| 3324 See, e.g., Cicero Nat. d. 2.54–58.133–46; a Pythagorean in Diodorus Siculus 12.20.2; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.7; 1.16.8; Heraclitus Ep. 4; Plutarch Isis 76, Mor. 382A; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.167, 190. 3325 E.g., fifth-century B.C.E. Empedocles frg. 11 (Allen, Philosophy, 50); Lucretius Nat. 1.155, 159–160 (though atoms are invisible, 1.265–328); Moffatt, Hebrews, 162, cites Philo Eternity 2. 3326 Plato and Philo believed that visible matter was formed from visible matter (Lane, Hebrews, 332, citing Philo Migration 105, 179; Creation 16, 45; Agriculture 42; Confusion 172; cf. Plato Tim. 29E), though following the invisible pattern. 3327 Heb 11(cf. Boman, «Thought-Forms,» 13; though contrast Montefiore, Hebrews, 188); cf. Philós creation from the invisible archetypal plan (Cherubim 97; 127); Philo Creation 12; 2 En. 47A; 48A (but contrast recension J in both cases). God authored both visible and invisible worlds (Jos. Asen. 12:1–2/2; 2 En. 65:1; cf. the initially invisible earth in Gen 1LXX, due to the «darkness»). 3328 Against the world " s uncreatedness and eternality, see even most Diaspora writers, e.g., Josephus Ant. 1.70; Philo Creation 7 (in contrast to Philo Eternity); cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:180, 301. 3329 Perhaps attested early in 2Macc 7(God made heavens and earth ξ οκ ντων), although this is disputed in articles cited below; 2 Bar. 21:4; 48:8; Moffatt, Hebrews, 162, cites also Mek. 33b on Exod 14:31; 2 Bar. 14:17; 2 En. 24:2; Philo Dreams 1.13. The earliest Israelite understanding of Genesis may represent creation ex nihilo (Heidel, Genesis, 89–96), though this remains quite disputed; this view also appears among some African peoples, such as the Nuer, Banyarwanda, and Shona (Mbiti, Religions, 51). 3330 Cf. articles from various perspectives, Goldstein, «Origins»; idem, «Creation»; Winston, «Creation»; in the rabbis, e.g., Pearl, Theology, 10–12. 3331 Wis 11:17; see Winston, «Cosmogony»; Schmuttermayr, «Schöpfung.» One Amoraic exegesis of «It is good» was that God had created and destroyed earlier worlds (Gen. Rab. 9:2; cf. the Greek tradition of various races before the current one). Creation ex nihilo was not typical (cf., e.g., «The Repulsing of the Dragon and the Creation,» trans. J. A. Wilson, 6–7, in ANET; Albright, Period, 17; idem, Yahweh, 223; for chaos in Greek and Roman sources, cf. Hesiod Theog.; Ovid Metam. 1.7). |
| 6097 Like Roman clients, the crowds join Jesus» «entourage» just for «a handout of food»; 6098 clients in return sought to advance their patrons» political ambitions (which makes sense of 6:15). It was also known that people commonly listened to famous speakers for leisure or entertainment, not with an intention to change. 6099 They seek bread which «perishes» (6:27; cf. 6:12), so that those who depend on it alone likewise perish (cf. 6:39; 12:25). Jesus summons them to seek instead the bread which «endures» or «abides» (6:27; cf. 6:56) for eternal life (cf. 6:40; 10:28), which the Son of Man would give them (cf. 6:33; 10:28). In the beginning, their misunderstanding parallels that of the Samaritan woman (6:34; 4:15), 6100 though unlike her, most of them do not come to faith in Jesus within the duration of the narrative. Works (6:27–29) were central in Jewish ethics (e.g., Wis 9:12; see further below); John returns to this theme from a different angle in 8:39–41 (cf. also 3:21; 7:7). Some circles of early Christian