| Хотя ессеи не участвовали в храмовом культе ( Ios. Flav. Antiq. XVIII 1. 5), они чтили время, назначенное для жертвоприношений, и ежедневно омывались в 5 часов утра (примерно в 11 ч. по совр. исчислению времени) перед дневной трапезой ( Idem. De bell. II 129), поскольку, как считается, рассматривали молитвы членов общины и совместные трапезы в качестве нек-рой замены жертвоприношений животных (после разрушения Иерусалимского храма в этом же направлении эволюционировали и обряды иудаизма раввинистического ). В кумран. рукописях (см. в статьях Кумран , Мёртвого моря рукописи ) также имеются сведения о практике ритуальных омовений, к-рые дополняют свидетельства Иосифа Флавия некоторыми практическими подробностями (см.: Baumgarten. 1999). В «Дамасском документе» содержатся указания, касающиеся количества и качества воды, употребляемой для омовений: вода должна быть чистой и ее должно быть достаточно для полного погружения тела (CD X 10-13). В «Уставе общины» омовение связывается с покаянием и без него недействительно (1QS III 4-5), оно очищает от грехов и свидетельствует о пребывании в Завете с Богом (1QS III 6-12; V 13-15). Нечистым запрещается участвовать в общинных трапезах (1QS V 13-14; I 25; VII 16-17; ср.: 1Q19 XLIX 20-21). Возвещается также эсхатологическое очищение Св. Духом (1QS IV 21). Однако повторяемость омовения и отсутствие посредника при нем делает обряды кумранитов существенно отличными от христианского таинства К. «Крещение прозелитов» Отдельной дискуссионной проблемой является раввинистическая практика «крещения прозелитов», т. е. ритуального омовения при обращении в иудаизм (для мужчин - после обрезания). Его подробные описания встречаются только в поздних памятниках (Мишна Песахим. 8. 8; Вавилонский Талмуд. Йевамот. 46a). Хотя на бывш. язычников заповеди Закона Моисеева о чистоте распространялись только с момента обрезания, основанием для их обязательного омовения при обращении могло быть либо то, что они контактировали с идолами и идоложертвенным, либо то, что они вступали в супружеские отношения с женами в период их очищения (Мишна Песахим. |
| 18 Petros N. Papageorgiou, Zu Theodoretos und Georgios Burizes в «Byzanminische Zcitichrift» herausg von Prof. Karl Krumbacher II (Leipzig 1893), 2–3, S 585–589 (cp «Theologischer Jahresbericht» herausg von Prof. H. J. Koltzmann XIII [Braunschweig 1894], S. 195). 20 См. и в письмах блаж. Феодорита 149 (стр. 225) и 158 (стр.267–268), а также ср. 195 (стр. 328–319). 22 См. Synodicon, сар. LXXIX , CLXXXVIII-CLXXXIX и примечания кним Балюза у Migne, gr. ser. t.LXXXIVI col.688. 802–803; Rev.Edmund Venables, Art. «Irenaeus» в A Dictionary of Christian Biography cd. byWillam Smith and Henry Wace, vol. III (London 1882), p. 280–281. 282–283; Herzog-Hauck, Realeneyklopädie V 3 (Leipzig 1898). S 634; X V 3 (Leipzig 1903), S. 736. 738. 748–749; Н. Н. Глубоковский , Блаж. Феодорит I , стр. 165 сл. и др.; II, стр. 475–476. 476–477. 23 Для сего см. и письма блаж. Феодорита 3 (стр. 2–5), 12 (стр. 9–11), 16 (стр. 16–19) и 35 (стр. 36). 24 См. «Христианское Чтение» 1907 г., 3, стр. 381 прим. 383. 385– 391; ср. 1900 г., 8, стр. 316–317 и «Revue internationale de theologie» VIII, 31 (Juillet-Septembre 1900), p. 430. 