| Thom. 68-69; ср.: Ин 16. 1-4), о том, что мир противостоит Христу (Ev. Thom. 21, 56, 80; ср.: Ин 14. 30; 15. 19; 17. 16), о дуализме света и тьмы (Ev. Thom. 24, 61; ср.: Ин 1. 5; 3. 19; 11. 9-10; 12. 35), о пророчествах о Христе в ВЗ (Ev. Thom. 52; ср.: Ин 5. 39), о непонимании иудеев и учеников (Ev. Thom. 43; ср.: Ин 6. 41, 52; 8. 48, 52-53), об обрезании (Ev. Thom. 53; ср.: Ин 7. 19-24; 10. 34-36; 15. 25), о разрушении и восстановлении Иерусалимского храма (Ev. Thom. 71; ср.: Ин 2. 19), о безгрешности Иисуса (Ev. Thom. 104; ср.: Ин 8. 46), о Христе как Свете, просвещающем весь мир (Ev. Thom. 24, 77; ср.: Ин 1. 9; 8. 12; 9. 5), об авторстве ученика (Ev. Thom. Incipit; ср.: Ин 21. 24). Между этими памятниками нет лит. зависимости, а значит, одно не является реакцией на другое, и, следов., нельзя говорить об их «конфликте» ( Dunderberg. 2006). А. А. Ткаченко Лит.: Westcott B. F. The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek text with introd. and notes. L., 1908. 2 vol.; Walton F. E. Development of the Logos-doctrine in Greek and Hebrew Thought. Bristol, 1911; Harris J. R. The Origin of the Prologue to St. John " s Gospel. Camb., 1917; Windish H. Der johanneische Erzählungsstil//ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Gött., 1923. Bd. 2. S. 174-213; Strachan R. H. The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian? L., 1925; idem. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment. L., 1941; Глубоковский Н. Н. Бог-Слово: Экзегет. эскиз «пролога» Иоаннова Евангелия (1, 1-18)//ПМ. 1928. Вып. 1. С. 89-121; Bornhäuser K. B. Das Johannesevangelium: Eine Missionschrift für Israel. Gütersloh, 1928; Comeau M. St. Augustin: Exégète du Quatrième Évangile. P., 1930; Loewenich W., von. Das Johannesverständnis im zweiten Jahrhunderte. Giessen, 1932; Bauer W. Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum. Tüb., 1934; Gardner-Smith P. St. John and the Synoptic Gospels. Camb., 1938; Bultmann R. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Tüb., 194110; Sanders J. |
| Hirschfeld and Solar, «Baths» Hirschfeld, Yizhar, and Giora Solar. «Sumptuous Roman Baths Uncovered near Sea of Galilee.» BAR 10, no. 6 (November/December 1984): 22–40. Hirschfeld and Solar, «Hmrhs " wt» Hirschfeld, Yizhar, and Giora Solar. «Hmrhs " wt hrwmyym šl hmt-gdr–slws c wnwt-hpyrh (The Roman Thermae at Hammath-Gader–Three Seasons of Excavations].» Qadmoniot 13 (1980): 66–70. Hirschman, «Units» Hirschman, Marc. «Polemic Literary Units in the Classical Midrashim and Justin Martyr " s Dialogue with Trypho.» JQR 83 (1992–1993): 369–84. Hock, Context Hock, Ronald F. The Social Context of Paul " s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Hock, «Friend» Hock, Ronald F. «An Extraordinary Friend in Chariton " s Callirhoe: The Importance of Friendship in the Greek Romances.» Pages 145–62 in Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. SBLRBS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Hock, «Novel» Hock, Ronald F. «The Greek Nove1.» In Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres. Pages 127–46. Edited by David E. Aune. SBLSBS 21. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Hodges, «Adultery» Hodges, Zane C. «Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery ( John 7:53–8:11 ): The Text.» BSac 136 (1979): 318–32. Hodges, «Angel» Hodges, Zane C. «Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 5: The Angel at Bethesda– John 5:4 .» BSac 136 (1979): 25–39. Hodges, «Rivers» Hodges, Zane C. «Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 7: Rivers of Living Water– John 7:37–39 » BSac 136 (1979): 239–48. Hodges, «Tomb» Hodges, Zane C. «The Women and the Empty Tomb.» BSac 123 (1966): 301–9. Hodges, «Water» Hodges, Zane C. «Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 3: Water and Spirit– John 3:5 .» BSac 135 (1978): 206–220. Hodgson, «Valerius Maximus» Hodgson, Robert. «Valerius Maximus and Gospel Criticism.» CBQ 51 (1989): 502–10. Hoehner, Antipas Hoehner, Harold W. Herod Antipas. SNTSMS 17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. |
