| 3694 Wis 7:22 (μονογενς). Rabbinic texts often identify God as the «unique» or «only» one of the world (e.g., Sipra Sh. M.D. 99.2.3; b. Pesah. 118a–as Abraham was; p. Meg. 1:9, §1; Roš Haš. 1:3, §42; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:1; Gen. Rab. 98:13; Num. Rab. 10:5; Song Rab. 1:9, §2, with a second-century attribution, if reliable). 3695 See Harris, Jesus as God, 84–87, also noting that the issue is not Jesus being «begotten» but being the only one of his kind. 3696 E.g., martyrs» hope «full of immortality» (Wis 3:4). In John, cf. fulness of joy (3:29; 15:11; 16:24; 17:13) or of physical bread (6:12; cf. 6:13,26) or water (cf. 2:7, different term). 3697 Emphasizing «a unified cosmos» (Lincoln, Ephesians, 73; cf. Long, Philosophy, 157); cf. the Cynic Diogenes in Diogenes Laertius 6.2.38. Some suspect popular Stoic influence on the use of the term in Pauline epistles, e.g., Benoit, « " Pleromá»; Lyonnet, «Adversaries,» 147–48. 3698 Bury " s references to the Logos being «full» of divine graces (Logos Doctrine, 28–29; cf. Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.77–78; Planting 87–89; Confusion 123) may be relevant as a parallel usage to John 1:14 , though not as a source for it. In Hellenistic Judaism, the omnipresent God (Let. Aris. 131–132; Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.44; 3.4; Confusion 135–136; Names 27; cf. 2 En. 39:5; Cicero Resp. 6.17.17; cf. references in Knox, Gentiles, 163; Moore, Judaism, 1:370–72), the Spirit, and Wisdom fill the cosmos (Wis 1:7; Sir 24:25 ; cf. Sib. Or. 3.701; cf. Bogdasavich, " Pleroma»), but «fulness» does not always appear in a technical sense (e.g., Sir 1:16 ). 3699 E.g., Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1; Prayer of the Apostle Paul (trans. Dieter Mueller, NHL 28); Gospel of Truth (trans. George W. MacRae, NHL 37). Sandmel, Judaism, 474 n. 5, is among those who dismiss the gnostic sense in John here. It is unlikely elsewhere in the NT as well; cf., e.g., Overfield, «Pleroma»; Arnold, Ephesians, 83–84; Baggott, Approach, 70; Lincoln, Paradise, 146; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 183; Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 46; contrast, e.g., Hanson, Unity, 117. |
| 3449 Painter, «Christology,» 51: «In the beginning» vs. «came to be» (though cf. 1:14); «was with God» vs. «sent from God» (though this often depicts Christ, too); «was God» vs. «his name was lohn»; «in the beginning with God» vs. «came for a witness»; «all things came to be through him … in him was life … the light of men» vs. «to witness concerning the light.» These parallels are inexact, but the contrast of 1:8–9 is explicit. 3450 Fritsch, Community, 117, who adds that this «could explain how the Evangelist came to know so much about John the Baptist and the Essene-Covenanter background out of which he came.» Longenecker, Ministry, 70, suggests that the «one baptism» of Eph 4shares this polemical context. Cf. Bultmann, Tradition, 165; Morris, John, 88. 3451 Daniélou, Theology, 62. Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.54 warns that some followers of the Baptist proclaimed him the Christ (cited in Michaels, John, 7; cf. Luke 3:15). 3452 Stanton, Gospels, 167; Kysar, «Contributions of Prologue,» 359 n. 32; cf. still more strongly Smalley, John, 127. Taking an exalted self-understanding back to the Baptist himself (Hengel, Leader, 36) is even harder to argue. 