho correto de Jesus como o Messias àqueles que creriam nele (Jo 20.30-31). Crer implica confiar. João usa o verbo crer quase 100 vezes para enfatizar o que uma pessoa precisa fazer para receber o dom da vida eterna. Não encontramos nesse Evangelho, porém, a palavra fé ou o verbo arrepender-se.
1.9 Ali [em Jesus] estava a luz verdadeira, que alumia a todo homem que vem ao mundo. Para trazer maior compreensão à encarnação do Verbo, esse versículo poderia ser assim traduzido: “Essa é a verdadeira luz [Jesus] que veio ao mundo para iluminar todos os homens”. Jesus se tornou homem para revelar a verdade a todas as pessoas. Ele revela a todo homem que vem ao mundo quem é o Criador, e a criação revela a todos na terra que há um Criador no céu (Rm 1.20).
A inclusão de todas as pessoas aqui contrasta com o exclusivismo por Israel no pacto antigo. Os profetas judeus ensinaram, e muitos judeus creram, que nos últimos dias as profecias em Zacarias 14 se cumpririam, e os gentios se converteriam. Isso também contrasta com a ótica das sociedades grega e romana. Os gregos jamais imaginariam que o conhecimento pudesse ser acessível a todos. Os romanos desprezavam os bárbaros, pois consideravam-nos uma raça inferior sem lei. Cristo encarnou para trazer luz a todos, embora nem todos recebessem a Sua luz, pois nem todos creram nele. A função de João Batista [como a voz profética, o arauto enviado à frente do Messias] era dar testemunho dessa luz. E nós, hoje, temos de aproveitar toda e qualquer oportunidade para refletir essa luz e dar testemunho dela. Dependendo do contexto, o termo mundo pode significar (1) o universo, (2) a terra, (3) a humanidade, ou (4) o sistema mundano contrário ao Reino de Deus. Neste texto de João, significa a terra, o local onde vive a humanidade.
1.10, 11 O verbo conhecer no versículo 10 significa não apenas ter o conhecimento, mas também receber [esse conhecimento, essa pessoa] de bom grado. Mas, em vez de receber a Jesus de braços abertos, o mundo virou as costas para Ele. A aceitação e a rejeição do Messias (v. 12) são os temas que começam nesse prólogo (Jo 1.1-18) e aparecem em todo o Evangelho de João.
1.12 A frase aos que creem no seu nome aparece três vezes no Evangelho de João (Jo 1.12; 2.23; 3.18). O termo nome nesse versículo não se refere à maneira como Jesus é chamado, mas ao que representa o Seu nome: o Senhor é a salvação (Jo 3.14,15). Nesse contexto, significa crer que Jesus é o Verbo, a vida e a luz, ou seja, que Ele é o Cristo, o Filho de Deus (Jo 20.31). A expressão deu-lhes o poder refere-se ao direito legal de assumir a posição de filhos de Deus. Nenhum de nós era filho de Deus, na verdade. Por natureza, éramos filhos da ira e estávamos condenados à morte e ao inferno. Imagine um miserável ser adotado como filho por um rei e receber o direito às suas riquezas e o status de realeza. Por meio da fé, crendo em Jesus, os pecadores, destituídos de todo e qualquer direito, tornam-se membros da família de Deus.
1.13 — Os quais não nasceram do sangue, nem da vontade da carne, nem da vontade do varão, mas de Deus. Esse novo nascimento que experimentam aqueles que creem em Jesus é espiritual. Os nascidos do Espírito não nasceram do sangue, ou seja, não estão ligados por laços consanguíneos. Não são fruto da fecundação natural. Não foram gerados pela vontade do carne, isto é, pelas nossas próprias forças ou vontade. O novo nascimento é uma obra feita somente por Deus. È um dom que recebemos gratuitamente (Jo 4-10,14), e não uma recompensa pelo nosso esforço pessoal. O novo nascimento está baseado no relacionamento individual com Cristo, e não em nossa condição pessoal. Cristo é o único Mediador entre Deus e o homem. Cristo é a vida (Jo 1.4; 14-6). Aqueles que creem nele nasceram de Deus, pois receberam vida espiritual.
