| βασιλιδπολις, Königin unter den Städten, Hauptstadt, Kaiserstadt: SynaxCpl 7,46.–L. βασιλικριος, (cf. mlat. basilicarius) Kirchendiener, Mesner: VStephSab 540D c.24. AnHier II 3,27; 43,12. βασιλικτον, τ kaiserliche Schenkung, vom Kaiser geschenktes Landgut: PselMin II 1,10;97,24; 106,7. TypKosm 52,34 – PselWei 132–5, (Kr -ος). βασιλκια, τ Kaiserinsignien: KonstPorphMil С 240.251.508. Hymnen auf den Kaiser: DeCer I 577,10; 583,16; 597,6; 600,13.15. λρναξ λευκς λεγμενος Βασιλκιον ib. 643,8.– TLG, Kr, Dem, HL (н). βασιλικπεδα, τ kaiserliche Gemächer: NChonPar 287. βασιλικοπλμος der kaiserlichen Flotte: χελνδια TheophCont 123,4. id. DeAdmΙmp 61,13. στρατεαι AttalPon 493. -πλμον kaiserliche Flotte: DeCer Ι 651,18. -πλμα Zepos Ι 223 app.– Vgl. βασιλοπλμον. βασιλικς οκος Kirchenschiff: HagNik I 39,17. Βασιλικς (sc.νμος) Basiliken: Bas В 73,28; 670,23. βασιλικν, τ Basilikum: BoissAn II 408. kaiserliche Kerze: DeCerV I 106,11.13 (cf. KukDiorth 112). Kaiserurkunde: MM III 40 (a.1192). eine Silbermünze: AKut 8,25.31 (a.1313); cf.p.332. ADoch 53,18f.(a.l409). Βασιλικ, τ die kaiserlichen Gesetze, die Basiliken: LeoNov 37,8; 39,10; 47,15. EpBib 1,2 app. Bas А 3107,2 app.; В 224,2. DarDoc 334,29; 336,1. ADoch 3,33 (a.1112). Balsam I 240A. 413A.−LS, DGE, LSSup, L, Soph, Duc + App I/II, Kr, OrlTraul, ODB, LMA Ι 1526–9. βασιλικσπορον, τ Basilikumsamen: BlemMed 62. DelAn II 361,9.– HL -ος. βασιλικνυμος von kaiserlichem Namen: DioscS 46. βασιλισκριος, Schneider: ScriptOr 80,4=HagSoph 441,9; 494,10.– (Kr -ον). Βασιλισμς, Hinneigung zu Basileios (von Kaisareia): GregNazEp 50,5. βασιλογραφεον, τ antikaiserliche Schrift: PachF II 621,4. βασιλογρφιν prophetisches Buch über Kaiser: ScriptOr 46 app.– Kr, DucApp I; vgl. -γραμματες KumN. βασιλοπτωρ s. βασιλεοπτωρ βασιλοπλμον, τ kaiserliche Flotte: DeCer I 660,16.– Vgl. βασιλικοπλμον. βασιλς, Kaiser: μγας RobCart XLVI 94,25.– Kr -ς. Βασιτισσα Name eines Theotokos-Ikonentyps: LaurCorp V 1778 (s.XΙ). SealsDO II 52,2 (s.XII). ProdPoesies 35 inscr. (Βαστωτα ed.). |
| 4206 Although the condition of spouses is not mentioned, stories like that of Hillel, a Babylonian immigrant, nearly freezing to death sitting in the window to hear Shemaiah and Abtalion may reflect such a practice. 4207 In drawing on the widest range of ancient sources for Jesus traditions, we look for broader cultural patterns mediated through Palestinian Judaism; we do not imply that Jesus was a «Jewish Cynic» (pace Crossan, «Cynic»; Mack, Myth, 67–68, 87 n. 1; see Eddy, «Diogenes»; Witherington, Sage, 117–45; Keener, «Critique»). Jesus» movement began in rural Galilee and only later spread to Hellenistic urban areas (cf. Schmeller, «Weg») where Cynics might be known; indeed, what later Judean rabbis seemed to know about Cynics (Luz, «Cynic») does not encourage the view that they were well understood in Judea. 4211 Diogenes Ep. 38 (Cyn. Ep. 162–63). The rabbis more frequently tell such stories with regard to conversion to Judaism (e.g., Sipre Num. 115.5.7), which more strictly parallels philosophical conversion than adopting a Jewish teacher would have. 4217 Especially if v. 7 is construed as a question (so Jeremias, Promise, 30; Martin, «Servant,» 15; France, «Exegesis,» 257; contrast Meier, Matthew, 83–84). 