| 9992 «Purple» could mean scarlet (e.g., Rev 17:4; 18:16; Appian C.W. 2.21.150; cited in Brown, Death, 866; cf. Dupont, Life, 260), though the Gospel tradition probably preserves it for its symbolic value, both to the soldiers and to Jesus» later followers. Egyptian gentry in nome capitals purchased green, red, and especially blue outer apparel (Lewis, Life, 52–53). 9994 For its association with wealth, see, e.g., Lucretius Nat. 5.1423; Horace Carm. 1.35.12, 2.18.7–8; Cicero Sen. 17.59; Athenaeus Deipn. 4.159d; Diogenes Laertius 8.2.73; 1Macc 10:20, 62, 64, 14:43–44; lQapGen 20.31; Sib. Or. 3.389, 658–659; 8.74; Petronius Sat. 38, 54; Epictetus frg. 11; Martial Epigr. 5.8.5; 8.10; Juvenal Sat. 1.106; 4.31; Apuleius Metam. 10.20; Chariton 3.2.17; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:7, 15:3; T. Ab. 4:2A; Jos. Asen. 2:2/3, 8/14–15; 5:5/6. Some writers complained about its extravagance (Seneca Dia1. 12.11.2; Plutarch T.T. 3.1.2, Mor. 646B; 1 En. 98MSS). 9995 Cf. Brown, John, 2:875. Derrett, «Ruber,» suggests that the red alludes to Isa 1and (somewhat less unlikely) 63:1–2; Lukés white robe in Luke 23characterized Jewish kings as well (Hill, Prophecy, 52). 10003 Flusser, Judaism, 600 (cf. Suggit, «Man»); Flusser argues (Judaism, 602) that on the historical level it is perfectly in character to suppose that Pilate joined in the ridicule of Jesus. Cf. Smith, John, 346. 10006 For the emphasis on Jesus» humanity here, see also Sevenster, «Humanity»; Koester, Symbolism, 187; Smith, John, 346. Schwank, «Ecce Homo,» finds an answer to Pilatés own question in 18:38; but the connection, while possible, is unclear. 10007 John elsewhere juxtaposes announcements of Jesus» humanity with his messianic identity (4:29; cf. 5:27) though more often those who do not recognize Jesus» fuller identity call him «human» (5:12; 7:46, 51; 9:16,24; 10:33; 11:47,50; 18:17,29); he may link his humanity and mortality in 3:14; 6:53; 8:40; 12:23, 34; 13:31. 10010 A familiar accusation; they may allude in part to Jesus» claims to authority to revise the Sabbath law (5:18; cf. Wead, «Law»); but cf. esp. 10:33. Less probably, Barrett, John, 541, thinks the law of blasphemy is particularly in view. |
| Waterman, «Sources» Waterman, G. Henry. «The Sources of Paul " s Teaching on the 2nd Coming of Christ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians.» JETS 18 (1975): 105–13. Watkins, John Watkins, H. W. The Gospel according to John. Edited by Charles John Ellicott. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957. Watson, «Adulteress» Watson, A. «Jesus and the Adulteress.» Biblica 80 (1999): 100–8. Watson, «Education» Watson, Duane F. «Education: Jewish and Greco-Roman.» Pages 308–13 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 2000. Watson, «Natural Law» Watson, Gerard. «The Natural Law and Stoicism.» Pages 216–38 in Problems in Stoicism. Edited by A. A. Long. London: University of London, Athlone Press, 1971. Watson, «Reading» Watson, Francis. «Toward a Literal Reading of the Gospels.» Pages 195–217 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Watson, «Speech to Elders» Watson, Duane F. «Paul " s Speech to the Ephesian Elders (Acts 20:17–38): Epideictic Rhetoric of Farewel1.» Pages 184–208 in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy. Edited by Duane F. Watson. JSNTSup 50. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Watt, «Lam» Watt, Jan G. van der. « " Daar is die lam van God .. .»: Plaasvervangende offertradisies in die Johannesevangelie.» Skrif en kerk 16 (1995): 142–58. Watts, Wisdom Watts, Alan. The Wisdom of Insecurity. New York: Vintage Books, 1951. Watty, «Anonymity» Watty, William W. «The Significance of Anonymity in the Fourth Gospe1.» ExpTim 90 (1978–1979): 209–12. Way, «Introduction» Way, A. S. Introduction. Pages vii-xiii in Euripides, Works. Translated by A. S. Way. 4 vols. LCL, old series. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912. Week, «Messiah(s)» Wcela, Emil A. «The Messiah(s) of Qumrân.» CBQ 26 (1964): 340–49. Wead, «Law» Wead, David W. «We have a Law.» NovT 11 (1969): 185–89. |
| 9054 Mitchell, «Friends,» 259, citing Cicero Amic. 6.22. Masters also should avoid confiding in servants (Theophrastus Char. 4.2). 9057 Plutarch Flatterer 24, Mor. 65AB (LCL 1:344–45); cf. Flatterer 17, Mor. 59A; Educ. 17, Mor. 13B. Cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 39. 9063 Aristotle N.E. 9.8.2, 1168b, cited in Stowers, Letter Writing, 58; Witherington, Acts, 205 (on Acts 4:32). Cf. Arius Didymus 11C. 9065 Martial Epigr. 2.43.1–16; Herodian 3.6.1–2; Cornelius Nepos 15 (Epaminondas), 3.4; Iambli-chus V.P. 19.92 (cf. 29.162; 30.167–168; 33.237–240); cf. 1Macc 12and perhaps Ps.-Phoc. 30; Euripides Andr. 585 (but cf. 632–635); Plutarch Bride 19, Mor. 140D; Longus 1.10; Martial Epigr. 8.18.9–10. 9066 E.g., Alciphron Farmers 27 (Ampelion to Euergus), 3.30, par. 3; 29 (Comarchides to Euchaetes), 3.73, par. 2; Fishermen 7 (Thlassus to Pontius), 1.7. 9069 Diogenes Laertius 7.1.125; Plutarch Cicero 25.4. On friendship between good men and the gods, cf., e.g., Seneca Dia1. 1.1.5; on all things belonging to them, Seneca Benef. 7.4.6, cf. Philo Cherubim 84. The maxim is especially cited in works on 1Corinthians (Willis, Meat, 169; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 80; cf. also Fitzgerald, Cracks, 200–201; Grant, Christianity, 102–3). 9070 E.g., people invoked divinities as φλοι, to help them in battle (Aeschylus Sept. 174); cf. a mortal as a «friend» who honors his patron demigod in Philostratus Hrk. 58.1 (the hero is also his friend in 10.2); cf. perhaps Iamblichus V.P. 10.53 (where the friendship is demonstrated by deities» past favors). 9071 This observation (in contrast to some other observations above) may run counter to the suggestion of Judge (Pattern, 38) that w. 13–15 of John 15 «reveal the peculiar combination of intimacy and subordination» characteristic of the patronal relationship. 9073 Maximus of Tyre Or. 19.4; Iamblichus V.P. 33.229. This might involve sharing the divine character (Iamblichus V.P. 33.240). 9074 Crates Ep. 26, to the Athenians (Gyn. Ep. 76–77); cf. likewise Diog. Ep. 10, to Metrocles (Cyn. Ep. 104–5). Cf. Plato Leg. 4.716D (cited in Mayor, James, cxxv); fellowship between mortals and deities in the golden age (Babrius pro1.13). |