1.14 E o Verbo se fez carne e habitou entre nós. O Verbo (gr. logos), Aquele que sempre existiu se fez (gr. ginomai, uma ação concreta) carne (gr. sarx) e habitou entre nós. O versículo 1 fala da natureza divina e eterna de Cristo e de Suas obras, que transcendem o tempo e o espaço. Aqui, no versículo 14, o Verbo entra na dimensão do tempo e do espaço, materializa-se, faz-se carne, e muda a história da humanidade. O Filho de Deus que existia desde a eternidade (Fp 2.5-9), por um tempo, abriu mão de Seu estado eterno e imortal e de Sua condição divina, e fez-se homem. Ele se tornou um ser humano, limitado pelo tempo e espaço, sujeito à dor e à morte. Jesus Cristo se identificou completamente conosco como homem. Mas Ele não tinha pecado, pois o pecado não fazia parte da natureza humana antes da Queda. Sendo assim, João usou a palavra carne neste versículo para aludir à natureza humana, e não sua propensão para o pecado (diferente do apóstolo Paulo, em Romanos 8.1-11). Deus habitou entre nós. O verbo traduzido como habitar é de origem grega e significa tabernacular, alude a ideia de armar uma tenda. No Antigo Testamento, o tabernáculo era uma tenda móvel, armada no meio do acampamento dos israelitas e que representava a presença de Deus no meio do Seu povo. [Isto aponta para o desejo do nosso Criador de ter comunhão conosco.] Deus não é um tirano arrogante que fica ditando ordens do Seu trono no céu. Apesar de ser Rei e Senhor, Ele quer viver entre nós. Para isso, chegou a fazer-se homem, para habitar conosco. E vimos a sua glória. No Antigo Testamento, a palavra glória estava ligada à presença divina (Éx 33.18). Assim como Deus manifestou a Sua glória no tabernáculo edificado por Moisés, em Cristo Ele revelou a Sua presença divina e o Seu caráter (Jo 18.6; 20.26,27). Como a glória do Unigênito do Pai. Jesus é o unigênito de Deus (Jo 3.16,18); o único Filho. O mesmo termo é usado para Isaque (Hb 11.17), embora este não fosse o único filho de Abraão, mas era o único filho da promessa. No evangelho de João, os que não nasceram do sangue, nem da vontade da came, nem da vontade do varão, mas de Deus (v. 13), pela fé em Cristo, foram chamados filhos de Deus (Jo 1.12,13). Mas Jesus Cristo é o unigênito de Deus, o único que sendo totalmente divino fez-se totalmente humano. Cheio de graça e de verdade. Jesus é cheio de graça e de verdade. Quando Deus se revelou a Moisés, Ele revelou a si mesmo como grande em beneficência e verdade (Êx 34.6). Quando aplicado a Jesus Cristo, esse atributo divino o identifica como o Autor da revelação e redenção perfeitas.
1.15 O que vem depois de mim é antes de mim, porque foi primeiro do que eu. Jesus nasceu depois de João Batista (Lc 1.36) e começou o Seu ministério depois do dele. Entretanto, João Batista disse que Jesus era antes dele, pois já existia desde a eternidade (v. 30). João Batista é um exemplo maravilhoso da humildade necessária para alguém cumprir seu ministério diante de Deus. Ele conhecia muito bem a mensagem específica que Deus havia designado para ele pregar, e não se desviou dela.
1.16 A maioria das pessoas atribui as palavras do versículo 15 a João Batista. As palavras dos versículos 16-18, porém, são de João, o escritor deste Evangelho, embora também possam ter sido ditas por João Batista. A expressão graça sobre graça significa várias manifestações da graça — termo também usado no versículo 17, que se encontra em Êxodo 32—34- Moisés e o povo de Israel receberam a graça de Deus, mas tinham uma grande necessidade de receber mais graça (Êx 33.13). [A plenitude da graça é a encarnação do Verbo.]