3453 Cf. Kysar, «Contributions,» 359 (suggesting «Jewish opponents… arguing that Jesus was the equal of John the Baptist but no more»). His concessions to Bultmann, but with the warning that Bultmann certainly exaggerated, are in his n. 32. 3454 Cf. Fiorenza, Revelation, 195; cf. also Collins, Oracles, 118, who remarks concerning Egyptian oracles that the purpose of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles «was primarily to establish common ground between the Jewish and gentile worlds.» 3455 «Balaam» suggests an oracular connection (Aune, Prophecy, 218; as the greatest pagan prophet, cf. Josephus Ant. 4.104; Sipre Deut. 343.6.1; 357.18.1–2; Exod. Rab. 32:3; Num. Rab. 14:20; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1; as philosopher or sage, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Gen. Rab. 65:20; 93:10; Lam. Rab. proem 2), but he also epitomized wickedness in Jewish lore (e.g., «the wicked Balaam» in m. " Abot 5:19; b. c Abod. Zar. 4a; Ber. 7a; Sanh. 105b, 106a; cf. Exod. Rab. 30:20; Num. Rab. 20:6), these traditions supplying details missing in Num 22–25 ; Mic 6:5 : leading Israel to immorality, hence judgment (Josephus Ant. 4.157; LA.B. 18:13; Sipre Deut. 252.1.4; p. Sanh. 10:2, §8; cf. Jude 11; Judith 5:20–21; p. Ta c an. 4:5, §10), greed and eschatological shortsightedness ( 2Pet 2:15 ; Pesiq. Rab. 41:3), folly ( 2Pet 2:15 ; Philo Cherubim 32; Worse 71; Unchangeable 181; Confusion 64, 159; Migration 115–cited by LCL l:xxv; Ecc1. Rab. 2:15, §2), and vanity (Philo Confusion 159; m. " Abot 5:19); cf. Caird, Revelation, 39, who cites Philo Moses 1.292–304; Josephus Ant. 4.126–130 in support of the idea that religious syncretism is in view here. |
| 3351 Sipre Deut. 330.1.1 (trans. Neusner, 2:376); cf. later texts in Gen. Rab. 3:2; 28:2; Deut. Rab. 5:13; p. Ber. 6:1, §6; Deut 33in Targum Onqelos (Memra; cited in Moore, «Intermediaries,» 46); cf. also 1 Clem. 27. Targum Neofiti on the creation narrative emphasizes the creativity of the word of the Lord even more; see Schwarz, «Gen.» 3352 E.g., Mek. Sir. 3.44–45,49–51; 8.88; 10.29–31; Mek. c Am. 3.154–155; Mek. Bah. 11.111–112; Mek. Nez. 18.67–68; t. B. Qam. 7:10; Sipre Num. 78.4.1; 102.4.1; 103.1.1; SipreDeut. 33.1.1; 38.1.3–4; 49.2.2; 343.8.1; " Abot R. Nat. 1, 27, 37 A. In later texts, cf. the translation «by whose word all things exist» in b. Ber. 12a, 36ab, 38b; 40b, bar.; 44b; Sanh. 19a (pre-Tannaitic attribution); p. Pesah 2:5; Gen. Rab. 4:4,6; 32:3; 55(all Tannaitic attributions); Lev. Rab. 3:7; Num. Rab. 15:11; Deut. Rab. 7:6; Ruth Rab. 5:4; Pesiq. Rab. 21:7; Tg. Neof. on Exod 3:14; cf. Urbach, Sages 1:184–213; Marmorstein, Names, 89 (comparing also a Sumerian psalm). 3357 M. «Abot 5:1; »Abot R. Nat. 31 A; 36, §91 B; 43, §119 B; Gen. Rab. 16:1; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 399, §1092, also cite Pesiq. Rab. 108ab; cf. «The Samaritan Ten Words of Creation» in Bowman, Documents, 1–3. 3359 M. «Abot 3:l4; Sipre Deut. 48.7.1; »Abot R. Nat. 44, §124 B; Exod. Rab. 47:4; Pirqe R. E1. 11 (in Versteeg, Adam, 48); Tanhuma Beresit §l, f.6b (in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 170–71, §454; Harvey, «Torah,» 1236); cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:196–201,287. Some later rabbis went so far as to attribute the world " s creation even to specific letters (e.g., p. Hag. 2:1, §16). 3360 Philo Planting 8–10; Heir 206. God is the bonder of creation in 2 En. 48:6; Marcus Aurelius 10.1; cf. Wis 11:25. For the connection between creating and sustaining, cf. John 5:17 . Lightfoot, Colossians, 156, helpfully cites Philo Flight 112 (word); PlantingS (divine law); Heir 188 (word). 