polemic opposed faith and works to each other against traditional Jewish soteriology or some early Jewish-Christian soteriology ( Rom 3:27–28; 9:32 ; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5 ); 6101 but John redefines the term «work» rather than disparaging it. 6102 That he redefines it is fairly plain: rather than laboring for actual food (as most of them would do during most of the year), they should work for what the Son of Man would «give» them–the familiar sense of «giving» providing an image disjunctive with the familiar sense of «work» (except perhaps to servants). Here Jesus» hearers, invited by him to work for eternal life (6:27), wish to know how Jesus defines «work» (6:28). 6103 Jewish tradition never isolated works from faith. 6104 Yet in contrast to their tradition (in which faith was often one work among many), Jesus defines the work essential for eternal life as faith in him (6:29); this proves to be the one work they are unwilling to do (6:30; cf. 6:41, 52, 66). With typical Johannine double entendre, they identify Jesus» «signs» with his «works» (6:30; cf. |
| 2608 Cf. the parallel construction in 1:25; see Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 233–38; Fahy, «Note»; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Cranfield, Romans, 2:467–68; Longenecker, Christology, 138; Ladd, Theology, 421. Those who dissent, noting that this is not Paul " s usual terminology, nevertheless concur that a doxology to Christ as «God» remains the most likely interpretation of the grammar (Hunter, Romans, 90; idem, Paul, 62–63). 2609 See Lightfoot, Notes, 106; Longenecker, Christology, 138–39; Bultmann, Theology, 1:129; but cf. Bruce, Thessalonians, 156–57. 2610 On Tit 2:13 , see Lock, Epistles, 144–45; Harris, «Deity,» 271; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Longenecker, Christology, 138; Bultmann, Theology, 1:129; cf. also 2Pet 1:1 . Greek-speaking Judaism typically extolled the «great» God (see Tob 13:15; 2Macc 3:36; 3Macc 7:2,23; cf. 1 En. 1:3; Epictetus Diatr. 1.16.16–17), esp. in Sib. Or. (1.165,268,282,316,323; 2.27,219; 3.56,71,91,97,162,194,246, 284, 297, 306, 556–557, 565, 575, 584,656–657,665, 671, 687,698, 702, 717, 735, 740, 773, 781, 784, 818; 4.6,25, 163; 5.176, 405). For the «Granville Sharp Rule» applicable here, see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 144–45, §276, 228, §442; Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 147. 2611 Nock, Christianity, 32–33; Hengel, Son, 77; Ladd, Theology, 416; Longenecker, Christology, 132; idem, Ministry, 97; Bruce, Acts (English), 74; although this title becomes more prominent in Diaspora usage (cf. Schweizer, Jesus, 72; Bultmann, Theology 1:124; Conzelmann, Theology, 82–83), there is no extant stratum of earliest Christianity that completely excludes it. The supposed connection with the Mysteries (cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 128) is weak (Hengel, Son, 77–78; Sheldon, Mysteries, 87–90). 2612 Hengel, Acts, 105; Longenecker, Christology, 121–24; Fee, Corinthians, 839; Ladd, Criticism, 210. Some regard the original meaning of the term as ambiguous (Simon, Stephen, 66; cf. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 114–20), but a use in early Christian liturgy (eschatological, eucharistie, or both, e.g., Robinson, Studies, 154–57; idem, Coming, 26–27; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 300–301; Cullmann, Christology, 201–2; Hunter, Paul, 65; cf. Did. 10) would constitute a divine invocation (Fee, Corinthians, 838–39; Ladd, Theology, 341, 416–17; for divine usage elsewhere, cf. Marmorstein, Names, 62–63; Betz, Jesus, 108; Bruce, Paul, 117). |