| 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. |
| The most critical element of the setting, however, is the behavior of the crowds in 6:2. That they «follow» him (6:2) suggests the language of discipleship, though the narrative concludes by reinforcing a critical motif in Johannine soteriology: it is not those who begin to follow Jesus, but those who persevere who remain his disciples (6:60–71). Their initial faith is not fully adequate, for it is merely «signs-faith» (cf. comment on 2:23–24), based on his healings of the sick (6:2) similar to the examples John provides in 4:46–53 and 5:1–9. The rest of the narrative indicates that these would-be disciples never move beyond signs-faith, never moving from seeking what Jesus could do for them to what they could do for him (6:14,26, 30). Nevertheless, Jesus «lifting his eyes» and seeing the crowds (6:4) may recall 4:35: Jesus beholds a potential harvest (παρω occurs with «eyes» elsewhere in John only in 17:1). 2. The Human Solutions (6:5–9) As the discourse will point out, the flesh can accomplish nothing; only the Spirit can give life (6:63). Mere human power was inadequate to feed such a crowd. Although John later informs us that Judas held the money bag (12:6; 13:29), Jesus directs his question to Philip (6:5), perhaps testing one of those who has already made a profession of faith in him (1:43–46; 6:6). Jesus» signs in the Gospel test the response of those who witness them, and here Jesus tests the faith of his disciples in advance. 5979 It appears that other teachers also entrusted disciples with the funds to provide for their academy. 5980 More to the point in this instance, people also sometimes tested the genuineness of others» resolve or understanding; 5981 teachers likewise sometimes put questions to their disciples purely to test them. 5982 In the larger context of John " s Christology, an experienced reader of the Gospel might even recall God testing his people in the same way (e.g., Gen 22:1 ; Exod 15:25; 16:4; 20:20; Deut 13:3 ; Judg 2:22–3:1; 7:4; 2 Chr 32:31; Jer 17:10; 20:12 ). Jesus here tests his disciples» faith, to prepare them for larger tests to come (6:67–71). 5983 |
| 5024 Explicit references to Moses appear far more widely in the Gospel (1:17, 45; 3:14; 5:45–46; 6:32; 7:19, 22–23; 9:28–29) than references to Jacob (only in 4:5, 12) or Abraham (8:39–40, 52–53, 56–58) or David (7:42). The Johannine audiencés opponents seem to appeal heavily to Moses» law to support their position (cf. esp. 5:45–46; 9:28–29). 5027 Odeberg, Gospel, 72 (on 1 En. 70:2; 71:1; 2 En. 1–24; 3 En. passim; Γ. Levi 2; 2 Bar. passim; Ascen. Isa. passim), 73–88 (Hermetic and Mandean texts), 89–94 (rabbinic literature). See also Borgen, «Agent,» 146 n. 4, following Odeberg; cf. Grese, «Born Again»; Kanagaraj, «Mysticism»; idem, «Mysticism» in John; DeConick, Mystics, 67. Talbert, John, 101, thinks 3may counter Christian mystics (as in 1 John 4:1 ). 5028 Borgen, «Agent,» 146; idem, «Hellenism,» 104–5, citing Philo QE 2.46 (on Exod 24:16), which is probably authentic. Borgen, «Agent,» 146, connects John " s «Son of Man» with Philós «Man after God " s image» (Confusion 146; Alleg. Interp. 1.43). 5030 E.g., m. Roš Haš. 3:8; p. Roš Haš 3:9, §§1–6. Cf. deliverance from serpents in response to Jeremiah " s prayer in Liv. Pro. 2.3 (OTP 2:386; Greek, ed. Schermann, 81–82). 5031 Philo Creation 157; Agriculture 108; Alleg. Interp. 3.159; Migration 66. The «belly» frequently refers to pleasure in ancient texts (Euripides Cyc1. 334–335; Longus 4.11; Plutarch Pleas. L. 3, Mor. 1087D; Epictetus Diatr. 2.9.4; Achilles Tatius 2.23.1; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 1.7; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 60.4; 3Macc 7:10–11; 4 Macc 1:3; Syr. Men. Epit. 6–8; Phil 3:19 ; Apoc. E1. 1:13), including in Philo (Spec. Laws 1.148–150, 192; 4.91). 5032 Exod. Rab. 3:12; Tg. Neof. 1 on Num 21:6 . Were the tradition earlier, one might appeal here to the messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15 , attested in the Targumim (McNamara, Targum, 121) and perhaps as early as the LXX (Martin, «Interpretation»). For texts identifying the serpent with the devil, see comment on 8:44. 5033 The identification of the Jewish lawgiver with «the lawless serpent» in Acts John 94 resembles gnostic anti-Judaism and not first-century tradition. Pace some, the source of Epiphanius Haer. 64.29.6 is probably not pre-Christian (Jacobson, «Serpent»). |