1.17 Em todo o Novo Testamento, graça é o favor de Deus concedido ao homem pecador, independente de suas obras e de seus méritos. A lei foi dada por Moisés; a graça e a verdade vieram por Jesus Cristo. João não está desmerecendo a Lei ou Moisés nesse versículo. A Lei e a graça não eram antagônicas no Antigo Testamento. Quem estava sob a Lei no Antigo Testamento também era salvo pela graça (veja Êx 34-6,7) - Em Êxodo 34.6,7a, Yahweh se revela como o Deus piedoso e misericordioso, embora na parte b do versículo 7 seja dito que Ele não tem o culpado por inocente [ou seja, Ele é justo e age com justiça]. Jesus reúne esses mesmos atributos divinos: a graça (que assegura o perdão) e a justiça (que garante o juízo previsto na Lei para aquele que comete pecado). Além disso, Jesus experimentou em Seu próprio corpo o castigo pelos pecados cometidos pelo homem e, desse modo, perdoou os transgressores. Sendo assim, João não disse que a Lei começou com Moisés, e Jesus trouxe a graça. Ele assinalou que, em Cristo graça e justiça (ou a verdade) se manifestam como uma coisa só. Embora a graça e a verdade manifestadas por Deus por meio da Lei dada a Moisés fossem abundantes, é na pessoa de Jesus Cristo que elas alcançaram plenitude da revelação.
1.18 Deus nunca foi visto por alguém. Deus é Espírito (Jo 4-24), é invisível (Cl 1.15; 1 Tm 1.17) e só pode ser visto quando se revela a alguém. Nenhum ser humano pode ver a face de Deus e viver (Êx 33.20). Abraão, o amigo de Deus, não o viu. Nem mesmo Moisés, aquele pelo qual a Lei foi dada a Israel, não pôde ver a face de Deus (Ex 33.22, 23). Mas o Filho tem um relacionamento íntimo com o Pai e o vê face a face (Jo 1.1; 6.46; 1 Jo 1.2). Deus se tomou compreensível aos olhos humanos por meio de Jesus. Nós podemos ver a face, o caráter de Deus, por meio de Seu Filho. È verdade que hoje não podemos ver Jesus, porém nós o conhecemos pela Sua Palavra [que é espírito e verdade]. O Filho unigênito, que está no seio do Pai, este o fez conhecer. O seio é aqui usado aqui para expressar uma íntima comunhão (Jo 13.23; Lc 16.23). Aquele que é o Filho unigênito do Pai e que o conhece intimamente veio a esta terra e o fez conhecer. O termo unigênito significa único da espécie e expressa a ideia de intimidade, profunda comunhão que Jesus tem com o Pai. O verbo conhecer também pode ser traduzido por revelar. Portanto, Jesus Cristo, tendo a mesma natureza divina do Pai (Jo 1.1), tornou-se homem (Jo 1.14) para revelar Deus a nós (Jo 1.18) e também decidiu trazer-nos misericórdia e juízo (graça e verdade). Uma das muitas bênçãos da graça (Jo 1.17) é o conhecimento de Deus (Jo 1.18). E, quanto mais conhecemos a Sua glória, como nos é revelado nas Escrituras, mais somos transformados na mesma imagem (2 Co 3.18). Imagine só! Nós, que fomos criados conforme a imagem de Deus, mas que nos tornamos vis por causa do pecado, agora somos restaurados por conhecermos a Cristo, possuidores da mesma natureza de Deus. Poderia haver algo melhor para investirmos o nosso tempo do que conhecer a Cristo? Essa é a chave da vitória (Hb 12.2,3).
1.19—2.11 Esta passagem descreve o que aconteceu por uma semana no início do ministério do Senhor. No primeiro dia, João Batista deu testemunhou de Jesus aos líderes judeus (Jo 1.19- 28). No dia seguinte (Jo 1.29), João testemunhou novamente (Jo 1.29-34). No dia seguinte, João testemunhou a dois dos seus discípulos que passam a seguir a Cristo (Jo 1.35-42). No dia seguinte (Jo 1.43), Jesus chamou mais dois discípulos (Jo 1.43-51). Ao terceiro dia (Jo 2.1), ou seja, o terceiro dia após o último dia mencionado, Jesus foi para Canaã com Seus novos discípulos. A viagem de Betânia a Jericó, na Judeia (Jo 1.28), levava cerca de três dias de caminhada. Desse modo, em João 1.19—2.11, são relatados em detalhes os testemunhos da primeira semana.