| 3170 Ibid., 29. The Law, Moses, and the Scriptures appear repeatedly in the Fourth Gospel; see 1:17, 45; 2:22; 5:39, 45–47; 6:32; 7:19, 22–28; 8:17; 9:28–29; 10:34–35; 12:34; 13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36–37; 20:9; cf. 3:14; 7:38,42, 51; 12:14; and perhaps 8:5. 3176 See Petersen, Sociology, 6,123,131. Ancient writers could adapt terms» usage even in shocking directions (cf., e.g., κατχρησις in Anderson, Glossary 66), so Jesus» superiority to Wisdom does not violate semantic plausibility. 3177 This is true whether or not the prologue is directly dependent on a source that identified Wisdom, Torah, and Word (Painter, John, 25). 3178 Davies, Torah, 93. Longenecker, Christology, 39 n. 57, cites Chamberlain, «Functions,» concerning a Qumran perspective on the Messiah as Torah in lQIs(a) 26.8; 51.4, 7; but Davies is probably correct. 3179 Noted by others, e.g., Kittel, «λγω, λγος,» 134–35, although (following Strack-Billerbeck) he sees Jesus as a new Torah ruling out the old, whereas we see Jesus as embodying Torah. The terms for word(s) (nearly always logos in the singular, rhmata in the plural) in the Fourth Gospel apply to the message offered by Jesus (2:22; 4:41; 5:24; 6:63, 69; 8:31, 37, 43, 47, 51–52; 12:47–48) or the Father (8:55; 17:17), or his followers» testimony (4:39), but also to Torah (5:47; 10:35; cf. 5:38) and the prophets (12:38). In some cases, Jesus» words fulfill the function of Torah (cf. 5:47; 6:63; 8:51; 12:47–48; 17:17; compare 5with 8:37). 3180 Hoskyns, Gospel, 159 (he surveys backgrounds, 154–63); Glasson, Moses, 26; Harrison, « John 1:14 ,» 35; Epp, «Wisdom,» 141; Longenecker, Christology, 40; cf. Kysar, «Contributions,» 358–59; Richardson, Theology, 162–63; Culpepper, Anatomy, 188; Lee, Thought, 101–2 (as one source among many). 3182 Ibid., 141–45; cf. Glasson, Moses, 86–94; Titus, Message, 202; in early Christian belief in general, Bonsirven, Judaism, 80. 3185 Cf. Bruce, Books, 159; idem, Documents, 41; Sandmel, Judaism, 259; Dodd, Bible, 25–26. This need not imply that nomos represented a misunderstanding of Torah (an idea that may be implied in some scholars» differentiations, e.g., Dodd, Bible, 33; critiqued by Segal, «Torah»); further, John employs nomos in the range of meanings found in Torah, as in the LXX (also Dodd, Interpretation, 76). |
| 5899 E.g., 2 Bar. 51:1–2; cf. t. Ber. 6:6. For distinction after death, see 1 En. 22:9–11; cf. sources in Keener, Matthew, 129, on Gehinnom, and 710–11, on the resurrection of the dead. 5900 It appears in most streams of NT tradition and is denied in none: Acts 24:15; 2Cor 5:10 ; Rev 20:4–6; Matt 25:46; cf. Matt 5:29–30; 10:28; Luke 11:32; Bernard, John, 1:245. 5901 1QS 4.13–14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in t. Sanh. 13:3,4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5; cf. 2Macc 12:43–45. By contrast, the souls of the wicked will remain in hell on the day of judgment in 1 En. 22:13; 61:5; 108:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanh. 13:5; probably L.A.B. 38:4; Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; t. Ber. 5:31. 5902 Ps 62:12 ; Prov 24:12 ; Sir 16:12,14 ; Matt 16:27; Rom 2:6 ; 2Cor 11:15 ; Rev 22:12; Pesiq. Rab. 8:2; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.2.3. 