| 4817 Oddly, some have cited Hermetic language as the background for the NT language (e.g., Reitzenstein, Religions, 453–54; Barrett, John, 206–7; Houlden, Epistles, 89). 4818 E.g., Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus in Stobaeus Ec1. 1.1.12; Epictetus Diatr. 4.10.16; Plutarch Plat. Q. 2.1–2, Mor 1000E-1001C; T.T. 8.1.3, Mor. 718A; Marcus Aurelius 10.1; cf. Vellanickal, Sonship, 360; Kelly, Peter, 50. Plato Statesman 270DE records an ancient tale about the rebirth of the cosmos. 4819 Sib. Or. 3.604, 726; 5.284, 328, 360, 406, 498, 500 (probably second century B.C.E., possibly Egyptian Jewish). 4820 E.g., Philo Decalogue 53, 107; Spec. Laws 1.96, 209; cf. Spec. Laws 3.189. See further Lee, Thought, 47. For sonship language in Philo, see esp. Vellanickal, Sonship, 50–51. See the much fuller comment on 1:12; and documentation in Keener, Matthew, 217, on divine fatherhood. 4822 Philo Cherubim 114; cf. the analogy of death and a second birth in Seneca Ep. Luci1. 102.26; Maximus of Tyre Or. 41.5. Wolfson, Philo, 1:405, cites in this connection also QE 2.46, «second birth»; see further Burnett, «Immortality.» The language of the «regeneration» could suggest the Stoic idea of a cosmic conflagration (cf. Philo Eternity 85; Moses 2.65; cf. Matt 19:28), but writers could also use παλιγγενεσα simply with reference to the coming of spring. 4826 Lev. Rab. 29:12; see various citations in Moore, Judaism, 1:533. Re-creation applies to Moses» call in Exod. Rab. 3:15; other sources in Buchanan, Consequences, 210. 4828 E.g., «Abot R. Nat. 26, §54B; of Abraham and Sarah in Sipre Deut. 32.2.1; »Abot R. Nat. 12A; Song Rab. 1:2, §3; see other citations in Davies, Paul, 119. Amoraim also applied the principle to teaching young men (b. Sanh. 99b). 4830 Also 1QS 4.17–20, 23–26; 1 En. 5:8–9; 10:16; 91:8–11, 17; 92:3–5; 107:1; 108:3; Jub. 50:5; 4 Ezra 7:92; T. Zeb. 9:8, MSS; T. Mos. 10:1. 4831 E.g., Gen. Rab. 89:1; Deut. Rab. 3:11. Rabbinic traditions apply this principle specifically to the evil impulse (p. c Abod . Zar. 4:7, §2; Sukkah 5:2, §2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2; Exod. Rab. 30:17; 46:4; Ecc1. Rab. 2:1, §1; 12:1, §1), often in conjunction with Ezek 36 (b. Sukkah 52a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:17; Exod. Rab. 41:7; Deut. Rab. 6:14; Song Rab. 6:11, §1); cf. postmortem elimination of the impulse in L.A.B. 33:3; Gen. Rab. 9:5. A number of commentators (Dodd, Preaching, 34; Schnackenburg, John, 1:370–71), allude to the Jewish doctrine of eschatological purification here. |
| 6380 " Abot R.Nat. 40 A. 6381 E.g., Hesiod Op. 719–721; Pindar Pyth. 2.76; Horace Sat. 1.4.81–82; Martial Epigr. 3.28; Dio Chrysostom Or. 37.32–33; Marcus Aurelius 6.30.2; Josephus Ant. 13.294–295; 16.81; War 1.77,443; Philo Abraham 20; Spec. Laws 4.59–60; Sib. Or. 1.178; T. Ab. 12:6–7 Β; 1QS 7.15–16; 4Q525 frg. 2, co1. 2.1; Sipre Deut. 1.8.2–3; 275.1.1; " Abot R. Nat. 9,40A; 16, §36 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:2; b. c Abod. Zar. 3b; c Arak. 15a; 16a; Pesah. 118a; Sanh. 103a; Ta c an. 7b; p. Péah 1:1; Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Gen 1:16 ; Tg. Neof. 1 on Lev 19:18 ; Tg. Qoh. on 10:11. 6382 The term παρρησα used here and in 7can also apply to boldness in witness (Acts 4:13,29, 31; 28:31; 2Cor 3:12 ; Eph 6:19 ). 6383 In general, see our introduction; on this passage, cf., e.g., Haenchen, John, 2:7–8. 6384 Brown, John, 1:307. 6385 Meeks, Prophet-King, 45–46, following Glasson. 6386 " Abot R. Nat. 38A; b. Pesah. 