25 Ad Ephesinum concilium variorum Patrum epistolae, ex manu-seripto Cassinensis bibliothecae codice desumptae, nune primum in publicam lucem data per F. Chr. Lupum [Wolf], Lovanii 1682, pag. 1–470. Christian Lupus (Wolf), O. S. Aug., родился 23 июля 1612 г., умер в Лувэне 10 июля 1681 года: см. F. Lichtenberger, Encyclopedie des sciences religieuses VIII (Paris 1880), p. 434; Wetzer und Welle, Kirchenlexikon, zw. Aufl., VIII (Freiburg im Breisgau 1893), Sp. 304–306. 26 Dissertatio V. de Theodoreti et Orientalium causa в Aucmarium′e y Migne, gr. ser. t. LXXXIV, col. 549 sqq. Jean Garnier (Garnerius), S. J., родился в Париже в 1612 г., умер 26 октября 1681 года: см. F. Lichtenberger, Encyclopedie V (Paris 1878), p. 411–413; Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexikon V 2 (Freiburg im Breisgau 1888), Sp. 104–105. 27 Novacollectio conciliorum, seu supplementum ad collectionem Ph. Labbei ed. Steph. Baluzius, Parisiis 1707, p. 679 sqq. Étienne Baluze (Stephan Baluzius) родился 23 ноября (по другим – 24 декабря) 1630 г., умер в Париже 28 июля 1718 года: см. F. Lichtenberger, Encyclopédie I (Paris 1877), p. 48; Wetzer, und Welte, Kirchenlexikon I 2 (Freiburg im Breisgau 1882), Sp. 1912–1915; A. Vacant et E. Mangenot, Dictionnaire de mhéologue catholique II (Paris 1905), col. 138–139. |
| 1590 Feldman, «Antiquities,» also suggests that some of L.A.R " s traditions sound closer to those later preserved in the rabbis than to Josephus. 1591 Martin Abegg in Wise, Scrolls, 355, on 4Q389 frg. 3 (though the text is fragmentary, making the parallel less clear). 1592 Cf. also, e.g., the story told by Judah ha-Nasi in b. Sank 9lab (cf. Mek. Sir. 2), which appears in more elaborate form in Apocr. Ezek. 1–2, a document which may have been in circulation by the late first century c.E. (assuming that the Clement quote represents this document; cf. comparisons in OTP 1:492,494). 1593 Jub. 4:30; Gen. Rab. 19:8; Pesiq. Rab. 40:2. These were the results of an unpublished study in Essene and Pharisaic haggadic (with some halakic) trajectories from common Judaism. 1596 Jub. 7:20–25; Finkelstein, Making, 223–27; Schultz, «Patriarchs,» 44–45, 48–49, 55–56; Mek. Bah. 5; b. c Abod. Zar. 64b; Sanh. 56a; 59a; 74b; Yebam. 48b; Gen. Rab. 26:1; 34:14; Exod. Rab. 30:9; Deut. Rab. 1:21. 1598 Jub. 4:17–23; 10:17; Gen. Apoc. 2.19; 1–3 Enoch; T. Ab. 11:3–10B; contrast Gen. Rab. 25:1; on Jubilees special Enoch traditions, cf. VanderKam, «Traditions,» 245. Cf. perhaps also Noah haggadah (Jub. 10:17; Gen. Rab. 26:6; 28:8; 29:1, 3; 36:3; more positive in b. Sanh. 108a), especially his birth (Gen. Apoc. co1. 2; extraordinary birth narratives apply especially to Moses in b. Sanh. 101a; Sotah 12a; Exod. Rab. 1:20,23,26: Lev. Rab. 20:1; Pesiq. Rab. 43:4; also in Philo Moses 1.3, §9; Josephus Ant. 2.217–37, but not in Jub. 47:1–8). 1599 Jub. 4:22; 5:1; 7:21; 2 Bar. 56:10–15; T. Reu. 5:5–6; CD 2.16–18: Philo Unchangeable 1; rare in rabbis except perhaps Gen. Rab. 31:13. 1601 Jubilees» and Qumran " s continuance of the old solar calendar (see Morgenstern, «Calendar»; Marcus, «Scrolls,» 12), possibly influential in the second century B.c.E. (Wirgin, Jubilees, 12–17, 42–43; for a consequent pre-Hasmonean dating, see Zeitlin, ««Jubilees,»» 224), naturally created a rift with the lunar-based temple service and Pharisaism (Noack, «Pentecost,» 88–89; Brownlee, «Jubilees,» 32; Baumgarten, «Beginning»; cf. Jub. 2:9–10; 6:17, 32–38). Rivkin, «Jubilees,» even argues that Jubilees was written against the Pharisee-scribes because they had created their own calendar. This may also indicate why the sun is extolled (Jub. 2:12; 4:21; cf. 1QS 10.1–5; CD 10.15–16; cf. Smith, «Staircase,» who may go too far, given synagogue zodiacs and Josephus " s astrological interpretations of temple imagery). |
