| Pilatés inquiry (18:28–38a) constitutes part of a larger scene (18:28–19:16) in which Pilate plays a lead character; as a foil to Jesus, his character dominates 18:28–19:16. Pilate taunts Jewish nationalism with claims of Jesus» innocence and kingship, 9766 but while not friendly to the Jewish aristocracy–the world remains divided (cf. 7:43; 9:16)–he remains a representative of the «world,» essentially hostile toward Jesus because not one of his followers. 9767 A The Jewish leaders demand Jesus» execution (18:29–32) Β Jesus and Pilate talk (18:33–38a) C Pilate finds no reason to condemn Jesus (18:38b-40) D The scourging and crowning with thorns (19:1–3) C» Pilate finds no reason to condemn Jesus (19:4–8) B» Jesus and Pilate talk (19:9–11) Á The Jewish leaders are granted Jesus» execution (19:12–16) 9768 Although the immediate opposition of John " s audience seems to be the synagogue leadership, as most Johannine scholars have argued, the power of Rome stands not far in the background. The mortal threat of synagogue leadership to John " s urban audience is probably their role as accusers to the Romans (see introduction; comment on 16:2). The gospel tradition makes clear that Jerusalem " s aristocracy and the Roman governor cooperated on Jesus» execution even if the Jerusalem aristocracy had taken the initiative. John undoubtedly has reason to continue to highlight this emphasis, although he, too, emphasizes the initiative of the leaders of his own people because it is they who, he believes, should have known better. 1. The Setting (18:28) The brief transition between Jesus» detention at the hands of the high priest and his betrayal to Pilate provides important chronological markers. Some of these are of primarily historical interest («early»), but the most critical are of theological import (reinforcing the Johannine portrait of Jesus» crucifixion on Passover). The former markers might have been assumed by John " s audience without much comment; the latter probably challenge their expectations and, for those familiar with the Jewish reckoning of Passover chronologies (as most of his audience would be), would strike them immediately. 1A. They Came «Early» |
| Whereas Jesus proves bold, Peter " s denials (18:25–27) appear shamefu1. In Jewish martyr stories, the protagonists refuse to renounce their ancestral faith even under the most terrible tortures and executions. 9761 The third accusation against Peter came from a relative of Malchus, probably another important servant of the high priest (see comment on 18:10). The accusation of one of such high status would undoubtedly carry significant weight; 9762 further, if he genuinely recognized Peter from the garden, he probably also recognized or would soon recall that Peter was the active aggressor with a sword. Whereas Jesus could not be justly convicted for a crime, Peter could be. The high priest " s earlier inquiry about Jesus» disciples (18:19) may have partly indicated concern about such violent and possibly revolutionary sentiments as had been directed against his own servant Malchus; the charge against Jesus was sedition (18:33–35), and if anything, Peter " s act had only helped to make that charge more credible. Whereas Jesus suffers for Peter, Peter disowns Jesus and his own responsibility. If Peter is one Johannine paradigm for discipleship (albeit less secure than the beloved disciple), it is only because the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep to restore them to the right way (10:11–15). Yet as Ridderbos points out, in this Gospel Peter " s denial constitutes «the dramatic climax of Peter " s recurrent... resistance to Jesus» self-humiliation (13:6ff.) and self-offering in death (13:24, 36f.; 18:10).» 9763 The denial scene closes with Peter " s conviction by the crowing of the cock (18:27), signaling the fulfillment of Jesus» warning that Peter would in fact deny him (13:38). Cockcrowing was a negative omen to the superstititious in some parts of the empire, 9764 but more critically here, the cockcrowing also signaled early morning, 9765 when leading representatives of the municipal aristocracy could bring Jesus before Pilate (18:28). Clients could approach their patrons for legal advice at «cockcrow» (Horace Sat. 1.1.9–10). Pilatés Inquiry (18:28–38a) |