4220 Collins, Witness, 46–55, and Xavier, «Andrew,» address Andrew as a character in this Gospe1. On the «roundness» of some of John " s (esp. minor) characters, cf. Grant, «Ambiguity.» 4221 John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 19 (on 1:41–42) notes that Jesus convinces Peter, Nathanael, and the Samaritan woman with prophecies. 4222 On the Fourth Gospel " s foreshadowing technique, including here, see Ellis, Genius, 9. Fenton, John, 43, correctly notes that the Johannine Jesus regularly foretells the future or demonstrates other supernatural insights (1:47–51; 2:19,21,25; 4:17–18; 5:6; 6:6,64,70–71; 11:4,11–12; 12:23,32–33; 13:1–2,10–11,21,26–27, 38; 16:31–32; 18:4,32). 4223 Brown, Community, 82–84; cf. Hengel, Mark, 52, who argues that the comparison exalts the guarantor of the Johannine tradition over «the guarantor of the Markan-Synoptic tradition.» Possibly the Markan tradition was now so entrenched that the beloved disciplés tradition needed to stake its claims (like Paul in Gal 2:6–10 ). |
| Šabb. 1:4–5; Sotah 5:2–5; Yad. 4:1–4; t. Šabb. l:16ff.; Yad. 16–18) and in the symposium section of Let. Aris. 203,221, 236,248,262, though Let. Aris. 275 suggests a more careful count than John 2:1 ! Perhaps the days are intended as literal (cf. 12:12), to show a sample of meaningful days in Jesus» early ministry. 3801 Cf., e.g., Keener, Marries; for a more thorough redaction-critical analysis and some different conclusions, see Collins, Divorce, and the suggestions of Keener, «Review of Collins.» 3802 This is not to say with Fenton, John, 40, that our writer «was not acquainted with the situation in Palestine» before 70, a position contradicted by evidence cited above and throughout the commentary. 3804 Sanders, Judaism, 52–53, cites Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.32; Philo Hypothetica 7.12–13, and archaeological evidence as wel1. 3805 Sanders, Judaism, 171, cites Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.165, 184–187, 194; Ant. 14.4. See more fully Smallwood, «Priests.» For evidence from Jewish texts and Greek administrative analogies identifying the high priesthood with «the rulers,» see Reicke, Era, 147. 3806 In contrast to OT usage, the NT (e.g., Mark 2:26; 14:55; 15:11 ; Acts 5:24; 23:14; 25:15; cf. Acts 4:6), other early Christian texts (e.g., the agraphon in Jeremias, Sayings, 51), Josephus (e.g., War 2.243,316,318,320,322,336,342,410–411; 4.314), and probably the Scrolls (1QM 2.1) apply «high priests» in the plural to the members or leaders of the priestly aristocracy, not to the chief priest alone (see Stern, «Aspects,» 601,603; Reicke, Era, 147–48; Feldman in the Josephus LCL 10:157). The rapid transition of officeholders under the Romans may have rendered the usage more fluid as wel1. 3807 Also implied in T. Levi 14(though this could be a later interpolation). Avigad, Jerusalem, 130; idem, «Burnt House,» 71, cites t. Menah. 13:21; b. Pesah. 57.1 alongside archaeological attestation of a priestly name appearing there (Kathros). 3808 P. Ter. 6:1. The early church reportedly made inroads into both communities (Acts 6:7; 15:5). |
