| 3219 E.g., b. Ned. 39b, bar.; Pesah. 54a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 1:4; Lev. Rab. 14(his spirit); Pesiq. Rab. 33:6; Midr. Pss. 72:17; cf. similarly Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 138; Schoeps, Paul, 150; Urbach, Sages, 1:684. Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 586, suggest that the preexistent-messiah tradition may appropriate Christian theology. In Mek. Pisha 1.54–56, all Israel was «fit for the kingship» until David was chosen, which would argue against a préexistent messiah in this stream of Tannaitic tradition (i.e., it may have fallen only to Akibás heirs). 3220 E.g., " Abot R. Nat. 37, §95 B; Gen. Rab. 1:4. Moses appears as preexistent or premeditated in T. Mos. 1and in very late Samaritan tradition (MacDonald, Samaritans, 162–79; cf. 423–24 on the date); cf. Moses» divinity in Philo Sacrifices 9; Exod. Rab. 8:1; Num. Rab. 15:13; based on Exod 7:1. Cf. 2 Clem. 14.1 for the preexistence of the church (2 Clement reflects many Jewish motifs). 3221 We are assuming here that the Similitudes might not be pre-Christian; see 1 En. 48:3,6 (OTP 1cites 1 En. 46:1–2; 48:3; 62:7; 4 Ezra 12:32; 13:26, on 2 Bar. 30:1; the last reference may not imply a préexistent messiah). 3223 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:24; Gen. Rab. 8:2; Lev. Rab. 19(«before the Beginning»); Pesiq. Rab. 46:1; Midr. Pss. 90:3; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen. 3:24 . Ibn Ezra (twelfth century C.E.) concurred with this opinion but did not regard it as literal, observing that one could not calculate years without days nor days before creation (Jacobs, Exegesis, 14–15). 3224 " Abot R. Nat. 31 A (R. Eliezer b. R. Yose the Galilean); b. Šabb. 88b (R. Joshua bar Levi, third century). 3226 Cf. Loewe in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 171: «The pre-existence of the Torah is very often merely tantamount to an expression that God Himself is bound by His own Laws.» Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.154–156 uses the law " s antiquity (albeit not its metaphysical préexistence) apologetically (cf. Ag. Ap. 1.1–29, 196, 215–218, 227; 2.1, 144, 279, 288). 3229 Jub. 2:30; 3:8,10; 6:2,18–19; 7:3; 14:24; 16:21; 22:1–9; 44:4. See Schultz, «Patriarchs,» passim, who contrasts Genesis " s Noahides with Jubilees» (and some later Jewish sources») law keepers; cf. Endres, Interpretation, 3–4 (though Sinai apparently began a new era in Israel " s history; cf. Wintermute in OTP 2:39, following Testuz [if the latter is correct]). |
| 12:48; Rev 19:11). Some of John s imagery stands in creative tension that forces the hearer to qualify its sense: Jesus did not come for the purpose of condemning (3:17), but he is authorized to judge (5:22). 5868 Because some believed that God had shared some of his honor with Moses (following Exod 3), 5869 Jesus» claim that the Father shared honor with the Son (5:23) could be interpreted less offensively (cf. Isa 44:23; 46:13; 49:3; 60:1–2). Some Tannaim argued that God wanted his prophets to honor both the Father and the son (Israel). 5870 But because Jesus claims that people should honor the Son even as (καθς) they honor the Father, he utters a claim to divine rank (cf. Isa 48); one cannot have the Father without the Son or vice-versa (cf. 1 John 2:23 ). Even Roman emperors could affirm their authority by using a phrase equivalent to «just as» to assert a direct linkage with earlier, deified emperors. 5871 That «all» should honor him (5:23) emphasizes the universality of Christ " s sovereign authority (1:7; 5:28–29). Further, Jesus both answers the basic charge and returns it, a common rhetorical technique (see our introduction to 8:37–51). In contrast with their charge of blasphemy, Jesus honors his Father. But because he is the Father " s representative (see discussion of the «sent one» under Christology in the introduction, ch. 7) whom the Father honors (5:23), by dishonoring Jesus they are dishonoring the Father (cf. the same idea more explicitly in 8:49). Jesus thus effectively returns the charge against them: it is they, not he, who dishonor the Father. 