Sunday, November 23, 2014

Servant of the priest (3): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones

Servant of the priest (3)

This is entry #9, part 3, of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia," about the

[Above: The Apostle John, depicted in the Book of Kells, c. 800[2]. It is my proposal in this post that the Apostle John was "the servant of the priest" to whom the risen Jesus gave His burial shroud [sindon], which is the Shroud of Turin.]

term "servant of the priest," preserved in a fragment by St. Jerome (c.347–420), from the late first/early second century, "Gospel of the Hebrews," that "the Lord [Jesus] had given the linen cloth [sindon][3] to the servant of the priest":

"The Gospel that is called `according to the Hebrews,' which I have recently translated into both Greek and Latin, a Gospel that Origen frequently used, records the following after the Savior's resurrection: `But when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went and appeared to James.' (Jerome, Illustrious Men, 2)"[4].

This entry #9(3) is a continuation of entry #9(2), "Servant of the priest (2)" in which, by way of introduction I stated:

"Several early Christian writings recorded that the resurrected Jesus gave His shroud to different individuals. The earliest and most highly regarded of these writings, the late first/early second century The Gospel of the Hebrews, recorded that after His resurrection Jesus gave his shroud [sindon] to "the servant of the priest." Since it seems unlikely that the risen Jesus would give His shroud indirectly to the High Priest, Caiaphas (r. 18–36), , who was the driving force behind Jesus' crucifixion (Mt 26:3-5,57-66; Jn 11:49-53), other explanations have been sought. It has been suggested that the original text had "Peter" but it had become corrupted by a copyist's error. Another possibility is that he was Malchus, `the servant of the High Priest,' who was in the party sent to arrest Jesus, and whose right ear Peter had cut off but Jesus had miraculously healed it (Mt 26:51; Mk 14:47; Lk 22:50-51; Jn 18:10), and so Malchus became a Christian. But both these possibilities have major problems."

Because of its length I had to split that entry #9 into three parts. For more information about this Encyclopedia series, see the Main Index "A-Z", and sub-indexes "S", "C," and "D."

[Main index] [Entry index] [Previous #9 (2)] [Next #10]

Introduction. A third possibility, which seems not to have been previously considered, is that "the servant of the priest" was the Apostle John, of whom there is historical and Biblical evidence that he was a priest and that he had been a servant in the High Priest's household. The High Priest was commonly called simply "the Priest." There is further Biblical evidence that John had been a servant of the High Priest. Jesus appeared to the Apostle John before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother. Therefore, this third possibility, that Jesus took His Shroud with Him out of the empty tomb and later gave it to the Apostle John, seems the most likely.

The "servant of the priest" was the Apostle John

There is historical evidence that the Apostle John was a Jewish priest. Early Church historian Eusebius (c. 260-340) quoted from a letter by Polycrates (c.130–196), a Bishop of Ephesus, who wrote that "John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate (petalon)":

"THE bishops, however, of Asia, persevering in observing the custom handed down to them from their fathers, were headed by Polycrates. He, indeed, had also set forth the tradition handed down to them, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome. `We,' said he, `therefore, observe the genuine day; neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom. For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again in the day of the Lord's appearing, in which he will come with glory from heaven, and will raise up all the saints; Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters. His other daughter, also, who having lived under the influence of the Holy Ghost, now likewise rests in Ephesus. Moreover, John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate (petalon), both a martyr and teacher. He is buried in Ephesus; also Polycarp of Smyrna, both bishop and martyr'"[5]

New Testament scholar Leon Morris (1914-2006), commenting on Jn 18:15-16, that John "was known to the high priest," considers this historical evidence (and Biblical evidence that John came from a priestly family) as supporting "that John was a priest":