| But if «know» is the language of covenant relationship, such as in marital intimacy, it may imply that by virtue of the mutual indwelling of Jesus and believers (14:23; 15:4), believers shared the divine relationship. 7431 Reciprocal knowledge of Jesus and his own is rooted in the reciprocal relationship of Jesus and the Father. 7432 A new husband and wife may not yet have explored the fulness of their intimacy, but they had established a covenant relationship within which such exploration is invited. The rest of the Gospel confirms that such intimacy is indeed meant to be characteristic of believers; they are actually in Gods presence continually ( 14:17) and can continually learn from the Spirit the intimate matters of Jesus» heart and character (14:26; 16:13–15). 7433 Jesus» relationship with the Father–doing always what he sees the Father doing (5:19), doing always the things that please him (8:29), and their mutual love (3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 14:31; 15:9; 17:24, 26)–becomes a model for his followers» relationship with him. Such an emphasis also serves John " s apologetic interests: if believers rather than their accusers held such an intimate relationship with God, they were clearly God " s servants, persecuted like the biblical prophets (cf. Matt 5:12). 4C. Other Sheep and Jesus» Sacrifice (10:16–18) Some have suggested that the «other sheep» (10:16) are the next generation of believers, who have not personally seen the historical Jesus (17:20). But the pregnant imagery for Israel in the context suggests a play on the issue of the people of God, as does the language of scattering (10:12; cf. 11:52) and gathering (10:16). That John uses the imagery of the people of God, however, does not solve all the passagés potential interpretive dilemmas; presumably the original audience may have known what issues John was addressing, but reconstructing them at this distance is speculative. Some suggest that John may refer to the uniting of Ephraim and Judah under one shepherd in Ezek 37:22–24 , and that therefore the «other sheep» are the Samaritan believers of 4:39–42. 7434 In favor of such a suggestion is the clear mention of Samaritan believers in the Gospel, whereas fully Gentile believers may be merely inferred (depending on how one interprets «Greeks» in 12and perhaps 7:35). Against such a suggestion is the fact that the other sheep may not yet have heard Jesus» voice (10:16), in contrast to the Samaritans who had already received him (4:42); further, though the allusion to Ezek 37is probable here, it contextually includes the restoration of Diaspora Israelites to the land ( Ezek 37:21 ). |
| 6007 B. Ber. 34b; p. Ter. 1:6; Safrai, «Religion,» 802; cf. Bonsirven, Judaism, 128; Tröster, «Quest»; esp., Finkelstein, Making, 333–84. Amoraim debated the later blessings under some circumstances (b. Ber. 41b). 6009 Some consider the feeding of the four thousand a doublet (e.g., Burkill, Light, 48–70), which is, not surprisingly, missing in John " s independent tradition. But this interpretation is disputable (Knackstedt, «Brotvermekrungen»; cf. Travis, «Criticism,» 160; English, «Miracle»). 6011 Longenecker, «Messiah,» thinks the lack of brokenness prefigures 19:33, 36; but such a connection demands much of the reader unless the omission appears very jarring. 6018 E.g., Ps.-Phoc. 138; Sipre Deut. 11.1.2; Luke 15:13. Johnston, «Version,» 154, cites b. Hu1. 105b and other texts. 6019 E.g., Sallust Cati1. 