| 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). |
| 1103 Deut 10:17 ; Dan 2:47 ; 2Macc 13:4; 3Macc 5:35; 1Tim 6:15 ; 1 En. 9:4; 84:2; 3 En. 22:15; 25:4; Philo Decalogue 41; m. «Abot3:1; t. Sank. 8:9; Sipra, Sav. Mekhilta DeMilium 98.8.5; »Abot R. Nat. 25; 27 A; " Abot R. Nat. 1, §1; 27, §56 B; b. Ber. 28b, bar.; 32b-33a, bar.; 62b; Sank. 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, bar.; 33:3; Num. Rab. 1:4; 4:1, 20; 8:3; 14:3; 15:3; 18:22; Ecc1. Rab. 2:12, §1; 4:17, §1; 5:10, §2; 9:15, §7; 9:18, §2; 12:1, §1; 12:7, §1; Lam. Rab. 1:16, §50; Ruth Rab. 2:3; Esth. Rab. 3:15; Song Rab. 1:12, §1; 7:5, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 13:7, 15.preamble; 23:8; Text 67(Isbell, Incantation Bowls, 147); cf. Ps 136:2 . This was a title of the Parthian king (Suetonius Gaius 5; Plutarch Pompey 38.2) and Eastern monarchs in general (Deissmann, Light, 363; Gordon, East, 274; cf. T. lud. 3:7), and Greeks could apply it to Zeus (e.g., Dio Chrysostom Or. 2, On Kingship 2, §75). God is regularly called «king» in Jewish texts (Judith 9:12; Tob 13:6; 1Tim 1:17 ; 1 En. 25:3, 5; 91:13; Sib. Or. 1.73; 3.11, 56, 499, 704; T. Ab. 15:15A; Philo Good Person 20; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.40; Cleanthes» Hymn to Zeus [Stobaeus Ec1. 1.1.12]) as in many religions (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 58–59). 1104 Cf. also Genesis Apocryphon 2:7; 21:2; Jub. 31:13; 1 En. 81:10; Jos. Asen. 12:1–2, MSS. «Ages» is found in the original hand of Sinaiticus (fourth century) and P 47 (third century) and is supported by a wide geographical distribution, but «nations» also has good textual support. Rissi, Time, 31 translates «King of the ages» as «eternal King.» 1106 The meaning of the similar text in 1QH 3.3–18 is debated. It maybe metaphorical imagery for the author s own suffering (Baumgarten and Mansoor, «Studies,» 188; Feuillet, Apocalypse, 111). Others attribute it to the «emergence of the [Qumran] sect itself» (Pryke, «Eschatology,» 50–51 ). It may relate to the messiah (Gordis, «Messiah,» 194; Brownlee, «Motifs, II,» 209–10; cf. Brown, «Messianism,» 66–72; contrast Silberman, «Language») or be eschatological in a more general sense (Brown, «Deliverance»), the birth of the redeemed community through Israel " s suffering (Black, Scrolls, 151). But Rissi, Time, 36–37, is probably correct that 1QH 3.7–12 does not add to the OT picture. |
| 2586 See Hayman, «Monotheism,» though he probably overstates the case for the pervasiveness of dualistic monotheism. Cf. Fauth, «Metatron»; Abrams, «Boundaries»; Alexander, «3 Enoch,» 235. 2587 With Bauckham, God Crucified, 2–4,27–28, who believes Jesus in early Christian texts functions like Wisdom, being within the unique divine identity (26–42). 2588 Pritz, Jewish Christianity, 110; Flusser, Judaism, 620, 624. Barrett, John and Judaism, 48–49, thinks rabbinic teaching on God " s unity reflects some polemic against Christianity. 2590 For detailed argument, see most fully Bauckham, God Crucified, 2–15,26–42; cf. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 35; Wright, Paul, 63–72. 2591 Moore, Judaism, 1:437. Even later Judaism, however, regarded Gentile (as opposed to Jewish) adherence to Trinitarian views as Shittuf (partnership) rather than idolatry (cf. Falk, Jesus, 33–35; Borowitz, Christologies, 32; Berger and Wyschogrod, Jews, 33; Schoeps, Argument, 16–17). 2593 See comment on 1:1–18; further, e.g., Dunn, «John,» 314–16, who finds it pervasive throughout the Gospe1. 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. |
| 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). |
