| By Jesus» day, however, a nearer context for a Galilean teacher was certainly early Judaism, and whatever the measure of Greek influence on its preference for the language, its most direct source was the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible recognized God as Israel " s father by adoption in redemption 7904 and Jewish literature in general continued this tradition (e.g., Wis 2:16; 3Macc 5:7; 7:6). Jewish literature regularly calls God Israel " s (occasonally in Diaspora Judaism, humanity " s) «father.» 7905 Jewish tradition also employed this biblical image in prayer, though in a relatively restrained manner (3Macc 6:8). 7906 The form of synagogue Judaism we know from later rabbinic literature commonly calls God «our Father in heaven,» 7907 as scholars conversant in the material regularly point out. 7908 But even Jewish texts not intended for corporate use only rarely designate God as personally «my Father,» 7909 whereas Jesus nearly ahvays did. 7910 Matthew and John, the most explicitly Jewish of the extant gospels, also emphasize Jesus» use of «Father» most frequently. But while «Father» should be clear to John " s primarily Jewish audience and its peripheral Gentile adherents, the titlés significance should have been lost on anyone in the story world. For John, their failure to understand emphasizes their denseness, and appears to stem from a failure to believe. The voice came for their sakes (12:30; cf. 11:42); Jesus did not doubt his own identity (11:42), but they needed testimony and signs to believe (5:34; 10:38). Now the climactic time of Jesus» glorification had come; at the very point where the world system would seem to crush Jesus (12:32–33), the spiritual ruler of the world would be convicted and cast out (12:31). 2D. Judgment on the World " s Ruler (12:31) Jesus came not to judge the world (3:17; 12:47), but the moment of judgment nevertheless arrived in him. The world " s judgment was at hand: the context is Jesus going to the cross (12:32–33); that judgment was coming «now» (12:31) revealed the eschatological significance of the cross in history (cf. 12:27; 13:31, 36; 16:5, 22; 17:5, 13). Jesus» death signaled defeat for the «prince of the world» (12:31; cf. 14:30; 16:11). Another document probably circulating in the same circle of believers as this Gospel depicts Satan being «cast out» from heaven in strikingly similar language, at the time of Jesus» exaltation (possibly on the cross; Rev 12:4, 9). |
| 8286 Nor is it necessarily demeaning to them, though such a comparison could be so used (Aristophanes Clouds 821, where the diminutive retains its force). 8287 E.g., Homer Il. 24.507; Virgil Aen. 8.115; 9.735; 11.184, 904; 12.697. Greco-Roman society employed an analog)» between benefactors and fathers (Stevenson, «Benefactor»). 8289 Ovid Tristia 4.4.13; Fasti 2.130–132, 637; Herodian 2.2.9; 2.6.2; or simply «parent» or «father» (Ovid Ex Ponto 4.9.134); so also for other kings (the fictitious Ethiopian king in Heliodorus Aeth. 10.17). 8290 Plutarch R.Q. 58, Mor. 278D; Lucan C.W. 3.109; Cornelius Nepos 23 (Hannibal), 12.2; Cicero Cat. 1.4.9; 1.2.4; 1.11.27; 1.12.29; 1.13.31–32; 2.6.12; 4.1.1, 2; 4.2.3, 4; 4.3.6; 4.5.9; 4.6.11; 4.8.16, 18; Prov. cons. 1.1; 2.3; 4.8; 5.11; 8.18; 9.23; 10.25; 12.30; 13.32; 16.38,39; Pis. 20.46; 22.52; 24.56; 33.81; Pro Marcello 1.1,2; 5.13; Phi1. 1.1.1; 1.3.7; 1.4.11; Fam. 10.35.1, 2; Invective against Sallustius Crispus 1.1, 2, 3; 2.5; 4.12; 5.14; 6.16; 8.22; Silius Italicus 1.610, 675; Valerius Maximus 1.5.1; 2.2.1a; 2.7.ext.l; 2.8.4; 3.8.1; 4.1.4; 4.1.6b; 4.4.10; 4.5.1; 5.2.1; 5.8.3; 5.9.3; 6.1.10; 6.2.1; 6.6.3; 8.13.4; 8.15.1; Livy 1.8.7; 1.26.5; 2.1.10–11; 2.23.14; 2.24.2; 2.27.3; 2.32.12; 2.34.12; 2.35.3; 2.41.4; 2.48.8; 2.60.3; 3.13.7; 3.16.1; 3.21.1, 3, 4; 3.51.11; 3.52.6; 3.63.8; 4.1.4; 4.2.13; 4.60.1, 3; Sallust Cati1. 