26a; cf. Matt 21:23; 24:1; Acts 2:46; more sources in Liefeld, «Preacher,» 191; Safrai, «Temple,» 905. Later tradition that apostates were unwelcome to bring offerings (Tg. Ps.-J. on Lev 1:2 ), however, may reflect the sort of antipathy some would feel if Jesus was «leading astray» the people (7:12). 6387 An uneducated peasant might be a more credible prophet on the popular level (Aune, Prophecy, 136, on Joshua ben Anania, Josephus War 6.301), but not for the elite (elites might even wrongly think someone unlearned on the basis of unkempt appearance; Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.24.529). An honest commoner was of course better than a dishonest rhetor (Aeschines Timarchus 31); but because encomium biography often praised education, this deficiency would be viewed as unusual (Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 152–53, citing Menander Rhetor Treatise 2.371.17–372.2). Although some rhetoricians refused to speak extemporaneously (Plutarch Demosthenes 8.3–4; 9.3), extemporaneous speaking was common (see, e.g., Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 103), so this is not the basis for the crowd " s surprise. |
| 4058 For the importance of the eyewitness component in «witness,» see, e.g., Aune, Environment, 81; Painter, John, 8; Trites, Witness, 4–19,136–39. 4059 Michaels, Servant, 36. Cranfield, «Baptism,» 58, argues that it was a vision but a real communication to Jesus; Bultmann, History, 248, thinks it describes an objective happening as in Matthew and Luke, but only because it is a faith legend. 4060 Pace Hill, Prophecy, 59; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 18; cf. Bürge, Community, 52; Borg, Vision, 41,53 η. 19; Anderson, Mark, 75; Kelber, Story, 18–19; Hooker, Message, 13; Robinson, Problem, 81; Kingsbury, Structure, 14. 4061 Alongside the Baptist; cf. 15:26–27; Charles, «Witness.» 4062 Cf. also the christological inclusio of 1:1,18; 20(elsewhere, e.g., the sympathetic, choruslike εκκλησα, or public assembly, at the opening and close of Chariton Chaereas and Callirhoe). 4063 Cf. also dramatic language for personal deliverances (e.g. Ps 18:7–16 in context and some Qumran hymns, perhaps including the controversial «messianic» text 1 QH 3, which depicts the psalmist " s sufferings in terms of eschatological messianic woes). Mark " s heaven rending corresponds with the temple curtain " s rending (Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 46), but John omits this scene for other reasons than his own omission of the veil (Mark " s connection is subtle anyway). 4064 For John, Jesus» entire ministry was a sort of Moses-like transfiguration (1:14). 4065 Frequent in rabbinic texts, e.g., Sipre Deut. 357.10.3; b. B. Bat. 58a, 73b, 85b; c Erub. 54b; Mak. 23b; Pesah. 114a (=Hu1. 44a); Sanh. 104b; Šabb. 88a; p. c Abod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Hor. 3:5, §3; Sotah 9:16, §2; Ta c an. 4:5, §10; Lev. Rab. 19:5–6; Lam. Rab. 1:16, §50; Ruth Rab. 6:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:2, 11:16,17:5; reportedly Tannaitic sources in b. Hu1. 44a; Ketub. 104a; Šabb. 33b; Sotah 21a; Ecc1. Rab. 7:12, §1; Song Rab. 8:9, §3 (but many of the attributions are presumably part of later haggadah). For nonrabbinic parallels, see comment on 12:28. The connection cannot be limited to an Aqedah allusion (contrast Stegner, «Baptism»). |
| John plays on a contrast with faith δια τν λγον of the woman (4:39) and that of Jesus (4:41). 5639 Like Nathanael, the Samaritans» initial level of faith is based on another " s testimony (4:39), which is acceptable for initial faith (15:26–27; 17:20; 20:30–31). Once they «come» and «see» (4:29; cf. 1:46), however, they progress to a firsthand faith (4:42), which characterizes true disciples (10:3–4, 14–15). Thus the Samaritans do not denigrate the woman " s testimony in 4:42; rather, they confirm it. 5640 Jesus stayed with the Samaritans briefly (4:40), but long enough for them to get to know him more fully and respond to him appropriately (4:41–42; cf. 1:39). Mediterranean culture in general heavily emphasized hospitality, from classical Greek 5641 through Roman 5642 and modern times; 5643 pagans held that the chief deity was the protector of guests, hence guarantor of hospitality. 