"John seems to have come of a priestly family. The woman Salome, who stood by the cross of Jesus, appears to have been his mother, as a comparison of Mark 15:40 and Matt. 27:56 shows. John does not mention Salome, nor his own mother specifically, but he does speak of the Virgin Mary's sister (John 19:25) in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that she is Salome. Now Mary was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) who is called one `of the daughters of Aaron' (Luke 1:5). Salome thus had priestly connections. The conclusion is that John was of a priestly family and could well have come in contact with the high priest in connection with his priestly duties. This is supported by the passage in the letter of Polycrates (c. 190 A.D.) which says that John `was a priest wearing to petalon (Eusebius HE, III. xxxi, 3). ... Polycrates certainly supports the view that John was a priest"[6]

There would surely be no contradiction in the first century by a priest being also a fisherman. After the settlement of Canaan in the 13th century BC[7], provision was made for priests to supplement support for themselves and their families by agriculture:

"Provision for support. - This consisted - 1. Of one tenth of the tithes which the people paid to the Levites, i. e. one per cent. on the whole produce of the country. Num. 18:26-28. 2. Of a special tithe every third year. Deut. 14:28; 26:12. 3. Of the redemption money, paid at the fixed rate of five shekels a head, for the first-born of man or beast. Num. 18:14-19. 4. Of the redemption money paid in like manner for men or things specially dedicated to the Lord. Lev. 27. 5. Of spoil, captives, cattle and the like, taken in war. Num. 31:25-47. 6. Of the shewbread, the flesh of the burnt offerings, peace offerings, trespass offerings, Lev. 6:26, 29; 7:6-10; Num. 18:8-14, and in particular the heave-shoulder and the wave-breast. Lev. 10:12-15. 7. Of an undefined amount of the first-fruits of corn, wine and oil. Ex. 23:19; Lev. 2:14; Deut. 26:1-10. 8. On their settlement in Canaan the priestly families had thirteen cities assigned them, with `suburbs' or pasture-grounds for their flocks. Josh. 21:13-19. These provisions were obviously intended to secure the religion of Israel against the dangers of a caste of pauper priests, needy and dependent, and unable to bear their witness to the true faith"[8].

However by the first century, not only the huge growth in the number of priests in proportion to the population of Israel:

"Numbers. - If we may accept the numbers given by Jewish writers as at all trustworthy, the proportion of the priesthood to the population of Palestine, during the last century of their existence as an order, must have been far greater than that of the clergy has ever been in any Christian nation. Over and above those that were scattered in the country and took their turn, there were not fewer than 24,000 stationed permanently at Jerusalem, and 12,000 at Jericho"[9],

but also that Israel had been under Roman occupation since 63 BC with the Jews since then having been forced to pay heavy taxes to Rome[10], would surely mean that most priests in Jesus' day would have needed to work in secular occupations in order to survive.

There is Biblical evidence that the Apostle John was a Jewish priest. As we saw above there is Biblical evidence that the Apostle John came from a Jewish priestly family. A comparison of the Gospels' lists of women disciples standing near the Cross reveals that Jesus' "mother's sister" was "Salome," who was "the mother of the sons of Zebedee," i.e. John's mother (Mk 3:17; 10:35; Lk 5:10):

Jn 19:25Mk 15:40Mt 27:55-56
"... standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.""... women looking on ... Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.""...women ... looking on ... Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."

Mark and Mathew evidently record the three prominent women disciples standing by the Cross after Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been taken by the Apostle John (Jn 19:26-27), her nephew (see below), to his home[11]. That the remaining three women mentioned are the same group in each account is shown by Mark listing "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome" as the women who went to the tomb in the early morning after the sabbath to anoint Jesus' body (Mk 16:1).