5.8; 52.7; Jug. 6.1; 16.4; Cato Dist. 3.21; Horace Sat. 1.1.101–107; 1.2.62; Ep. 1.15.26–27; Epodes 1.34; Cicero Sest. 52.111; Cat. 2.4.7; 2.5.10; Valerius Maximus 9.1.2; Musonius Rufus 19, p. 122.12–32; Aeschines Timarchus 30, 42, 53, 170; Lysias Or. 14.27, §142; 19.10, §152; Alciphron Farmers 32 (Gnathon to Callicomides), 3.34, par. 1; Plutarch Ale. 16.1; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.25.610; Athenaeus Deipn. 8.344b; Lucan C.W. 2.352–391; Juvenal Sat. 1.58–60; Musonius Rufus frg. 8 («That Kings Also Should Study Philosophy,» in Malherbe, Exhortation, 31); Diodorus Siculus 17.108.4; Arrian Alex. 7.28.3; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades) 1.4. There were some philosophical exceptions (Publilius Syrus 223), but indulgence was more characteristic of aristocrats like Tigellinus or Petronius. 6022 The view that the gathering of fragments symbolizes the gathering of God " s scattered children (11:52; Meeks, Prophet-King, 94, 98) is probably fanciful, as is Daubés proposed allusion to rabbinic traditions surrounding Ruth (Daube, «Gospels,» 342; see Ruth 2:17–18). 6027 For Moses as prophet, see Meeks, Prophet-King, 125–29, 137–38, 147–50, 173, 198–200, 220–26. Probably the Mosaic prophet is assumed in 1QS 9.11. 1Macc 4does not refer explicitly to a Mosaic eschatological prophet but could refer generically to the rising of any adequate prophet. |
| 10113 Cullmann, State, 42–43; Blinzler, Trial, 251; Winter, Trial, 109; Reicke, Era, 186; Brown, Death, 963, cite Suetonius Calig. 32.2; Dom. 10.1; Dio Cassius 54.3.7; 54.8; Tertullian Apo1. 2.20; Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 5.1.44; cf. the herald in b. Sanh. 43a. The posting of the accusation on the cross is not well attested, either because those describing crucifixion had already mentioned it being carried (Bammel, «Titulus,» 353) or because the practice was not in fact standard although, given the variations among executions, in no way improbable (Harvey, History, 13); wearing tablets around the neck was not unusual in the broader culture (students in Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.1.557). Blinzler, Trial, 254, thinks the tablets included «black or red letters on a white ground.» 10119 Epigraphic data suggest that Aramaic probably predominated in Galilee (Horsley, Galilee, 247–49) despite Hebrew " s use as a holy language and the ideal of its use (pace Safrai, «Literary Languages»; idem, «Spoken Languages»; Let. Aris. 11, 30, 38; Sipre Deut. 46.1.2). 10122 E.g., Jub. 12:25–27; p. Meg. 1:9, §1; hence its use in the Mishnah, many DSS, and the Bar Kokhba materials (cf. Carmon, Inscriptions, 73). 10123 Brown, Death, 965; he also cites the five languages (Greek, Latin, Persian, Hebrew, and Egyptian) at Gordian Ill " s tomb. Talbert, John, 243, cites these plus the Greek and Latin warnings in the temple (losephus War 5.194). 10125 Tob 1:20; Sallust Cati1. 51.43; 52.14; CPJ 2:251–52, §445; 2:255–57, §448; BGU 5.16.51–5.17.52; P.Oxy. 513; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 4.5.3; 4.15.6; Appian C.W. 4.5.31; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 4.5; Herodian 7.3.2; Josephus Life 370–371; Heb 10:34. 10126 E.g., Polybius 11.30.1–2; also in illegal lynchings (e.g., Herodian 8.8.6); also in beatings (Longus 2.14); see comment on scourging, above. 10127 Artemidorus Onir. 2.61; Brown, Death, 870, adds Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.69.2; Valerius Maximus 1.7.4; Josephus Ant. 19.270. 