| 4332 See Dan 2:47 ; 1Tim 6:15 ; 2Macc 13:4; 3Macc 5:35; 1 En. 9:4; 84:2; 3 En. 22:15; 25:4; text 67.2 (Isbell, Bowls, 147); Philo Decalogue 41; Spec. Laws 1.18; m. «Abot 3:1; t. Sanh. 8:9; Sipra Sav M.D. 98.8.5; »Abot R. Nat. 25, 27 A; " Abot R. Nat. 1, §1 B; 27, §56 B; 29, §61 B; b. Ber. 28b; 32b-33a, bar.; 62b; Sanh. 38a, bar.; p. Meg. 1:9, §17; Gen. Rab. 8:7; 12:1; 14:1; Exod. Rab. 2:2; 6:1; 20:1; Lev. Rab. 18:1; 33:3; Num. Rab. 1:4; 4:1,20; 8:3; 14:3; 15:3; 18:22; Lam. Rab. 1:16, §50; Ruth Rab. 2:3; Ecc1. Rab. 2:12, §1; 4:17, §1; 5:10, §2; 9:15, §7; 9:18, §2; 12:1, §1; 12:7, §1; Esth. Rab. 3:15; Song Rab. 1:12, §1; 7:5, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 13:7; 15.preamble; 23:8; Dio Chrysostom Or. 2, On Kingship 2, §75; cf. Deut 10:17 ; Ps 136:2–3 ; Book of the Dead spell 185E (206); the phrase is rooted in titles of suzerain rulers (Ezra 7:12; Ezek 26:7 ; Dan 2:37 ; T. Jud. 3:7; Plutarch Pompey 38.2). 4333 Schnackenburg, John, 1:319, also finds reference to Jesus» continuing signs (2:11); Jonge, Jesus, 59, emphasizes Jesus» «permanent contact with God in heaven.» 4334 Cf. T. Ab. 20(Death to Abraham; Death had previously made his claim of truth emphatic by adding the first-person pronoun, T. Ab. 16A, cf. 18:6A), but this may represent Christian alteration; the double Amen of m. Sotah 2is an affirmation after, rather than before, a statement; that in an apparent synagogue inscription is uncertain and late (cf. Nebe, «Inschrift»). 4335 On the single μν " s very likely authenticity and sense, see Keener, Matthew, 54,181. In contrast to the prefatory μν, «I say to you» is not unique to the Jesus tradition (see Keener, Matthew, 182; also Wise, «General Introduction,» 264; Matt 3:9; Acts 5:38; 1Cor 7:12 ; cf. Rev 2:24). 4336 It functions as a solemn confirmation after a blessing also in the Scrolls, e.g., 4Q286 frg. 5, line 8; frg. 7,1.7; 2.1,5,10, and perhaps 6; 4Q287 frg. 5, line 11; 4Q289 frg. 2, line 4 (and perhaps frg. 1, line 2); 4Q509 1.7; 4Q511 frg. 63,4.3; after a curse in Num 5:22 . A cognate term could precede a statement, adding the emphatic meaning «truly» (Ruth 3:12; 1 Kgs 8:27; 2 Kgs 19:17; 2 Chr 6:18; Job 9:2; 12:2; 19:4–5; 34:12; 36:4 ; Ps 58:2 ; Isa 37:18). |
| 27 Or. ad Pulch. 27:11, 27:19, 27:21–22, 28:18, 36:25, 40:18, 40:26, 43:11, 43:33–34, 45:5–6, 45:10, 47:24, 47:35, 49:1, 52:4–5, 54:1, 55:15, 56:31, 57:6–7, 57:22, 57:29, 58:2–3, 59:3, 59:24–26, 60:30. 28 Or. ad Pulch. 32:5, 32:27, 32:33, 36:35–36, 37:9, 38:37, 43:7, 43:10, 50:6–7, 54:36, 54:13–14, 56:38–57:1. 30 Or. ad Pulch. 27:10, 28:23, 29:11, 29:12, 32:36, 33:27, 33:30, 33:33, 37:16, 38:23, 39:25, 41:2, 41:10, 42:14, 42:22, 42:24, 46:1, 46:32, 47:5, 49:21, 50:9, 56:11, 56:37, 57:1, 57:9, 58:2, 58:7, 61:11. Также, следуя за Евр. 2, 14 , «плоть и кровь» (Or. ad Pulch. 30:23, 30:32–33, 32:26, 33:9, 35:2–3, 41:8). Само вочеловечение Слова и Его искупительные деяния именуется «домостроительством с плотью» (Or. ad Pulch. 33:20, 33:24, 33:30, 34:16, 40:3, 42:1–2, 43:12, 44:25, 45:10, 47:23–24, 49:18–19). Для свт. Кирилла, который опирается в этом на книгу пророка Иоиля ( Иоил. 2, 28 ), «плоть» означает не что иное, как всего че- ловека: Лоуо? усу ove σρζ, τοντστιν νθpornos κατ ye το εκχε ττο τον πνευμα, τς μον Ιπι πσαν σρκα (Or. ad Pulch. 27:32–33; cp.: Or. ad Pulch. 