6.6; 31.7; 51.1,4, 7,12,15,37,41; 52.2.7, 35; Jug. 14.1,3,12,13,18, 25; 24.2; Speech of Philippus 1,17; Letter of Gnaeus Pompeius 1, 6; Letter to Caesar 11.1; Invective against Marcus Tullius 1. 8292 Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 12.1.8; Pausanias 8.48.5–6; 8.51.7; Cicero in Plutarch Cicero 23.3; for Romés founding elders (Ovid Fasti 5.71); honorary title «father of the Greeks» (Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.27.617); a kind master (Xenophon Cyr. 8.1.44) ); an ideal ruler (Musonius Rufus 8, p. 64.14, claiming that this imitates Zeus " s role). Cf., for leaders in the Mithraic cult, Burkert, Cults, 42. 8295 CIJ l:xcv-xcvi; 1:66, §93; 1:250–51, §319; 1:360, §494; 1:372, §§508–509; 1:373, §510; 1:393, §533; 1:397, §535; 1:398, §537; 1:462, §645; 1:463, §646; 1:505, §694; 1:520, §720; 2:9, §739. The title was probably usually «purely an honorary one, probably involving no active duties» (Leon, Jews, 186). |
| 67% and 77% respectively said that they believed in the immortal human soul. At the same time 62% and 63% respectively believe in the Resurrection of Christ, so their faith in immortality is based on their Christian beliefs. Though only half of them: 30% and 35% admitted that they believed in the part of the Creed which says about the resurrection of the dead before the Day of Judgement. Thus as a result we had 24% of “conscious” (and not “ethnographic”) Christians. However, we can estimate their involvement in the Church by the fact that more than 40% of them never took Communion. One of the most important formal criteria of the involvement with the Church is supposed to be the frequency of one’s Confession, a person who doesn’t confess at least once a year is regarded as a Church “drop-out”. According to that only 10% of the Christians in the poll are not “dropouts”. However even that doesn’t prove the “extent” of their religiousness. The reality is that many of those Christians only remember about their Orthodoxy during Lent, which they try to stick to, then take Communion on Easter day, and then …take a break till the next Lent. Possibly, the people who can be defined as practicing Christians are only those who have Confession regularly (say, four times a year). The poll result showed those made 6% of the respondents. So this very figure, and not 30%, would be a more realistic number of practicing Christians. It is a characteristic fact that smokers among those who consider themselves Christians are nearly as common as among the rest of the students, though they are practically non-existent among those who confess regularly. Besides, among those who consider themselves Christians faith often goes along with superstition, sometimes they are more superstitious than average. However practicing Christians are not superstitious at all. On the whole the poll shows that among MSU students Orthodox missionary activities cause the greatest response. Most of the students converted during their student years (more linguists than historians). |
| 865 A disciple could start in boyhood (Eunapius Lives 461; cf. Acts 22:3; or schoolteachers, Plutarch Camillus 10.1; Watson, «Education,» 310–12). 866 Leon, Jews, 229, notes the preponderance of early deaths (before the age of ten) in the inscriptions, but also observes (230) that «epitaphs tended to record the age of those who died young.» Perhaps only 13 percent reached sixty (Dupont, Life, 233). 867 The elderly figure of Polycarp in Martyrdom of Polycarp may also be modeled after John, though one could also argue the reverse. 868 Bruce, Peter, 121–22, cites Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.31.3–4; 5.24.2, for the early tradition (from Polycrates of Ephesus and Proclus) concerning Philip s family and John. 869 It also dulled taste (Athenaeus Deipn. 