That means that Jesus and Apostle John were first cousins:

"To the casual reader Matthew's `other Mary' [Mt 27:61; 28:1], Mark's `Salome' [Mk 15:40; 16:1] and John's `Clopas' [Jn 19:25] seem obscure and rather unimportant figures. To the careful student, however, they prove exceptionally interesting. A key to their identification is to be found in the descriptions of the women at the crucifixion given by Matthew, Mark and John. Matthew and Mark ... identify three women watching at a distance, while John mentions Jesus' mother and three other women standing by the cross. It is natural to suppose that the same three women are referred to in each case and that they came forward with the Lord's mother to support her in the final farewell. If the women are the same in each case, we get the following descriptions: 1. Mary Magdalene - so called in all three gospels. 2. One called by Matthew: `the mother of the sons of Zebedee' [Mt 27:56] by Mark: `Salome' [Mk 15:40] by John: `Jesus' mother's sister' [Jn 19:25]; 3. Mary, called by Matthew: `the mother of James and Joseph' [Mt 27:56] ... or `the other Mary'. [Mt 27:61] by Mark: `the mother of James the younger and of Joses' [Mk 15:40] or `the mother of Joses' [Mk 15:47] or `the mother of James' [Mk 16:1] by John: `the wife of Clopas' [Jn 19:25]. ... This means that Salome is, on the one hand, the sister of the Lord's mother - that is to say, Jesus' aunt; and, on the other hand, mother of the two leading disciples, James and John. This makes John first cousin to Jesus"[12].

Mary was also a "kinswoman" of Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist (Lk 1:36 YLT)[13]. The Greek word for "kinswoman," sungenis, is simply the female of sungenes "a kinsman" (Mk 6:4; Lk 1:58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Ac 10:24) including "of tribal kinship" (Rom 9:3; 16:7,11,21)[14]. Elizabeth was one of the "daughters of Aaron" (Lk 1:5), that is, she was of priestly descent and the daughter of a priest[15]. Therefore Mary, and Salome her sister, were descended from David (Lk 1:32) and so were of the tribe of Judah (Mt 1:1-6; Lk 3:30-31) and also they were descended from Aaron, and so were of the tribe of Levi (Ex 6:16-20). There is no contradiction in this, as while a priest had to be a descendent of Aaron, he was not required to take a wife from the descendants of Aaron but the only requirement was that she was an Israelite virgin (Lev 21:1,7,14)[16]. The conditions of Jesus' descent from David (Mt 1:1; Rom 1:3; 2Tim 2:8; Rev 22:16) are satisfied if at least one of Mary's parents were of Davidic decent[17].

Therefore, for the Apostle John, the son of Salome, to be a priest, it was only necessary that his father, Zebedee (Mt 4:21; 10:2; Mk 1:19; 3:17; 10:35; Lk 5:10), was of Aaronic descent and therefore was a priest[18]. And that would have been so if Mary (and Salome's) father, Heli (Lk 3:23)[19], i.e. "Eli" - a priestly name (1Sam 1:9; 2:11; 14:3), was a descendant of Aaron and therefore a priest[20]. And that would have been the case, if the father of Elisabeth, who was Mary's and Salome's kinswoman, was a brother of Zebedee, John's father. Further Biblical confirmation that John was a priest is found in Jn 20:4-8, where John reached the empty tomb first but did not enter it until after Peter went in and confirmed that Jesus' body was not there. It was forbidden for a priest to enter a tomb[21] where he might make contact with a dead body and so become "unclean" (Lev 21:1-3)[22].

• There is Biblical evidence that John had been a servant in the High Priest's household John, the "other disciple" (Jn 20:2-4,8[23, 24, 25]), twice mentioned that he was "known to the High Priest" in Jn 18:15-16:
"Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in."

The Greek word for "known" here "denotes ... personal knowledge and friendship":

"The word 'known' (gnostos ) denotes not just acquaintance but personal knowledge and friendship (cf. Luke 2:44; 23:49). The 'other disciple' must have known the high priest well to gain immediate unchallenged access to the courtyard. It was to Annas' house (and not the temple) that Jesus was taken, and the 'courtyard' would be the atrium of his house. This is confirmed by the description of the doorkeeper as 'the girl on duty' (16), rather than a temple official. If the other disciple was the beloved disciple, and if the beloved disciple is identified as John the son of Zebedee, how do we account for him, as a Galilean fisherman, being 'known' to the high priest?"[26].