1.19, 20 Os judeus aqui são os líderes judeus que compunham o Sinédrio e opuseram-se ao Senhor Jesus. O Sinédrio era responsável por avaliar todo aquele que fosse acusado de ser falso profeta ou blasfemo, bem como outros crimes de natureza religiosa. O Sinédrio era composto sobretudo por membros de dois grupos religiosos influentes na época: os saduceus e os fariseus. A delegação que foi investigar João Batista era de fariseus (Jo 1.24). A pergunta que eles fizeram a João Batista foi: Quem és tu? João afirmou que não era o Messias. No primeiro século, muitos esperavam a vinda do Messias anunciada pelos profetas do Antigo Testamento. E a preocupação principal dos líderes judeus era manter a paz sob os olhares de Roma; por isso estavam atentos a todos os supostos Messias. João foi rápido ao afirmar: eu não sou o Cristo.
1.21, 22 Es tu Elias? Era uma promessa do Antigo Testamento que Elias viria antes do dia grande e terrível do Senhor (Ml 4-5). Es tu o profeta? Moisés profetizou que o Senhor enviaria um profeta como ele (Dt 18.15). João Batista negou ser tanto um como o outro; ele não tinha nenhuma intenção de se passar pelo Messias. E, assim como João, não devemos ter de nós mesmos um conceito mais elevado do que realmente somos, mas ao contrário, devemos ter um conceito equilibrado, de acordo com a medida da fé que Deus nos concedeu (Rm 12.3 — NVI).
1.23 A voz- Cristo é o Verbo; João Batista, a voz. Quando foi pressionado a dizer quem era, João Batista afirmou ser o cumprimento de Isaías 40.3: Voz do que clama no deserto: Preparai o caminho do Senhor; endireitai no ermo vereda a nosso Deus. Nos dias de Isaías havia poucas estradas. Quando um rei viajava, estradas eram construídas para que a carruagem real passasse por elas e não ficasse atolada na lama. Isaías disse que antes de Deus aparecer para manifestar Sua glória, uma voz seria ouvida, convidando Israel a endireitar o caminho por onde o próprio Deus passaria. João identifica a si mesmo: Eu sou a voz do que clama no deserto: endireitai o caminho do Senhor.
1.24 Os fariseus constituíam uma seita muito influente com quase seis mil membros. Além de serem exímios intérpretes da Lei em Israel, eles também eram extremamente zelosos quanto aos costumes e às tradições. Nem todos os fariseus eram como os que foram descritos por João (Jo 5.20), porém, de maneira geral, esses líderes religiosos não aceitaram o Messias.
1.25 Realizar o ritual do batismo era o mesmo que assumir uma posição de autoridade. Os fariseus questionaram João Batista quanto à autoridade que ele possuía para realizar tal ato religioso: Por que batizas [...] se tu não és o Cristo, nem Elias, nem o profeta? As autoridades judaicas achavam que eram os únicos detentores do direito de legitimar pregadores religiosos. A autoridade de João, contudo, havia sido dada por Deus. Ele conhecia muito bem Sua missão (Jo 1.26) e a realizou no espírito e na virtude de Elias (Lc 1.17).
1.26, 27 Este é aquele [...] do qual eu não sou digno de desatar as correias das sandálias. Desatar as correias das sandálias era trabalho de escravos. O Talmude judaico prescrevia: “Tudo que um servo faz para o seu senhor, o discípulo deve fazer para o seu mestre, menos a tarefa humilhante de desatar as correias das sandálias” . Com aquela declaração no versículo 26, João Batista estava dizendo: “Jesus Cristo é o Deus vivo, e eu sou a voz que clama no deserto, Seu servo e escravo”.