33:33–34, 38:32, 56:4). Впрочем, можно отметить, как некоторую непоследовательность его богословского языка, что в рассуждении против аполлинариетов «плотью» названа только часть человека, отличная от души (Or. ad Pulch. 58:36, 59:1–2). 31 Or. ad Pulch. 27:12, 29:34, 36:33, 37:16, 38:11, 39:1–2, 40:27, 57:8, 58:33. При этом уточняется, что воспринятое тело имеет разумную душу (Or. ad Pulch. 27– 12, 37:16,58:33). 32 O r. ad Pulch. 27:27, 27:32, 28:18, 29:10, 30:4, 30:33, 33:25, 33:34, 37:11, 38:11, 39:23, 39:34,40:12, 41:7,45:32, 46:3, 47:1,47:36, 53:1, 53:23, 54:37, 56:3, 58:33. Однако подчеркивается, что Христос – не обыкновенный ( απλς, φιλς, κοινς ) человек (Or. ad Pulch. 32:24–25, 33:9, 38:17–18, 38:31, 41:28, 43:1, 43:23–24, 43:31, 49:30, 49:32, 59:16). 33 Or. ad Pulch. 37– 10, 38:32, 39:23, 40:25, 55:5. Также «условия человечества», то της νθρωτττητος μτρος (Or. ad Pulch. 28:27, 29:33, 30:7, 31:35, 39:36–37). |
| Jesus» mastery over those who engineer his execution is evident in 18:31–32. Local leaders lacked capital jurisdiction and depended on Pilate for a legal execution (18:31); this, however, was not a mark of their power but a matter of Jesus» own plan. The Romans normally executed by crucifixion those accused of treason. 9881 Jesus had announced that he would be executed by being lifted up (12:32–33); now he was handed over to the Romans so that his purpose could be fulfilled (cf. 19:11). Perhaps some opponents of John " s audience ridiculed Christians for worshiping one whose life had ended so shamefully at the hands of others, even if Christians claimed he was innocent; John is emphatic that Jesus» death was no tragic accident but part of the divine plan (cf., e.g., 3:14; 4:4; 19:30). 9882 3. The Kingdom of Truth (18:33–38a) After Pilate speaks with the chief priests (18:29–31), he must make some inquiry from the prisoner himself (at least if he wishes to follow some semblance of Roman order, which had withheld capital jurisdiction for Roman officials precisely to prevent abuses by local muncipal aristocracies). What he finds, however, does not sit well with Roman justice for a conviction. Undoubtedly, John " s audience would wish to make use of this apologetic line already figuring prominently in Acts and some other early Christian documents: despite their lack of welcome in some synagogues, Jewish Christians remained committed to their Jewish heritage; the issues of dispute between themselves and their accusers remained Jewish; and hence they should not be prosecuted in Roman lawcourts (see introduction, ch. 5). 3A. Questioning Jesus (18:33–34) In normal judicial procedure, the accusers would speak first (18:29); Pilate is thus acquainted with the charge of treason (18:33) before he interrogates Jesus. 9883 Pilatés initial interrogation of Jesus clarifies the charge the Sanhédrin has brought to Pilate, that Jesus claims to be a king; Rome, like the priestly aristocracy, would understand this claim in revolutionary terms (18:33). Whatever the possible religious motivations behind the charge, the charge against Jesus is political: by claiming to be a king, Jesus implied a worldly kingdom that would challenge Rome. 9884 The political charge in Luke 23accurately summarizes the gist of the charge in Mark and Matthew: Jesus was a revolutionary. 9885 This is also the most natural way to take the Johannine charge. 9886 The charge is technically that of lese majesty, 9887 for which the normal punishment in the provinces was crucifixion. 9888 Because Pilate had authority to conduct his inquiry without a jury or dependence even on the Roman ordo, the hearing was merely a cognitio to determine the facts and inform his decision. 9889 Jesus» only answer in the Markan account ( Mark 15:2 ) affirms the charge; 9890 although the Johannine Jesus clarifies the faulty basis for the charge (18:36–37), he never denies it (18:34–37). |