5903 It continued in widespread use (Josephus Life 256; Ant. 4.219; b. Sanh. 37b, bar.; p. Git. 4:1, §2; cf. m. Roš Haš. 1:7; 2:6); see further the comment under 8:13. Early Christians also employed this rule; see 2Cor 13:1 ; 1Tim 5:19 ; Matt 18:16. 5904 Boring et al, Commentary, 270–71, cites Cicero Rose. Amer. 36.103. Witnesses confirmed a matter (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 26), and a claim offered without them might be scathingly contested (Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111). 5905 E.g., Lysias Or. 4.5–6, §101; 7.12–18, §§109–110; 12.27–28, §122; 19.24, §154; 29.7, §182; Cicero Quinct. 24.76. Establishing a credible motive was standard procedure for the prosecution (Cicero Rose. Amer. 22.61–62). 5906 E.g., Isaeus Estate of Cleonymus 31–32, §37; Estate of Hagnias 6; Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111; 7.43, §112. Cf. the preference for multiple and diverse testimonies, e.g., in Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 61, §19D; for challenging the credibility of opposing witnesses, see, e.g., Hermogenes Issues 45.5–10. 5907 Cicero Quinct. 23.75. 5908 The witness of one person was inadequate in many kinds of cases (Boice, Witness, 47, cites m. Ketub. 2:9; Roè Haï. 3:1); self-accusation, by contrast, could invite condemnation (Achilles Tatius 7.11.1; though in early Judaism cf. Cohn, Trial, 98). In some matters, however, onés self-testimony was held reliable (e.g., m. Ketub. 2:10), even against two witnesses (m. Tehar. 5:9). |
| 3533 1 En. 6(if Semyaza means «he sees the Name»); cf. Bonsirven, Judaism, 7 (citing 1 Chr 13LXX; m. Ber. 4:4; Yoma 3:8); Bowman, Gospel, 69–98, esp. 69–77. «The Name» appears as a title for Christ in Jewish Christian theology (Daniélou, Theology, 147–63; on 150 he finds this even as early as the NT: John 12with 17:5; Jas 2:7; 5:14). 3535 Isa 29:23; Ezek 39:7 ; 1 En. 9:4; Sipra Emor par. 11.234.2.3; b. Pesah. 53b; Šabb. 89b; p. Sanh. 3:5, §2; Num. Rab. 15:12; prayer on Samaritan bill of divorce (Bowman, Documents, 328); cf. Moore, Judaism, 2:101–5; the «sacred letters» in Let. Aris. 98; cf. b. Šabb. 115b, bar.; Pesiq. Rab. 22:7; engraved on Israel " s weapons, Song Rab. 5:7, §1; 8:5, §1. One may also compare Matt. 6and its sources in the Kaddish and the third benediction of the Amidah (the latter is called «the sanctification of the name,» m. Roš Haš. 4:5); eschatological sanctification of the Name in Ezek 28:22; 36:23; 38:23; 39:7 ; and see comment on John 17:6, 17, 19 , below. 3536 E.g., Sir 23:9 ; Josephus Ant. 2.276; Sib. Or. 3.17–19 (probably pre-Christian); 1QS 6.27–7.1; m. Sanh. 7:5; t. Ber. 6:23; Ecc1. Rab. 3:11, §3; cf. Lev. 24:11,16 ; b. Sanh. 60a, bar.; Bietenhard, «νομα,» 268–69 (for alleged exceptions in the temple service, see m. Sotah 7:6; Sipre Num. 39.5.1–2; Marmorstein, Names, 39; Urbach, Sages, 1:127; cf. Lemaire, «Scepter»); among the Samaritans, see Jeremias, Theology, 10 n. 1. The Qumran sectarians often wrote the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew letters (probably to show it special honor, but cf. Siegal, «Characters,» comparing the rabbinic teaching), as did early Greek OT manuscripts (see Howard, «Tetragram»). 3538 E.g., Pr. Jos. 9–12; Lad. Jac. 2:18; Incant. Text 20.11–12 (Isbell, Bowls, 65); 69:6–7 (Isbell, Bowls, 150); CIJ 1:485, §673; 1:486, §674; 1:490, §679; 1:517, §717; 1:523, §724; 2:62–65, §819; 2:90–91, §849; 2:92, §851; 2:217, §1168; T. So1. 18:15–16 (the Solomonic tradition recurs in b. Git. 68a; Num. Rab. 11:3); Smith, Magician, 69; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 6:7; Apoc. Ab. 17:8, 13; examples in Deissmann, Studies, 321–36; Nock, Conversion, 62–63; MacMullen, Enemies, 103; Knox, Gentiles, 41–42. Cf. the namés power in Pesiq. Rab. 21:7; Urbach, Sages, 1:124–34; Bietenhard, «νομα,» 269; in Jewish mystical experience, see Scholem, Gnosticism, 32–33. Name invocation was common practice (e.g., Apuleius Metam. 2.28; 3.29; Twelftree, «ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,» 376; Koester, Introduction, 1:380). |
