| The same Prophet Hosea, proclaiming the name of God and addressing the chosen people, says: “for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee” (Hosea 11:9). God defines Himself as such, which means that holiness is one of the most important definitions of God (Cf., Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:3, 7, 26; 21:8; 22:2, 32. Jesus of Navi [Joshua] 24:15, 19. 1 Kings Samuel] 2:2, 10; 6:20; 2 Kings Samuel] 22:7; 4 Kings Kings] 19:22. 1 Paralipomena Chronicles] 16:10, 27, 35; 29:16. 2 Paralipomena Chronicles] 6:2; 30. 27. Tobit 3:11; 8:5, 15; 12:12, 15. Judith 9:13; Job 6:10; Psalms 2:6; 3:5; 5:8; 10 14 15 17 19 21 23 26 27 32 42 45 46 47 50 64 67 70 76 77 54; 78 88 97 98 5, 9; 101 102 104 42; 105 110 137 144 21; Proverbs 9:10; Wisdom of Solomon 1:5; 9:8, 10, 17; 10:20. Wisdom of Sirach 4:15; 17:8; 23:9–10; 43:11; 47:9, 12; 48:23. Esaias [Isaiah] 1:4; 5:16, 19, 24; 6:3; 8:13; 10:17, 20; 11:9; 12:6; 17:7; 29:19, 23; 30:11–12, 15; 31:1; 37:23; 40:25; 41:14, 16, 20; 43:3, 14–15; 45:11; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7; 52:19; 54:5; 55:5; 56:7; 57:13, 15; 58:13; 60:9, 14; 63:10–11; 65:11, 25; 66:20. Jeremias [Jeremiah] 23:9; 31:23; 50:29; 51:5. Baruch 2:16; 4:22, 37; 5:5; 20:39–40; 28: 14; 36:20–22; 39:7, 25. Ezekiel 43:7–8; Daniel 3:52–53; 4:5–6, 10, 14–15, 20; 5:11; 9:16, 20, 24. Joel 2:1; 3:17; Amos 2:7. Abidias 1:16. Jonas 2:5, 8; Michaias [Micah] 1:2; Abbacum [Habbakuk] 1:12; 2:20; 3:3; Sophonias [Zephaniah] 3: 11–12; Zacharias [Zechariah] 2:13; 2 Maccabees 8:15; 14:36; 15:32; 3 Maccabees 2:2, 11, 16; 5:8; 6:1–2, 4, 17, 26; 7:8; 2 Esdras 14:22; Matthew 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:32; 28:19. Mark 1:8, 24, 29; 12:36; 13:11; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 49, 67, 72; 2:25–26; 3:16, 22; 4: 1, 34; 11:13; 12:10, 12. John 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 17:11; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33, 38; 3:14; 4:8, 25, 27, 30–31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17–19, 39; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44–45, 47; 11:15–16, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 35, 52; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25. 1 Peter 1:12, 15–16; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 John 2:20; 5:7. Jude 1:20; Romans 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 3:17; 6:19; 12:3; 2 Corinthians 6:6; 13:13. Ephesians 3:5; 4: 30; 1 Thessalonians 1:5–6; 4:8; 2 Timothy 1:14; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 3:7; 6: 4; 9:8, 14; 10: 15; Revelation 3:7; 4:8; 6:10; 15:3–4; 16:5). |
| 41 F. Drasekë in “Gesammelte patrlstische Untersuchungen», Altona, 1889, 169—207. 42 Le Bachelet, op. cit. col. 2164. 43 См. Архим. Киприан (Керн): «Антропология Св. Григория Паламы». УМСА – PRESS, Париж, 1950, стр., 139—144. 44 «Против Ариан», I, 14. 45 Ibid. I, 17. 46 Ibid. I, 20. 47 «Против Ариан», I, 22. 48 «Против Ариан», I, 39. 49 Ibid. II, 45. 50 Ibid. II, 46. 51 «Против Ариан», II, 47. 52 Ibid. II, 57. 53 Ibid. III, 1.4. 54 «Против Ариан», III, 30. 55 Ibid. III, 20. 56 Его можно найти и у писателей раннего христианства: Татиан, «Против язычников», 5; Ориген, «Против Целса», I, 3; VIII, 67; чтобы не говорить о позднейших. 57 Н. Е. II, 6. 58 Выражение церковного историка Сократа. Н. Е. II, 41. 59 Metaphys. V, 16. 60 Болотов, op. cit., 39—40. 61 «О Соборах», 26. 62 Ibid., 25. 63 Ер. I, 1. 64 J. Lebon, Introduction. Lettres a Serapion. S.CH. 15, Paris, 1947, pp. 31—39. 65 Stricken, op. cit. 66 Ер. 1, 10—12. 67 P.G. 25, 685—90. 68 Ер. 8 и 13. 69 «The festal letters of Athanasius, discovered in an ancient syriac version». London, 1848. 70 T. Vll 1. — Roma, 1863. 71 P.G. 26, 1351—1432; 1431—44. 72 A. Puech: “Histoire de la limmйramure grecque chrйmienne», t. III, p. 313. 