| 2340 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 3. Cf., e.g., Vermes, Religion, 5,73–74; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 257. 2342 For Elijah and Elisha as examples of healing miracles in Josephus, see Betz, «Miracles,» 219–20. 2346 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 171; Meeks, Prophet-King, 163–64; Horsley, «Prophets»; see Josephus Ant. 20.97–99, 168–172; War 2.259, 261–263; 6.283ff. For a Greco-Roman context for signs-prophets, consult Kolenkow, «Miracle» (her Jewish examples are actually less convincing). 2348 See further Betz, «Miracles,» 222–30, on the «signs» (smeia) of the messianic prophets; their signs invited faith, but some responded with unbelief (pp. 224–25). 2350 E.g., Isa 12:2; 35:1, 8–10; 40:3; 51:11; Hos 2:14–15; 11:1–5, 10–11 ; Zech 10:10. In Isaiah, see Glasson, Moses, 15–19. Daube, Pattern, addresses exodus typology through the OT; he notes that no other OT patterns of deliverance are comparable to the exodus motif (11–12). 2351 E.g., t. Ber. 1:10; b. Ber. 12b (attributed to Ben Zoma); Exod. Rab. 2:6; Lev. Rab. 27:4; Deut. Rab. 9:9; Pesiq. Rab. 31:10; Teeple, Prophet, 51; in Matthew, see Davies, Setting, 25–93. Note the exodus as «Israel " s first salvation» (CD 5.19) and «first visitation» (CD 7.21). 2352 Deut 18:18 ; Gen. Rab. 100:10; Deut. Rab. 9:9; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:8; see further Meeks, Prophet-King, 246–54; Longenecker, Christology, 34–37,72–73; Mauser, Wilderness, 55–56; Patte, Hermeneutic, 173 (on Pss. Sol); and on the «hidden Messiah» tradition some commentators find in John 7 ; in the DSS, see Aune, Prophecy, 126 (who cites 1QS 9.10–11; 4QTest 1–20). Many scholars appeal to the new Moses picture in NT interpretation (e.g., Georgi, Opponents, 174; Hengel, Mark, 56), although its prominence in Judaism increased in the later period. 2353 Jub. 48:4; L.A.B. 9:7; Sipre Deut. 9.2.1; 4Q422 frg. 10 line 5; see further Meeks, Prophet-King, 162–63. 2356 Cf., e.g., Smith, «Typology,» 334–39; Meeks, Prophet-King, passim; Schnackenburg, John, 1:527. The ten plagues of Exodus (cf. the ten miracles for Israel at the sea in Mek. Bes. 5.1, Lauterbach 1:223) are paralleled in the seven plagues of Revelation, but probably also in the Fourth Gospel " s seven signs; compare the water turned to blood with water turned to wine as the first sign in each (Smith, «Typology,» 334–35, on John 2:1–11 and Exod 7:14–24). The seven signs may follow the midrash on Exodus implied in Wis 11–19 (Clark, «Signs»); the seven miracles of Pirqe R. E1. 52 are probably irrelevant (the document probably dates to the ninth century; see Strack, Introduction, 225–26). |