| 9006 Diodorus Siculus 17.31.6; 17.39.2; 17.100.1. For friends of Cassander, see Diodorus Siculus 18.55.1. 9008 Epictetus Diatr. 4.1.45–50; Martial Epigr. 5.19.15–16; Herodian 4.3.5; inscriptions in Deissmann, Light, 378; cf. Friedländer, Life, 1:70–82, 4:58–74. Of Jewish tetrarchs and rulers, only King Agrippa I adopted this title in his coins; see Meyshan, «Coins.» The probably late and fabricated evidence of CPJ2:71–72, § 156a, and 2:76, §156b, nevertheless reflect earlier custom. 9009 1Macc 10:20; 15:28, 32; 2Macc 7:24; Let. Aris. 40–41, 44, 190,208, 225, 228, 318; Josephus Ant. 12.366 (though cf. 12.391); 13.146, 225; Life 131; Cornelius Nepos 9 (Conon), 2.2; 18 (Eumenes), 1.6; Chariton 8.8.10; cf. Sipre Deut. 53.1.3; Gen. Rab. 34:9. Cf. perhaps Sib. Or. 3.756 (probably second-century B.C.E. Alexandria); Deissmann, Studies, 167–68. The Roman title «Friends of the People» reflects an office advocating for the people but of less rank than being a leader in the Senate (Cicero Sest. 49.105; Prov. cons. 16.38). 9011 See Sherwin-White, Society, 47; also many commentators (Brown, John, 2:879; Barrett, John, 543; Michaels, John, 309; Stauffer, Jesus, 133). By contrast, Westcott, John, 271, thinks that in 19the phrase is «used in a general and not in a technical sense.» 9012 Cf. Strachan, Fourth Gospel, 179. That a contrast between closeness to Caesar and closeness to God " s agent could be intended is not impossible; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.7. 9015 E.g., Lysias Or. 2.2, §192; Aeschines False Embassy 30, 39; Demosthenes On the Navy-Boards 5; On the Embassy 62; Ep. 3.27; Strabo Geog. 8.5.5; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.109 (but cf. similar interests in 1.111); 2.83; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.3.4 (societates atque amicitias); Maximus of Tyre Or. 35.7–8; Philostratus Hrk. 35.4 (for individuals). 9016 E.g., Xenophon Cyr. 3.2.23; Arrian Alex. 1.28.1; 4.15.2, 5; 4.21.8; 7.15.4; Plutarch Comparison of Lycurgus and Numa 4.6; Plutarch Pelopidas 5.1, 29.4; Epameinondas 17 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 193DE; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 4.7; 5.3; 7.5; 14 (Datames), 8.5; 23 (Hannibal), 10.2; Josephus Life 30, 124. |
| 1590 Feldman, «Antiquities,» also suggests that some of L.A.R " s traditions sound closer to those later preserved in the rabbis than to Josephus. 1591 Martin Abegg in Wise, Scrolls, 355, on 4Q389 frg. 3 (though the text is fragmentary, making the parallel less clear). 1592 Cf. also, e.g., the story told by Judah ha-Nasi in b. Sank 9lab (cf. Mek. Sir. 2), which appears in more elaborate form in Apocr. Ezek. 1–2, a document which may have been in circulation by the late first century c.E. (assuming that the Clement quote represents this document; cf. comparisons in OTP 1:492,494). 1593 Jub. 4:30; Gen. Rab. 19:8; Pesiq. Rab. 40:2. These were the results of an unpublished study in Essene and Pharisaic haggadic (with some halakic) trajectories from common Judaism. 