73 cf. A. Puech: «Histoire de la limmйramure grecque chrйmienne», t. Ill, pp. 261—262. 74 Stanislas Giet: «Homйlies sur l.Hexaйmйron». SCH. 26. Paris, 1950, pp. 5-.69. 75 Cruicë “Essai critique sur l " Нехайтйгоп de Saint Basile», Paris, 1844. 76 Kari Gronau; «Posidonius, eine Quelle fьr Basilius " Hexahemeron», Braunschweig, 1912; «Posidonius, und die jьdischchrismliche Genesis-Exe-gese», Leipzig-Berlin, 1914. 77 J. Levië «Les sources de la VII et de la VIII homйlies de Saint Basile sur l " Нехайтйгоп». Musйe belge, 1920, pp. 113—149. 78 «Contra Julianum», I, 16. 79 См. между прочим: проф. А.А. Спасский, «Кому принадлежат четвертая и пятая книги св. Василия Великого против Евномия. Библиографическая справка», в «Богосл. Вестн». 1900, сентябрь, стр. 79—106. 80 Проф. А.А. Спасский: «История догматических движений», т, 1, стр. 365. |
| Craig S. Keener The Response of the Unorthodox. 4:1–54 THE BULK OF THIS SECTION, which actually continues the general thought of 3:1–36, revolves around a sinful Samaritan woman and her response to Jesus. If the initial faith of the best representative from the Judean elite appears ambiguous (3:1–10), the faith of the socially worst representative from an unorthodox and ethnically mixed sect appears far more positive, even allowing her to bring her people as a whole to Jesus (4:39–42; cf. 1:46). She is one of those who believe, not one on whom God " s wrath remains (3:36); but those who exalt themselves will be brought low (3:30–31), and most, like Nicodemus initially, do not receive Jesus» witness (3:32). Yet Christ is available even to the elite. If we place John the Baptist in the special category of witness, 5206 the context surrounding his witness (3:22–36) in fact alternates between the socially powerful and the weak, providing positive and ambiguous or negative examples of each: Nicodemus (elite, open but uncomprehending), a Samaritan woman (receptive), an official of Antipas (receptive), and a lame man (unfaithful). Only Nicodemus, however, is part of the Judean religious elite, for the royal official could be viewed as unorthodox. This section also includes a much briefer healing miracle with no accompanying discourse (4:46–54). The royal official here represents part of a Galilean economic elite, but like many other Herodian aristocrats would have been religiously impure by Pharisaic standards. Through him the Gospel writer illustrates various levels of faith. True Worshipers in Samaria (4:1–42) This extended narrative contrasts starkly with the Nicodemus narrative. 5207 There a religious teacher in Israel proved unable to understand Jesus» message (3:10); here a sinful Samaritan woman not only received the message (though starting with no less daunting social obstacles–cf. πς in 3:4, 9 and 4:9; perhaps πθεν in 4:11), but brought it to her entire Samaritan town (4:28–29, 39–42). Here, as often, John employs ironic contrasts among characters to convey his emphases. 5208 (That the Samaritan woman, in contrast to Nicodemus, is unnamed is probably not as significant. As a woman, her name was less likely to be recorded in John " s tradition; 5209 further, most characters in the context are unnamed, and perhaps their names had not been preserved–2:1; 4:46; 5:5; 7:3; 9:1. |
| Craig S. Keener Conflict at Hanukkah. 