9.404D). Aulus Gellius 15.7 thinks one safer if one survived to onés 64th birthday (though Themistocles died by suicide at 65!–Plutarch Themistocles 31.5). P. Bik. 2:1, §2, makes 60 an average age for death, 70 a blessing, and after 80 life becomes difficult; in p. Ber. 1:5, seventy is a long life; in Seneca Ep. Luci1. 77.20,99 is extremely old. 870 Valerius Maximus 8.7.1; Dupont, Life, 233–34. Plutarch Marcus Cato 15.4 quotes a wise saying Cato uttered at his trial at age 86; Cicero Brutus 20.80 recalls a powerful speech Cato delivered in the year of his death (which he places at 85). Musonius Rufus 17, p. 110.7, comments on someone doing well at age 90. 871 Diodorus Siculus 32.16.1, Valerius Maximus 8.13.ext.l, and Polybius 36.16.1–5, 11, on Masinissa of North Africa at 90. Agesilaus continued to rule competently at about 80 (Xenophon Agesilaus 2.28); though his body weakened, his soul remained strong (Agesilaus 11.14–15). Polybius reports an envoy aged 80 (though he died then; 30.21.1–2). 872 Valerius Maximus does, however, accept some ancient reports uncritically (ages 500 and 800 in 8.13.7). 873 Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 150; Leon Morris was in his 70s when he contributed to that introduction. 874 Even as an old man, he claims, his memory fails only when unprompted, but remains good if his memory is jogged by some cue (Seneca Controv. 9.pref.l). His son Seneca the Younger also exceeded expectations for old age (Nat 3.pref.l-2). For some aged Stoics, see Lucian Octogenarians (LCL 1:238–39). |
| Hence we are less interested in idiosyncratic interpretations of a given text than we are in those texts that fairly represent the central flow of ecumenical consensual exegesis. Just what is central is left for the fair professional judgment of our ecumenically distinguished Orthodox. Protestant and Catholic volume editors to discern. We have included, for example, many selections from among the best comments of Origen and Tertullian, but not those authors peculiar eccentricities that have been widely distrusted by the ancient ecumenical tradition. 4. We have especially sought out for inclusion those consensus-bearing authors who have been relatively disregarded, often due to their social location or language or nationality, insofar as their work is resonant with the mainstream of ancient consensual exegesis. This is why we have sought out special consultants in Syriac. Coptic and Armenian. 5 A number of Ph.D. dissertations are currently being written on the history of exegesis of a particular passage of Scripture. This may develop into an emerging academic methodology that promises to change both biblical and patristic studies in favor of careful textual and intertextual analysis, consensuality assessment and history of interpretation, rather than historicist and naturalistic reductionism. 5. We have sought to cull out annoying, coarse, graceless, absurdly allegorical6 or racially offensive interpretations. But where our selections may have some of those edges, we have supplied footnotes to assist readers better to understand the context and intent of the text. 6. We have constantly sought an appropriate balance of Eastern. Western and African traditions. We have intentionally attempted to include Alexandrian, Antiochene, Roman, Syriac, Coptic and Armenian traditions of interpretation. Above all, we want to provide sound, stimulating, reliable exegesis and illuminating exposition of the text by the whole spectrum of classic Christian writers. 7. We have made a special effort where possible to include the voices of women7 such as Macrina,8 Eudoxia, Egeria, Faltonia Betitia Proba, the Sayings of the Desert Mothers and others who report the biblical interpretations of women of the ancient Christian tradition. |