1.28 A localização de Betânia é incerta. Alguns acham que Betânia aqui não é a mesma que conhecemos, próxima a Jerusalém. Do outro lado do Jordão significa no lado oriental do rio Jordão. E este, com toda certeza, era o local onde João batizava.
1.29 Eis o Cordeiro de Deus, que tira o pecado do mundo! No Antigo Testamento, os israelitas sacrificavam cordeiros na Festa da Páscoa (Ex 12.21) como ofertas a Deus (Lv 14-10-25). Jesus Cristo é o Cordeiro de Deus que foi oferecido como sacrifício pelos pecados não apenas de Israel, mas de toda a humanidade (Is 52.13—53.12). Com essa magnífica frase, na introdução do seu Evangelho, João revela resumidamente todo o plano da redenção do Antigo Testamento.
1.30 Um homem que foi antes de mim. Jesus é superior em posição e honra. Porque já era primeiro do que eu. Jesus já existia antes de João Batista.
1.31 Eu não o conhecia. A princípio, João Batista não tinha certeza de que Jesus era o Messias. Ao que parece, embora Maria e Isabel fossem parentes (Lc 1.36), não há prova alguma de que Jesus e João tenham tido contato durante a infância. Tudo que João sabia é que devia batizar com água e que o Messias seria manifesto a Israel ao ser batizado. Deus deu um sinal a João para que este reconhecesse o Messias: o Espírito Santo desceu do céu como uma pomba e pousou sobre o Filho de Deus. Quando Jesus foi batizado, o Espírito Santo desceu sobre Ele (v. 32), revelando a João quem Ele era (v. 33). Mateus ainda fala de uma voz que veio do céu, dizendo: Este é o meu Filho amado, em quem me comprazo (Mt 3.17).
1.32-34 Esse é o que batiza com (gr. en) o Espírito Santo. O Novo Testamento menciona sete vezes esse ministério de Jesus. Cinco vezes em citações proféticas (Mt 3:11 ;M c l.8 ;Lc 3.1 6; Jo 1.33; At 1.5), uma em citação histórica (At 2.16-18), e outra em texto doutrinário (1 Co 12.13). Embora a tradução em português varie entre com e no, o grego usa de um modo consistente a preposição en, que fala da esfera em que Cristo batizava. Todavia, o Messias não fez isso enquanto estava nessa terra. O batismo com o Espírito Santo aconteceu pela primeira vez durante o Pentecostes que se seguiu à morte e à ressurreição de Jesus (At 1.5; 11.15,16), tomando-se uma realidade na vida de todos os cristãos por ocasião do novo nascimento (1 Co 12.13).
1.35 Estava João outra vez ali na companhia de dois dos seus discípulos. Um dos dois discípulos de João era André (v. 40). O outro não é citado aqui, mas provavelmente era o próprio João, autor desse Evangelho.
1.36, 37 Os dois discípulos [...] seguiram a Jesus. João Batista estava disposto a perder seus discípulos, caso eles fossem seguir a Jesus. Depois de apresentar Jesus, João sai de cena e só aparece novamente no final do capítulo 3 (v. 22-36). Seguiram a Jesus. Os discípulos a partir desse momento não somente passaram a seguir a Jesus, mas também tiveram a bênção de João Batista para que se unissem a ele.
1.38 E Jesus [...] disse-lhes: Que buscais? Essa foi uma das perguntas mais importantes que os seguidores de Jesus tiveram de responder. No entanto, a pergunta de Jesus a esses discípulos foi mais profunda do que a resposta obtida — onde estás hospedado? (NVI). Em Sua pergunta Jesus intencionava deixar claro Seu propósito para os novos discípulos. Será que eles estavam procurando um revolucionário? Ou talvez um modo de vida mais fácil? Se assim fosse, Jesus não seria a melhor escolha certamente. Então, Jesus começou a ensinar-lhes que tipo de compromisso Seu discipulado exigiria.