10:22–42 THE ENTIRE SECTION FROM 7to 10occurs at Sukkoth, the festival of Tabernacles. This passage (10:22–42) occurs at the festival of dedication, not long afterward. Sukkoth motifs dominate 7:1–10far more than Hanukkah motifs dominate this section, which is shorter and overshadowed by it, perhaps as a continuation of it (cf. 4:46–54 with 4:1–42). The conflict about Jesus» identity escalates, with Jesus revealing his identity (10:30) and provoking deadly hostility (10:31) more rapidly than on his previous visit to Jerusalem (8:58–59). In this case as in the last one, Jesus speaks in terms whose meaning is obvious enough in an early Jewish or biblical framework (10:33), but which leave his claim sufficiently inexplicit that he can again escape their grasp (10:34–39). His hour, in other words, had not yet come (7:30; 8:20). The Setting (10:22–23) The setting provides a transition from the festival of Tabernacles (7:1–10:18), if only to emphasize that the debates of that festival continued here not many weeks later. Because the intensity of conflict in 10:19–21 is not great enough to require a transition for narrative reasons (as was necessary in 8:59–9:1, where, however, the transition was by location rather than by time), a historical reminiscence seems the best explanation for it. Some parallels between Jesus and Hanukkah appear, but had John exercised total creative freedom he could have provided much more explicit ones. 1. Hanukkah (10:22, 36) In the Jewish year, Hanukkah, the «feast of dedication» 7449 (10:22), came soon after Sukkoth, the festival of tabernacles, indicating another journey to Jerusalem. That both feasts were seven days in length also linked them in popular thought. 7450 In view of their temporal proximity and the brevity of this section, it is not surprising that motifs would carry over from the previous section, 7451 as if this section somehow stands in the shadow of the previous one. That this feast commemorated national liberation but did not appear in the Bible 7452 would be telling for Johns Jewish-Christian audience; Jesus could also attend an extrabiblical festival as a sign of solidarity with his nation " s heritage. But it is also strikingly ironic that the promised Messiah, Israel " s deliverer, would face rejection at a festival commemorating a national deliverance (cf. 1:11). 7453 |
| 25 3 Kgd 19:9 ff. 26 Probably an echo of both the chariot in which Elijah ascends into heaven in 4 Kgd 2:11, and of the chariot of the soul in Plato’s Phaedrus (246A-C). 27 Cf. 4 Kgd 2:1ff. 28 Probably commenting on 4 Kgd 1:9–12, but alluding also to 4 Kgd 6:15–17. 29 Cf. 1 Kgd 1:9–20. 30 Cf. Lev. 14:33–42 . 31 Cf. 3 Kgd 17:8–24. 32 Cf. Matt. 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8 , Luke 9:28–36. 33 Cf. Isa. 53:2. 34 Cf. Psa. 44:3. 35 Cf. John 1:1 . 36 Apophasis: Maximus introduces here the technical terms of apophatic and cataphatic theology. 37 Cf. John 1:14 . 38 This section develops the theme just introduced in the dual interpretation of the radiant garments of the Transfigured Christ as both Scriptures and creation. 39 The Evagrian triad of ascetic struggle (praktike), natural contemplation (physike), and theology was related by Origen to a very similar classification of the categories of philosophy in the prologue to his Commentary on the Song of Songs: see Louth (1981), 57–8. 40 Cf. Denys the Areopagite, Ep. 9.1 (1105D). 41 Literally: in a Greek way. It is in contrast with the later ‘in a Jewish way’: cf. St Paul’s contrast between Greeks/Gentiles and Jews, especially in Rom. 1–3 . 42 Cf. Phil. 3.19 . 43 A metaphor for the Incarnation used by Gregory Nazianzen in Sermon 38.2 (PG 36:313B). Maximus devotes a Difficulty to Gregory’s use of the term (suspected of Origenism?): Amb. 33:1285C-1288A, where the Word’s expressing itself in letters and words is one of the interpretations offered of the metaphor. 44 Cf. Gen. 39:11–12 . 45 This is an important section in which Maximus reworks a fundamental Evagrian theme. For Evagrius, the five modes of contemplation are: 1. contemplation of the adorable and holy Trinity, 2. and 3. contemplation of incorporeal and incorporeal beings, 4. and 5. contemplation of judgment and providence (Centuries on Spiritual Knowledge I.27, in Guillaumont 1958 ). Maximus’ understanding is quite different. See Thunberg (1965), 69–75 and Gersh (1978), 226–7. 46 I do not know where Maximus gets these five secret meanings (or hidden logoi) from. They recall Plato’s ‘five greatest kinds’ (being, rest, motion, sameness and difference: see Sophist 254D-255C), but are evidently not the same. |