5644 This general statement was also true in particular of Mediterranean Jewry, especially toward fellow members of their minority in the Diaspora. 5645 One should not show hospitality to false teachers, 5646 such as Jewish and Samaritan teachers would regard each other to be, but Jesus had surmounted the usual Samaritan mistrust of Jews. Thus it would have been rude for the Samaritans not to offer hospitality and rude for Jesus to have refused once they insisted, though he does not stay long. That another passage in the gospel tradition indicates that Jesus sought lodging in Samaria may indicate the friendship Jesus shared with some Samaritans (Luke 9:52); if that account is later in Jesus» ministry than this one (as it must be if, as in Luke, that occasion is linked with Jesus» final journey to Jerusalem), it may also suggest that Jesus» plan to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:53) severely disappointed them. 5647 Then again, John actually recounts the conversion of «many» in only one Samaritan village, which could include fewer than a hundred adults despite the symbolic value he grants it; on the historical level, it is difficult to press this text " s portrait against Lukés different claims about Samaritan responses (Luke 9:51–56; Acts 8:4–25). 5648 |
| 10305 E.g., Polybius 6.53; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.96.1; Apuleius Metam. 2.27; Herodian 4.2.2; Philostratus Hrk. 51.13; 1Macc 2:70; Josephus Ant. 9.166; 13.406; Mart. Po1. 17. 10306 Theon Progymn. 9.4–5; cf. Josephus Ant. 4.320; b. Sabb. 153a; Gen. Rab. 100:2; Ecc1. Rab. 7:12, §1; 9:10, §3. 10307 E.g., Homer I1. 23.65–71; Od. 11.71–76; 21.363–364; 22.476; Euripides Herac1. 588–590; Hec. 47–50; Phoen. 1447–1450; Supp1. passim; Diodorus Siculus 15.35.1; Philostratus Hrk. 19.7; it was necessary to enter the netherworld (Homer I1. 23.71; Virgil Aen. 6.365–366; Heliodorus Aeth. 6.15). Many Greek philosophers constituted notable exceptions (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 92.35; Epictetus Diatr. 4.7.31; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.79; Stowers, Letter Writing, 142–43), though even their own disciples often disobeyed their instructions (Socratics Ep. 14; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.78). 10312 Requesting an official for a burial place, because the official controls the land (4 Bar. 7:14), is not an adequate analogy. 10313 E.g., Homer I1. 17.126–127, 255, 272; Sophocles Ant. 21–30, 697; Euripides Phoen. 1627–1630, 1650; Virgil Aen. 9.485; Diodorus Siculus 16.16.4; 18.67.6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 3.21.8; 4.40.5–6; 6.9.4; 20.16.2; Appian R.H. 12.8.52; 12.16.107; C.W. 1.8.73; Lucan C.W. 2.166–168; 7.825–835; Lysias Or. 19.7, §152; Thucydides 1.138.6; Seneca Controv. 1.7.2; 8.4.intr.; Suetonius Aug. 13; Valerius Maximus 1.4.2; Apol1. Κ. Tyre 50; Iamblichus V.P. 35.252; Philostratus Hrk. 21.6; Herodian 1.13.6; 8.8.7; Chariton 1.5.25; 1 En. 98:13; 2Macc 13:7; for executions in Rome, see sources in Rapske, Custody, 14. Sometimes the prohibition of honorable burial by free persons did not exclude burial altogether (carried out by slaves; Cornelius Nepos 19 [Phocion],4.4). 10314 Euripides Phoen. 1631–1634; m. Sanh. 6:6; cf. Josephus Ant. 9.104. Jewish aristocrats apparently felt that even relatives should withhold mourning when those destroyed were wicked (Josephus Ant. 4.53); but it was normally considered heartless to forbid mourning (Cicero Pis. 8.18), and to die unmourned was a cruel fate (Ovid Tristia 3.3.45–46). Contrast public mourning for heroes (e.g., Lysias Or. 2.66, §196; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.1.565) and expenses lavished for an official or person of wealth (Cicero Fam. 4.12.3; Statius Silvae 2.1.157–162; Alex. K. Tyre 26; disapproved in Iamblichus V.P. 27.122–123). |
|
|