| Whereas, in other extant gospel tradition, Jesus reluctantly accepts the charge «king of the Jews» with the words «That is what you are saying» ( Mark 15:2 ; Matt 27:11; Luke 23:3), here John transposes Jesus» response into John " s own idiom, allowing him to explain the sense in which he is and the sense in which he is not «king of the Jews.» 9907 In a sense, Jesus rejects the title «king of the Jews» (18:33)–in the sense in which the Fourth Gospel uses the title «Jews» (see introduction, pp. 214–28)–preferring «king of Israel» (12:13), which appears in a very different light (see introduction, pp. 280–320). Jesus» kingship may be rejected by many of the leaders of his own people, but he is king over all who embrace his truth (18:36–37). 9908 Only those born from above by God " s Spirit can recognize or enter his kingdom (3:3, 5). Jesus declares that his servants would not fight to protect him (18:36). Roman officials would have punished soldiers who did not risk their lives to protect their commander; 9909 but Jesus shows Pilate that he and his followers are a different sort of kingdom. One of Jesus» servants had sought to fight the high priest " s servant (18:10), but Jesus had stopped him (18:11); Jesus» way called on even his servants to die (12:26; 13:16; 15:20). If Romans had accompanied those who originally detained Jesus, Pilate may have heard of Jesus» command not to resist (18:ll), 9910 but as we noted above, Roman participation is unclear before the priestly delegation approaches Pilate in 18:28. In any case, Jesus mentions the matter now. Romés acknowledgement of Jesus» Jewishness through the character of Pilate and the acceptance by some Gentiles that Jesus was Israel " s rightful king contrasted starkly with the hostile response of synagogue leaders to this claim, allowing John " s audience to identify with Jesus» situation. Jesus» definition of his kingdom in terms of fidelity to his truth rather than of ethnic allegiances or military power (18:36) also fits the Johannine portrait of the revealer. 9911 Yet the theology behind this pericope is not only Johannine but also goes back to the earliest sources of Christian faith. Sanders accepts as two «firm facts» Jesus» execution by the Romans as a professed «king of the Jews» and a messianic movement of Jesus» followers who entertained no anticipation of military triumph. «Thus not only was Jesus executed as would-be king even though he had no secular ambitions, his disciples also combined the same two points: Jesus was Messiah, but his kingdom was «not of this world.»» 9912 Allegiance to such a kingdom inevitably produced conflict with excessive claims of worldly kingdoms, inviting the martyrdom of those who remained loyal to it. 9913 3D. The Kingdom and Truth (18:37b-38a) |
| 594 Sat. V, 180–181: ,,Herodis venere dies, unctaque tenestra Dispositae pinguem nebulam vomuere lucernae“. 598 Sabb. I, 3. Это запрещение вызывается боязнью, что у читающего или очищающего одежды явится желание наклонить лампаду, а чрез это может пролиться масло и, таким образом, лампада должна будет погаснуть ранее, чем следует. Читать при лампадах позволяется только мальчикам в присутствии их учители, так как, по объяснению Талмуда, страх, который внушает учитель, будет удерживать мальчиков от прикосновения к лампадам. Sabb. II, 4. 599 По объяснению Маймонида, в данном случае разумеются болезни, вызывающие психическое расстройство. 610 Отсюда p. Иосия говорил: „пусть будет часть моя с начинающими субботу в Тивериаде и с оканчивающими ее в Сепфорисе“. Ibid. 614 Вечером под субботу эти стихи должен читать несколько раз каждый еврей, так-как, по словам Талмуда, „чрез чтение их человек делается как бы „участником вместе с Богом в деле творения“. Babyl. Schabb. fol. 119 b. Wünsche, 1 Halbb. S. 164. 615 Jost, Geschichte Judenthums und seiner Secten. Abth. I. S. 180. Leipzig. 1857. Позднейшие раввины советуют во время чтения этой молитвы внимательно смотреть на субботние лампады, так-как, по их словам, этим укрепляется зрение. Buxtorfius, Lb. cit. р. 310. 621 У современных евреев есть много молитв и песнопений, которые люди благочестивые исполняют после первой субботней вечери. Schröder, lib. cit. S. 37–43. 626 О столе для хлебов предложения см. А. А. Олесницкий , Ветхозаветный храм. Стр. 112–116, 318–319; Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon. Bd. V. S. 214; Herzog, RE Bd. XIII. S. 456; Tahlhofer, Die unbintigen Opfer. S. 74–78 и др. 634 Mischna Ioma III, 11. Surenhusius, t. II p. 225; Babyl. Joma fol. 38a. Wünsche, 1 Halbb. S. 362–363. 637 Menach. V, 3. Surenhusius, t. V p. 79. Впрочем Тальгофер (Die unblutigen Opfer. 1848. Regensburg. S. 163) сомневается в достоверности этого предания, а Edersheim положительно говорит, что хлебы крестообразно помазывались маслом The Temple p. 155. 638 |