| 1734 Josephus lists numerous local decrees which probably functioned as precedents by which Diaspora Jews sought to defend their status; he also reports the desire of Alexandrian Jews to be equal citizens with the Greeks who dominated the city " s cultural elite; see Rabello, «Condition»; Rajak, «Charter.» 1737 Dodd, Tradition, 120, suggests that it must be pre-70, but the decades shortly after 70 would function just as wel1. The period following 135, after the demise of the Bar Kokhba revolt, witnessed a consolidation of rabbinic antipathy toward inadequately substantiated messianic claims. 1739 Egyptian («The Instruction for King Meri-Ka-Re,» ANET 416; cf. also enthronement oracles, e.g., «The Divine Nomination of Thut-Mose III» and «The Divine Nomination of an Ethiopian King,» ANET 446–48; Wilson, «Prophecy,» 3–16, 10); Ugaritic (Craigie, Ugarit, 35); Mari Moran, «Prophecy,» 17; Craghan, «Mari, " 48, and Paul, «Prophets,» 1160, citing ARM.T 13.23,114); Akkadian («Assyrian Oracles,» ANET 449–50); Assyrian («Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,» ANET274–77,281,286,292); classical Greece (Nilsson, Cults, 123–42). Cf. Ross, «Prophecy,» 17; Hayes, «Oracles,» 81–85. 1741 Collins, Oracles, 4–5 for Mithridates; 9–12 for Persia; 12–19 for Egypt. In general, cf. Aune, Prophecy, 73–77. 1742 Collins, Oracles, 117. Not surprisingly, Tiberius banished all Sibylline oracles considered spurious (Dio Cassius 57.18.5). 1743 This was true not only under Domitian; cf. Tacitus Ann. 14.22; Suetonius Nero 36; MacMullen, Enemies, 133; Kee, Origins, 71. Some philosophers also suffered at Domitian " s hands; cf. lones, Dio Chrysostom, 45; Aulus Gellius 15.11.3–5; Philostratus Vit. Apoll, books 7–8. 1744 Suetonius Dom. 12; Williams, «Domitian»; though cf. Ramsay, Church, 268; Reicke, Era, 286; Josephus Life 429 (Josephus found a patron in the Flavians). The disdain was evidently reciprocated; cf. Sib. Or. 5.39–46 (toward Rome in general, among the early sources, cf., e.g., 4 Ezra 6:9; 11–12; m. " Abot 1:10; 2:3; Sipre Deut. 317.4.2; 320.2.3; Mendels, «Empires»). |
| 580 Cf., e.g., Stowers, Diatribe, 86–93, 122–33. They function thus in both diatribe and other forms of literature: e.g., Cicero Tusc. 3.23.55; Macrobius Sat. 1:15.22 (Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 227); Seneca Dia1. 3.6.1; Epictetus Diatr. 1.1.23–25; 1.2.19–24; 1.28; Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.16.23–24; Dio Chrysostom Or. 21, On Beauty passim; Or. 61, Chryseis passim; Or. 67, On Popular Opinion passim; Meh. Pisha 1.35; p. Sanh. 6:1, §1. Both within and outside diatribe, rhetorical questions (e.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 42.2; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6; 1.19.2–6; Pesiq. Rab. 13:7; cf. Safrai, «Education,» 966) may reflect this form " s influence as wel1. Diatribe had employed interlocution even more in its early period (Malherbe, Exhortation, 129). 581 Dodd, Tradition, 319; cf. Plutarch Oracles at Delphi, Mor. 394D-409D; Epictetus Diatr. 1.11, where Epictetus " s frequent imaginary interlocutor is replaced by a «real» one in a Platonic-like dialogue. This mode of discourse probably also affected discourse traditions peripheral to those of sages (see Aune, Prophecy, 64–65, for some evidence for «oracular dialogue»). 583 Pernot, «Rendez-Vous.» Rhetoricians were, however, trained to argue both sides of an issue eloquently (e.g., Cicero Or. Brut. 14.46). 