1D. Jesus as Life-Giver in the Present and the Future (5:24–30) Jesus returns to the claim that the Father has authorized him to give life (5:21) with the image of realized eschatology implied by «passed from death to life» (5:24); one already abides in death until believing in the one who sent Jesus, hence in Jesus» delegated mission (cf. also 3:18). 5872 Numerous ancient texts employ «death» figuratively or spiritually; 5873 some Jewish texts employ «death» eschatologically, as in Rev 2:11; 20:6, though sometimes (in likely contrast to Revelation " s use) for annihilation. 5874 «Life» and «death» figure prominently in the Fourth Gospel, often spiritually (6:50; 8:51; cf. 8:21, 24). Even when literal (e.g., 4:47; 6:49, 58; 8:52; 11:13, 14, 16, 21, 25, 32, 37, 44, 51; 21:23), they sometimes illustrate spiritual realities (11:26). «Passing» from death to life, like being «born from above» (3:3), implies a line of demarcation between those who have returned to God " s side and those who remain arrayed against him (cf. 1 John 3:14 ; Wis 7:27; Col 1:13). Response to Jesus» «word» decided onés destiny (5:24; 12:48; cf. 5:38), for how one treats envoys indicates how one would treat their sender. 5875 |
| It is in 6that Jesus explains the nature of his metaphors, explicitly defining the character of «the words I spoke to you.» Others consistently misinterpret Jesus» figurative pronouncements literally (3:4; 6:52; 11:12). It is not the literal flesh (cf. 6:51) that brings life, but the Spirit, 6258 a point also underlined in 3:6. 6259 The Spirit thus joins the Father and Son (5:21; cf. Rom 4:17 ; 1Cor 15:22 ) in giving life (6:63; cf. Rom 8:11 ; 2Cor 3:6 ; 1Pet 3:18 ; perhaps 1Cor 15:45 ). 6260 One may also note that flesh cannot comprehend divine truth adequately (cf. 3:12); elsewhere in the Jesus tradition as well, this comprehension requires a revelation from the Father (Matt 16:17; cf. ll:25–27/Luke 10:21–22). A merely human, «fleshly» perspective on Jesus and his words is inadequate ( 2Cor 5:16 ). 6261 Thus disciples must imbibe his Spirit, not his literal flesh (cf. 20:22); his life is present also in his words (6:68; cf. 15:7). In John, the «flesh» includes the best of human religion (see comment on 3:6), which, as here, profits nothing (φελε οδν; cf. 12:19). (Philosophers used «profit» as a moral criterion, 6262 though this provides merely a specialized example of the more general use.) Only religion birthed from the Spirit of God himself proves adequate for true worshipers (4:23–24). Jesus» words are from the Father (3:34; 12:47–50; 14:10; 17:8), like those of Moses (5:47), and only those taught by the Father would embrace them (6:45; 8:47). It is Jesus» message, his «words,» rather than his literal flesh, that communicates the life he has been promising through the heavenly bread (6:27, 33, 35, 40, 47–48, 51, 53–54, 57); it is those who «come» and «believe» whose hunger and thirst will be quenched (6:35; 7:37–38). They «stumbled» (6:61) and could not understand (6:60) because they did not believe (6:64), hence proved to be not from those the Father gave to Jesus (6:65; see comment on 6:37). Their unbelief or apostasy as uncommitted, unpersevering seekers of Jesus» gifts was of a piece with Judas " s apostasy (6:64), on which see comment on 6:71. (The designation of Judas as «the one who would betray him» appears to be antonomasia, a familiar form of periphrasis.) 6263 That Judas could therefore typify unfaithful professors of Christ suggests the distaste John holds for such persons, people undoubtedly known to John " s audience; ( 1 John 2:18–26). Their very failure to believe confirmed Jesus» warning that only those whom the Father drew would come to him (6:44,65). While this claim would not have qualified as an argument among ancient rhetoricians much better than it would today, 6264 the Johannine Jesus intends it not as an argument but as a warning in obscure language, the sort of riddles found among Mediterranean sages and assumed among sectarian interpreters like those at Qumran, intelligible only to those already inside the circle of understanding. 6265 2. Stumbling or Persevering (6:66–71 ) |