10129 Brown, Death, 870, thinks the Gospels might «reflect a local concession,» noting that Josephus War 2.246 and Ant. 20.136 do not mention Celer " s disrobing; but this would be an argument from silence. (Brown, citing Melito of Sardis On the Pasch 97 in favor of nakedness and Acts of Pilate 10.1 in favor of a loincloth, ultimately doubts that we can know either way [p. 953].) Nakedness was probably the rule of thumb (in public Roman punishments, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.69.2; in non-Roman executions, e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.191; 2.53). |
| βαλσαμουργα, Bereitung von Balsam: EustrTheotok 48 s.v. νρδος (And. Cret.).– L. βαλσαμοφρος Balsam tragend: χωρον GSync 358,12.– KumN, Stam. βαλσαμν, Garten mit Balsamsträuchern: SynaxCpl 104,48; 107,9. LascEp 115,1; App. III 2,33 (Blemm.).– L, Stam, (S. PLP). βλτα, (slav. blato) Sumpf: LeoTact I 282,3087. ALavra 14,13.17 (a.1008). AIv 52,271 (a.1104). Kekaum 172,27. AXer 9 А 26; В 39 (са.1270–74). Solov VIII 80 (а.1346). DelAn II 341,5.19; 347,10.12; 454,19.– Kr + XIII 297. βλτεον, τ (lat. balteum) Gürtel: LydMag 104,16. CodAstr VII 127,27 – βλτιον LSSup, DGE. βαλτηρς sumpfig: AIv 56,175 (a.1152), τν βαλτρν (sic) ακα Petit Notre 41,11 (a.1152).–HL -ερς. βαλτδιον, τ (lat. balteum) Gürtel: DeCerV 1134,4.12; -ιν II 41,9.14. -ιν OikList 95,17 (Philoth.).–L. βαλτζω sumpfig sein: -ζουσα λοστρα AIv 10,50 (a.996); id.29,60 (a.1047).– HL. βλτον, τ (slav. blato) Sumpf: LudwAnek 194,8. MM IV 386 (a.1267). ALavra 75,1.35 (a.1284); 101,22 (a.1306?). AChil 39,45.67 (a. 1318); 51,35 (a.1308, cf.DöReg 2624). DelAn II 307,15; 381,9.–Kr. βλτος, Sumpf: AIv 50,45f. (a.1101). AZog V 72 (a.l 142); LΙΙ 66 (a.1279, cf.AEsph 78). AChil 37,35 (a.1318), ν βλτ Stephanit 153,6. β. AZog LII 105 – Kr + XIII 297. βαλτοφρος Bull. Inst. Fr. Arch. Orient. 32,101 (BuckPet. 336). βαλτδης sumpfig: DeAdmΙmp 28,4. Stephanit 152,6 v.l.; 167,13. AIv 52,392 (a. 1104). Anna II 135,24; III 107,13; 169,13. PK 122.– Kr, KumN, Stam; -δη HL. βαλωτ, Ballota nigra, Schwarznessel: PaulAeg II 200,1. CodAstr VIII 2,160,17 – Duc; βαλλ. LS, DGE. βαμβακερς aus Baumwolle: - ληθιν νθδια (sc.μτια) KonstPorphMil С 294, μτια DeCer I 678,4. τουβα 8. φαπλματα MoneKot 332,39. aus orientalischem Papier: βιβλον MoneKot 331,33f.; ορτολγιον 332,25. παρακλητικ 27.– Kr + X vgl.-ηρς. βαμβκη, Baumwolle: SylTact 38,4.7; 39,1. TypKosm 49,20. Alchim 328,18; 366,21. βαμβακηνς aus orientalischem (Bombyzin-) Papier: βιβλον MM VI 241f. τετρδια 243. πατερικν 245 (а.1119–28). βαμβακηρς aus Baumwolle, baumwollen: βηλρια AIv 47,37f.43–47 (a.1098), νμα TypKechar 109,1595.1598. μτιον TypPant 65, 609, - (sc.σπρματα) Baumwollsamen, Baumwolle: κατασπεροντες -ηρ MM VI 96 (а.1118). aus orientalischem Papier: βιβλιδριον NoctPetrop 62,3. βιβλον Petit Notre 122,15–20. ψαλτριον 121,22. ρολγιον 122,21 (a.1449?),βαμπακηρν σημεωμα APantel 7,30 (а. 1142),– Duc, vgl, -ερς. |