584 Aristobulus frg. 3, 4 (Eusebius Praep. ev. 13.12.1–2; 13.13.3–8); Let. Arts. 312–316; the various citations in Stern, Authors, 1:8–11, 46, 50, 93–95; cf. 4 Macc 7:7, 9; Charlesworth, «Judeo-Hellenistic Works,» 775; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 39. Christians subsequently claimed Plato: Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1.22.150 and Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.10.14, on Numenius (Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 59–60); Justin 1 Apo1. 59; Armstrong, «Platonism»; cf. Wright, «Faith,» 86), and appeared as a philosophical school (Wilken, «Interpretation,» 444–48; idem, «Christians,» 107–10; idem, «Collegia,» 277). 585 Let. Arts. 200–201,235,296; cf. also, e.g., Acts 17:18–34; b. c Abod. Zar. 54b, bar.; the late tradition in Lam. Rab. 1.1.12–13. For the portrayal of Abraham as a philosopher in early Jewish texts, cf. Mayer, «Aspekte,» 125–26. |
| 1494 Travelers in the ancient Mediterranean regularly brought word from other friends (e.g. Euripides E1. 361–362; Cicero Att. 2.11); see comments under John " s knowledge of the Synoptics in introduction, pp. 41–42. 1500 My arguments are summarized in Keener, Marries, 23, and notes 2–6 on 145–46. On scribes, see also Scott, Customs, 165–68; Orton, Scribe, 39–133. Sandmel, Genius, 43, is probably right that the rabbinate was in some sense established before 70, minimizing the difficulty of the transition to Yavneh. 1501 Cf. m. " Abot 3:10, if the reference to «houses of assembly» of the am háaretz means more than nonreligious gatherings in homes. 1502 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 255–56; idem, Judaism, ix, 3, 11, 449; cf. McEleney, «Orthodoxy»; Aune, «Response»; McEleney, «Replies.» 1503 Cf. the saying attributed to Hillel in m. " Abot 2:4: «Do not separate [ ] yourself from the community,» which originally probably would have been meant more broadly than a Pharisaic association. Flusser, Judaism, 483, rightly distinguishes Essene sectarianism from the more usual, growing solidarity in Judaism. 1505 Cohen, Maccabees, 126, suggests the «true Israel» ideology as the distinguishing mark of an ancient Jewish sect. 1506 Cf. Kraabel, «Diaspora.» Rabbinic literature is far more useful for reconstructing the Palestinian than the Diaspora Jewish social setting (Meyers, «Judaism and Christianity,» 75). 1508 Neusner, Legend, 60, supposes that the pro-Roman Sadducees vied with Johanan ben Zakkaís party for Roman favor; if this is the case, however, they must have been considerably weakened for a Pharisaic party to have ultimately won out. 1509 Although ben Zakkai and his successors were advocates of peace, Akibás openness to Bar Kokhba shows that some revolutionary sympathies survived among them. Cf. also Josephus Ant. 13.288–298; 17.41–44,149–163 (if these were Pharisees), and compare the descriptions of Pharisees and the early first-century revolutionaries in Josephus Ant. 1.23; cf. also War 2.118 (to which Josephus contrasts only the relatively reclusive Essenes at length, War 2.119–161). |
| 35 Marxsen, Mark, 150, thus objects to applying Mark " s term «Gospel» to Matthew and Luke, arguing that Matthew is a collection of «gospels» and sermons (pp. 150 n. 106; 205–6), and Luke a «life of Jesus» (150 n. 106). He is uncomfortable with the language of a Gospel «genre» (25). 36 Aune, Environment, 83, cites Quintilian 2.42; Cicero Inv. 1.27; Sextus Empiricus Against the Professors 1.263–264 for the three major categories (history, fiction, and myth or legend), though noting that they overlapped in practice (Strabo Geog. 1.2.17, 35); for distinctions between mythography and history proper, see Fornara, Nature of History, 4–12. 38 This view was proposed by K. L. Schmidt, who provided analogies among later folk literatures of various cultures. He is followed by Kümmel, Introduction, 37; cf. Hunter, Message, 30; Deissmann, Light, 466. 