| 4256 Cf. also the use of a person " s name when praising that person in an encomium, even by wordplays (Theon Progymn. 9.49–55). Contrast Stock, «Peter.» 4257 «Building» represents people-of-God language in the Hebrew Bible (Ruth 4:11; Ps 51:18; 69:35; 147:2 ; Jer 1:10; 24:6; 31:4, 28 ); cf. esp. Jeremias, Theology, 168; also Ladd, Theology, 109–10). Some connect the saying with the Abraham saying of Isa 51:1–2 (although the rare rabbinic parallels they cite, such as Yalqut Shim " oni 1.766; Exod. Rab. 15:7, are late; cf. Gen. Rab. 44:21); cf. Cullmann, «Πτρος, Κηφς,» 106; Bruce, Time, 60; Ford, «Abraham»; Manns, «Halakah»; Chevallier, «Pierre»; Siegel, «Israel,» 108; contrast Arnéra, «Rocher.» Jesus and his teachings, of course, represent the ultimate foundation in the gospel tradition (Matt 7:24–27; Luke 6:47–49), but his witnesses provide the next layer of the structure ( Eph 2:20 ). 4258 As in Mark 11:9 ; Matt 21:9; Luke 19:38; the Hallel was sung during Passover season (m. Pesah. 5:7; 9:3; 10:5–7; especially mentioned in connection with Sukkoth, e.g., m. Sukkah 3:10; 4:8; t. Sukkah 3:2; Gen. Rab. 41:1); cf., e.g., Stendahl, Matthew, 65; Michaels, John, 207; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 255–56. 4259 Cullmann, Peter, 18, and especially primary references in n. 11; cf. n. 12. Cullmann holds that «Petros» was also an Aramaic name (e.g., Gen. Rab. 92:2; Exod. Rab. 52:3; contrast Meier, Matthew, 181; Williams, «Personal Names,» 104), but Paul " s letters indicate that «Kephas» was the earlier name (Cullmann, Peter, 19 n. 14; contrast Edersheim, Life, 360). The pun indicates identity between Petros and Petra (Cullmann, «Πτρα,» 98; idem, «Πτρος, Κηφας,» 106; Brown, «Rock,» 386; Richardson, Theology, 309; contrast Lampe, «Petrusnamen). 4261 Smith, Magician, 147, doubts that all Jesus» disciples were Jewish, contending that «Galileans with pure Greek names like Philip are dubious.» 4262 Palestinian inscriptions in CIJ; cf. also, e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.255; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:252; Freyne, Galilee, 172–73; Goodman, State, 88, 175; Meyers, «Judaism and Christianity,» 77–78; Davies, «Aboth,» 138–51. For some nuancing in the other direction, cf. also Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 26; Sandmel, «Theory»; Feldman, «Hellenism.» |
| 10087 Crosses also became a natural metaphor for sufferings (e.g., Apuleius Metam. 7.16, cruciatibus; 10.9; cf. Seneca Dia1. 7.19.3) or the pain of grief (Apuleius Metam. 9.31) or anxiety (9.23); for other nonliteral usages, cf. Epictetus Diatr. 3.26.22. John employs βαστζω in a fairly common figurative sense in 16:12, albeit more literally in 10:31; 12:6; 20:15. 10088 Drury, Design, 113. The different term may simply represent literary variation, though αρων may better connote complete remova1. 10090 Tomb architecture changed radically after Jerusalem " s fall (Goodenough, Symbols, 1:84–89; Brown, Death, 938–39). 10091 On the latter, see Brown, John, 2:899; idem, Death, 1279–83; cf. Blinzler, Trial, 251–52; Smith, «Tomb»; Ross, «Church»; Riesner, «Golgotha.» 10094 See, e.g., Brown, Death, 1281–82; cf. Blinzler, Trial, 251–52; for archaeological data, see the notes in Cornfeld, Josephus, 338–40, on Josephus War 5.148–155. 10095 Cf. the kind of cup traditionally called a κρανον, or skull, perhaps due to its shape (Athenaeus Deipn. 11.479–480). 10096 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11. We have borrowed much of the material from Keener, Matthew, 678–79. 10098 Hengel, Crucifixion, 25. Thus, e.g., one man is bound to a fig tree and anointed with honey so that the ants devour him, but this, too, is called a cross (cruciatum); Apuleius Metam. 8.22; cf. Prometheus " s fetters (Martial Epigr. 7; Lucian Prometheus 2). Positions varied, but for evidence for one probably common position, see Tzaferis, «Crucifixion,» 52–53. Before the Roman conquest, following Hellenistic (e.g., Josephus Ant. 12.256) and Persian (Esth 9:25; De Vaux, Israel, 159) practice, Jewish executions had also adopted hanging by crucifixion (e.g., Josephus War 1.97; Ant. 13.380; 4QpNah 1.7–8; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; p. Sanh. 6:6, §2; cf. 11QT 64); though read back into earlier times (L.A.B. 55:3), Israelites originally hanged corpses posthumously (cf. Gen 40:19 ) only till nightfall, limiting the shame ( Deut 21:23 ; m. Sanh. 6:4). |