| 4166 See Keener, Matthew, 45–51. 4167 Some purist stylists objected to including foreign words in their works; see, e.g., [Virgil] Cata1. 7. 4168 E.g., Gen 37:15 ; Virgil Aen. 7.197; 8.112–114. 4169 Cf. Latinus " s question of the Trojans and subsequent hospitality in Virgil Aen. 7.197,202. 4170 Jewish texts especially speak of «following after» God (rather than onés own desires); see Helfmeyer, «Gott.» 4171 See, e.g., Wis 1:1; Jub. 1:15; 21:2; Matt 6:33; in the DSS, e.g., 1QS 1.1–2; 5:9,11; CD 1.10; 6.6; 4Q185 frg. 1–2, co1. 1, lines 8–12; 4Q416 frg. 2 (with 4Q417 in Wise, Scrolls, 384–85), co1. 3, lines 12–14; cf. Garcia de la Fuente, «Bûsqueda»; «seekers of smooth things,» negatively, 4QpNah. 2.2, 4; 3.3. For Wisdom, e.g., Sir 51:13–14,21 ; Wis 8:2; the law, Sir 35:15 ; for seeking out a prophet, cf. Sipre Deut. 62.1.1; on the application to study of Torah, see CD 6.7, and esp. Culpepper, School, 291–99, with John 5:39; 7 (pp. 298–99). On seeking and «finding» (cf. John 1:41,45 ) God, cf. Wis 1:2; Jub. 1:15; Matt 7:7; a prophet, cf. Sipre Deut. 62.1.1. 4172 Stibbe, Gospel, 1, finds an inclusio between 1and 20:15. For this as Johannine discipleship language, see Collins, Written, 52, 94–127. 4173 For reticence in responding, as in Luke 24:28–29, see, e.g., Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 108. One might protest that another of higher status has no time (Ovid Metam. 5.333–334) and await their assurance to the contrary before proceeding (5.335–336). A teacher might converse in a low-key manner to arouse the hearers» interest to learn more (e.g., Philostratus Hrk. 1.1–5.6). 4174 See Liefeld, «Preacher,» 223, noting Dio Chrysostom as an exception due to his exile. Most of Socrates» students wished to be with him as much as possible (Xenophon Mem. 4.1.1; 4.2.40). Musonius Rufus advocated this approach (11, p. 84.9–14; cf. 6, p. 52.7). 4175 Gerhardsson, Origins, 16–17. 4176 See abundant evidence in Young, Parables, 214; Safrai, «Home,» 762; among Romans, though usually inside, see Jeffers, World, 255. Vermes, Religion, 46, notes some meager evidence for « " wandering Galilean» Bible interpreters.» |
| 2455 7: Reu. 6:8; T. Jud. 21:1–2; cf. T. Sim. 5with 1QM. On Melchizedek as eschatological priest, see Puech, «Manuscrit.» 2456 See Jub. 31:12–17 and 31:18–20; cf. similarly T. Iss. 5:7; T. Dan 5:4, 10; T. Naph. 5:3–5; 8:2. Schniedewind, «King,» roots the dual messianic expectation in the Chronicler " s ideal leadership pattern (esp. 1 Chr 17:14). 2458 See Charles, Jubilees, xiv (although we may date Jubilees somewhat earlier than he suggests on xiii). 2459 Higgins, «Priest,» 333; idem, «Messiah,» 215–19; Laurin, «Messiahs,» 52. LaSor, Scrolls, 152ff., argues that the Hebrew idiom supports one messiah, rabbinic scholars seeing two because of their Talmudic background; although there may be more than one «anointed one,» only one is eschatologica1. T. Benj. 11seems to support a figure from both Judah and Levi (perhaps reflecting a Jewish-Christian desire to derive one of Jesus» parents from Levi, cf. Luke 1:5,36). The DSS conflate various anointed figures (e.g.,4Q174 3.10–13; 4Q252 1 5.1,3; 11Q13 2.15–20). 2460 Aune, Prophecy, 123 (citing T. Reu. 6:5–12; T. Levi 18:2–9; 1QS 9.10–11; lQSa 12–17; cf. CD 19.10–11; 20.1); Villalon, «Sources,» 53–63, esp. 63; Burrows, More Light, 297–311 (or maybe three, 311); Joczwiak, «Mesjanizm» (or even three); Jonge, ««Anointed,»» 141–42; Brown, «Messianism,» 54–66. In «Theory,» 56, Brown still thought there were probably two messiahs, but noted that not all texts were clear or represented the same period. 2462 Longenecker, Christology, 114; Driver, Scrolls, 468–69; Priest, «Mebaqqer»; cf. Priest, «Messiah.» Wcela, «Messiah(s),» finds in the Damascus Document (CD 12.23–13.1; 14.19; 19.10–11; 20.1; cf. 7.17–21) one military messiah with a priest who could be an Aaronic messiah (342); 1QS 9.11 has two messiahs, but often a priestly companion to the messiah is in view, and the Damascus Document probably sees both as one individual (347). Smith, «Begetting,» 224, thinks both anointed ones may be «survivals of the same figure,» but is not certain that either is eschatological or messianic. |