| As Diaspora readers would readily recognize, a Gentile hearing about a «kingdom of truth» would think not of political kingship but of a kingship of philosophers (cf. Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.49; Plutarch Flatterer 16, Mor 58E). From Plato on, philosophers claimed that they were the citizens best suited to rule the state, 9919 wrote essays on appropriate forms of rulership, 9920 and sometimes (especially among the Cynics) spoke of themselves as ruling. 9921 No one took such claims as a threat to the security of the state because such philosophers rarely if ever challenged that security. True, Cynics often criticized rulers who fell short of their ideal of true kingship, and this criticism invited suspicion of wandering preachers; 9922 but Pilate could readily discern the difference between such a political troublemaker and the more common form of apolitical visionary. To a pragmatic Roman governor, Jesus was nothing more than a harmless Cynic philosopher; a nuisance, perhaps, but surely no threat. Ironically, whereas Pilate views Jesus as a harmless sage, the Jerusalem aristocracy views him as a threat to Romés interests (19:12, 15; cf. 11:49–50). From their respective inadequate conceptual frameworks, both misconstrue his identity. Pilatés tone may be undecipherable, but as Duke notes, John " s dramatic irony here is clear: Pilate asks, «What is truth?» of the very one who is the truth (14:6). 9923 The meaning of «truth» might be debatable, but Pilate was hardly interested in what appeared to him to be philosophical matters (18:38a); he was interested in politics, and from that vantage point, Jesus was «not guilty» (18:38b). Pilate thus took the matter back to Jesus» accusers (18:38b-19:16). Pilate and the People (18:38b-19:16) This section develops Pilatés encounter with Jesus, augmenting the (in a worldly sense) apolitical character of his kingdom stressed in 18:36–37; Jesus is no threat to Roman security (19:8–12). But the people provide Pilate other political realities to deal with, and become increasingly insistent that Jesus be handed over. |
| Среди рим. авторов упоминания об И. есть в «Естественной истории» Плиния Старшего ( Plin. Sen. Natur. Hist. V 15. 71, 18. 74). Иосиф Флавий упоминает И. в связи с рассказами о завоеваниях Александра Янная ( Ios. Flav. De bell. I 7. 7, 20. 3; II 6. 3, 18. 1, 5; III 3. 1, 10. 10), а также о разделе Палестины между наследниками Ирода Великого решением рим. имп. Августа ( Idem. Antiq. XVII 11. 4; Idem. De bell. II 6. 3). После смерти Ирода И. был возвращен в состав пров. Сирия. Во время 1-й Иудейской войны (66-70 гг. по Р. Х.) горожане-язычники изгнали и частично истребили евр. население. В ответ на это евреи соседних городов атаковали И. ( Idem. De bell. II 18. 1, 5). Евреи из И. участвовали в обороне Тарихеи (Магдалы; Ibid. III 10. 10). Вероятно, после окончания войны в черту И. вошли и поселения евреев на вост. берегу Тивериадского оз. Возможно, большая евр. община проживала и в И. В Иерусалимском Талмуде есть упоминание о действующей в городе синагоге (Кетубот. 2 26). В нач. III в. по Р. Х. при иудейском патриархе Иуде I евреи И. были освобождены от десятины как живущие вне земель «исконного Израиля» (Тосефта. Охалот. 18 4). Остатки синагог рим. эпохи обнаружены в поселениях Фик (Афек) и в Умм-эль-Канатир, входивших во владения И. во II-III вв. Сведений об истории И. во II-III вв. мало. В талмудической лит-ре Сусита появляется как языческий город-анклав, к-рый не платит десятину и не соблюдает субботний год (каждый 7-й год - год покоя земли; Там же. 18 4). Вероятно, И., как и весь Декаполис, в это время переживал период стабильности и экономического расцвета. Греч. И. был серьезным хозяйственным конкурентом для иудейской Тивериады, расположенной на зап. берегу Тивериадского оз. (Иерусалимский Талмуд. Шевиит. 8. 38a). У И. было 2 порта на Тивериадском оз., к-рые имели большое значение для экономики и связей города с др. поселениями региона ( Nun. 1992). И. был включен в систему рим. дорог Палестины, хотя мощеная дорога подходила к городу только с юга, от Скифополя (ныне Бейт-Шеан, Израиль). |