| ности в Бозе почивших иерархов отечественной церкви». 7) Положения о премии имени профессора И. Н. Корсунского §3: «Премия присуждается Советом Академии ежегодно окончившему полный академический курс воспитаннику Академии, представившему отличное по своим достоинствам кандидатское сочинение по одному из следующих предметов, к области которых относятся оставленные профессором И. Н. Корсунским научные труды: Священному Писанию Ветхого и Нового Завета, греческому языку и его словесности, русской церковной истории или русской библиографии». 8) Правил о присуждении премий из процентов с капитала, пожертвованного Митрополитом Московским Макарием , утвержденных указом Святейшего Синода от 21 января 1885 года за 251, а) п. 7-й (в новой редакции утвержденной указом Святейшего Синода от 12 июня 1898 г. за 2946): «Третья и четвертая премии назначаются по окончании студентами академического курса в одно из заседаний сентябрьской трети тем из них, которыми поданы были все семестровые сочинения, назначенные им в течение первых трех курсов, и из них более половины означено баллом 5, и нет ни одного, имеющего балл ниже 4»; б) п. 8-й: «В случае, если окажется более двух студентов одного курса, которых сочинения удовлетворяют изложенным в предыдущем § условиям, преимущество отдается тем, у кого сумма баллов на сочинениях больше; в случае же равенства преимущество отдается за сочинения позднейших курсов предпочтительно пред предшествующими». – 9) Из окончивших в минувшем 1915–1916 учебном году курс воспитанников академии – а) лучшие семестровые сочинения за первые три курса представили: Кобранов Евгений (5, 5, 5+; 5-, 5, 5+; 5+, 5, 5+), Иванов Борис (5, 5, 5; 5, 5, 5; 5, 5-, 5), священник Ляде Серафим (5, 5+, 5; 5-, 5-, 5; 4 1/2, 5-, 4 1/2), Добров Владимир (5, 5, 5; 5-, 4+, 5-; 5-, 4 1/2, 4 1/2) и Розанов Николай (5-, 4 1/2, 5-; 4 1/2, 5-, 4+; 4 1/2, 5, 5), а–б) лучшие отметки на проповедях имеют: Кобранов Евгений (4 1/2, 5, 5, 5-), священник Воронцов Вениамин (4 1/2, 4 1/2, 4 1/2, 5), Ружицкий Константин (4, 5, 5-, 5-) и иеромонах Матфей (Олейник) (4+, 4 1/2, 5, 3-). – 10) §109 лит. б. п. 10, устава духовных академий. |
| Напротив, провозвестники слова Господня говорят: «Господь возложил на Него» – Раба Господа – грехи всех нас», праведники же видят, что страдания их «не доставили спасения земле», и «мертвецы Господа» восстанут из праха лишь силою Божией (26:16–21), следовательно, не в силу подвига («каков труд» Раба Господа, 49:4; 53:11, ради «оправдания многих»). Так, глава 50 и 49-я, очевидно, есть изображение тех же страданий (50:6–7; 49:7; ср. 53:3, 7) и подвига (49:4; ср. 53:11) «Раба Господня», о которых пророк говорит в главе 52:13–53 (ср. особ. 52:14–15 и 49:7), и к подвигу того же Раба Господня относится глава 42-я (ср. особ. 42:4 и 50:4, 7; 42:6, 7 и 49:6, 8–9). А после изображения страданий Раба Господня (т. е. после 49–53 глл.) начинается (именно в главах 55:4; 59:20; 61:1–3; 62:11–12; 63:1–6) изображение последующей за Его страданиями славы (ср. 52:13). Что к «Рабу Господа» относится не только 55:4 (ср. 49:6; 42:6), но и 59:20; 61:1–3; 62:11–12; 63:1–6, – это видно из сходства означенных мест с главами 42, 49, 50 и 52:13–53. Особенно важно при решении вопроса место из Ис.61:1–3 : «Дух Господа Бога на мне, ибо Господь помазал меня благовествовать нищим, послал меня исцелять сокрушенных сердцем, проповедовать пленным освобождение и узникам открытие темницы (1 ст.), проповедовать лето Господне благоприятное и день мщения Бога нашего, утешить всех сетующих» (2 ст.). Здесь говорит, очевидно, не Сам Господь, но иное Лицо; а так как Оно говорит о Себе то же, что сказано было ранее о «Рабе Господа» 341 и притом без предварительного объяснения, то, очевидно, говорит «Раб Господа» (ср. Луки 4:17–22 ). Но и в главе 63:1–6 говорит никто иной, как «Раб