| 6827 Rhet. Alex. 35,1440b.23–40; 1441a.l-5. 6828 Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.25.544. One could have honorable ancestors but make dishonorable choices (e.g., Isaeus Estate of Dicaeogenes 47). 6829 Isocrates Peace 41–53, quoted in Dionysius of Halicarnassus Isoc. 17. 6830 B. Yoma 71b. A much later tradition has Aaron protest that the people who worshiped the golden calf really were children of the righteous but were simply carried away by the evil impulse (Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 32:22). 6831 See Odeberg, Pharisaism, 49. 6832 E.g., Jub. 23:10; Sir 44:19–22; 2 Bar. 57:2; T.Ab. 1:3,18; 2:3; 4:6–7; 7:8; 9:2; 13:2; 15:6,9; 16:7, 11; 17:10; 18:1; 20:3,11A; 4:10; 13:5B; m. Qidd.Á.4:4; " Abot R. Nat. 36, §94B; b. B. Bat. 17a. God could have found fault had he wished, however ( Rom 4:2 ; b. c Arak. 17a, bar.) 6833 Gen 18 ; Philo Abraham 107–114; Josephus Ant. 1.200; T. Ab. 1:4–9, 19; 3:7–9; 4:6; 17:7A; 2:3–12; 3:5–6; 4:10; 13:5B; Gen. Rab. 48:9; 50:4; Num. Rab. 10:5; Koenig, Hospitality, 15–20; probably transferred to Job in T. Job 10:1–4. 6834 Including «faithfulness» (πιστς) in testing (1Macc 2:52); cf. commentaries on Rom 4:3 . Nick-elsburg, «Structure,» 87–88, thinks Abraham " s obedient faith is less evident in Testament of Abraham. 6835 E.g., Mek. Nez. 18.36–40; b. Sukkah 49b; Gen. Rab. 38:13; 39:8; 46:1; Num. Rab. 8:9; Pesiq. Rab. 11:4; cf. CD 3.1–2. 6836 E.g., Sipre Deut. 32.2.1; " Abot R. Nat. 12A; 26, §54B; Gen. Rab. 30:8; Song Rab. 1:3, §3; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 21:33 ; Bamberger, Proselytism, 176–79. In such Amoraic traditions, surrounding peoples respected Abraham (Gen. Rab. 82:14), and Sarah witnessed through feeding Gentile infants (Gen. Rab. 53:9). 6837 Philo Migration 130, citing Gen 26:5 . The rabbis also based their case on this verse (see Pancaro, Law, 393, largely following Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, 3:186). 6838 CD 3.2; in the rabbis, see Urbach, Sages, 1:318; Moore, Judaism, 1:275–76; also Lev. Rab. 2:10. Compare the law-keeping pre-Sinai patriarchs in Jubilees (see comment on John 1:10 ). |
| 3976 John " s initial failure to recognize him (1:31) may underline the fact that he is known only by revelation (1:33; Smith, John 70), by the Spirit " s witness (15:26; 16:7–11). 3977 See Malina, World, 78. 3978 The two Greek words for knowledge used here function interchangeably in the Fourth Gospel; see on «Knowledge and Sight» in the introduction, ch. 6, above. 3979 See comment on 13:5. 3980 E.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.2.44; b. B. Bat. 53b (though both sources ridicule treating slaves in such a demeaning manner); Aeschylus Agamemnon 944–945; see Daubés and Urbachs citations below. Other commentators have noted that this is the work of a slave (Westcott, John, 19; Hunter, John, 23). 