| 1247 Sambursky, «Gematria»; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 103, citing Cicero Inv. 2.40.116; Hengel, Hellenism, l:80ff.; Lieberman, Hellenism, 47–82. Some may also reflect Babylonian sources (Cavigneaux, «Sources»). 1248 Judith 16:7; Josephus War 1.353; 2.155–158; Ag. Ap. 1.255; 2.263; Pesiq. Rab. 20(cf. Greek Phlegethon; cf. the Elysian plain and Acherusian lake in Sib. Or. 2.337–338, probably Christian redaction; Apoc. Mos. 37:3). 1249 E.g., Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27.3; Sib. Or. 2.15 (Poseidon); 2.19 (Hephaistos); 3.22 (Tethys); 3.110–116, 121–155, 551–554, 588 (euhemeristic; cf. similarly Let. Aris. 136; Sib. Or. 3.723; 8.43–47); 5.334 (personification; cf. also 7.46; 11.104, 147, 187, 205, 219, 278; 12:53, 278; 14.56, 115); T. Job 1.3 (cornucopia); 51:1/2 (perhaps allusion to Nereus, also in Sib. Or. 1.232); cf. (not Greek) Ishtar as an evil spirit in Text 43:6–7, perhaps 53:12, Isbell, 103; cf. art (some of it in Palestinian synagogues) in Goodenough, Symbols, vols. 7–8 (and Dura Europos synagogue, vols. 9–11, and 12:158–183). 1250 The clear examples are few (even Egyptian use may have been more common; cf. «Biblés Psalm»), despite apologetic protestations to the contrary (e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.165; 2.257). 1252 E.g., Martin, Colossians, 18–19; Knox, Gentiles, 149; Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 259. Although an Egyptian provenance for the Testament of Solomon is possible, I would favor an Asian provenance, given its date (cf. also Artemis in 8:11, etc.), and stress the magical-mystical nature of some of Judaism in Asia. 1253 So Kennedy, Epistles, 14, 22; Robinson, Redating, 294. Palestine had its Pharisees and Essenes, but had even more Am Háarets. 1258 Cf. CD 5.6–8; lQpHab 9.6–7. Others also believed that profaning the temple could bring judgment, although not applying it to this time (Pss. So1. 1:8; 2:1–10; Josephus War 5.17–18; cf. the ambiguous evaluation of Tannaitic sources in Goldenberg, «Explanations»). 1263 Grant, Gods, 51; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 121–22; Conzelmann, «Areopagus,» 224; van de Bunt-van den Hoek, «Aristobulos»; cf. Renehan, «Quotations.» Jewish and early Christian texts often followed the Greek practice (instilled in school memorization exercises) of citing or alluding to Homer (e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 195–197; Syr. Men. 78–93; Josephus Ant. 1.222; Sib. Or. 3.401–432, passim; 3.814; 5.9; 2 Bar. 10:8; Tatian 8; cf. Rahmani, «Cameo») or other poets (Acts 17:28; 1Cor 15:33 ; Tit 1:12 ; Justin 1 Apo1. 39; Theophilus 2.37; Athenagoras 5–6; cf. Manns, «Source»), or proverbs originally based on them. |
| 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. |
| This is not to deny that the portrait is wholly negative, however; nonaristocratic Jews (most of John " s audience) would have resented the characterization of themselves in the mouths of the aristocracy. Even Josephus (an aristocrat who regularly portrays himself as more loved by the Galilean populace than by the aristocrats who sent him) contrasts the laws of Moses, published among all the people, with Plato, who feared to make known true ideas about God to the ignorant masses. 6588 Jesus does not trust the quickly changing sentiments of public opinion (2:23–25; 18:40), but in contrast with the arrogant elite portrayed here, the author repeatedly stresses Jesus» love for the people (10:11–15; 11:5, 36; 13:1). Ironically, their assumption that none of the rulers believed in him (7:48) is countered by Nicodemus " s timid reminder of proper judicial procedure (7:50–51); John underlines the challenge to their assumption by reminding the less attentive reader that Nicodemus is the one who had come to Jesus earlier (7:50). Ancient literature sometimes presented a single voice of reason among a people committed to a foolhardy course, a voice ironically ignored by the majority. 