3361 Col 1(sustain; hold together) and commentaries (e.g., Lightfoot, Colossians, 156; Kennedy, Theology, 155; Lohse, Colossians, 52; Johnston, Ephesians, 59; Hanson, Unity, 112; Beasley-Murray, «Colossians,» 174); cf. Cicero Nat. d. 2.11.29 (a Stoic on reason); Wis 7(Wisdom " s movement does not contrast with Platós unchanging forms; Plato and others envisioned rapid motion in the pure heavens–see Winston, Wisdom, 182). Cf. 1 Clem. 27A; Sir 43.26 ; cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:325. |
| у Вилкера по ссылке, которую уже пару раз давал) от Вифании близ Иерусалима – 1:28, 11Местность Енон, близ Салима упомянута только автором четвертого Евангелия – 3Автор знает о том, что колодец Иакова был глубоким – 4Топография Иерусалима более чем точная Называется точное местоположение Вифезды – 5Упоминается купальня Силоам – 9Упоминается wadi Kidron – 18Упоминается Gabbatha – 19Более чем достаточно мелких подробностей, касающихся строительства храма – сорок шесть лет строительства 2– упоминание о сокровищнице 8– упоминание о портике Соломона 10 Причем, тут сделаю несколько замечаний. Хотя каждый этот случай весьма интересен. Дело в том, что до сих пор в интернете плавает аргумент Штрауса, что никакой купальни Вифезда не существует и автор ее выдумал. Проблема с аргументом в том, что во время Штрауса о ней действительно не знали, но сегодня многое изменилось 8 . Или, например, поток Кедрон, тут употребляется слово, которое мог употребить только очевидец (речь о том, что лощина наполнялась водой только в период дождей) и т.д. Очень серьезные аргументы в пользу того, что автор четвертого Евангелия был не из язычников дает текстологический анализ текста Совершенно очевидный факт, который самого Робинсона привел в замешательство, это то, что автор четвертого Евангелия не зависит от Септуагинты. Так, автор цитирует ВЗ – там, где Септаугинта и еврейский текст согласны (12:38, cf. Is. 53:1, 19:24 , cf. Ps 2210:34 , cf. Ps 82:6, 15:25 , cf. Ps 34и.т.д.) – в некоторых местах, где Септаугинта и еврейский текст не согласны, автор дает свою версию текста Ветхого Завета (очевидно перефраз, или цитирование по памяти) отличную и от Септуагинты и от МТ (12:14–15, cf. Zech 9:9, 12:40, cf. Is. 6:10, 19:36 , cf. Exod 12:46, Num 9:12, 6:31 , cf. Ps 78:24 , Exod 16:4, 15). – но, в значительном количестве случаев там, где Септаугинта и еврейский текст не согласны, автор цитирует еврейский текст против Септуагинты (19:37, cf. Zach. 12:10, 6:45, cf. Is. 54:13, 13:18 , cf. Ps 41:9 ) – В четвертом Евангелии нет случая цитирования ВЗ с Септуагинтой против еврейского текста В Евангелии от Иоанна больше чем во всех синоптических Евангелиях есть подробности, которые в текстологии считаются подробностями очевидца (имеется ввиду упоминание лишних подробностей, типа, кто, где сел, кто во сколько пришел и т.д. |
| 4287 For an example of the question demeaning one, cf. perhaps the later p. Pesah. 6(involving Hillel, and where he is vindicated). 4289 Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 56, suggest 1600–2000 inhabitants, based on the tombs; cf. p. 27. More recent estimates suggest below 500 (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 112; Horsley, Galilee, 193); perhaps those who lived in the nearby countryside would count themselves inhabitants in a more general way. Although some opined that coming from a famous city was necessary for happiness (Plutarch Demosthenes 1.1), Plutarch thinks life in a famous city necessary only if one needed exposure (Demosthenes 2.1; cf. John 7:3–4 ). 