| Платон анализировал понятие В. в контексте деления всего сущего на бытие и становление. Первое существует вечно, второе возникает и исчезает во В. В. есть подвижный образ вечности, подобие вечности (αν) в эмпирическом мире становления ( Plat. Tim. 37c-d). Платон мыслил В. как категорию космическую: оно творится демиургом вместе с космосом с целью «еще больше уподобить творение образцу» (Ibid. 37с), явлено в движении небесных тел и подчиняется закону числа («бежит по кругу согласно закону числа» - Ibid. 38a). «Время возникло вместе с небом, дабы, одновременно рожденные, они и распались бы одновременно, если наступит для них распад» (Ibid. 38b). Платон различал 3 момента: то, что существует вечно, не рождено и не создано; то, что существует всегда (сотворено, но не подвержено гибели); и то, что существует временно (возникает и погибает). 1-е - это Единое, вечный образец, подражая к-рому демиург сотворил космос; 2-е - сам космос; 3-е - изменчивые и преходящие эмпирические явления. Аристотель, отчасти следуя Платону, отчасти отталкиваясь от него, дал в «Физике» развернутый анализ понятия В. ( Arist. Phys. IV 10-14). Считая космос вечным, он не мог принять тезис о сотворении В. и поэтому не соотносил В. с вечностью как его образцом. Вместо понятия αν (вечно) он употреблял понятие ε (всегда), когда речь идет о вневременном бытии, напр. о логических или математических истинах. Однако, как и Платон, Аристотель связывал В. с числом и с жизнью космоса, с физическим движением вообще, а меру В.- с движением небосвода. В. всегда представляется каким-то движением и изменением, но в действительности оно является движением лишь постольку, поскольку движение имеет число; В.- это «число движения по отношению к предыдущему и последующему» (Ibid. IV 11). Поскольку движение непрерывно, непрерывно и В., поэтому в отличие от числа (к-рое греки отличали от величины как дискретное от непрерывного) ему скорее подходит определение величины. По отношению ко всякой величине встает задача измерения: при этом, по Аристотелю, движение измеряется В., а В.- движением. |
| 544 34–34 Est equidem consilium nostrum, ut per dies singulos puer unus in egressura drneonis exponatur in holocaustum, quem draco veniens devoret, nec amplius querat quod manducet, et sic tota gens ab iniqua peste poterit illesa permanere. Melius est nos per diem unum puerum draconi tradere, quam nefaria nece simul omnes interire, aut ignotas regiones peragrare. Cumque omnes lilii nostri fuerint expositi et ego unicam filiam quam habeo exponam draconi ad devorandum. De deorum misericordia confido qui sui numinis potentiam teste probari letantur, quod tam flebile principium melior fortuna sequatur. 545 35–35 Placuit verbum regis omnibus in tantum, ut ejus consilium adimperi cupientes certatim proprium filium quilibet exponerent. 547 37–37 Mox autem rex indignum reputans sententiae, quam dederat, obviare, jussit filiam, suam quo cultu sponso esset tradenda preparari et ornatu ditissimo praeparatam in sui presentiam adduci. Confestim qui regio lateri assistebant surgentes eam juxta regis preceptum auro multo gemmisque preciossimis ornatam suo conspectui presentabant. Quam rex intuens nequaquam se amplius a lacrimis potuit continere, sed in luctum prorumpens amarum exclamavit dicens. 548 38–38a Hactenus ex te, filia mea dulcissima... sed me infelicem derelinquis orbatum (етр. 212). – 38 а Sic rex inenarrabiliter lamentabatur, nequibat tanto dolori moderari, nec suis questibus imponere finem. Ceterum inter sapientes nota referre videtur esse superfluum, et prolixitas solet sepiue lectori fastidium inferre, quam auditoris animum delectare ; ideo utrumque resecantes, regis lamenta breviter percurrimus et ad rei finem pervenire properamus. – ad. 549 39–39 Post haec autem convertet se rex ad populum dicens: auri sexcenta centena milia uobis largiar et etiam ipsum regnum pro unigenita filia mea conmutare non refugio, si eam permiseritis abire illesam. 555 45–45 Sed pius et misericors dominus, qui non vult mortem peccatoris ... ehristianam. В следующем отличия очень большие, но ввиду некоторых случаев текстуального сходства приведу варианты к отдельным словам текста основного. В общем же характер S иной, чем А . |
|
|