Господа», потому что слова (опять в первом лице): «день мщения в сердце Моем, и год искупленных Моих настал» суть те же, что и в 61:1–2. Кроме того, образ «величественного», «изрекающего правду», «Сильного», «попирающего народы» прямо напоминают образ «Раба Господня», Который после страданий «возвысится, вознесется и возвеличится» (52:13), «оправдает многих», получит «часть с великими и с сильными будет делить добычу» (53:11–12). Если же глава 63:1–6 относится к «Рабу Господа» (ср. Откр.19:11–16 ), то к Нему же относится конец главы 62-ой, ст. 11–12 (ср. Мф.21:4–5 ) и конец гл. 59:20 ст. (ср. Рим.11:26 и 27 ст.); так как во всех этих местах говорится о пришествии Спасителя Сиона 342 , и тем более, что этот Спаситель отличается от Господа: «вот, Господь объявляет до конца земли: скажите дщери Сиона: грядет Спаситель твой» (62:11). – Итак, исходя из контекста речи, верующие современники пророка отчасти могли возвыситься даже до разумения Божественной природы «Раба Господня». Он носит те же имена, как и Господь: «Искупитель, Спаситель» (62:11; 59:20; ср. 43:3; 47:4) и именно Он был «Ангелом Лица» Господня, «спасавшим Израиля» (ср. 63:9 и 1). Он «возвысится, вознесется и возвеличится» (52:13) 343 ; в Своем унижении истинный «род Его неизъясним»? ибо Он совечен самому Богу (48:16) 344 . |
| 6940 Dahl, «History,» 134. Aune, Eschatology, 91, compares Isaiah " s ascent in Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 6–11. 6941 Discrepancies concerning chronology or other details proved useful in discrediting opposing arguments (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 15; Acts 24:11; Cicero Vat. 1.3). 6942 This is probably also the implication if one reads, «You have been seeing Abraham for less than fifty years?» (cf. Delebecque, «Contemporain,» who connects this reading with the claim in 8:58). 6943 Jub. 23:8–15, esp. 23:9–10 (over three jubilees). Although Gen 25gives him 175 years, he lived 995 in T. Ab. 1:1A. In rabbinic texts, old age (and senility) started with Abraham (Schiffman, Law, 33). In some early-third-century traditions, he recognized God as his creator around the age of fifty (Gen. Rab. 30:8; 46:1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:12; but this is likely ad hoc: cf. Gen. Rab. 64:4; 95:3; Num. Rab. 18:21; Song Rab. 5:16, §1, which vary between the ages of forty-eight, one, and three). 6944 Pace Stauffer, Jesus, 59. Irenaeus Haer. 2.22 similarly thinks Christ over fifty at his crucifixion (though thirty at his baptism), using this long ministry against the gnostics. 6945 Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:379; cf., e.g., the objection in Gen. Rab. 38:13. Edwards, «Fifty,» suggests that it means less than one jubilee; but cf. Buchanan, «Age.» 6946 Bernard, John, 2(citing Num 4:3 ); cf. Calvin, John, 1(on John 8:57 ). Lightfoot, Gospel, 197, notes that fifty represented a person " s average «working life» ( Num 4:3, 39; 8:24–25 ). 6947 Dionysius of Halicarnassus RA. 4.29.3; some locations had laws excluding from office those under thirty (Cicero Verr. 2.2.49.122). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, LCL 2n. 1, cites also Solon 27. Aristotle claimed that fifty was the upper age for the best procreation (Aristotle Po1. 7.14.11–12, 1335b). Athenians over fifty spoke first in the assembly (Aeschines Timarchus 23; Ctesiphon 4). 6948 So to give counsel (m. «Abot 5:21); for the meturgeman (b. Hag. 14a). To be an elder, one should be sixty (m. »Abot 5:21). |