1.39 E era já quase a hora décima. Há seis referências a um período do dia no Evangelho de João (Jo 1.39; 4.6, 52; 18.28; 19.14; 20.10). Então, a questão é: que sistema João usava para contar o tempo? Os judeus começavam a contar um novo dia ao pôr-do-sol do anterior. O dia dos romanos começava à meia-noite, como o nosso hoje. João, que provavelmente escreveu seu Evangelho em Éfeso, ao que parece, usava o sistema romano. E se ele não estivesse usando esse sistema, então, João 19.14 estaria em conflito com Marcos 15.25. Pelo sistema judeu de contagem do tempo, a décima hora desse versículo seria quatro horas da tarde. Segundo o sistema romano, a décima hora era dez da manhã. Sendo assim, fica claro que João estava usando o sistema romano; a décima hora era mesmo dez da manhã. Jesus convidou os dois discípulos para passar quase praticamente o dia inteiro com Ele.
1.40-42 Um dos primeiros exemplos de evangelismo pessoal: André levou as boas-novas ao seu irmão, Pedro, dizendo que Jesus era o Messias. André ainda aparece mais duas vezes no Evangelho de João (Jo 6.4-9; 12.2-22) e, em ambas, ele está levando alguém até Jesus. Veja como Jesus vai ao encontro da necessidade pessoal de cada um deles. A André, Jesus revelou Sua humildade. A Pedro, Jesus revelou Sua habilidade de mudar o caráter humano. A Filipe, Ele revelou Sua autoridade. A Natanael, Ele revelou Sua onisciência. Tais demonstrações levaram cada um desses discípulos a testemunhar que Jesus é o Filho de Deus. Tu serás chamado Cefas (que quer dizer Pedro). Cefas é uma palavra em aramaico que significa rocha (Mt 16.18). Jesus viu queocaráter de Pedro era como uma rocha, o que no futuro o levaria a tornar-se um líder e uma fiel testemunha.
1.43, 44 Jesus [...] achou a Filipe, e disse-lhe: Segue-me. Segundo esse versículo, parece que Filipe passou a seguir Jesus sem ter sido evangelizado por outro discípulo, mas há alguns fatores que indicam que André e Pedro estiveram com ele antes de ele se encontrar com Jesus. O versículo 44 diz que André e Pedro eram da mesma cidade de Filipe, o que sugere que eles tenham conversado. Além disso, quando Filipe disse a Natanael o que havia acontecido, ele disse: Havemos achado [...] Jesus de Nazaré (v. 45).
1.45 O nome Natanael não é mencionado nos Evangelhos Sinóticos. Mas em cada lista dos apóstolos registrada em Mateus, Marcos e Lucas o nome Bartolomeu é citado junto ao de Filipe. E bem provável que Natanael e Bartolomeu sejam a mesma pessoa. Filho de José. Até então, Filipe não sabia acerca do nascimento virginal de Jesus. Todavia, todos os discípulos logo vieram a reconhecer Jesus como Filho de Deus (v. 49).
1.46 Pode vir alguma coisa boa de Nazaré? Natanael sabia que os profetas do Antigo Testamento haviam profetizado que o Messias nasceria em Belém; e Nazaré era um vilarejo inexpressivo. Por isso, Natanael não podia aceitar que alguém tão importante como o Messias viesse de um lugar tão insignificante como Nazaré. Vem e vê. Percebe-se que Filipe não foi com Natanael. A verdade não é transmitida com mais eficácia por meio de uma argumentação impositiva, mas por meio de um gentil convite: Vem e vê!
1.47 Eis aqui um verdadeiro israelita. Por um bom tempo, Jacó, um patriarca israelita, foi um homem astuto e cheio de dolo. Natanael era um israelita, um descendente de Jacó, porém, verdadeiro e sincero. Jesus viu o caráter de Natanael como um livro aberto (Jo 2.24)
1.48, 49 Te vi eu estando tu debaixo da figueira. No Antigo Testamento, esse termo sugere ideia de descanso e segurança (1 Rs 4-25; Mq 4-4; Zc 3.10). Natanael talvez estivesse meditando debaixo da figueira sobre o sonho de Jacó citado nos versículos 50 e 51. Te vi eu. Jesus aqui demonstra Seu conhecimento sobrenatural. Ao que parece, foi o que convenceu Natanael; sabedor de tal detalhe de sua vida, Jesus tinha de ser o Filho de Deus, o Rei de Israel (Jo 20.31). Esses dois títulos se referem ao Messias.