6589 The informed reader recognizes that Nicodemus represented a number of secret advocates in Jesus from within the ranks of the elite (the plural in 3:2); because of the tyranny of the aristocrats in charge, however (cf. 7:52), they remained silent (12:42–43; cf. «by night» in 3:2). 6590 When Nicodemus speaks of «our law,» that is, the Jewish law (7:51; cf. Jesus» «their» or «your» law–8:17; 10:34; 15:25), 6591 he does not mean the term pejoratively. As Nicodemus is an ambiguous character with increasingly positive traits in this Gospel (3:1–2; 19:39), and because Jesus himself cites the Law as authoritative, its characterization as the «law of the Jewish leaders» is not negative. The point seems to be that the very standard accepted by the authorities is the standard that convicts them (5:45–47). 6592 They pronounce a curse against the masses who do not know the Law (7:49), yet prove unlearned in that same law themselves (7:51–52). 6593 They also fail to judge «righteous» judgment (7:24). If Nicodemus warns that the Law requires them to hear Jesus and know what he is doing (7:51), John explicitly informs his audience that the elite has failed to «hear» Jesus (5:37; 8:43, 47), and that they did not know him, where he was from, or what he was doing (8:14,19)! |
| 3351 Sipre Deut. 330.1.1 (trans. Neusner, 2:376); cf. later texts in Gen. Rab. 3:2; 28:2; Deut. Rab. 5:13; p. Ber. 6:1, §6; Deut 33in Targum Onqelos (Memra; cited in Moore, «Intermediaries,» 46); cf. also 1 Clem. 27. Targum Neofiti on the creation narrative emphasizes the creativity of the word of the Lord even more; see Schwarz, «Gen.» 3352 E.g., Mek. Sir. 3.44–45,49–51; 8.88; 10.29–31; Mek. c Am. 3.154–155; Mek. Bah. 11.111–112; Mek. Nez. 18.67–68; t. B. Qam. 7:10; Sipre Num. 78.4.1; 102.4.1; 103.1.1; SipreDeut. 33.1.1; 38.1.3–4; 49.2.2; 343.8.1; " Abot R. Nat. 1, 27, 37 A. In later texts, cf. the translation «by whose word all things exist» in b. Ber. 12a, 36ab, 38b; 40b, bar.; 44b; Sanh. 19a (pre-Tannaitic attribution); p. Pesah 2:5; Gen. Rab. 4:4,6; 32:3; 55(all Tannaitic attributions); Lev. Rab. 3:7; Num. Rab. 15:11; Deut. Rab. 7:6; Ruth Rab. 5:4; Pesiq. Rab. 21:7; Tg. Neof. on Exod 3:14; cf. Urbach, Sages 1:184–213; Marmorstein, Names, 89 (comparing also a Sumerian psalm). 3357 M. «Abot 5:1; »Abot R. Nat. 31 A; 36, §91 B; 43, §119 B; Gen. Rab. 16:1; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 399, §1092, also cite Pesiq. Rab. 108ab; cf. «The Samaritan Ten Words of Creation» in Bowman, Documents, 1–3. 3359 M. «Abot 3:l4; Sipre Deut. 48.7.1; »Abot R. Nat. 44, §124 B; Exod. Rab. 47:4; Pirqe R. E1. 11 (in Versteeg, Adam, 48); Tanhuma Beresit §l, f.6b (in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 170–71, §454; Harvey, «Torah,» 1236); cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:196–201,287. Some later rabbis went so far as to attribute the world " s creation even to specific letters (e.g., p. Hag. 2:1, §16). 3360 Philo Planting 8–10; Heir 206. God is the bonder of creation in 2 En. 48:6; Marcus Aurelius 10.1; cf. Wis 11:25. For the connection between creating and sustaining, cf. John 5:17 . Lightfoot, Colossians, 156, helpfully cites Philo Flight 112 (word); PlantingS (divine law); Heir 188 (word). 3361 Col 1(sustain; hold together) and commentaries (e.g., Lightfoot, Colossians, 156; Kennedy, Theology, 155; Lohse, Colossians, 52; Johnston, Ephesians, 59; Hanson, Unity, 112; Beasley-Murray, «Colossians,» 174); cf. Cicero Nat. d. 2.11.29 (a Stoic on reason); Wis 7(Wisdom " s movement does not contrast with Platós unchanging forms; Plato and others envisioned rapid motion in the pure heavens–see Winston, Wisdom, 182). Cf. 1 Clem. 27A; Sir 43.26 ; cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:325. |