4290 Cf. Finkelstein, Pharisees, 1:41. See Harvey, History, 3, for a summary of the initial archaeological discoveries concerning early Roman Nazareth (for an early defense of Jesus» Nazarene connection " s authenticity, see Moore, «Nazarene»; more speculatively on earlier excavations of Joseph " s legendary home, cf. de Nazareth, «Maison»). 4291 Horsley, Galilee, 193. Cf. the more concrete data in Egyptian tax records in Lewis, Life, 67–68. 4293 The theater seated 4000–5000 (Freyne, Galilee, 138; cf. further Boatwright, «Theaters»). For a summary of archaeological and literary evidence on the city, see Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers, «Sepphoris»; cf. Boelter, «Sepphoris»; for the Dionysus mosaic, Weiss and Netzer, «Sty»; for its wealth, Meyers, Netzer and Meyers, «Byt-mydwt.» 4294 Later rabbis told of individual minim there (t. Hu1. 2:24) but do not provide details for an entire Jewish-Christian community (Miller, " Minim»). 4295 See Avi-Yonah, «Geography,» 105, citing especially Josephus Ant. 18.37; Life 67; and aniconic coins after 67 C.E.; Freyne, Galilee, 138; for Tiberias, see Josephus Life 275, 279. Cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5; later rabbinic Judaism found a welcome home there (see Meyers, «Judaism and Christianity,» 76). This is not to say that it was entirely orthodox by Pharisaic standards (cf., e.g., Cornfeld, Josephus, 216); more Gentiles may have also moved there, at least after 135 (see Horsley, Galilee, 104). For Christians coming there, cf., e.g., b. c Abod. Zar. 17a; Herford, Christianity, 115; Crocker, «Sepphoris.» |
| 6557 Cf. Scott, «Horizons,» 498–99, citing especially Philo Embassy 281; Isa 1:26; 2LXX. 6558 Jub. 8:12; Sib. Or. 5:249–250 (probably late-first- to early-second-century C.E. Egypt); b. Yoma 54b; cf. Ezek 5:5; 38:12 ; Alexander, «Imago Mundi»; Davies, Land, 7. Let. Arts. 83 (cf. 115, μση for seaports also) places it in the midst of Judea, as does Josephus War 3.52. Curiously, 1 En. 18ignores the opportunity to identify where the cornerstone of the earth is located, but this does not mean the tradition was unknown in that period, against Jubilees; 1 En. 26may place the middle of the earth in Jerusalem (26:2–6). On the new Jerusalem image here, see, e.g., Allison, «Water.» 6559 Some of the references in the preceding note; Jub. 8:19; b. Sanh. 37a; Num. Rab. 1:4; Lam. Rab. 3:64, §9; Pesiq. Rab. 10:2; 12:10; cf. Hayman, «Observations»; Schäfer, «Schöpfung»; Goldenberg, «Axis.» For the site of the temple as the «pupil of God " s eye,» cf. b. Ber. 62b; for its elevation, e.g., b. Qidd. 69a; for its identification with the site of the Aqedath Isaac (Mount Moriah), see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 55:7. 6560 T. Kip. 2:14; Lev. Rab. 20:4; Num. Rab. 12:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:4; cf. Böhl, «Verhältnis.» For a «navel» within a city, see Pindar Dithyramb 4, frg. 75 (possibly on a prominent altar within Athens); cf. Pausanias 10.16.3. 6561 Besides clearer data above, cf. 3 En. 22B:7 (from God " s throne); Odes So1. 6:7–13 (to the temple). Let. Aris. 88–91 speaks of an underground water system beneath the temple, no doubt part of its Utopian idealization of the temple; cf. the possible allusion to the source of universal waters in Josephus Ant. 1.38–39 (perhaps even in Gen 2:10–14 ; cf. Diodorus Siculus 1.12.6; Pausanias 2.5.3). 6562 Gaston, Stone, 211; Hooke, «Spirit,» 377–78; cf. Freed, Quotations, 30; Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 132–33. Some naturally see baptismal associations here (Blenkinsopp, «Quenching,» 48; Cullmann, Worship, 82). 6563 Some commentators also note that κοιλα sometimes functions as the equivalent to καρδα in the LXX; elsewhere in John the term applies to the womb (3:4), which is also abdomina1. |