1.50 Coisas maiores do que estas verás. Jesus garantiu a Natanael que ele veria manifestações sobrenaturais ainda maiores no futuro. Jesus poderia estar referindo-se aos milagres dos capítulos 2 ao 11; Ele poderia estar se referindo também à futura glória de Cristo na vinda do Filho do homem (Jo 1.51; Dn 7.13).
1.51 Vereis o céu aberto e os anjos de Deus subirem e descerem. Jacó teve uma visão de anjos subindo e descendo do céu por uma escada (Gn 28.12). E o sentido aqui é esse mesmo: uma ligação entre o céu e a terra. Filho do Homem, a mesma expressão usada em Daniel 7.13 para se referir a um ser celestial, era a maneira que Jesus mais gostava de referir-se a si próprio (Mt 8.20; Mc 2.10).
Índice: João 1 João 2 João 3 João 4 João 5 João 6 João 7 João 8 João 9 João 10 João 11 João 12 João 13 João 14 João 15 João 16 João 17 João 18 João 19 João 20 João 21
Fílon de Alexandria e o Evangelho de João
Fílon pertence à primeira metade do primeiro século AD. Ele tentou entender sua própria fé judaica à luz da síntese do pensamento platônico e estóico feita por Posidônio (cerca de 100 a.C.). O objetivo do homem religioso é trazer a sua vida em relação com a realidade, de modo a atingir a sua verdadeira imortalidade final. Mas existe um abismo intransponível entre o mundo real das ideias divinas e o mundo existente, que está sujeito a mudanças e decadência. No entanto, nesta base platônica é sobreposto a noção estóica do Logos (Palavra). Por isso, “Fílon significa o mundo platônico de ideias, concebido não como auto-existente, mas como expressão da mente do Deus Único”.12 Portanto, o Logos é a imagem de Deus, impressa nas numerosas formas da ordem criada. Ele também é encontrado dentro do homem, supremamente em sua inteligência, capacitando-o a perceber a verdade última e, assim, elevar-se à comunhão com Deus. A Lei, como a expressão perfeita do Logos, está, portanto, preocupada com a atividade da alma. Assim Fílon se dedica à alegorização geral das Escrituras, na qual pessoas e eventos são identificados com as virtudes e vícios e a atividade da alma. Somos imediatamente lembrados de duas características do Quarto Evangelho: (i) João fala do Logos no prólogo de uma maneira similar. Mas isso é derivado de certas passagens chaves, notadamente Prov 8.22-3 I e Sir. 24, para o qual Fílon também está endividado. A diferença crucial é que, em João, o Logos ‘se tornou carne’ (1.14). Fílon não tem nada disso, o que de fato contraria seu sistema. De fato, João não demonstra nenhuma familiaridade com os trabalhos de Fílon, de modo que essa semelhança provavelmente será um desenvolvimento paralelo, e não um empréstimo direto (veja mais as notas de 1.1). (ii) João ocasionalmente usa alelhinos (“real, verdadeiro”) de um modo que poderia ser comparado com Fílon (1.9; 6.32; 15.1); mas, nessas passagens, temos metáforas, mas não a alegoria filônica característica. Não há realmente nenhuma conexão com o pensamento de Fílon, que deva ser contado a partir das influências do Quarto Evangelho.
Fonte: LINDARS. Barnabas. New Century Bible Commentary. Gospel of John, pp. 39-40
E a luz resplandece nas trevas... (João 1:5)
E a luz resplandece nas trevas... (João 1:5)
5. E a luz resplandece nas trevas. Cf. versículo 9: A luz ilumina cada homem. Note a mudança do imperfeito para o tempo presente; a luz não estava som ente brilhando durante a antiga dispensação; ela ainda está brilhando nos dias atuais, porque a característica básica da luz é a de brilhar. Além do mais, considerando que é na Palavra (Cristo) que a vida reside, e por intermédio de quem ela resplandece como luz, ele também é chamado luz (cf. 1.9; 8.12; IJo 2.8). Como o sol no céu, esta luz resplandece na promessa matriz (Gn 3.15); no livro de Êxodo, com seu Cordeiro Pascal e demais tipos; em Levítico, com suas ofertas que apontam para o derramamento do sangue de Cristo; em Números, com o levantamento da serpente (Nm 21.8; cf. Jo 3.14,15); sim, ela resplandece em todos os livros históricos, proféticos e poéticos da antiga dispensação.
