| 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» |
| 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. |
| The people here are essentially the leaders of the people who bear primary responsibility for leading them to oppose Jesus: hence «the Jews» (18:38; 19:7,12,14) are the «leading priests and officers» (19:6, 15). A flat, composite character, they speak with one voice like a chorus in a Greek tragedy. 9924 1. Preferring a Terrorist (18:38b-40) Pilatés first presentation of Jesus leads to repudiation; the chief priests, who supposedly hand over Jesus for a treason charge (18:33–35) and will claim no king but Caesar (19:15), yet want freedom for an insurgent instead (18:40). 9925 Their real objections to Jesus» claim to be «son of God» may lie elsewhere (19:7; cf. 5:18; 10:33–36), but John " s Asian audience will undoubtedly hear in their claim a support for the emperor cult (19:15), for lack of allegiance to which the Jewish Christians are being betrayed to the Roman authorities. 1A. Pilatés Attempt to Free Jesus (18:38b-39) The conflict between Pilate and the Jewish leaders continues to unfold, emphasizing the responsibility of the leaders of Jesus» own people without denying that of Pilate. 9926 Luke shares with John Pilatés threefold claim to find no guilt in Jesus (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; John 18:38; 19:4, 6 ); if John " s source is not ultimately Luke, then both draw on a common passion tradition here. If Jesus was no threat, Pilate would naturally be inclined to release him (18:39), just as an equally unscrupulous governor a few decades later would release another harmless prophet the chief priests wanted silenced (Josephus War 6.305). 9927 The negative response of the priestly aristocracy is predictable, and one familiar only with this Gospel and not the rest of the gospel tradition (e.g., Mark 15:6–15 ) 9928 might assume that the «Jews» who protest here (18:40) represent the elite with whom Pilate has been dealing (18:28, 35). But the elite often spoke for the masses who trusted and followed them, and John " s audience probably already knows the basic passion story from other sources (cf. |
| 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. |
| 589 B. Sanh. 39a (the emperor and late first-century R. Gamaliel II); Bek. 8b (emperor Hadrian and second-century rabbi); p. Meg. 1:11, §3 (concerning a second-century Tanna); 3:2, §3 (ditto); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1(R. Gamaliel); 4(concerning a Tanna, Johanan ben Zakkai, who then gives the correct answer privately to his disciples); Num. Rab. 4(Johanan ben Zakkai); 9(R. Eliezer, late first/early second century); Fed. Rab. 2.8, §2 (Hadrian and second-century rabbi). By observing that these reports concern Tannaim, we do not thereby claim their authenticity; many (such as debates with emperors) are demonstrably untrue. 590 T. c Abod. Zar. 6:7 (in Rome); b. c Abod. Zar. 54b, bar. (Rome); Bek. 8b-9a (Athens); cf. b. Sanh. 39a (Zoroastrian magus). 591 T. Sanh. 13:5; p. Sanh. 10:1, §7; cf. m. " Abot 2(R. Eleazar ben Arach, disciple of Johanan ben Zakkai), expounded in b. Sanh. 38b. 592 Cf. Geiger, « " pyqwrws.» Malherbe, Exhortation, 12, points out that other philosophers stereotypically accused Epicureans (and different competing schools) of «atheism, hedonism, and hatred of humanity» (some of which charges were also applied to Jews and Christians). 595 B. Sanh. 38b, 39a; Hu1. 84a; perhaps b. Yoma 56b-57a (if the Soncino note is correct concerning the possible corruption of min to Sadducee here); Herford, Christianity, 226–27, also lists Ecc1. Rab. 30:9,53cd; b. Hu1. 87a (sic?); Šabb. 152b; Sukkah 48b; cf. Bagatti, Church, 98ff. The baraita in b. Sanh. 43a is based on fanciful wordplays. 597 Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 31, follows many form critics» skepticism here, possibly to maintain his role for Jesus as a charismatic teacher rather than a proto-rabbinic halakist or debater; but in this period the two need not have been mutually exclusive. 