3981 Exod 24:13; 33:11; Josh 1:1; 1 Kgs 19:21; 2 Kgs 5:20; 6:15; 8:4; Zeno in Diogenes Laertius 7.1.12; Cleanthes in Diogenes Laertius 7.5.170; t. B. Mesfa 2:30; cf. «Abot R. Nat. 27, §56B; p. Sotah 5:5, §4; perhaps more like fatherly counsel in Xenophon Anab. 3.1.5–7. Lachs, Commentary, 45, and Daube, Judaism, 266, cite also b. Ketub. 96a. Cf. Joshua as Moses» disciple and other «disciples of the prophets» (CD 8.20–21; Mek. Pisha 1:150–153; »Abot R. Nat. 11, §28 B). 3982 B. Ketub. 96a, cited by various commentators (many following Billerbeck), cf. Davies, Sermon, 135; Morris, John, 141. 3983 E.g., 2 Kgs 9:7,36; 10:10; 14:25; 17:13,23; 21:10; 24:2; Ezra 9:11; Isa 20:3; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4 ; Dan 3:28; 6:20; 9:6, 10 ; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 37, §95 B; Martin, Slavery, 55–56; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 3; Käsemann, Romans, 5. 3984 E.g., 2Sam 3:18; 7:5,8,19–21,25–29; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24–26,66; 11:13,32,34,36,38; 14:8; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6; 1 Chr 17:4, 7, 17–19, 23–27; 2 Chr 6:15–21, 42; Ps 78:70; 89:3, 20; 132:10; 144:10 ; Isa 37:35; Jer 33:21–22,26 ; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25 ; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B. 3985 E.g., Exod 14:31; Num 12:7–8 ; Deut 34:5 ; Josh 1:1–2, 7,13,15; 8:31,33; 9:24; 11:12,15; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2,4–5; 1 Kgs 8:53,56; 2 Kgs 18:12; 21:8; 1 Chr 6:49; 2 Chr 1:3; 24:6,9; Neh 1:7–8; 9:14; 10:29; Ps 105:26 ; Dan 9:11 ; Mai 4:4; cf. 4Q378 frg. 22, line 2; L.A.B. 30:2, famulum; " Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B. |
| 7:37) an appropriate time to water the sheep ( Gen 29:7 ), and John might possibly allude to the good shepherd ( John 10:11 ) watering his sheep here. 5301 E.g., Josephus Ant. 15.292–296; Strabo Geog. 16.2.34; for its temple to Caesar, Josephus War 1.403; Ant. 15.298. 5305 Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.199; 1 En. 8:1–2; Jub. 20:4; 33:20; T. Ab. 10:8A; Ascen. Isa. 2:5; t. Sanh. 13:8; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; see further Keener, «Adultery,» 10–11. It is equivalent to prostitution (Sipra Qed. pq. 7.204.1.1–2; either may be condemned in CD 4.17–18; 7.1; 8.5; 1QS 4.10). 5306 E.g., Wis 14:24; L.A.B. 2:8; Syr. Men. 45–46, 240–251; T. Levi 17:11; Treat. Shem 7:15; 9:9; 10:16; at greater length, see Keener, «Adultery,» 7–10. 5309 E.g, P.Eleph. 1.3–4; Dio Cassius 54.16.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 11.28.4; Livy 4.4.9–11; Gaius Inst. 1.66–92; Ulpian Rules 5.8–9; cf. Arrian Ind. 12.8. In Judaism, cf., e.g., Josephus Ant. 4144–245; t. Sanh. 4:7; p. Git. 1:4,.4, Ketub. V.5, Qidd. 1:1, 3:12,Yebam. 6:1–9:8. On the relation between Jewish and Roman codes here, see Cohen, Law, 133–36; further documentation appears in Keener, Marries, 58–60, 169–70. 5311 Sir 41:22 ; Syr. Men. 347–353; Christian influence may exist in the public disapproval of Justinian Codex 9.25. The prohibitions, however, suggested that the temptation existed (m. " Abot 2:7; t. Hor. 2:11; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 20:6). 5312 E.g., Homer Od. 1.428–433; Martial Epigr. 3.33; Artemidorus Onir. 1.78; Achilles Tatius 6.20; Apuleius Metam. 