| The finality of Pilatés claim about «what I have written» (19:22; cf. esp. γεγραμμνον in 19:19–20) may remind the reader of every other use of «written» to this point in the Gospel–every other use refers to Scripture (2:17; 6:31, 45; 8:17; 10:34; 12:14, 16; 15:25), which cannot be broken (10:35). Thus John may ironically suggest that Pilate, as God " s unwitting agent (19:11), may carry out God " s will in the Scriptures. 3. Dividing Jesus» Property (19:23–24) Confiscation of goods was a common penalty attending execution or other sentences of judgment, 10125 but Jesus has few goods on him to confiscate. The removal of clothing (19:23–24) fits what we know of typical ancient executions; 10126 Romans crucified their victims naked. 10127 Although some later rabbis, explaining the proper way to carry out theoretical executions, allowed men a loincloth, 10128 it is unlikely that Pilatés soldiers would have accommodated their sensitivities; 10129 further, other tradition indicates that most Jewish teachers allowed men to be executed naked. 10130 Public nakedness could cause shame in other settings, 10131 and Romans stripped those they would punish to degrade them, 10132 but it was especially shaming for Palestinian Jews. 10133 The specific mention of divided clothing (19:23–24) explicitly recalls Ps 22 (21LXX), 10134 which plays a prominent role in the Gospels» passion traditions. 10135 Although one can read the two lines of the verse as parallel, John exegetes from them as much as is possible, like Matthew in Matt 21:5. 10136 (Their contemporaries also read more into texts than they required when it suited their purposes to do so.) 10137 John also clearly provides fulfillment quotations in his Passion Narrative (19:24, 28, 36–37) for apologetic purposes; even details of Jesus» death, which was scandalous in the ancient Mediterranean, fulfilled the divine plan. In addition to his apologetic purpose, John seeks to bring out the symbolic spiritual significance of Jesus» death. 10138 |
| 204 Pritchard, op. cit. (1975), p. 107, col. 11:2629. For additional comments on the Adadguppi’ inscription, see the Appendix for Chapter 3. 205 p. 107. Until the last column (III 5ff), the Adadguppi’ stele is written in the first person. But it is evident that the inscription was chiselled out after her death, undoubtedly by order of Nabonidus. That is why Dr. T. Longman III would like to classify it as a “fictional autobiography” (a literary method known also from other Akkadian texts), although he adds: “This, however, does not mean that the events and even the opinions associated with Adadguppi’ are unauthentic.” (Tremper Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1991, pp. 41, 101, 102, 209, 210; cf. Beaulieu, op. cit., p. 209.) But it is questionable if the Adadguppi’ inscription, even in this sense, can be classified as a “fictional autobiography” In his review of Longman’s work Dr. W. Schramm points out that the text “essentially is a genuine autobiography. The fact that there is an addition in col. Ill 5ff. composed by Nabonidus (so already Gadd, AnSt 8, 55, on III 5), does not give anyone the right to regard the whole text as fictional. The inscription, of course, was chiselled out after the death of Adadguppi’. But it cannot be doubted that an authentic Vorlage on the story of Adadguppi’s life was used ‘–Bibliotheca Orientalis, Vol. LII, No. 1/2 (Leiden, 1995), p.94. 206 Canon, of course, does not give the reigns of the Assyrian kings Ashurbanipal and Ashuretilili. For the earliest period (747539 B.C.E.) the Canon gives a kinglist for Babylon, not for contemporary Assyria. The reigns of Assyrian kings are given only in so far as they also ruled directly over Babylon, which was true, for example, of Sennacherib, who ruled over Babylon twice (in 704/03–703/02 and 688/87–681/80 B.C.E.), and of Esarhaddon, who ruled over Babylon for thirteen years (680/79668/67 B.C.E.). For the period of Ashurbanipal’s reign in Assyria, the Canon gives the reigns of the contemporary vassal kings in Babylon, Shamashshumukin (20 years) and Kandalanu (22 years).–Compare Gadd, op. cit., pp. 70, 71. |
|
|