598 Howard, Gospel, 229; Taylor, Formation, 116. Chilton, «Transmission»; idem, «Synoptic Development,» suggests that many Gospel traditions were transmitted and developed in ways similar to targumic traditions. 601 Although much has been written, a few references will suffice: Marcus, «Names»; Albright, Stone Age, 256–75; Lieberman, Hellenism; Tcherikover, Civilization; Hengel, Judaism; Avi-Yonah, Hellenism; cf. Goldstein, «Acceptance»; Simon, «Synkretismus»; Davies, «Aboth,» 138–51. Although some scholars above may have overdrawn their case–some regions were more hellenized than others (cf. Feldman, «Hellenism»; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 26), most scholars today concur that substantial hellenization had occurred in Jewish Palestine. |
| 1569 Cf. Neusner, Traditions, 3:3; sayings often quickly became property of the schools, and formulaic convention stylized individual utterances for the community. 1571 One could suppose that the later tradition has been read back into an earlier attribution, but the simplicity of the principle («Get for yourself a teacher») could also suggest the reverse. 1572 E.g., Neusner, Legend, 3. This need not imply that anonymity was an important practice in early Pharisaism, as Finkelstein, Making, 187–98, has suggested. 1575 Neusner likewise recognizes a continuity and unity in the ethos of rabbinic Judaism, though not in the sayings or stories (Saying, 189). Horsley, Galilee, 198 finds Mishnaic references «to local folklore or customs» most helpfu1. 1578 Methods of testing in such cases could include common attestation in both Talmuds and attempts to evaluate from which generations literary features derive (Kraemer, «Reliability»). 1579 See, e.g., the argument of Sanders, Judaism, 10. Segal, «Voice,» 3 is correct that the traditions must be evaluated individually. 1582 E.g., Goldenberg, «Halakha»; Goldenberg, " Antiquities iv.» Sanders, Judaism, 463, rightly warns that the parallels reflect common custom, not Josephus " s dependence on rabbinic rules. 1584 Cf. Schiffman, Law; idem, «Light»; Mantel, «Oral Law,» especially from CD; cf. Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 100–114. Neusner, Traditions, 3:175–76, accepts such parallels as valid evidence that particular traditions are early, though he rightly points out that this does not make them peculiarly Pharisaic or rabbinic (his point in that work). 1589 E.g., the hostile reaction to Akibás explanation of the thrones in Dan. 7 (as reported in b. Hag. 14a; Sanh. 38b); the punishment of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus for appreciating a saying of Jesus (Moore, Judaism, 2:250; Dalman, Jesus in Talmud, 36–37, cite t. Hu1. 2:24; b. c Abod. Zar. 16b-17a; Ecc1. Rab. to Eccl 1:8 ); and prohibited interpretations of Scripture that could support Christian «ditheism» (e.g., baraitot in b. Sanh. 38a; R. Johanan in 38b). |
| 9762 The testimony of those of higher status normally carried more weight (cf. comment on 18:19–22); in most cities, judges were chosen from among the well-to-do and respectable (MacMullen, Relations, 117). 9765 E.g., Apuleius Metam. 2.26; see comment on 13:38. Some (Hunter, John, 169) think the crowing refers to the «rooster» trumpeting, the gallicinium, from the Antonia at ca. 3 a.m.; for various views, see Brown, John, 2:828. 9768 Boismard, Prologue, 79. Ellis, Genius, 258, adds location to this arrangement: (a) request for and granting executing, outside (18:28–32; 19:12–16a); (b) Pilate questions Jesus about his kingship and power, inside (18:33–38a; 19:9–11); (c) Pilate finds no crime in him, outside (18:38b-40; 19:4–8); and (d) Jesus is scourged and mocked as «King of Jews,» inside (19:1–3; he suggests, pp. 260–61, that John moves the scourging from the end [ Mark 15:15 ] to the middle of the trial). Others also note the alternation (Brown, John, 859; Whitacre, John, 435); cf. also Neyrey, «Shame of Cross,» 122 («outside» representing a public honor contest), though he denies that any of the scenes are private (soldiers were present). 