3; see further Keener, «Adultery,» 12. It could deter adultery (Columella Rust. 1.8.5) 5314 Epictetus Ench. 33.8. Others apparently found nothing wrong with limited male promiscuity (cf. Apollonius of Rhodes 1.842–909). 5315 E.g., Mantitheus against Boeotus 2.8–10 (in Demosthenes, LCL 4:486–87); Plutarch Educ. 2, Mor. 1AB. 5316 Gardner, Women, 130; Justinian Codex 9.22. Cf. honored prostitutes of higher status (e.g., Athenaeus Deipn. 13.596b; Aulus Gellius 7.7.5–7; Sipre Num. 115.5.7); many, however, entered the profession through economic necessity (Terence Lady of Andros 73–79), and most because they were slaves (Apuleius Metam. |
| It is unlikely that the early Christians would have invented the testimony of women: not all testimony was regarded as being of equal merit, and the trustworthiness of witnesses was considered essential (CD 9.21–22; 10:1). 10607 Most of Jesus» Jewish contemporaries held little esteem for the testimony of women; 10608 this reflects a broader Mediterranean limited trust of women " s testimony and speech, also enshrined in Roman law. 10609 Some, though not all, Jewish writers condemned listening to women more generally (e.g., Josephus Ant. 18.255; Syr. Men. 118–121 ,336–339). 10610 Indeed, even the disciples in the late tradition in Mark 16did not believe the women–a tradition that may reflect historical reality at this point (Luke 24:11). 10611 For the early Christians, neither the empty tomb nor the testimony of the women was adequate evidence by itself (cf. Luke 24:22–24); they further depended on the testimony of men for the public forum ( 1Cor 15:5–8 ). 10612 No one had apologetic reason to invent the testimony of these women, but the gospel writers may have a profound theological purpose in preserving it, perhaps related to the gospel " s power to transcend gender restrictions. 10613 For the account " s theological function in context, see the comment on 20:18. 2E. The Ascension (20:17) Such a moment of revelation would evoke intense emotion in an ancient setting, as it would be today. 10614 That she would embrace Jesus (implied in 20:17) would not be surprising whether or not mentioned; a woman might be expected to embrace a loved one she had wrongly assumed dead. 10615 In the context, «touch» probably refers to «embrace»; it is difficult to envision Mary, under such circumstances, merely poking a suspicious finger at Jesus» arm (cf. 20:25) or grabbing his right hand for an ancient promise of fidelity. Scholars have offered various proposals to explain the prohibition of «touching» Jesus–for example, an allusion to a biblical prohibition against touching the sacred during theophanies (Exod 19:12–13; but contrast 20:27). 10616 Some have suggested that Jesus» warning in 20that Mary not «touch» him before his ascension implies an ascension before the appearance in which Jesus invites Thomas " s touch (20:25–27). 10617 In such a case, the prohibition may recall the concept that elsewhere appears in the Apocalypse of Moses, where touching Adam " s body in a particular state endangers not only Eve but Adam (Apoc. Mos. 31:3–4); 10618 the value of this parallel, even if viewed as close, must presuppose that the account in the Apocalypse of Moses does not depend on an interpretation of Johannine tradition here; moreover, Adam refers to his corpse, and the idea or nature of danger is not clearly articulated. |
|
|