| Know (knowledge) γινσκω: 8(?); 11:57; 12:9 οδα: 13:17; 15:15,18 Understanding γινσκω: 3:10; 10:6, 38; 13:7, 12; (14:9); 14:20; 17:7–8; 18:18 οδα: 3:8; 4:22, 25, 32; 10:4–5; 11:49 Understand Scripture γινσκω: 12:16 οδα: 20(cf. 2:22) Pharisaic assertions γινσκω: 7(2x), 49; 8:52 οδα: (3:2, 8); 6:42; 8:14; ch. 9, passim Ignorance of Jesus» enemies γινσκω: 3(Nic); 7:27,49; 8:27; (8:52); 8:55 οδα: (2:9); 3(Nic); (4:22, 32); 6:42; 7:28; 8:14; ch. 9, passim; 11:49; 14:5; 16:30–31 Know origin/destination γινσκω: 7:27 οδα: 3:8; (6:6?); 6:42; 7:27–28; 8:14; 9:29–30; 12:35; 14:4–5; (18:2) Relational knowledge γινσκω: 2094 ; 8(?); 10:14; 14:7,9, 17; 17:3, 25 οδα: 7(3d use); 8:19; 10:4–5; 14:7; 15:21; 16:3 Jesus knows the Father γινσκω: 8:55; 10:15; 17:25 2095 οδα: 5:32; 7:29 What Jesus knows οδα: 3:11; 5:32; 8:37; 12:50 Jesus» omniscience concerning humanity 2096 γινσκω: 1(?); 2:24–25; (4:1); (5:6); 5:42; 6:15; 16:19 οδα: 6:61, 64 (Judas); 13(Judas) Jesus» omniscience concerning his hour οδα: 13:1,3; 18:4; 19:28 Jesus» omniscience concerning «all things» οδα: 16:30; 21:17 Jesus knows in predestination γινσκω: 1:48; 10(?) οδα: 13:18 In most cases the varied distribution of the two terms is not statistically significant, 2097 reflecting if anything location in the book. (John sometimes seems to prefer the term more fresh on his mind at the time, e.g., οδα in ch. 9 but both terms in ch. 10 where he develops the issue further.) The only exception related to topic and hence difference in semantic range might be John s preference for οδα with regard to knowledge of origin or destination, and this may have become simply a matter of habit. Even placement in the book usually is not significant: Placement of terms in a book sometimes simply indicates which terms were fresh on an author " s mind; thus before 10.419 the Odyssey often prefers διοτρεφς, «fostered by Zeus,» 2098 but in books 10 through 14 διογενς, «born from Zeus,» becomes the preferred term, regardless of the speaker. 2099 The former term prevails again in book 15, 2100 afterward occurring occasionally (22.136; 24.122), whereas the latter term frequently applies to Odysseus. 2101 Likewise, the Odyssey employs the adjective λευκλενος, «white-armed,» more often in books 6 (6.101,186,239,251) and 7 (7.12,233) than previously, though it is a common term in the Iliad. Such random distributions are no more significant as indicators of Johns theology than they are in the Odyssey. 2102 |
| 7387 A skilled goatherd could protect all his goats from wolves (Longus 2.22); shepherds must care for sheep " s safety (Xenophon Mem. 3.2.1; Statius Thebaid 4.368–369; Acts 20:28–29); so also herdsmen protecting cattle (Aeschylus Supp1. 352–353). 7389 Virgil Aen. 11.811. Nevertheless, a lone wolf attacking people, especially if the latter were in a group, was unusual (Livy 21.46.2; 27.37.3) unless the wolf were unusually large (mythology in Ovid Metam. 11.366–375) or the humans were small and defenseless children (Babrius 16). 7390 Shepherds might leave their flocks in terror (Apollonius of Rhodes 4.316–318; unclear whether these were undershepherds or owners). 7392 Euripides Iph. au1. 1420 (σωσα μ» λλδ»). Scholars also might emphasize leaders» sacrificial concern for the community (a late Tanna cited in Exod. Rab. 27:9); for more examples of the Greek noble-death tradition, see esp. Neyrey, «Noble Shepherd»; comments on 12:25–26; 15:13–15. 7393 Menander Rhetor 2.3,379.28–29 (comparing a governor with a helmsman). Thus also a deceased hero might guard his land against wolves (Philostratus Hrk. 4.3). 7399 Exod 22:8–13; m. B. Qam. 6:1. Nevertheless, if one shepherd who was not the owner handed the flock to another shepherd (cf. Luke 2:8; 15:4; Bailey, Poet, 149), the first remained liable (t. B. Qam. 6:20). 