| 2594 Paul modifies Hellenistic (see Nock, Christianity, 34; Koester, Introduction, 1:162; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 145)–both Stoic (Moffatt, Corinthians, 106; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 130; Meeks, Christians, 91) and Platonic (cf. Grant, Gods, 48; Horsley, «Formula»)–and Hellenistic Jewish (Lohse, Colossians, 50; cf. Sib. Or. 3.277–278; Grant, Gods, 84–85) language here; his wording probably represents esp. an adaptation of the Shema (Goppelt, Theology, 2:83; Hering, 1Corinthians, 69; Bruce, Corinthians, 80), pervasive use of which is attested early, e.g., the Nash Papyrus (second century B.C.E.); m. Ber. 2:5. 2595 Some have seen elements of an Adam Christology (e.g., Martin, Carmen Christi, 116–18; idem, " Morphë»; Hunter, Predecessors, 43; Johnston, Ephesians, 41; Beare, Philippians, 80; Ridderbos, Paul, 74; Furness, «Hymn»); others have denied it (Glasson, «Notes,» 137–39; Wanamaker, «Philippians»; Bornkamm, Experience, 114) or held that Paul revised an earlier Adam Christology (Barrett, Adam, 71). Regardless of possible allusions to Adam as God " s image (e.g., Philo Creation 69; 4 Ezra 8:44; 9:13; L.A.E. 37:3; 39:3; Apoc. Mos. 10:3; 12:2; 33:5; m. Sanh. 4:5; h. Sanh. 38a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 8:10; Ecc1. Rab. 6:10, §1), Wisdom was God " s image in the ultimate sense (Wis 7:26; Philo Planting 18; Confusion 97; 147; Heir 230; Flight 101; Dreams 1.239; 2.45; Spec. Laws 1.81), which this text distinguishes from the human sense ( Phil 2:7–8 ), especially in presenting Jesus» divinity (cf. Phil 2:10–11 with Isa 45:23). Paul here assumes Christ " s préexistence (Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 156–68; against Talbert, «Problem»); on other christological hymns stressing Christ " s préexistence, see Martin, Carmen Christi, 19. 2596 This passage is frequently regarded as hymnic (e.g., Schweizer, Colossians, 63; Lohse, Colossians, 41; Beasley-Murray, «Colossians,» 170; Martin, «Hymn»; Schweizer, «Christ in Colossians»; Pöhlmann, «All-Prädikationen»; McCown, «Structure»; Gibbs, Creation, 95; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 168–69; cf. ÓBrien, Colossians, 40–42, who accepts it as a hymn but thinks it may be Pauline) and as containing wisdom traditions (Bandstra, «Errorists,» 332; Johnston, Ephe-sians, 58; May, «Logos,» 446; Manns, «Midrash»; Kennedy, Epistles, 156–57; Longenecker, Christology, 145; Moule, Birth, 167; Glasson, «Colossians»). |
| 33:6 В стихе речь идет о мессианских временах. 33:7–12 В час, когда народ Иудеи уже утратит всякую надежду на спасение (ст. 7–9), Господь поднимется на его защиту (ст. 10) и погубит Ассирию (ст. 11,12). 33 сильные их. Евр.: «ариелим» жители Ариила или Иерусалима (см. ком. к 29,1). кричат... плачут. Отчаяние жителей Иерусалима. 33 Ливан... Сарон... Васан... Кармил. Местности, покоренные и опустошенные ассирийцами. 33 Ныне Я восстану. Теперь, когда жителям Иудеи уже не на кого надеяться и неоткуда ждать помощи, Сам Господь встает на их защиту. 33:11–12 Господь устами Исаии возвещает о том, что Он разрушит планы Ассирии. 33 Слушайте... познайте. Господь через пророка обращается ко всем народам, чтобы они извлекли урок из участи Ассирии, ибо это участь всех, противящихся воле Божией. дальние... ближние. Слово Божие обращено ко всем людям, как иудеям, так и язычникам (57,19). 