| Пророчевство . Taken from Meffreth, Feria 6 Post Iudica. II. 1–10 cf Meffreth: «Dicit B. Augustin, super Gen. Tria sunt, quae faciunt verum Prophetam. Primum est, vt aliquas visiones habeat. Secundum, quod illas visiones intelligat. Tertio, quod illas vision es m anifestare alijs sciât.» II. 11–14 cf Meffreth: «Primum non habuit Nabuchodonosor, quia statuam vidit, vbi supra dixi I.V. Duo vero sequentia non habuit, quia nec intellexit, nec ipsam visionem Danieli ostendere sciuit, ideo Propheta non fuit.» II. 15–18 cf Meffreth: «Duo autem ex his Pharao habuit, quando septem vaccas pulchras, & septem macros, de flumine ascendere vidit, & insuper ipsam visionem Ioseph narrauit, Gen. 41 II. 19–22 cf Meffreth: «Tertium tantum Caiphas habuit. Ipse enim de morte Christi nullam reuelationem habuit, nec intellexit, sed tantum mortem Christi necessarium esse nuntiauit. Ideo Propheta non fuit.» II. 23–30 cf Meffreth: «Balaam fuit Propheta, Num. 24 . cum dixit: Orietur Stella ex Iacob [v. 17], & tamen malus fuit homo, & cultor idolorum & daemonum» (Pars hyem ., p. 335). Просим и неприемлем . Taken from Faber, Dominica 5 Post Pascha, No. 4 «Causae cur interdum non audiantur preces nostrae a Deo». The poem summarises the whole serm on, as reflected in the section headings. 1. 1 cf James 4.3. 1. 5 cf sect. 1 «Defectus fiduciae». 1. 6 cf sect. 3 «Quia non ferventer petimus». 1. 7 cf sect. 2 «Non petim us ea quae convenit». 1. 8 cf sect. 4 «Quia forte in peccatis haeremus». II. 9–10 cf sect. 5 «Quia forte noxia petimus». Просити . Taken from Faber, In Festo S. Nicolai, No. 3 «Unumquemque suis talentis contentum esse debere», sect. 3 «Bonis exten d s industria partis»: «Cogita secundo, auream m ediocritatem esse optimam et tutissimam, quam petebat a Deo Salomon, dum dixit: Duo rogo te, ne deneges mihi antequam moriar, divitias et paupertatem ne dederis mihi, sed tantum victui meo tribue necessaria . Prov. 30 8].» Просити 2 . Taken from Faber, ibid., the passage immediately following: «Paupertas enim fere cupida est et solicita, indeque im patiens et proclivis ad rapiendum. Divitiae vero periculosae sunt et spinae.» |
| Итак, само основание критики серьезно пошатнулось. Конечно, и сегодня есть ученые, которые считают, что евангелист зависит от синоптиков. Однако в этом случае, необходимо сразу указывать на то, что это уже маргинальная точка зрения, имеющая в своей основе не конкретную работу с текстом, а только собственные доктринальные представления. Естественно, сразу после того, как в кругах библеистики начала меняться научная парадигма относительно зависимости текста Иоанна от синоптиков, появились работы, в которых отстаивалась контекстуальная зависимость. Но тут, в чисто научном плане, исследователям приходится становиться на гораздо более зыбкую почву. И попытки провести контекстуальную зависимость особого распространения не получили, по той простой причине, что особо таковую обнаружить так же не удалось. Везде евангелист Иоанн обращается с деталями как власть имеющий. Напр. (1) ( John 1.40–42 ; cf. Mark 3.16 ; Matt. 16.18) (2) (John é.30–32; cf. Mark 8.1 if.) (3) ( John 6.67, 70 ; cf. Mark 3.16 ) (4) ( John 13.2, 27 ; cf. Luke 22.3) (5) ( John 9 .6L; cf. Mark 8.22–26 ) (6) ( John 4.44 ; cf. Mark 6.4 ) (7) ( John 12 .39L; cf. Mark 4.12 ) (8) ( John 12.25 ; cf. Mark 8.35 ) (9) ( John 13.20 ; cf. Matt. 10.40, Mark 9.37 ) (10) ( John 13.16 ; cf. Luke 6.40). И ладно было бы, ecdiv smyleлu автора можно было поймать на простой фальсификации, так нет, совсем наоборот, к тем сведеньям, которые отличны от сведений синоптиков, сегодня относятся более чем серьезно. То, что за Евангелием стоит солидная историческая традиция сегодня не станет отрицать НИКТО. Как подытожил этот вопрос Реймонд Браун: “И поныне находятся авторы, которые утверждают, что четвертое Евангелие нельзя рассматривать как серьезное свидетельство об историческом Иисусе, однако они представляют собой тип некритических традиционалистов, время от времени воскресающий даже в инославии”. Но, как не парадоксально, в этом случае автор (с большей или меньшей неизбежностью) становится очевидцем событий не имеющим нужды в каких-то текстах для того, что бы говорить о произошедших событиях. И что самое интересное, – в таких, на первый взгляд, противоречивых сообщениях, как напр. о дне празднования Пасхи (а я говорил уже в другой теме, что нет особой нужды видеть тут противоречие) большинство современных библеистов склоняются к хронологии четвертого Евангелия. В частности, даже данные астрономии (учитывая соотношение между лунным и солнечным календарями) говорят о том, что 14 нисана приходилось на пятницу в 30 и 33 годах (две самые принимаемые даты распятия Христа), в то время как на четверг только в 26 и 37. Впрочем, об этом, думаю, мы поговорим как-нибудь отдельно. |
| Similarly, the Gospel naturally stresses signs of grace whereas the Apocalypse stresses signs of judgment; but it may be more than coincidence that the first of John " s seven signs, turning water to wine (2:9), reflects the first of Moses» signs in Exodus, turning water to blood (Exod 7:20; cf. Jub. 48:5), 1071 a prominent source of judgment imagery in two of Revelation " s three sets of seven plagues (8:8–11,16:3–4). John does not mention the marriage supper (Rev 19), but this concept provides part of the eschatological backdrop for John 6 and perhaps also chs. 2 and 21. The new Jerusalem naturally occurs only in Revelation (3:12, ch. 21), but the idea complements well the Fourth Gospel " s emphasis on the genuine Jewishness of the true people of God, as well as his negative portrayal of the earthly Jerusalem. The new Jerusalem " s dimensions probably simply represent the presence of God (a cube, like the holy of holies, 21:16); 1072 its gates (Rev 21:12–13) are part of the imagery of the renewed city (Isa 60:18; Ezek 48:30–34 ), and are thus not incompatible with (though neither are they identical to) the sheepfold image of Jesus as the way and door ( John 10:7, 9; 14:6 ). John " s «dwelling» motif, expressed by his characteristic menö, is replaced by katoicheö and the motif of the heavenly temple (e.g., Rev 21:3); but this fits the contrasting eschatological perspectives of the two books. Revelation " s temple imagery (e.g., 3:12, 4:6, 5:8, 8:3, 15:2) is apocalyptic, but fits well theologically with John " s portrayal of Jesus» replacement of the temple (2:21, 8:35,14:2); they function in a roughly equivalent manner on the theological level (Rev 21:22; cf. the tabernacle in 7:15,13:6,15:5; John 1:14 ). Only Revelation