| 9490 Beasley-Murray, John, 302. 9491 Ibid., 307. 9492 Pamment, «17:20–23.» Contrast the oneness (unum) of Stoic writers, who tended toward pantheism (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 95.52). 9493 Cf. Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 100. 9494 See esp. Epp, «Wisdom,» 144. 9495 The Father " s love for the Son before the «foundation of the world» (17:24) is equivalent to «in the beginning» (1:1–2; cf. 9:32; καταβολ in Matt 13:35; Luke 11:50; Heb 4:3; 9:26; it often appears in the NT in predestinarian contexts, such as Rev 13:8; 17:8; Matt 25:34; Eph 1:4 ; 1Pet 1:20 ); they shared glory before the world began (17:5). 9496 Sipre Deut. 97.2 , on Deut 14:2 . 9497 With Beck, Paradigm, 132 (following Kurz, «Disciple,» 102), which he rightly takes (pp. 133–36) as evidence for reader identification with the beloved disciple. 9498 This refers to the experience of the Spirit, not merely to heaven after death (pace, e.g., Witherington, Wisdom, 271). 9499 Even Glasson " s moderately worded connection with Moses» préexistent mission in As. Mos. 1(Moses, 77; cf. Bernard, John, 2:580, based on a few words) is too far from the mark; the preexistence here is divine (Barrett, John, 514), the sort of préexistent glory attributed to Wisdom and Torah (see comment on 1:1–2). 9500 The long discourse of chs. 13–17 concludes with a note that Jesus had «said these things» (18:1), a familiar way for a narrator to close a discourse (Jub. 32:20; 50:13; Musonius Rufus 8, p. 66.26; Acts 20:36; it becomes standard in Matthew–7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; cf. Keener, Matthew, 256). 9501 Cf. 1 En. 90(«Lord of righteousness,» which could be rendered «righteous Lord»). This was appropriate for a ruler (cf. Prov 20:28; 25:5 ); cf. the address to Ptolemy (βασιλε δκαιε) in Let. Arts. 46. 9502 See Painter, John, 61. Cf. Isa 1:27; 56:1; 58:8; 1QS 10.11; 11.2, 5, 9, 12–14; 1QH 4.29–32, 36–37; Przybylski, Righteousness, 37–38; in the LXX and elsewhere, see Stendahl, Paul, 31; Dahl, Paul, 99; Piper, Justification, 90–96; in the rabbis, e.g., Gen. Rab. 33:1; Ruth Rab. proem 1. |
| 5747 Fee, «Inauthenticity»; against Hodges, «Angel» (who may be correct, however, about the internal difficulties created by its excision, pp. 25–26; see also Niklas and Kraus, «Joh 5,3b-4»). Thom, «Akousmata,» 105, is probably correct in relating this gloss to the association of public baths and daimones (citing Iamblichus V.P. 83; Aelian Varia historia 4.17), though it is surely broader than Pythagoreanism (cf. Macrobius Sat. 5.19.19 in Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 224; Eunapius Lives 457; b. Ber. 62a; Qidd. 39b-40a; Šabb. 67a; Ecc1. Rab. 2:8, §1). Suggested earlier reasons for the waters» movement may be the moving of water from one pool to another by pipes, or confusion with the Siloam spring, «which ejected water several times a day during the rainy season, twice in summer and once in the autumn» (Perkins, «John,» 959). 5748 Finegan, Archeology, ρ 147. Klinger, «Bethesda,» wrongly assumes that this means Jesus visited a pagan sanctuary, since John " s readers would rightly assume that pre-70 Jerusalem, in which Jesus lived, was a Jewish city. 5749 Earlier, cf. Albright, Yahweh, 194–95. Some sites were believed to possess sacred properties regardless of what was built on them (Philostratus Hrk. 28.5). 5750 Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 95–104, esp. 102. 5751 Theissen, Stories, 51; also 277. 