1596 Jub. 7:20–25; Finkelstein, Making, 223–27; Schultz, «Patriarchs,» 44–45, 48–49, 55–56; Mek. Bah. 5; b. c Abod. Zar. 64b; Sanh. 56a; 59a; 74b; Yebam. 48b; Gen. Rab. 26:1; 34:14; Exod. Rab. 30:9; Deut. Rab. 1:21. 1598 Jub. 4:17–23; 10:17; Gen. Apoc. 2.19; 1–3 Enoch; T. Ab. 11:3–10B; contrast Gen. Rab. 25:1; on Jubilees special Enoch traditions, cf. VanderKam, «Traditions,» 245. Cf. perhaps also Noah haggadah (Jub. 10:17; Gen. Rab. 26:6; 28:8; 29:1, 3; 36:3; more positive in b. Sanh. 108a), especially his birth (Gen. Apoc. co1. 2; extraordinary birth narratives apply especially to Moses in b. Sanh. 101a; Sotah 12a; Exod. Rab. 1:20,23,26: Lev. Rab. 20:1; Pesiq. Rab. 43:4; also in Philo Moses 1.3, §9; Josephus Ant. 2.217–37, but not in Jub. 47:1–8). 1599 Jub. 4:22; 5:1; 7:21; 2 Bar. 56:10–15; T. Reu. 5:5–6; CD 2.16–18: Philo Unchangeable 1; rare in rabbis except perhaps Gen. Rab. 31:13. 1601 Jubilees» and Qumran " s continuance of the old solar calendar (see Morgenstern, «Calendar»; Marcus, «Scrolls,» 12), possibly influential in the second century B.c.E. (Wirgin, Jubilees, 12–17, 42–43; for a consequent pre-Hasmonean dating, see Zeitlin, ««Jubilees,»» 224), naturally created a rift with the lunar-based temple service and Pharisaism (Noack, «Pentecost,» 88–89; Brownlee, «Jubilees,» 32; Baumgarten, «Beginning»; cf. Jub. 2:9–10; 6:17, 32–38). Rivkin, «Jubilees,» even argues that Jubilees was written against the Pharisee-scribes because they had created their own calendar. This may also indicate why the sun is extolled (Jub. 2:12; 4:21; cf. 1QS 10.1–5; CD 10.15–16; cf. Smith, «Staircase,» who may go too far, given synagogue zodiacs and Josephus " s astrological interpretations of temple imagery). |
| 3614 Boismard, Prologue, 48–49; Morris, John, 103–4; survey of background in Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 31–63; against Barrett, John, 165. Jesus thus becomes the new temple (Jerusalem was God " s tabernacling-place, κατασκνωσις–Tob 1:4); see comment on 2:19–21; 4:21–24; 7:37–39; 10:36; 14:2–3; and cf. Brown, Community, 49; Painter, John, 57; cf. commentators on the hidden manna and ark under Rev 2:17. 3615 Stuart, «Examination,» 311; Hoskyns, Gospel, 148; Gaston, Stone, 209; contrast Barrett, John, 165. 3616 Sir 24:8 ; the parallel is widely noted (Harris, «Origin»; Vos, «Range,» 404; Haenchen, John, 1:119; Gaston, Stone, 209; Glasson, Moses, 66; Hoskyns, Gospel, 148; cf. Barrett, John, 166). Cf. Bar 3:37 ; Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.46 and Congr. 116 (the tabernacle represents Wisdom); Posterity 122 (the λγος θεος ενοκει among those who contemplate eternal things); cf. T. Levi 2:11; 5:2; 6:5; the name in Did. 10.2. 3618 On the sukkah recalling the wilderness cloud of glory, hence God " s sheltering presence, in rabbinic texts, see Rubenstein, «Sukkah» Isa 4suggests an eschatological cloud of glory for a new exodus (even more emphatic in Tg. Isa. 4:5). 3619 Wis 12:1; See further Isaacs, Spirit, 23. Isaacs suggests that Philós doctrine of immanence may reflect dependence on biblical tradition as well as on the language of the Stoa (Spirit, 29). 3620 «Abot R. Nat. 1 A; b. Yoma 4a (early Tannaitic attribution); Num. Rab. 11:6; Pesiq. Rab. 21:6; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1(citing m. »Abot 3:2, the oldest comment on the Shekinah); Abelson, Immanence, 143–45; with the Word, 146–49. Wisdom has glory in Wis 9:11, and functioned as God " s glory or Shekinah in the wilderness, guiding the righteous and being a covering by day and flame of stars by night (Wis 10:17; cf. Exod 13:21). 