33 грешники... нечестивыми. См. ком. к 1,27. на Сионе. См. ком. к 1,8. кто из нас может жить при огне пожирающем? По мысли Исаии, этот вопрос должен подтолкнуть грешников к покаянию и пробудить в них желание жить в согласии со святой волей Божией ( Пс. 15,1; 23,3 ). при огне пожирающем. Образ суда Божия. 33 обитать на высотах. Т.е. вместе с Самим Богом (ст. 5). неприступные скалы... вода. Господь хранит праведника (4,6 и ком.; ср. Пс. 17,1–3 ) и заботится о его хлебе насущном (49,10; 55,1.2.10; 62,9; 65,13; ср. 30,20). 33:17–24 Исаия провидит Царя Славы среди своего народа. 33 Царя. Пришествие Мессии и утверждение Царства Божиего превосходят в своем величии все прежние явления Славы Божией (ср. Пс. 44,3.4 ; см. ком. к 32,1). землю отдаленную. Точнее: «землю, далеко раскинувшуюся». Царство Мессии раскинется далеко и охватит практически всю землю. 33 свирепого... с языком... непонятным. Здесь имеются в виду не только ассирийцы, но любые другие враги народа израильского. 33 непоколебимую скинию. Символ вечного пребывания Господа с Его народом. 33:21 Господь станет оплотом и надеждой народа Божия и никто, никакая сила в мире не сможет отлучить народ от его Бога. |
| 5819 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:4; 23:8; b. Sanh. 22a; Gen. Rab. 68:4; Num. Rab. 3:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:4; Tg. Neof. 1 on Deut 32:4 ; cf. Lev. Rab. 8:1. 5820 Purportedly late-first- or early-second-century tradition in Exod. Rab. 30:9. 5821 Commentators (e.g., MacGregor, John, 173; Schnackenburg, John, 2:101; Barrett, John, 256) cite Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.5, 18; Cherubim 87. Since Greeks felt that true deities needed no rest (Maximus of Tyre Dissertations 15.16.2), emphasizing God " s continuing activity could serve an apologetic function for Diaspora Jews (Aristobulus frg. 5 in Eusebius Praep. ev. 13.12.11; Boring et a1., Commentary, 267). Cf. also the sun, which never «rests» (J En. 72:37). 5822 See the collection of numerous sources in Keener, Matthew, 217–18. 5823 Borgen, «Hellenism,» 107, citing Homer Il. 5.440–441; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 8.5, 7. 5824 See further Stauffer, Jesus, 206. Blasphemy in the narrowest extant sense of the term required the uttering of God " s name (m. Sanh. 7:5), but it is unclear how widespread this view was in the first century, and the Greek term includes «reviling» (Keener, Matthew, 289–90,651; cf. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 58–60, 64–67). 5825 Smith, Theology, 174. See our introduction on controversies with the minim over ditheism. 5826 Odeberg, Gospel, 203. Cf. the LXX of Deut 13 (13LXX), where one must love God more than a friend «equal to oneself» (in typical Greek language of friendship). 5827 E.g., m. Sanh. 4:5; b. Sanh. 38a, bar., reading with the earlier manuscripts; Sipre Deut. 329.1.1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:6; again, see our introduction on these conflicts. 5828 Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 46. 5829 Ashton, Understanding, 137–40, may be right to understand it in terms of the Johannine life-setting, but it still has a likely referent in the story world. 5830 Also others, e.g., Fenton, John, 71; Lee, Thought, 67; Martin, Carmen Christi, 148–49; cf. Barrett, John, 257 (equality but not independence); my treatment in Keener, «Subordination.» In the heat of the Arian controversy, Gregory of Nazianzus argued against the Son " s subordination here (Hall, Scripture, 78–80); while John does seem to affirm subordination here, it is not in an Arian sense–he denies equality of rank in redemptive activity in some sense but affirms equality of being in another sense (see 1:1,18; 8:58; 20:28; cf. Calvin, John, 1:198–99, on John 5:19 ). The Platonic idea that a perfect or superlative nature cannot be improved was already widespread outside Platonic circles (e.g., Seneca Ep. Lucil 66.8–12). |
|
|