Ver, por exemplo. Gênesis 49.10; Deuteronômio 18.15-18; 2 Samuel 7.12-14; Salmo 40.6, 7; 72; 110; 118; Isaías 1.18; 7.14; 9.6; 11. Isa; 35.5; 40; 42.1-4; 53, 54, 55; 60, 61; 63; 65; Oseias 11.8; Amós 5.4; Miqueias 5.2; 7.18; Ageu 2.9; Zacarias 9.9; 13:1; Malaquias 1.11.
No entanto, nós enfatizam os que a luz estava brilhando, não somente nessas profecias, promessas e convites, mas ao longo de toda a antiga dispensação, e de todo o Antigo Testamento. Ela continua resplandecendo por toda a nova dispensação, e em todo o N ovo Testamento, revelando a pessoa de Deus, em todos os seus atributos gloriosos. Essa luz está brilhando até mesmo nos dias atuais, no meio de todas as trevas mundanas.
A resposta triste dada a essa comunicação da luz é declarada na segunda parte do versículo 5. Mas “as trevas não se apropriaram dela. resposta triste dada a essa comunicação da luz é declarada na segunda parte do versículo 5. M as“ as trevas não se apropriaram dela. As trevas, a que se refere o evangelista tem um sentido concreto. Elas se referem à humanidade caída, coberta pela descrença e pelo pecado. Esse não é o único caso, no Novo Testamento, no qual um substantivo abstrato ganha um sentido concreto. Para outros exemplos, ver Rom anos 11.7 (“a eleição” , com o sentido de remanescente eleito), Romanos 3.30 (“a circuncisão”, significando os indivíduos circuncidados).
Trevas, nesse caso, é sinônimo de “mundo”, do versículo 10. Elas são antagônicas a Cristo, a Luz. Elas são um a escuridão pessoal e ativa: Elas não aceitam a luz e nem se apropriam dela. Uma tradução que está se tornando comum toma οὐ κατέλαβεν com o sentido de não dominaram, não prevaleceram, não apagaram ou não extinguiram. Em minha opinião, isso está errado. Conquanto, em forma, as três cláusulas dos versículos 5b, 10b e 1 Ib sejam muito semelhantes, parece provável que, também em significado, elas se assemelham . Aqui temos um a boa ilustração de paralelismo:
“As trevas αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν” (v. 5b);
“O mundo não o reconheceu” (v. 10b);
“Os seus não o receberam” (v. llb ).
É imediatamente evidente que a tradução “não prevaleceram ” (para o versículo 5b) não se encaixa nesse paralelismo. A tradução “não se apropriaram ” (ou “não a apreenderam ”, com o na A. R. V.) é muito melhor. Além do mais, o sentido normal, e também o sentido radical do verbo é o de captar, tomar (algum as vezes no sentido de “apanhar, ” com o em 6.17; 12.35), apreender, tom ar posse de, controlar. Ele também pode ser usado para “apreensão mental ou percepção” (ver R m 9.30; 1 Co 9.24; Ep 3.12).
Mas, m esmo quando traduzimos corretam ente mas as trevas não se apropriaram dela, devemos enfatizar que estamos tratando com um a figura de discurso chamada litotes. Quando estudam os passagens com o 3.20 (cf. E f 6.12), fica evidente que essas trevas não apenas procedem negativam ente; antes, elas odeiam a luz. Elas também se referem ao mundo da humanidade, visto como um poder hostil, que ativamente resiste à luz e se recusa a aceitá-la. O que temos aqui é uma manifestação da antítese absoluta entre a luz e as trevas, o reino de Deus e o mundo, e entre Cristo e as forças do maligno.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)