The person so described, John, "was a member of the High Priest's circle, possibly a kinsman and himself of priestly birth...":

"It is now generally recognized that gnostos implies something more than mere acquaintance. It means that the person so described was a member of the High Priest's circle, possibly a kinsman and himself of priestly birth, or at any rate one who stood in intimate relations with the governing high priestly family"[27].

The "High Priest" was Annas (Jn 18:13), a previous High Priest (AD 6–15), who although he had been deposed by the Roman governor in AD 15, was still regarded by the Jews as still the only legitimate High Priest[28] (Lk 3:2; Ac 4:6), and continued to be effectively the High Priest through his five sons and son-in-law Caiaphas (Jn 18:13) as puppet High Priests[29]. So John was admitted into the courtyard of Annas' house (Jn 18:15) and not only that, after speaking with the servant girl doorkeeper, John was able to bring Peter into the courtyard (Jn 18:16). That the servant girl knew John was a follower of Jesus is evident in her question to Peter, "You also are not one of this man's disciples, are you?" (my emphasis) (Jn 18:17)[30]. John knew the name of the "servant of the High Priest" whose ear Peter had cut off was "Malchus" (Jn 18:10). John also knew that another servant of the High Priest was a relative of Malchus (Jn 18:26).

Commentators admit that, "How it was that Annas ... knew John remains a mystery"[31] and John's "acquaintance with the high priest is difficult to explain"[32]. The explanation that John knew the High Priest from selling him fish(!)[33] clearly is inadequate. Morris, however, notes that:

"It is possible to account for it, however. One line of argument is that John seems to have come of a priestly family ..."[34]
followed by the quote above. Theologian William Sanday (1843–1920) observed that:
"The account of what happened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of the servants' hall" (my emphasis)[35].
So a likely explanation of all the above, perhaps the only explanation, is that John was a priest and had been a servant of the High Priest.

The High Priest was commonly called simply "the Priest" The High Priest was commonly called "the Priest":
"The High Priest (Heb. ... kohen gadol) was the chief religious official of Israelite religion and of classical Judaism from the rise of the Israelite nation until the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem. The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron, the first high priest and elder brother of Moses. ... Aaron, though he is but rarely called "the great priest", being generally simply designated as `ha-kohen' (the priest), was the first incumbent of the office, to which he was appointed by God (Book of Exodus 28:1–2; 29:4–5)."[36]

Examples include: "Hilkiah the high priest" (2Ki 22:4,8; 23:4; 2Chr 34:9) is called simply "Hilkiah the priest" (2Ki 22:10,12,14; 23:24; 2Chr 34:14); and "Eliashib the high priest" (Neh 3:1,20; 13:28) is called "Eliashib the priest" (Neh 13:4). It was the norm that the High Priest, was not called "High Priest" in the Old Testament, but simply "the Priest." Examples of this, among a great many, include: "Aaron the priest" (Ex 31:10; Lev 1:7; Num 3:6; Josh 21:4); "Eleazar the priest" (Num 16:39; Josh 14:1); and "Phinehas the priest" (Josh 22:30). So a servant of the High Priest could be called simply a "servant of the Priest." In particular, if John had been a servant of Annas the High Priest, he could have been called simply and informally, "John, the servant of the Priest."

Further Biblical evidence that John had been a servant of the High Priest. Although John and his brother James had helped their father Zebedee in his Galilean fishing business (Mt 4:21 & Mk 1:19), John had a home in Jerusalem (Jn 19:27)[37]. John had a detailed and accurate knowledge of the geography of Judea and the features of Jerusalem (before its destruction in AD70), which one would not expect from a Galilean fisherman[38]:

"His [John's] knowledge of Palestinian topography was accurate. He distinguished between Bethany, the suburb of Jerusalem where Mary and Martha lived (11:1), and `Bethany on the other side of the Jordan,' where John the Baptist preached (1:28). Some of the sites he alluded to, such as Aenon (3:23) and Ephraim (11:54), are not described elsewhere; but, obviously, they were actual places well known to him. His description of the features of Jerusalem, such as the pool by the `Sheep Gate' (5:2), the `pool of Siloam' (9:7), the `Stone Pavement' (Gr. lithostroton, 19:13), and the varied references to the temple (2:14-16; 8:20; 10:23), show that he was familiar with the city before its destruction"[39].