includes the common Jewish image of the book of life (Rev 3:5, 20:12), but an apocalyptic image is hardly mandatory for a gospel; John, unlike the Synoptics, does stress eternal life as a possession in the present. White robes (Rev 3:4–5; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; but cf. John 19:40; 20:12 ), the «new name» (Rev 2:17; 3:12; 7:3; 14:1; 22:4; cf. 17:5; 19:16; cf. John 1:42; 10:3 ), the crown imagery (Rev 2:11; 4:4; 12:1; 14:14; 19:12), angels (Rev passim; cf. John 20:12 ), the morning star (Rev 2:28; 22:16), the «nations» (Rev 2:26; 11:18; 12:5; 15:4; 19:15; 21:24; 22:2; but cf. John " s kosmos), thunder (Rev 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16[Exod 19:16; Ezek 1:4,13 ]; cf. John 12:29 ), a cry for vengeance (Rev 6[reflecting the OT; cf. 4 Ezra 4:33–37]), darkness (Rev 6:12–14; John omits the Synoptic tradition " s darkness at the cross), trumpets (1:10; 4:1; 8:2), locusts (9:3–11 [ Joel 2:4–5 ]), and antichrist imagery (Rev 13; though cf. 1 John 2and possibly John 5:43; 10:1 ), are examples of apocalyptic motifs that play little or no part in the Fourth Gospe1. But this should simply be expected on the basis of different genres. |
| 10426 Wagner, Baptism, 219,229; for the typical story, see Vermaseren, Cybele, 91. 10427 Cf. Otto, Dionysus, 79–80,103–19. 10428 E.g., Homer I1. 5.339–342, 382–404, 855–859, 870; on the death of Pan in Plutarch Mor. 419.17, see Borgeaud, «Death.» 10429 Fragments of dithyrambic poetry (ca. 1 B.C.E.) in Sei. Pap. 3:390–93. 10430 E.g., Apollodorus 1.5.3; cf. Guthrie, Orpheus, 31. 10431 See documentation in Gasparro, Soteriology, 30 n. 16. 10432 E.g., Conzelmann, Theology, 11; cf. Case, Origins, 111; Bultmann, Christianity, 158–59; Ridderbos, Paul, 22–29. 10433 Burkert, Cults, 100. 10434 E.g., Apuleius, whom Dunand, «Mystères,» 58, interprets thus. 10435 In Grant, Religions, 146. 10436 E.g., Davies, Paul, 91. 10437 Wagner, Baptism, 87. Thus Heracles sought initiation so he could capture Cerberus in Hades (Apollodorus 2.5.12). 10438 Gasparro, Soteriology, 82. 10439 Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 57. 10440 For the vegetative association see, e.g., Ovid Metam. 5.564–571; Gasparro, Soteriology, 29, 43–49; Ruck, «Mystery,» 44–45; Guthrie, Orpheus, 55–56. 10441 Cf. Metzger, «Consideration,» 19–20; Ring, «Resurrection,» 228. 10442 Boussefs Hellenistic parallels (Kyrios Christos, 58) are unconvincing (cf. Nock, Christianity, 105–6; Jeremias, Theology, 304; Fuller, Formation, 25). Many think that the LXX is a more likely source ( Hos 6:2 ; Jonah 1:17; cf. 1Cor 15:4 ; Nock, Christianity, 108), though it is unlikely that the early Christians would have noticed elements favoring it had the «third day» not been their initial experience. (Rabbis associated Hos 6with the resurrection of the dead; see p. Sanh. 11:6, §1; cf. McArthur, «Day,» 83–84.) 10443 Cf. Thucydides 2.34.2 for honoring Athenian war dead. 10444 Some later traditions suggest the retention of the soul for three days after death (until the soul sees the body begin to decompose; Gen. Rab. 100:7; Lev. Rab. 18:1; though cf. Dola, «Interpretacja») or required three days of purgatory before preparation to appear before God (3 En. 28:10; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 4:7) or that one confirm the actuality of the person " s death within three days (Safrai, «Home,» 784–85). This might possibly fit a broader idea expressed in three days of mourning (Apollonius of Rhodes 2.837). |
|
|