| 2819 Goppelt, Theology, 1:45. 2820 Ovid Metam. 14.136–144; cf. Aulus Gellius 2.16.10. A more helpful Hellenistic notion would be «immortality» (cf. 1Cor 15:53–54 ), though to some Greeks it would connote apotheosis. 2821 See above, pp. 178–79, 292–93. 2822 Dodd, Interpretation, 14,151; cf. true being in Plato Rep. 6.490AB. 2823 Schedl, History, 1:293; cf. Hos 6:2–3 . 2824 Buchanan, Consequences, 131–34; for Qumran, cf. Schütz, «Knowledge,» 397; and life for a thousand generations in 4Q171 1–2 3.1. 2825 Isis 1, Mor. 351E. 2826 Dodd, Interpretation, 144–50. 2827 Pss. So1. 3:12, using the full expression; cf. 13:11. 2828 M. " Abot 2:7, attributed to Hillel; b. Ber. 28b; Lev. Rab. 13:2; CIJ 1:422, §569 (Hebrew funerary inscription from Italy); 1:474, §661 (sixth-century Hebrew inscription from Spain); 2:443, §1536 (Semitic letters, from Egypt); cf. Abrahams, Studies, 1:168–70; Philo Flight 77. The usage in 1 En. 10(cf. 15:6; 25:6) and Jub. 5(cf. 30:20) is more restrictive, perhaps figurative; the Similtudes, however, seem to follow the ordinary usage (37:4; 58:3,6), and the circles from which 1 En. and Jub. derive probably used «long duration» language to represent eternity as well (CD 7.5–6; cf. Sir 18:10 ); for «eternal life» in the DSS, see also 4Q181 (Vermes, Scrolls, 251–52); Coetzee, «Life,» 48–66; Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 414. «Eternal» occurs with other nouns (e.g., Wis 10:14; 1QS 2.3) far more rarely. 2829 Tob 12:9–10; Ladd, Theology, 255, also cites Pss. So1. 14:7; 2Macc 7:9–14; 4 Ezra 7:137; 14:22); see Manson, Paul and John, 112 n. 1. 2830 Sipre Deut. 305.3.2,3. 2831 4 Macc 17:18, using a cognate of βος rather than of ζω. Cf. T. Ab. 20:14A. 2832 Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 159; Bultmann, Theology, 2:159; Ladd, Theology, 255–56. See, e.g., Mark 10:17, 30 ; Matt 25:46; Acts 13:46, 48; Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23 ; Gal 6:8 ; 1Tim 1:16; 6:12 ; Tit 1:2; 3:7 ; Jude 21. 2833 See Filson, «Life,» 114; Simon, «Life.» 2834 Dodd, Studies, 149. 2835 Marcus Aurelius 4.2; Epictetus frg. 3 (LCL 2:442–43; but cf. frg. 4). |
| 101 Евхаристиа 3. Taken from Faber, Dominica 2 Post Pentecosten, No. 1 «S. Eucharistia coena magna», sect. 3 «Ex epulis selectissimis». 11. 1–6 cf Faber: «Deinde cibus Eucharisticus mira arte confectus est. Nam primo per consecrationem uno verbo et in momento mutatur panis in Corpus Christi.» 11. 7–8 cf Faber: «Secundo, accidentia panis remanent sine subiecto.» 11. 9–14 cf Faber: «Tertio, Christus cum tota sua naturali quantitate est in parva hostia et in quavis eius parte, si frangatur.» Евхаристиа 4. Taken from Faber, ibid., sect. 6 «Ex maximo periculo». 11. 1–6 cf Faber: «Hinc canit Ecclesia: Mors est malis, vita bonis, vide paris sum ptionis quam sit dispar exitus.» 11. 7–14 cf Faber: «Sic mel nocet cholericis, prodest phlegmaticis. Sic eadem columna illuminavit Hebraeos, excoecavit Aegyptios. Exod. 14. ut habetur ex Chaldaeo. Sic ex eodem fonte Hebraei hauriebant aquam claram, Aegyptii vero sanguinem, ut scribit Iosephus. Sic ex eodem flore apis sugit mel, aranea venenum.» 