The Gospel of John, much more than the other gospels, gives details of Jewish feasts and purification rites, which would have been especially important to a Jewish priest:

"... the author [John] is acquainted with ... Jewish feasts and purification-rites: the Passover: 2:13, 23; 6:4; 13:1; 18:28; perhaps also 5:1; the Feast of Tabernacles: 7:2, 37, 38; the Feast of Dedication: 10:22, 23. See also 3:25; 11:55; 12:12; 18:28, 39; 19:31"[40]

This is further Biblical evidence that John was a priest and had been based in Jerusalem, as would be the case if he had been a servant of the High Priest.

Jesus appeared to the Apostle John before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother. The Apostle Paul, quoting a list of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, stated that Jesus appeared to "the Twelve" which included John (Mt 10:2), before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19)[41].

1Cor 15:3-7. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles."

Jesus could have given His shroud to John when He appeared to the Twelve. Or, since Paul list only five of the ten recorded post-resurrection appearance of Jesus[42], and since Acts 1:3 states that Jesus appeared to His apostles after His resurrection over a space of "forty days":

"He [Jesus] presented himself alive to them [the apostle] after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God."

it is entirely possible that Jesus appeared to John alone, but unrecorded, to give His shroud to him, before He appeared James.

That Jesus took His Shroud with Him out of the empty tomb and later gave it to the Apostle John, seems the most likely. We saw in parts (1), (2), and this part (3) of entry #9, evidence that: 1) the Empty Tomb did not contain Jesus' burial shroud [sindon]; 2) the late first/early second century Gospel of the Hebrews preserved a tradition of the earliest Church which was widely believed to be true, that Jesus took His burial shroud out of the Tomb and have it to "the servant of the priest"; and 3) the Apostle John was a priest and had been a servant of the High Priest, Annas. It is therefore proposed that the term "servant of the priest" was a pseudonym of the Apostle John, and that Jesus gave St. John His burial shroud (known today as the Shroud of Turin) in one of His earlier post-resurrection appearances.

The pseudonym being necessary to preserve the security of the Shroud from the far more numerous and powerful enemies of the early Church, the Romans and the Jews, who if they knew the Shroud existed with Jesus' image on it, they would demand it be handed over to them under threat of torture and death:

"As to whether the disciples of Jesus did remove the burial wrappings from the tomb, the Gospels are indeed silent. There is evidence, described later, that they did take the Shroud. This evidence suggests they took it with them into hiding, for, as we read in the Bible, they feared for their lives. They would have known that if they `advertised' their valuable possession, it might become a target for either Romans or Jewish zealots. Those who were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion seemed determined to stamp out the new Christian-sect. The Easter story shows that they would do anything to erase the memory of Jesus. They would seize and destroy the Shroud if their attention was drawn to its survival. So the Shroud was kept hidden, and the Gospel stories are silent about its removal from the tomb." (my emphasis)[43]

"It is absurd to demand a detailed documentation from Jews and Jewish Christians regarding the presence and handing down of the Holy Shroud in the period before Christianity enjoyed full freedom of expression in the Middle East, and particularly in Jerusalem, which was a troubled, much conquered city right from the beginnings of Christianity. The lack of documentation may be due to three main reactions which would have been provoked by the open showing of the shroud of a man who, from the blood marks and entire imprint, clearly died on the cross: a religious reaction concerning legal impurity, a theological reaction concerning the question of real or only apparent humanity, and a juridical reaction concerning violation of the tomb. This would have led to the immediate destruction of the shroud and severe punishment of those having it in their possession." (my emphasis)[44]