9771 E.g., Horace Set 1.1.9–10; Ep. 2.1.103–105; Martial Epigr. 3.36.1–3; see further Friedländer, Life, 1:86–93; Clarke, «Italy,» 475; receiving guest-clients was important to civic-minded nobles (e.g., Plutarch Cicero 8.3–4). Senators also could assemble at daybreak (Cicero Fam. 1.2.4; Plutarch Cicero 15.3; 19.1); even schools started then (Watson, «Education,» 311–12). 9773 Plutarch R.Q. 84, Mor. 284D. Friedländer, Life, 1:207, ends the business day in the afternoon «at the principal mea1.» Isaeus reportedly prepared his orations from dawn till noon (Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.20.514). 9775 Jewish schools also started early (Safrai, «Education,» 954); one offered morning prayers before work at sunrise (m. Ber. 1:2). 9776 E.g., Cicero Verr. 2.4.66.147 (despite the exceptional circumstances–allowing one to come only at daybreak may reflect arrogance, as it does in Theophrastus Char. 24.7); Plutarch Cicero 36.3. |
| Метатрон занимает исключительное место в небесном мире, он высочайший среди архангелов, князь и правитель над всеми князьями царств и сынами небес (3 Енох 10. 3-6). Подобно Богу, Метатрон восседает на престоле и председательствует на небесном Суде (3 Енох 16. 1). Его исключительное положение в небесном мире кратко выражено в титуле «малый Яхве» (3 Енох 12. 5, 48с. 7; 48d. что, возможно, является реминисценцией Исх 23. 20-21, где говорится об ангеле Господнем, в к-ром пребывает Имя Божие (ср.: Вавилонский Талмуд. Санхедрин 38b). Небесный Суд в Е. т. к. описывается не в эсхатологической перспективе, а как разбирательство, к-рое происходит каждый день (3 Енох 28. 7, 9; 26. 12). Собрание судей состоит из 72 князей царств и князя мира, обвинителями являются сатана и его представители Саммаэль, кн. Рима, и Дуббиэль, кн. Персии (3 Енох 26. 12). Образ Метатрона как участника Божественного Суда связан с представлениями о Енохе-книжнике, записывающем дела людей ко дню Суда (см. ст. Енох ). Антропология В Е. т. к. уделяется большое внимание человеку, его душе, происхождению и посмертной участи (3 Енох 43. 1 - 44. 7). Люди подразделяются на 3 группы: праведных; тех, кто находятся в промежуточном состоянии, и нечестивцев. Души праведников после смерти восходят к Престолу Славы Бога и пребывают в Его присутствии, летая над Престолом (3 Енох 43. 2). Находящиеся в промежуточном состоянии очищаются в огне шеола , а затем, по-видимому, получают возможность присоединиться к праведным. Нечестивцы низводятся в шеол, где наказываются огнем в геенне . Описание их последней участи отсутствует (3 Енох 44. 3). В Е. т. к. встречается идея предсуществования души: созданные еще в начале творения души нисходят с небес для телесного рождения на земле (3 Енох 43. 3), души нерожденных считаются праведными (3 Енох 43. 1). Идея бессмертия в Е. т. к. не связана с верой в телесное воскресение мертвых. Литературные связи В основе образного ряда Е. т. к. лежат ветхозаветные тексты. Описание вознесения Еноха (3 Енох 6. 1) схоже с описанием взятия на небо прор. Илии (4 Цар 2. 11). Основные элементы представления о Божественной колеснице и Престоле Славы (3 Енох 1. 1; 1. 12; 5-7; 20. 2; 26), вероятно, сформировались на основе видений пророков Иезекииля, Даниила и Исаии (Иез 1; 3. 12-15; 22-24; 8. 1-4; 10. 1-22; 43. 1-7; Дан 7. 9; Ис 6. 1-3). Кроме того, в Е. т. к. заметно влияние 3 Цар 22. 19, где говорится о видении Господа, «сидящего на престоле Своем, и все воинство небесное… при Нем, по правую и по левую руку Его». Описания огня и подобного радуге сияния вокруг Престола Божия в 3 Енох 22с. 4-7 основаны на Иез 1. 28. Рассказ о небесном Суде (ср.: 3 Енох 18. 19-21; 19. 4; 26. 12; 28. 7-10; 30. 1 - 33. 2; 33. 4; 36. 1-2; 37. 1) напоминает 3 Цар 22. 19-22; Пс 82; Иов 1. 6-12 и Дан 7. 10 (ср. описания в раввинистической традиции: Вавилонский Талмуд. Санхедрин 38b; мидраш Шмот Рабба 30. 18; Вайикра Рабба 24. 2). |