39 Downing, «Literature»; Aune, Environment, 12, 63; Burridge, Gospels, 11, 153. Rhetorical principles influenced narrative techniques; see, e.g., Dowden, «Apuleius.» 40 Koester, Introduction, 1:108; Kodell, Luke, 23; cf. Perry, Sources, 7. This is not to mention Lukés architectonic patterns (for which see Goulder, Acts; Talbert, Patterns; idem, Luke; Tannehill, Luke). 41 E.g., Socratics Ep. 18, Xenophon to Socrates» friends. Diogenes Laertius includes compilations of traditions, but from a variety of sources. 42 Cf. Papias frg. 6 (Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.39), on the hypothesis that Papias " s «Matthew» is our «Q» (cf. Filson, History, 83; rejected by Jeremias, Theology, 38). Downing, «Like Q,» compares Q with a Cynic «Life» (cf. Mack, Lost Gospel 46); contrast Tuckett, «Q.» 43 Justin 1 Apo1. 66.3; 67.3; Dia1. 103.8; 106.3 (see Stanton, New People, 62–63; Abramowski, «Memoirs,» pace Koester). 45 This is not to deny the Synoptics» substantial dependence on tradition, but tradition is not so dominant (as Jones, Parables, 36, seems to suggest) as to prohibit pursuit of literary coherence. 46 Quintilian 10.6.1–2. One should also be ready to add improvisations during the speech (10.6.5). |
| 6785 As noted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 24; see likewise Cicero Or. Brut. 40.137. Cf. returning the charges in other handbooks: Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442b.6–9; Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.3.6; Hermogenes Issues 39.1–5. 6786 E.g., Xenophon Hel1. 2.3.37. 6787 Thus Cicero Mur. 29.60, dealing softly with Marcus Cato. 6788 E.g., Horace Carm. 4.6. 6789 Dodd, «L " arrière-plan»; idem, More Studies, 46–47; cf. Dozeman, «Sperma» Dodd, More Studies, 41–42, heavily emphasizes the Abraham material here. Contrast Robinson, «Destination,» 123–24 n.1. 6790 For such sarcasm in the face of hostility, see, e.g., Silius Italicus 11.254–255; Matt 23:32; perhaps 1 Kgs 22:15. 6791 Thus Jesus employs parody (see Stibbe, Gospel 118; cf. Rev 13:3, 18; 17:8). Some later philosophers also spoke of hearing and speaking God " s message as if in his presence (Porphyry Marc. 15.258–259, though for him this means undistracted by bodily desires). 6792 See, e.g., Aeschines Timarchus 107; Cicero Pis. 2.3; Verr. 2.2.1.1–2; Agr. 24.63–64; Cat. 1.6.14; perhaps Acts 24:19. 6793 E.g., Rom 4:1 ; Sipre Deut. 311.1.1; 313.1.3; " Abot R. Nat. 23, §46B; 36, §94; b. Ber. 6b; Ned. 32a. Those not his descendants also could greet him with the honorary title «father» (T. Ab. 2:3A; 9:4B); in some sense he was father of the whole world (t. Ber. 1on Gen 17:5 ). Cf. «our fathers» in 6:31. 6794 E.g., Gal 3:7; 4 Macc 6:17, 22; 18:1. Later teachers even emphasized God " s special pre-creation forethought for the patriarchs (Gen. Rab. 1:4, citing Hos 9:10 ). 6795 Many Tannaim probably even denied the use of the phrase to proselytes (m. Bik. 1:4–5; Cohen, «Fathers»). 6796 Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 42.5.2 triumphantly reads the stones in that passage as Gentile Christians. 6797 Schnackenburg, John, 2:210. 6798 E.g., Mek. Pisha 16.165–168 (other opinions in 16.169–172); p. Ta c an. 1:1, §8; Gen. Rab. 55:8; 74:12; 76(Jacob " s merit); 84and 87(Joseph " s merit); Exod. Rab. 2:4; 15:10; 23:5; Lev. Rab. 34:8, bar; Num. Rab. 13:20; Song Rab. 4:4, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 10(in prayer); see further Moore, Judaism, 1:537. Some Tannaim suggested they could have used more merit (Sipre Deut. 2.1.1–4); some Amoraim attributed the exodus to the merit of, or faith in, Moses (Exod. Rab. 15:3; 16:1), to righteous acts (Exod. Rab. 1:28; Lev. Rab. 28:4; Num. Rab. 20:22), to the merits of Israelite women (Exod. Rab. 1:12; Num. Rab. 3:6, bar.), or to various factors, including patriarchal merits (Deut. Rab. 2:23). |
|
|