5752 The exodus probably also appears with this term in Hab 3:15. Perhaps an allusion appears in Isa 51:14–15, but this text may apply the image more generally, as in Ps 46 (47LXX); Isa 17:12; 24LXX; cf. Odes So1. 4:15. 5753 Richardson, Theology, 360. 5754 Brown, John, 1:211. 5755 Dunn, Baptism, 187. 5756 See Meeks, Prophet-King, 59; Hoskyns, Gospel, 360–61; cf. Pancaro, Law, 9. The «lame» and the «blind» often function as the most dramatic cures in summaries of miraculous healings; cf., e.g., Epidauros inscriptions in Grant, Religions, 57–58. 5757 Epid. inscr. 4 in Grant, Religions, 57; cf. Acts 8:7. 5758 Culpepper, Anatomy, 139; cf. Staley, «Stumbling»; Lee, Narratives, 105–6; Collins, Written, 23; Metzner, «Geheilte.» Note that κολυμβθρα appears in John only in these two passages (5:2, 7; 9:7). This need not suggest two variants of the same story or an originally connected story, however (cf. Devillers, «Piscine,» who also dates the paganization of Bethzatha too early in relation to John; also Boismard, «Bethzatha ou Siloé»); Ephraem " s interpretation need not presuppose earlier sources (Baarda, «Siloam»), and a writer could inadvertently retell a story (Plutarch Alex. 37.4; 56.1) or (more to the point here) could develop patterns that he viewed as linking two preexisting stories (e.g., Plutarch Vit. passim). |
| See «Abot R. Nat. 2 A; »Abot R. Nat. 2, §13 B; b. Hag. 14a; Ber. 12b; c Abod. Zar. 16b-17a (R. Eliezer; cf. Ecc1. Rab. 1:8, §3), 27b (R. Ishmael with a Christian faith healer); Ecc1. Rab. 1:8, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 13:6; Justin Dia1. 35; cf. Herford, Christianity, 218–19; Schiffman, Jew, 64–67. On Justin in the above connection, see Williams, Justin, xxxii, 74 n. 3. Kalmin, «Heretics,» finds the emphasis on their seductiveness especially in early Palestinian materia1. 1638 E.g., b. Sanh. 33b; Hu1. 84a (Amoraic); Herford, Christianity, 226–27; Dalman, Jesus, 36–37. The discussions may be simply a literary form to glorify the rabbis and to present the minim as foolish, but the substance of the debates suggests that some genuine controversies occurred (e.g., perhaps memories of conflicts in Lydda; cf. Schwartz, «Ben Stada»). 1640 Palestinian rabbinic anti-Christian polemic appears sophisticated by the fifth and sixth centuries C.E.; cf. Visotzky, «Polemic.» 1642 Num. Rab. 4:9, 9:48; Ecc1. Rab. 2:8, §2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2, 4(all purportedly from the Johannine period); p. Meg. 1:11, §3 and 3:2, §3 (claiming to reflect Tannaitic tradition); see Barrett, «Anecdotes.» Some antipagan polemical collections may have later been adapted against Christians (Hirschman, «Units»). 1646 E.g., m. «Abot 2:14; b. Sanh. 38b [=»Abot 2:14]; cf. t. Sanh. 13:5; p. Sanh. 10:1, §7; see Geiger, «Apikoros.» 1647 E.g., b. Sanh. 39a; Bek. 8b; Ecc1. Rab. 2:8, §2 (all purportedly Tannaitic; this category is probably fictitious, maybe in response to anti-Jewish propaganda like Acts of Alexandrian Martyrs). 1649 B. Hu1. 84a; Sanh. 38b (purportedly Tannaitic), 39a, 43a, 90b, 99a; Meg. 23a; Ber. 10a; cf. b. Yoma 56b-57a (textual variant and probably a Sadducee); cf. further Moore, «Canon,» 123–24; Maier, Jesus in Überlieferung, 170–71; Bagatti, Church, 98ff. 1650 The forms are culture-specific and are even used of God with his angels (e.g., b. Roš Haš. 32b). Despite this stylization of form, there may have been some similarity to actual debate techniques and issues; cf. Stylianopoulos, Justin, 124. |
| 9228 Jub. 48:15–16. For other accusing angels, see 3 En. 28:8–9; t. c Abod. Zar. 1:18; Sabb. 17:3; Gen. Rab. 55:4; angels of nations in 3 En. 26:12; Lev. Rab. 21:4; Song Rab. 2:1, §3; 8:8, §1; cf. accusations from good angels in p. Sanh. 10:2, §7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11. 9230 E.g., Lam. Rab. proem 24 (the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, used in the law). Cf. also God " s angel «Conviction» (λεγχος), the priest (Philo Unchangeable 135,182–183). 9231 Schnackenburg, John, 3:143. Cf. also Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 144. For this lawsuit as merely the culmination of the Johannine trial motif, see Dahl, «History,» 139. Such reversal provided irony (cf. Aeschines Timarchus 117–118; Xenophon Mem. 4.8.9–10; Seneca Controv. 6.5; also Keener, Background Commentary, 342–43, on Acts 7:54–56, 58, 60). 9237 As Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 124, does. Aune, Prophecy, 97, recognizes the Israelite judicial speech. 9238 See, e.g., Blenkinsopp, «Reproach»; Boyle, «Lawsuit»; Gemser, «Controversy-Pattern»; Wein-feld, «Patterns,» 187–88 (comparing ancient Near Eastern legal practice and treaty language); Ramsey, «Speech-Forms» (probable on secular use, although I do not believe he has established the cultic use). 9239 Cross, Myth, 188–89; cf. Rabe, «Prophecy,» 127. Derrett, «Advocacy,» finds a background in Daniel " s defense of Susanna and in Isa 11:4–5; a Jewish audience might have recalled such passages as part of the larger forensic background (cf. Isa 11:1–2). 9240 CD 1.1–2 (). In Pauline thought, see Barth, Justification, 15–21,26, who sees the OT covenant lawsuit language as part of the background for Pauline justification. 9241 Shea, «Form,» correctly observes parallels to Israelite and ancient Near Eastern covenant formulas (cf. Aune, Environment, 159, 242, for the thesis, probably also correct, of parallels with «ancient royal and imperial edicts»); but although most of these letters include praise as well as blame (Stowers, Letter Writing, 80–81, noting that this was standard; cf. p. 173), the judgment oracles in this covenant context may well be reminiscent of the rib controversy speech of earlier prophets. The listings of cities and nations in oracles of judgment had been standard since biblical times and continues in many of the (Diaspora Jewish) Sibylline Oracles. |
| 1803 Theology, 42–62. Whitacre, Polemic, 6–10, accepts it only as probable. For an extensive study of the curse itself, see esp. Jocz, People, 52–57, particularly his conclusions on 57, with which I am in basic agreement. 1805 Cf. likewise Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:136; Overman, Gospel and Judaism, 54–55; Stanton, New People, 281. 1807 Kimelman, «Evidence,» 234; Cohen, Maccabees, 227, believe that the problems the Johannine community encountered were purely loca1. Many Johannine scholars allow this possibility (e.g., Rensberger, Faith, 26). 1808 This is widely agreed; see Katz, «Separation,» 50; Sandmel, Judaism, 391; Whitacre, Polemic, 8. Cf. Young, «Cult,» 331–33; Justin Dia1. 17 and other early Christian sources; compare the view of Rost, Einleitung, 97, on the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch. Sonne, «Use» 163–68, disagrees with Lieberman " s view of rabbinic sources» sympathy for Christian martyrs. 1809 Cf. Segal, «Ruler,» 252. One may adduce a later parallel in the pain experienced by the Karaites after the rabbinic herem against them; cf. Wieder, «Exegesis,» 93–94. 1810 See above; even in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Jewish involvement in the execution is limited to their role as delatores, or accusers. Cf. Brown, Community, 43. 1811 Meyers, «State,» 134–35; Meyers and White, «Jews and Christians»; Kinzig, «Non-separation»; Hoppe, «Synagogue»; cf. Mancini, Discoveries; Saldarini, Community, 18–26. 1812 E.g., Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 171; Carson, John, 8,87–95; Milne, Message, 24–25. 1816 This is often noted. See Michaels, «Anti-Semitism,» 12; Baum, Jews, 98; Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 56; Yamauchi, «Concord,» 161; Parkes, Conflict, ix; Smith, Theology, 169–70. 1817 Lowe, «ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ,» 130; cf. Gager, Anti-Semitism, 151. Winter, Trial, 115, thinks that John develops the theme of Jewish enmity beyond Mark. The Johannine «trajectory» later becomes outrightly anti-Jewish (Acts of John 94 ). 1822 On the community of Belial, see 1QH 2.22–23; cf. 1QS 1.22–23; against the priesthood, see, e.g., lQpHab 9.4–5; 2 Bar. 10:18; further support in Keener, Matthew, 536, 561, 613–14. |
|
|