3621 4Q504 4.2–6; Num. Rab. 12:3; 14:22; Song Rab. 3:11, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 5:7, 9; 7:4; Tg. Neof. on Exod 25:8; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:51–53; for transferral of the idea to synagogues, see Lev. Rab. 11:7; glory is associated with booths in the wilderness, but again only rarely (b. Sukkah lib, attributed to R. Eliezer vs. R. Akiba). Some Amoraim sought to harmonize the universality of God " s presence with its localization in the tabernacle (e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2; Num. Rab. 12:4; Song Rab. 3:10, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 5:7). On glory and the tabernacle, see Exod 40:32–36; 1 Kgs 8:10–11; Boismard, Prologue, 144. |
| 6761 E.g., Phaedrus 1.2.1–3, 11–31. 6762 E.g., 4 Macc 3:2; 13:1–2; T. Ash. 3:2; 6:5; T. Jos. 7:8; T. Jud. 18:6; Josephus Ant. 1.74; 4.133; 15.88; War 1.243; Philo Abraham 241; Alleg. Interp. 2.49; Creation 165; Good Person 17; Heir 269; Unchangeable 111; cf. Decharneux, «Interdits»; Let. Arts. 211,221–223; T. Jud. 15:2,5; Sim. 3:4; Rom 6:6; 16:18 ; Phil 3:19 . 6763 Odeberg, Gospel 297–301; idem, Pharisaism, 50–52,56; cf. Gen. Rab. 94:8; Wis 1:4. Cf. freedom from the hostile angel in CD 16.4–6; from the Angel of Death in late material in Exod. Rab. 41:7; 51:8; Num. Rab. 16:24; Song Rab. 8:6, §1; from astrological powers in t. Sukkah 2:6; b. Ned. 32a; Šabb. 156a; Sukkah 29a; Gen. Rab. 44:10; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2. 6764 Odeberg, Gospel 296–97; Whitacre, Polemic, 69,75–76; but cf. Schnackenburg, John, 2:208. 6765 Black, Approach, 171, comparing «abed and »abd. 6766 Also, e.g., Num 5:6–7 LXX; 2Cor 11:7 ; Jas 5:15; 1Pet 2:22 . 6767 Cf. the two spirits and ways in Qumran and elsewhere ( Deut 30:15 ; Ps 1:1 ; m. " Abot 2:9; T. Ash. 1:3, 5; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 8.3; 27.4; Diogenes Ep. 30; see further Keener, Matthew, 250, on 7:13–14). Barrett, John, 345, appeals especially to Greek thought here, but he cites for it only Philo and Corp. herm. 10.8. 6768 CPJ 1:249–50, §135; p. Ter. 8:1; Rawson, «Family,» 7; Dixon, Mother, 16; Safrai, «Home,» 750. 6769 They could be divided at inheritance (P.S.I. 903, 47 C.E.). 6770 Cf. abundant references to freedpersons, e.g., P.Oxy. 722 (ca. 100 C.E.); CIL 2.4332; 6.8583; ILS 1578. Such freedom sometimes had strings attached (see, e.g., Horsley, Documents, 4:102–3); cf. the freedwoman who inherited half her master " s debt (CPJ 2:20–22, §148). 6771 E.g., BGL/5.65.164; 5.66–67.165–70. 6772 E.g., P.Cair.Zen. 59003.11–22; P.Oxy. 95; Terence Self-Tormentor 142–144. 6773 For rare examples of disownment, see, e.g., P.Cair.Masp. 67353 (569 C.E.); Isaeus Estate of Menecles 35; 43; especially in hypothetical declamations, e.g., Seneca Controv. 1.1.intr.; 1.6.intr.; 1.8.7; 2.1.intr.; 2.4.intr.; 3.3; Hermogenes Issues 33; 40.20; 41.1–13; Berry and Heath, «Declamation»; in Roman law, see Garnsey and Sailer, Empire, 137; for the revocation of wills, e.g., P.Oxy. 106 (135 C.E.); for the usual (but not certain) presumption of disinherited sons» guilt, see Hermogenes Issues 47.1–6; the disinheritance could be challenged at times if the grounds were inadequate (Hermogenes Issues 38.12–17; Valerius Maximus 7.7.3). For the son being greater than the servant in this Gospel, cf., e.g., John 1:27 . |
|
|