| Ma c as. S. 4:6, §5; Šeb. 9:1, §13 (38d); Lam. Rab. 1.1.14–15; Ecc1. Rab. 10:8, §1. 5372 E.g., Neh 4:1–2; Josephus Ant. 11.84,114. Although he seems too skeptical about the biblical schism, Coggins, Samaritans, 163–64, is surely right about the continued deterioration of relations through the Hellenistic period to the early first century. In the fifth century B.C.E., Elephantine Jews still regarded both Jerusalem and Samaria as Jewish centers (Bright, History, 407). 5373 Josephus Ant. 12.156. Josephus apparently has an extrabiblical, specifically anti-Samaritan source (Marcus, «Schism»). 5375 M. Git. 1:5; p. Git. 1:4, §2; as also from women (Josephus Ant. 4.219; Sipra VDDeho. pq. 7.45.1.1; cf. Justinian Inst. 2.10.6), slaves (Josephus Ant. 4.219; cf. Propertius Eleg. 3.6.20), and other groups. In some Amoraic texts, Samaria had its own local Shedim-demons (Alexander, Possession, 29), although these also turn up elsewhere. 5376 E.g., t. c Abod. Zar. 2:8. Heave-offerings were acceptable from either (m. Ter. 3:9). Rabbis felt that Samaritans were liable if their cattle gored Israelite cattle, but not the reverse (b. B. Qam. 38b, bar.) 5377 B. Sanh. 57a, unless «Cuthean» was a censor " s substitute for «gov» here (n. 5). Some rabbis in b. Meg. 25b suspect them of idolatry. 5378 B. Qidd. 75b (R. Ishmael, vs. R. Akiba); Num. Rab. 8:9; cf. Hoenig, «Conversion,» 58. 5381 T. c Abod . Zar. 3:1. In t. c Abod . Zar. 3:1, Israelites could also leave cattle in Samaritan inns because they were not suspected of bestiality. 5382 T. Abod. Zar. 3:5. They are also more trustworthy than Gentiles in some other respects (m. Demai 3:4; b. Bek. lib). People made regular use of barbers (Lewis, Life, 136; Goodman, State, 59–60; ILS 7414), but a hostile one could prove dangerous (Martial Epigr. 3.74.1–2). 5383 Sonne, «Use,» 154–62. Thus earlier traditions often viewed them as lax Jews (Deut. Rab. 2:33). 5385 Pietists regarded Samaritan drinking vessels as unclean (m. |
| Апр. Т. 1. С. 162). В каноне Родиону 10 нояб. говорится о том, что этот святой пострадал в Риме вместе с апостолами Петром и Олимпом (Μηναον. Νομβριος. Σ. 199; Минея (МП). Нояб. Т. 1. С. 246). В каноне того же автора на Собор 70 апостолов (4 янв.) И. и Родион также различаются (Μηναον. Ιανουριος. Σ. 68; Минея (МП). Янв. Т. 1. С. 128). Несмотря на это, в кратких житиях, помещенных в Минее (МП), Родион и И. представлены как варианты имени одного и того же лица, сказания об их мученической кончине объединены в одно (см., напр.: Минея (МП). Апр. Ч. 1. С. 165). Ист.: BHG, N 2174; Index apostolorum discipulorumque Domini (textus Pseudo-Dorothei) 19//Vitae prophetarum. 1907. P. 138; Epiphanius. Index discipulorum [Sp.] 24//Ibid. P. 121; ActaSS. April. T. 1. P. 741 sqq. Лит.: Сергий (Спасский). Месяцеслов. Т. 2. С. 84, 88-89, 101-102; Димитрий (Самбикин), архиеп. Собор святых 70 Апостолов. Каз., 19072. C. 96-98; Spadafora F. Erodione, Asincrito e Flegonte//BiblSS. Vol. 5. Col. 73-74; Dunn J. D. G. Romans 9-16. Dallas, 1988. (WBC; 38b). P. 895-896; Lampe P. Herodion//ABD. 1992. Vol. 3. P. 176; Jewett R., Kotansky R. D., Epp E. J. Romans: A Comment. Minneapolis, 2007. (Hermeneia). Иконография Апостолы Иродион и Олимп. Фрагмент миниатюры из греко-груз. рукописи. Кон. XV в. (РНБ. O.I.58. Л. 103 об.) Апостолы Иродион и Олимп. Фрагмент миниатюры из греко-груз. рукописи. Кон. XV в. (РНБ. O.I.58. Л. 103 об.) И. изображается человеком средних или преклонных лет, волосы короткие, борода средней длины, облачен в хитон и гиматий, в руках свиток (или без него); в поздних памятниках знаком его апостольского служения становится омофор, одетый поверх хитона и гиматия, в руках - кодекс. В греческом иконописном подлиннике - Ерминии иером. Дионисия Фурноаграфиота (ок. 1730-1733) - И. предписано изображать старцем (Ч. 3. § 7. 50). В русских иконописных подлинниках сводной редакции (XVIII в.) описание облика И. встречается под 10 нояб. и 8 апр., в дни памяти других апостолов от 70. Так, в подлиннике, изданном С. |
|
|