1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from it or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one graphic) of any of my posts, provided that they include a reference to the title of, and a hyperlink to, that post from which it came. [return]
2. "John the Apostle," Wikipedia, 12 November 2014. [return]
3. Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, Autumn, pp.319-345. [return]
4. Ehrman B.D., 2003, "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did not Make It into the New Testament," Oxford University Press: New York NY, p.16. [return]
5. Eusebius, "The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus," Cruse, C.F., transl., 1955, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth printing, 1966, Book V, Chapter xxiv, p.208. [return]
6. Morris, L.L., 1971, "The Gospel According to John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1984, p.752. [return]
7. Holden, J.M. & Geisler, N., 2013, "The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible," Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, p.192. [return]
8. Peloubet, F.N. & M.A., eds, 1990, "Smith's Bible Dictionary," [1863], Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1987, Revised, p.533. [return]
9. Ibid. [return]
10. "Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC)," Wikipedia, 7 November 2014. [return]
11. Edersheim, A., 1886, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," [1883], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Third Edition, Reprinted, 1988, Vol. II, p.602. [return]
12. Wenham, J.W., 1984, "Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Stories in Conflict?," Paternoster: Exeter UK, Reprinted, 1987, pp.34-35. Verses in square brackets mine. [return]
13. Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, p.15. [return]
14. Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, p.421. My transliteration. [return]
15. Geldenhuys, J.N., 1950, "Commentary on the Gospel of Luke," Marshall Morgan & Scott: London, Reprinted, 1961, pp.62-63. [return]
16. Morris, L.L., 1974, "The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1986, p.68. [return]
17. Morris, 1974, pp.73-74. [return]
18. Gehman, H.S. & Davis, J.D., 1924, "The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Collins: London, Revised, 1944, pp.490-491. [return]
19. "Heli ... is the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The latter interpretation is reached by punctuating the Gr. differently and understanding Jesus as `being son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli (Luke 3:23)." Gehman & Davis, 1924, p.235. See also p.198. [return]
20. Peloubet, 1990, p.532. [return]
21. Crispino, D., 1991, "Recently Published," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 38/39, March/June, p.368. [return]
22. Harrison, R.K., 1980, "Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Reprinted, 2006, p.209. [return]
23. Hendriksen, W., 1964, "A Commentary on the Gospel of John: Two Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One," [1954], Banner of Truth: London, Third edition, Vol. I, pp.18-19. [return]
24. Morris, 1971, pp.9-21. [return]
25. Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.27-28. [return]
26. Kruse, 2003, p.353. [return]
27. Dodd, C.H., 1963, "Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, pp.86f., in Morris, 1971, p.752. [return]
28. Morris, 1971, p.749. [return]
29. "Annas," Wikipedia, 29 June 2014. [return]
30. Tenney, M.C., "The Gospel of John," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1981, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 9: John - Acts," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.172. [return]
31. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. II, p.390. [return]
32. Guthrie, D., "John," in Carson, D.A., et al., eds, 1994, "New Bible Commentary: 21st Century edition," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1997, pp.1060-1061. [return]
33. Kruse, 2003, p.353. [return]
34. Morris, 1971, p.752. [return]
35. Sanday, W., "Criticism of the Fourth Gospel," p.101, in Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.287. [return]
36. "High Priest of Israel," Wikipedia, 12 October 2014. [return]
37. Tenney, 1981, p.182. [return]
38. Kruse, 2003, p.30. [return]
39. Tenney, 1981, p.6. [return]
40. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. I, p.18. [return]
41. Robertson, A.T., 1931, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume IV: The Epistles of Paul," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.188. [return]
42. Robertson, 1931, pp.187-188. [return]
43. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.70-71. [return]
44. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.xxi. [return]

Created: 23 November 2016. Updated: 7 February 2016.

No comments: