| 10398 Bowersock, Fiction as History, 117–18. 10399 Avi-Yonah, «Sources,» 60; Flusser, «Paganism.» 10400 On the Mithraeum, see Bull, «Medallion»; Lease, «Mithraeum»; Flusser, «Paganism,» 1099. 10401 Cf. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 82. 10402 Cf. arguments in Philonenko, «Initiation»; idem, «Mystère,» 65–70; Petuchowski, «Mystery.» 10403 Willoughby, Initiation, 225–62, tries to compare Philonic language with the conversion language of the Mysteries but, like Godwin, Mystery Religions, 78–83, tends to generalize too much. More nuanced is the approach of Wolfson, Philo, 1:27–36 (and cf. 1:101; Philo adapts their language but denounces them as religious alternatives). 10404 Russell, «Mysteries,» 338; cf. Reitzenstein, Religions, 174–84. 10405 Reitzenstein, Religions, 125. 10406 On Roman Judaism, see more fully Leon, Jews. 10407 Eliade, Rites, 120. 10408 Metzger, «Consideration,» 10–11; Eliade, Rites, 115. 10409 Cf. Gervers, «Iconography,» though qualifying on p. 598; cf. Gager, Kingdom, 132–34; note the contrast stressed by Mattingly, Christianity, 5. 10410 Some others may be coincidence; Deman, «Mithras,» e.g., notes the later link between the twelve apostles and the twelve signs of the zodiac; yet the twelve apostles in earliest Christian tradition stem from the twelve tribes (though Judaism had already linked the tribes with the zodiac in that period). The closest true parallels address only later Gentile Christianity as it assimilated into a broader Roman cultural context. 10411 Benoit, «Mystères,» 79–81. 10412 Metzger, «Consideration,» 11. 10413 Ibid., 20. 10414 Manson, Paul and John, 64–65, stresses the moral contrast between the Mysteries (where moral ideals were irrelevant) and Christianity (cf. Carcopino, Life, 138–39). 10415 Metzger, «Consideration,» 15. 10416 Cf. Nock, «Vocabulary,» 136, for Christianity " s «Oriental» nature but lack of «Oriental» trappings. This is not to suggest that many other Greco-Roman cults could not be distinguished from one another but, rather, to point out that the originating cultural matrix of Christianity was different enough, and earliest Christianity " s monotheism rigorous enough, to disallow the degree of assimilation that could characterize most of the cults. |
| 6920 T. Ab. 8:9A. Cf. Homer Il. 21.107, where Achilles reminds Lycaon that Patroclus was a better man than he and died anyway (then slays him, 21.115–119). 6921 Commonly noted, e.g., Barrett, John, 351; Morris, John, 469. 6922 Q also polemicizes against false claims to descent from «Abraham our father» (Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8). 6923 See further comments by Neyrey, «Shame of Cross,» 126–27; our comments on 5:18. 6924 Publilius Syrus 597; Plutarch Praising, Mor. 539A-547F (esp. 15, Mor. 544D); 2Cor 12:11 ; see our introductory comment on John 5:31–47 . 6925 Also Bar 2:35 . 6926 Some later Jewish traditions allowed him to share it with Israel (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:2); see further the comment on 5:44. 6927 The claim is ad hominem (so Michaels, John, 144; Barrett, John, 351), but it does not strictly reject their physical ancestry here; rather, he exhorts them to function as children of Abraham ought (cf. 1Cor 6:6–11 ). 6928 Cf. revelation on the «Lord " s Day,» possibly an eschatological double entendre (cf. Shepherd, Liturgy, 78), in Rev 1(on the noneschatological aspect of the phrase, see Did. 14.1; Deissmann, East, 358–59; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 65; perhaps also Ign. Magn. 9.1, but cf. Lewis, «Ignatius»). 6929 So Schnackenburg, John, 2:221, citing Jub. 15:17; Targum Onqelos; Philo Names 154, 161, 175; cf. Haenchen, John, 2:29. In Genesis, however, Abraham " s laughter undoubtedly functions as Sarah " s would (18:12–15; cf. 21:6). 6930 Hanson, Gospel, 126–28. 6931 4 Ezra 3:14; 2 Bar. 4:4; L.A.B. 23:6; Apoc. Ab. 9–32; Gen. Rab. 44:12. In Philo, Abraham encounters the Logos (Migration 174, in Argyle, «Philo,» 38; on Philo here, cf. more fully On the Change of Names in Urban and Henry, «Abraham»). 6932 E.g., Hunter, John, 94; Cadman, Heaven, 115; Morris, Studies, 221; Brown, John, 1:360; Bell, I Am, 197. Contrast McNamara, Targum, 144–45. 6933 E.g., b. B. Bat. 16b-17a, bar. Others also receive such visions; e.g., Adam (2 Bar. 4:3; " Abot R. Nat. 31A; 42, §116B; b. Sanh. 38b; Gen. Rab. 21:9; 24:2; Pesiq. Rab. 23:1); Joseph (Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 45:14 ); Amram (4Q544 lines 10–12; 4Q547 line 7); Moses (Sipre Deut. 357.5.11); and R. Meir (Num. Rab. 9:20). |
| 3311 Nothing comes into being against God " s will except evil deeds (Cleanthes» Hymn to Zeus in Stobaeus Ed. 1.1.12, in Grant, Religions, 153). 3312 1QS 11.11. This comparison was offered as early as Brownlee, «Comparison,» 72, and has often been offered subsequently (Wilcox, «Dualism,» 89; Cross, Library, 215 n. 34). Freed, «Influences,» 146, in fact, calls it «the closest parallel from the Dead Sea Scrolls yet known to any passage in the NT.» 3314 1QS 11.17. Schnackenburg similarly comments on the contrasts between «all» and «nothing» in creation language in this document (John, 1:238); cf. a similar contrast in 1 En. 84:3. 3315 1QS 3.15. Hengel, Judaism, 1:218–19, regards this as analogous to Greek philosophical language. 3316 On the universés or matter " s uncreatedness and consequent eternality (the Peripatetic view), cf. Aristotle Heav. 1.9 (the heavens, not the elements, 3.6); Cicero Tusc. 1.23.54 (the heavens); an Epicurean in Cicero Nat. d. 1.9.21–22; Plotinus Enn. 2.1.1; Philo Eternity passim; Chroust, «Fragment»; idem, «Comments.» On its eternality in particular, cf. Macrobius Comm. 2.10, 19 (Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 223); Lucretius Nat. 1.215–264, 958–1115; Sidebottom, James, 119; on its continual re-creation till the present (closer to the Platonic view, cf. Bauckham, Jude, 301; cf. Stoicism in, e.g., Seneca Berief 4.8.1; Dia1. 6.26.7; Heraclitus in Diogenes Laertius 9.1.7), Gen. Rab. 3:7; Ecc1. Rab. 3:11, §1; cf. disputes in Gen. Rab. 1:5. 3317 A view often espoused, even as late as the late-fourth-century writer Sallustius in Concerning the Gods and the Universe §§7,13,17 (Grant, Religion, 184–85,190–91,192–94). 3318 Plato Tim. 29A-30. The universe thus originates from what is eternal, not from what has become (το γεγονς). 3319 Cf. the Loeb introduction to Plutarch " s Gen. of Soul (Moralia, LCL 13:137); others may have simply echoed the language (e.g., Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 379, §126D; Menander Rhetor 2.17,438.16–17). 3320 Cf. Epitome of Gen. of Soul 2, Mor. 1030E; the note there refers to 1016C, 1017AB, 1014B, 1029DE, and 1030C. Stoics in Paul " s day could picture God as the universés soul (Seneca Nat. 2.45.1–2). |
| Quod fieri potest multis modis et vero etiam debet.» 11. 5–6 cf Faber: «Primo, si prae omnibus caelestia bona desideremus, ad quae et nati sumus.» 11. 7–8 cf Faber: «Secundo, si ad scopum ilium ultimum nobis praefixum collimemus in omnibus nostris actibus.» 11. 9–10 cf Faber: «Tertio, si quando concurrunt negotia spiritualia cum corporalibus, corporalia potius omittamus quam spiritualia, nisi grave damnum obstet.» 11. 11–12 are loosely based on Faber: «Quarto ... si potissima nostra cura sit, ut ne perdamus caelestia, sed placeamus Deo, et regno eius digni inveniamur.» 11. 13–14 cf Faber: «Quinto, si primum nostrum negotium ordinario sit, quaerere ea primo, quae ad salutem spectant, uti orare cum mane surgimus, vel cibum sumere volumus, templum intrare, cum intramus aliquam civitatem, cum iter longum suscipimus.» 11. 15–16 cf Faber: «Sexto, si ita in extemis saeculi huius negotiis verseris, ut cor illis non immergas, sed ad supema erecta géras, ipsaque intentione et desiderio ad caelestia evoles.» 11. 17–18 cf Faber: «Septimo, si animae negotium praemittamus corporis negotiis.» Искание царствия 2. Taken from Faber, ibid., sect. 4 «Quaerenda iustitia regni Dei». 11. 1–10 cf Faber: «Quaerenda deinde iustitia eius. ... Porro ea iustitia duplex est. Una interior, quae est gratia Dei, animam inhabitans et Deo gratum faciens. Acquiritur autem per baptismum, et amissa reparatur per poenitentiam, augetur vero per sacramenta reliqua, estque necessaria ad regnum Dei consequendum, quia est semen gloriae. Quare sicuti non metes, nisi seminaveris: ita ad gloriam non pervenies, nisi gratiam possideas.» 11. 11–12 cf Faber: «Altera exterior, quae consistit in bonis operibus, et observatione mandatorum.» Искание душ. Taken from Faber, Dominica 3 Post Pentecosten, No. 9 «Documenta ex Evangelio [on the Gospel for the day, viz. Luke 15.1–10]», sect. 4 «Fuge detractionem»: «Disce fugere detractionis vitium. Quis enim non aversatur clancularios illos insidiatores Pharisaeos et Scribas, qui dum Christus salutem peccatorum quaerit, quaerunt ipsi quomodo eius famam dénigrent.» 11. |
| Jesus gives up his πνεμα so that now his πνεμα may be multiplied and available to his followers as he had promised (7:39). 10226 If 19reflects the more popular tradition of Jesus breathing his last ( Mark 15:37 ), it links «spirit» and «breath» in a Johannine way (cf. 3:8) that climaxes in 20:22, when the glorified Jesus who gave up his spirit/breath on the cross now imparts it to his disciples. This is not to deny the distinguishability of the Spirit and Jesus, 10227 which is clear in the Fourth Gospel (14:16,26; 15:26), but to suggest that John, ever quick to offer double entendres, provides symbolic import in the events of the cross. 10228 Again the narrative emphasizes Jesus» control over his situation. Jesus» final words, in contrast to the last recorded words in Mark ( Mark 15:34 ), announce the completion of his mission ( John 19:30 ), though Mark also recognizes a theophany in Jesus» death ( Mark 15:38–39 ). John " s term παραδδωμι («hand over,» «deliver,» «betray») in 19connects Judas (18:2, 5,36), the chief priests (18:30, 35; 19:11), and Pilate (19:16) in a chain of guilt but here reminds the informed reader that Jesus ultimately embraced his own death (10:18). 10229 The departure of the spirit was a common enough Jewish expression for death; Jesus» surrender of his spirit, however, is rare language, and probably underlines the point that Jesus died voluntarily. 10230 As Tertullian emphasizes (Apo1. 21), Jesus dismissed his spirit with a word, by his own wil1. 6. Breaking Bones (19:31–37) The Roman execution squad breaks the bones of those crucified with Jesus, but not his because, in God " s sovereign plan revealed in Scripture, Jesus has already died. God confirms Jesus» prior promise of the Spirit at his glorification (7:37–39) with water flowing from his wound (19:34), which provides a context for the meaning of Jesus «handing over his Spirit» (19:30). Talbert suggests that this section parallels the activity of the previous section: (a) Jewish authorities act and request Pilate, or request Pilate that they may act (19:31; cf. 19:17–22); (b) the soldiers act (19:32–34; cf. 19:23–25a); (c) the beloved disciplés presence (19:35–37; cf. 19:25–27); (d) those who love Jesus act (19:38–40; cf. 19:28–29); (e) Jesus» death (19:30) and burial (19:41–42). 10231 By reinforcing the activities of various characters through repetition, John highlights the division in humanity (cf. 15:18–25). 6A. The Soldiers Break Bones (19:31–33) |
| 6548 Hoskyns, Gospel, 321; Jeremias, Theology, 159. The structure may link thirsting with drinking, and coming with believing, but also chiastically arrange the subjunctive and participle around the imperatives (cf. Anderson, Glossary, 106, for a different example of chiastic syntax). 6549 Cf. Kilpatrick, «Punctuation»; Brown, John, 1:321; Strachan, Gospel, 132; Bienaimé, «L " annonce,» 281–310. 6550 Note Blenkinsopp, «Quenching,» 40, for the structure; it is an invitation formula (p. 41). Cf. Glasson, Moses, 50–51. 6551 Cf. Allen, «John vii.37, 38»; Sanders, John, 213–14; Robinson, Studies, 164. If believers are the source, perhaps one could argue from Prov 4:23 ; but neither the MT nor the LXX clearly refers to waters (though the LXX term could function thus–cf. Prov 25:13, 26 ; esp. Sir 50:8 –it is not the most common nuance), and nothing else suggests it here. 6552 Perkins, «John,» 964. 6553 Schnackenburg, John, 2:154; Allen, «John vii.37, 38,» 330. 6554 That is, the era of the Spirit " s outpouring had not yet come; cf. Lightfoot, Gospel, 184; Holwerda, Spirit, 1. Hooke, «Spirit,» 379, argues for the significance of the newness of this event. For the connection of the Spirit, Jesus, and glory in the Fourth Gospel, see Floor, «Spirit.» 6555 Most scholars agree that the hour of Jesus» glorification includes (though not all hold that it is limited to) his death (12:23–28); e.g., Taylor, Atonement, 139; Käsemann, Testament, 19; Lindars, Apologetic, 58; Holwerda, Spirit, 7–8; Appold, Motif, 28. 6556 Euripides Medea 667–668 (μφαλν γης); Orest. 591 (μεσομφλους); Pindar Pyth. 4.74; 8.59–60; 11.10; Paean 6.17; 21, frg. 54 (in Strabo 9.3.6); Varro 7.2.17 (umbilicus); Livy 38.48.2; Ovid Metam. 10.168; 15.630–631; Lucan C.W. 5.71; Menander Rhetor 1.3, 366.29. Scott, «Horizon,» 485, cites Herodotus Hist. 4.36 and Aristotle Mete. 2.5.362b. 13; cf. Geroussis, Delphi, 6. Scott, «Horizon,» 486, cites later Greek writers who made Rhodes the center (Agathemerus Geographiae informatio 1.5). Although Philostratus Hrk. 29.9 applies the phrase «belly of earth» literally to an oracular chasm, he probably intends a parallel to the Delphic use. Harrelson, Cult, 36, may also be correct in citing Mesopotamian parallels, though even unrelated cultures could see their own land as the world " s center (e.g., China; Kantowicz, Rage, 45). |
| 145 Cf. C.T.Craig, The One Church in the Light of the N.T., 1951, p.21: “The identification of the Church with the Body of Christ cannot be understood apart from the Eucharistic word ‘This is my body’”. Cf. H.Schlier, Die Zeit der Kirche. Exegetische Aufsätze und Vorträge, 1962 (3ed.), p.246f. and R.Schnackenburg, op.cit., p.158f 146 For details, see A.D.J.Rawlinson, “Corpus Christi” in Mysterium Christi (ed. G.A.Bell and A.Deissmann), 1930, p.225f 149 See e.g. V.Ioannidis, “The Unity”, loc.cit., p.179, where the source of the term is regarded as being the story told by the Roman Menenius Agrippa who was trying to emphasize to the rebellious Roman plebeians that the citizens of a state are like the members of a body 155 The interpretation of the term pleroma presents difficulties for which see F.Mussner, op.cit., p.46f. Cf. also H.Schlier, Die Zeit der Kirche, p.170f. But whether the word is given an active meaning (=the Church as complement of Christ), as favored by ancient exegetes including St.John Chrysostom, or a passive meaning (=the Church is fulfilled through Christ), as favored by modern commentators, it still makes no sense without the idea of an ontological interdependency between Christ and the Church 157 This is clear at least in Hebrews 12:22–24 and 13:10, where the allusion is certainly to the Eucharist as shown by the verb “to eat”. Cf. D.Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, I, 1909, p.15, and perhaps also the relevant passages of 1 Peter 160 Unity per se was not a characteristic exclusive to the Church. In the Roman Empire, the formation of “associations” was such a widespread practice that there were special laws governing the affairs of the various organizations which were known by the term collegia (see Tacitus, Annals 14.17; Pliny, Ad Traf. 34.97; Minucius Felix, Octavius 8–9 and Origen, Against Celsus 1.1. Cf. J.P.Waltzing, Étude Historique sur les Corporations Professionnelles chez les Romains, I, pp.113–129 and Th.Mommsen, Le Droit Pénal Romain, II, pp.274–8). The love and mutual support which prevailed among the members of these collegia was extraordinary and was organized through a common fund to which each would contribute monthly (stips menstrua); thus, the members would address each other as “brethren” (fratres, sodales, socii). (Cf. F.X.Kraus, “Fraternitas” in Realencyclopaedie der christl. Alterthümer, I, 1880, p.540). Apart from the pagans, the Jews who lived within the Roman Empire came together in special communities under their own ethnarch (cf. E.Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 1914, pp.14, 17). The brotherly love between them was strong, and was manifest especially in groups such as the Essenes whose life was organized on principles of common property (cf. L.Philippidis, History, p.480f.) To characterize the Church’s unity as simply a “communion of love”, therefore, does not satisfy the historian who sees the Church as a sui generis unity |
| 4948 Plutarch Exile 17, Mor. 607D, also citing Platós claim (Phaedrus 250C) that the soul is «like an oyster in its shell» (Plutarch, LCL 7:568–71). 4953 Socrates in Xenophon Mem. 4.3.14; the principle may also cast light back on Jesus as the incarnation of the invisible God in 1:18. On the divine winds, see, e.g., Virgil Aen. 1.56–59; Keener, Revelation, 233; for Poseidon allegorized as cosmic breath, Maximus of Tyre Or. 4.8; for a naturalistic explanation (air blowing in a specific direction), see Seneca Nat. 5.1.1. 4955 E.g., Matt 8:27; 15:31; 21:20; Mark 5:20 ; Luke 1:63; 2:18; cf. Rev 13:3; 1 En. 26:6; Sib. Or. 1.32 (Evés creation); T. Ab. 3:11–12A; the response to Apollonius in Greek tradition in Robbins, Jesus, 149. See further comment on 2:11. 4956 Some (e.g., Brown, John, 1:131) attribute Jesus» admonition not to marvel to «a characteristic rabbinic usage»; more naturally, it is a common admonition to those who should not have been taken by surprise (e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.16.1, Μ θαυμζετ»). 4957 Commentators here often appeal to the community Nicodemus represented in John " s day (e.g., Brown, John, 1:131; Sanders, John, 125; Rensberger, Faith, 38, 56–57, 148; cf. Carreira das Neves, «Pronome»). 4960 The identity of οδα with γινσκω in 3may represent rhetorical metabole or variatio (cf. Lee, «Translations of OT,» 776–77); the repetition of οδα so frequently in the passage may resemble rhetorical diaphora (cf. Rowe, «Style,» 133–34). 4961 Schwarz, «Wind,» translates «blows» as «inspires,» but his recourse to Aramaic would probably be lost on most of John " s ideal audience. 4962 Like the description of Jesus raising whom he wills (θλει, 5:21), it also implies divine omnipotence (cf. Rev 1:8). 4966 E.g., Sophocles Oed. co1. 214–215; Euripides Helen 86; Virgil Aen. 2.74; Pindar Ryth. 4.97–98. One would also ask the person " s name (Euripides Cyc1. 102; Iph. taur. 499; Parthenius L.R. 26.4; cf. Judg 13:6 ). 4968 Diogenes Laertius 6.2.63. For the idea, cf. Diogenes Laertius 2.99; 6.2.72; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 28.4; Epictetus Diatr. 2.10.3; Philo Creation 142; for citizenship in heaven, cf. Diogenes Laertius 2.7; Philo Contempt. Life 90; Phil 3:20 ; Diogn. 5.5. |
| 3131 «Abot R. Nat. 15 A (reportedly of Shammai and Hillel); »Abot R. Nat. 29, §§61–62 B; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.14 (citing also Akiba); Sipre Deut. 306.25.1; 351.1.2, 3 (the latter citing R. Gamaliel II); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:7; 10:5; 15:5; Num. Rab. 13:15–16; Song Rab. 1:2, §5; 1:3, §2; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 3 A; Sipra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.1; Sipre Deut. 115.1.1–2; 161.1.3; Pesiq. Rab. 3:1; probably also Sipre Deut. 335.1.1 (the «threads» probably represent what is actually written, and the «mountains» the meanings drawn from them by the sages); Boring et a1., Commentary, 102 cites Seder Eliahu Zuta 2. Thus not only later Scripture (e.g., Esther in p. Meg. 1:5, §3) was revealed on Sinai, but also the correct rabbinic interpretations implicit in Torah (b. Ber. 5a; Meg. 19b; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:304). On oral Torah, cf., e.g., Ehrlich, «Tora.» 3132 P. Ber. 1:3; Péah 2:6, §3; Sanh. 11:4, §1; c Abod. Zar. 2:7, §3; Hor. 3:5, §3; b. c Abod. Zar. 35a; c Erub. 21b; Num. Rab. 14:4; Song Rab. 1:2, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 3:2; cf. b. Menah. 29b. Transgression of sages» teachings was «a mortal offense» CAbot R. Nat. 2 A, tr., 26; cf. b. c Erub. 21b), and a person could be fined for transgressing the words of a Tanna, e.g., R. Akiba ( " Abot R. Nat. 3 A). The words of the scribes were nearly always on a lower level than the words of Torah in the earliest rabbinic sources, however (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 115–25; Sipre Deut. 154.2.1 ). 3133 Later amplification was understood to have been implicit in the Sinai Torah from the very beginning (Sipre Deut. 313.2.4); cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:305, 376. 3134 See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 97–130; on the varying value of tradition among early Tannaim, cf. Landman, «Traditions,» 111–28. Chernick, «Responses,» 393–406, suggests that this emphasis reflects a polemical response to Jewish Christians and gnosticism (cf. similarly Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 159). This observation contrasts with the assumptions of much earlier scholarship, e.g., Sandmel, Judaism, 183; Köhler, Theology, 355; Simon, Sects, 34; Bonsirven, Judaism, 85 (although the last notes that the term is rare in the early period, «traditions» being preferred). |
| 1362 Brown, John, lvi. Smith, Theology, 14, is less persuaded about Christian influence but agrees that the late date makes this literature problematic for Johannine background. 1363 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2n. 144, noting that the Mandeans probably did not cite John the Baptist until after the Arab conquest. 1364 His reinterpretation of eschatology in existential terms (cf. Bultmann, «Eschatology,» 16; Perrin, Kingdom, 115) actually brings him close to second-century gnosis (Rondorf, «Bultmann,» 361). 1368 Shepherd, «Jews,» 106; Fischel, «Gnosticism» (many of whose Jewish parallels, such as the préexistent prophets, 169, are not very helpful); cf. Barrett, John and Judaism, 19; Grant, Gnosticism, 166,172–73. 1369 MacRae, «Myth»; Black, Scrolls, 63ff.; Goppelt, Jesus, Paul, and Judaism, 175–80,187; Basser, Allusions, 1–4, 33–35, 75ff.; Grant, Gnosticism, 13–14, 26, 118; Simon, Sects, 12, 116–17; cf. Koester, Introduction, 1:385–87; on Alexandrian (including Philonic) background, cf. Pearson, «Origins.» 1373 Strachan, «Odes,» 14, suggested that the language of the Odes provided a non-Hellenistic, Jewish mystic context for the Fourth Gospe1. It is more likely, however, that the Odes are Christian (albeit Jewish-Christian). 1374 Nock, «Gnosticism,» 262–66, esp. 264–66. OTP 1:236–38 concludes that while Merkabah Mysticism may have influenced gnosticism, they may both simply draw from common sources. 1375 Tinh, «Sarapis,» 113–14; Wikenhauser, Mysticism, 167–83 (though heavily emphasizing Poimandres in the Hermetica); Goodenough, Philo, 134–60; cf. Koester, Introduction, 1:265. 1376 See Urbach, Sages, 1:193; Sandmel, Judaism, 171; Ginzberg, «Cabala,» 457; cf. Scholem, Trends, 5. 1377 E.g., t. Hag. 2:1,7; b. Hag. 15a; p. Hag. 2:1, §15; Gen. Rab. 1:5,10; 2:4; Pesiq. RabKah. 21:5; cf. 2 En. 24A (J is similar); perhaps 1QH 1.11,13 (in Ramirez, ««Himnos»»). 1379 Mystic experiences may have arisen from attempts to duplicate OT prophecy (cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:578), and thus are probably related to apocalyptic visions. |
|
|