11. 15–16 are not taken from Faber. Евхаристиа 5. Taken from Meffreth, In Festo Corporis Christi, No. 2. 11.1–10 cf Meffreth: «Multa mirabilia sunt in hoc Sacramento, vt dicit Thom: de Argen: in Compend: Theolog: verita: li. 6. Primum est quod ibi est corpus Christi in tanta quantitate, sicut fuit in cruce, & sicut iam est in coelo, nec tarnen excedit terminos illius formae.» 11. 11–14 cf Meffreth: «Secundum quod ibi sunt accidentia sine subiecto.» 11. 15–16 cf Meffreth: «Tertium quod conuertitur ibi panis in corpus Christi, nec etiam annihilatur.» 11. 17–22 cf Meffreth: «Quartum quod corpus non augetur ex multarum hostiarum consecratione, nec minuitur ex multarum hostiarum sumptione.» 11. 23–28 cf Meffreth: «Quintum quod idem corpus in numéro est in locis pluribus sub omnibus hostijs consecratis.» 11. 29–32 cf Meffreth: «Sextum quod quando diuiditur hostia non diuiditur corpus Christi, sed sub qualibet parte totus est Christus.» 11. 33–40 cf Meffreth: «Septimum quando tenetur hostia in manibus, & videtur oculis corpus Christi, nec tangitur nec videtur, sed haec tantum modo circa species sunt.» 11. |
| 3273 See Meeks, Prophet-King, 103–6. It is helpful here to compare the divinization of Plato and other teachers in Hellenistic tradition (e.g., Diogenes Laertius 2.100; 6.2.63; 6.9.104; 8.1.11; 9.7.39; Plutarch Profit by Enemies 8, Mor. 90C; Apol1. 36, Mor. 120D; cf. Cicero Leg. 3.1.1); cf. lawgivers in Musonius Rufus 15, p. 96.24. One may also think of hyperbolic comparisons employed in popular rhetoric; see, e.g., Cicero De or. 1.10.40; 1.38.172; Or. Brut. 19.62. 3274 E.g., Philo Sacrifices 9; cf. Runia, «God.» Cf. explanations of Exod 7in Exod. Rab. 8:1; Num. Rab. 15:13. Cf. Metatron (originally a personification) as a lesser YHWH in 3 En. 12(though he turns out to be Enoch in 3 En. 4:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 4:24 ; cf. further Scholem, Gnosticism, 43–46); the righteous Messiah, and Jerusalem called by the Lord " s name (b. B. Bat. 75b; cf. Jer 23:6 ; Ezek 48:35 ); and Israel as a god (Gen. Rab. 98:3, fourth-century Amoraim). Yet R. Simeon ben Yohai (late second century) taught that associating God " s name with other gods was worse than denying his existence (b. Sanh. 63a). 3276 Contrast Williamson, «Philo»; Chilton, Approaches, 200–201; their comparisons are nevertheless valuable. 3277 Cf. also Bultmann, John, 33 (rejecting especially Hellenistic and gnostic «polytheistic conceptions and emanationist theories» that neglect the text " s monotheistic sense); Stuart, «Examination,» 42. Greek scholars consistently deride the «a god» translation; cf., e.g., Metzger, «Translation,» 125; and esp. Bruce, Booh, 60 n. 4: those who translate «a god» here «prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar.» 3279 E.g., Josephus Ant. 10.180; cf. Stuart, «Examination,» 42; Bultmann, John, 33; Brown, John, 1:5; Harris, Jesus as God, 287. On Josephus " s general sense for τ θεv, cf. Shutt, «Concept.» 3282 Metzger, «Translation,» 125; cf. Clark, Logos, 21; Sanders, John, 70 (citing the predicate nominative of 1:4). It should be noted, of course, that a writer who wished to emphasize that a predicate noun was definite was free to insert the article (Harner, «Nouns,» 87); and the pattern does not always obtain even in the context ( John 1:8–9 ). |
|
|