7400 Demosthenes Crown 51–52. Cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.14.15. But for a good hireling (μσθιον), who gives himself for his master " s service, see Sir 7:20 . Bowman, Gospel, 201, fancifully finds Johanan ben Zakkaís abandonment of Jerusalem in 10:12–13; but then what of the Jerusalemite Christians ( Mark 13:14–16 ; Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.5.3)? 7412 E.g., Homer Il. 22.263; Aristophanes Wasps 952; Apollonius of Rhodes 2.123–124; Virgil Aen. 9.566; Ec1. 3.80; 5.60; 8.52; Ovid Metam. 1.232–237, 304, 505; 5.626–627; 6.527–528; Fasti 2.85–86,800; Phaedrus 1.1; Babrius 89; 93.3–11; 102.8; 105.1; 113.2–4; 132.1–4; Longus 1.11,21–22; Apollodorus Library 1.9.2; Statius Thebaid 10.42–48; Tibullus 1.1.33–34; 2.1.20; 2.5.88; Plutarch Demosthenes23.4; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.2; 2.7. Lucan C.W. 7.826 portrays them as scavengers, but this is rare. |
| 495 See Jn. 7:43; 9:16 ; and 10:19, where “schism” means not a permanent division but a temporary disagreement. Specifically on Paul, see J.Dupont, “Le Schisme d’après Saint Paul” in 1054–1954: L’Église et les Églises, I, 1954, p.117f 496 See 1Cor. 1:10 , where the subject is a disagreement between individuals rather than groups (cf. J.Munck, Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte, 1954), and also 11:18, where Paul is talking about selfish divisions involving, not groups, but “each one” (11:21) at the Lord’s Supper. Similarly 12:25, where the “schism” likewise refers to the individualism of certain members of the Church of Corinth. Besides, the explanation of the term “schism” by “quarrelling” (eris) in 1Cor. 1:11 confirms this meaning given that “quarrelling” here means nothing more than a disagreement of a personal character as is accepted by commentators (see inter alios P.Backmann, “Der erste Brief auf die Korinther” in Kommentar zum N.T., 7, 1910 (2ed.), p.567; J.Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (Mayer 5), 1910 (9ed.), p.15) 498 Epist. 59 (55), 20: “florentissimo illic [in Rome] clero tecum praesidenti et sanctissimae atque amplissimae plebi...” [“...to the most distinguished clergy there (in Rome) who preside with you, and the most holy and large congregation...”]. The strict distinction between clergy and laity in the local Church is not Cyprian’s invention, for, as we have already seen, in 96 AD (1 Clement) the Church had a clear consciousness of such a distinction. The terms plebs and ordo belong to Tertullian (Monog., 11 and 22; Exhort. castit., 7).Cf. also Cyprian’s Epist. 59 (55), 18 and 40 (35), l 499 See Epist. 80 (82), 1, where the orders of Christian citizens dealt with by the decree of Valerian (257 AD) (senatores, egregii, viri, equites romani) do not constitute orders in the Church 500 An epistle of Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch (251 AD) informs us that at that time the Church of Rome had 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists and readers and “innumerable” laity. For the Church in Carthage, we do not have precise figures, but we have evidence of the existence of a Bishop, presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists and readers (Epist. 29 (24); 34 (28), 4; 45 (42), 4; 49 (46), 3 etc.) |
|
|
