| Bd. 22.1973. S. 650–663. Cobb L. S. Polycarp’s Cup. Imitatio in the Martyrdom of Polycarp//Journal of Religious History. Vol. 38. 2014. P. 224–240. Cobb S. Dying to be Men: Gender and Language in Early Christian Martyr Texts. New York, 2008. Cole R. A. Reports of Proceedings in Papyri. Bruxelles, 1966. Colin J. L’empire des Antonins et les martyrs gaulois de 177. Bonn, 1964. Conzelmann H. Bemerkungen zum Martyrium Polycarps. Göttingen, 1978. Corsaro F. Note sugli “Acta martyrum Scilitanorum”//Nuovo Didaskaleion. Vol. 6.1956. P. 5–51. Dahm H . J. Lateinische Märtyrerakten und Märtyrerbriefe. Kommentar. Münster, 1986. Davids A. Iustinus Philosophus et Martyr. Bibliographie 1923–1973. Nimwegen, 1983. Davies J. G. Was the Devotion of Septimius Severus to Serapis the cause of the persecution 202–3?//Journal of Theological Studies. Vol. 5. 1954. P. 73–76. De Ste. Croix G. E. M. Aspects of the “Great” Persecution//Harvard Theological Review. Vol. 47.1954. P. 75–113. De Ste. Croix G. E. M. Why were the Early Christian Persecuted?//Past and Present. Vol. 26.1963. P. 6–38. Decret F., Fantar M. L’Afrique du Nord dans l’Antiquité: histoire et civilisation. Payot, 1981. Degrassi A. I fasti consolari dell’Impero Romano dal 30 avanti Cristo al 613 dopo Cristo. Roma, 1952. Dehandschutter B. A “New” Text of the Martyrdom of Polycarp//Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses. Vol. 66.1990. P. 391–394. Dehandschutter B. Polycarpiana. Notes on the Hagiographie “Dossier” of a Saint//Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. Vol. 80. 2004. P. 475–484. Dehandschutter B. Polycarpiana. Studies on Martyrdom and Persecution in Early Christianity. Collected Essays. Leuven, 2007. Dehandschutter B. The Martyrdom of Polycarp and the Outbreak of Montanism//Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses. Louvain Journal of Theology and Canon Law. Vol. 7 5/4 .1999. P. 430–437. Dehandschutter В. The Martyrium Policarpi: a Century of Research//Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Tl. II. Bd. 27. 1. Berlin, 1992. P. 485–522. |
| Comment. P. 258, 607). Упоминание под 27 июня о том, что К. принял мученическую смерть в Галатии при имп. Траяне, является необоснованным предположением кард. Цезаря Барония . В действующей редакции Римского Мартиролога поминовение К. отсутствует. Под 21 бармуда (16 апр.) память К. как мученика упоминается в календаре копто-арабского писателя Абу-ль-Бараката († 1324; Le calendrier d " Abou " l-Barakât/Éd., trad. E. Tisserant. P., 1915. P. 269. (PO; T. 10. Fasc. 3)). Память К. вместе с памятью апостолов Силы, Силуана, Епенета, Аристарха, Аристовула и Иуды представлена под 24 хротицем (30 июля) в армянском Синаксаре Тер-Исраэла (XIII в.) (PO. Vol. 21. Fasc. 6. P. 799). Примечательно, что в издании Житий свт. Димитрия Ростовского под 4 янв. и под 30 июля воспроизводятся сведения о К., представленные в Римских Мартирологах (ЖСв. Янв. С. 160; Июль. С. 666). Именно зап. агиографическая традиция почитания К. как 1-го епископа г. Вьенна в Галлии в большей степени соответствует содержанию библейского текста и отражает древнее предание; на фоне остальных версий она кажется наиболее правдоподобной. Лит.: Димитрий (Самбикин), архиеп. Собор св. 70 Апостолов. Каз., 1907. C. 76-78; Lattanzi U. Crescente//BiblSS. 1964. Vol. 4. Col. 283; Dibelius M., Conzelmann H. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Phil., 1972; Gillman F. M. Crescens//ABD. 1992. Vol. 1. P. 1206; Mounce W. D. Pastoral Epistles. Dallas, 2000. (WBC; 46); Johnson L. T. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. N. Y., 2001. А. Е. Петров Иконография В греческом руководстве для живописцев - Ерминии иером. Дионисия Фурноаграфиота (ок. 1730-1733) - К. (назван Криск) упоминается предпоследним в числе апостолов от 70 с рекомендацией изображать его старцем с остроконечной бородой (Ерминия ДФ. Ч. 3. § 7. С. 158. 69). В рус. сводном иконописном подлиннике по списку Г. Д. Филимонова описание облика К. содержится под 30 июля и 4 янв. В первом случае о К. сказано: «...подобием надсед, власы с ушей, брада гораздо короче Иоанна Богослова, ризы апостольские, в руках книга и омофор, ноги в сандалиях» ( Филимонов. Иконописный подлинник. С. 402. 24), во втором - возрастная характеристика отсутствует, перечень одежд и атрибутов тот же (Там же. С. 236). В составленном В. Д. Фартусовым руководстве для иконописцев (СПб., 1910) К.- «типом римлянин… со средней величины бородой, с проседью, волосы коротки; в фелони и омофоре» ( Фартусов. Руководство к писанию икон. С. 134, под 4 янв.). |
| В ВМЧ включены все 3 проложные версии Жития К. С.: под 13 сент. помещены тексты из нестишного Пролога пространной редакции и из стишного Пролога (ВМЧ. Сент. Дни 1-13. Стб. 653, 670), под 20 окт.- из нестишного Пролога (ВМЧ. Окт. Дни 19-31. Стб. 1571-1572). Из противоречивой информации о месте епископства К. С. и об обстоятельствах его кончины свт. Димитрий, митр. Ростовский, выбрал для своих Четьих-Миней следующее: в заглавии Жития, помещенного под 13 сент., К. С. назван священномучеником, несмотря на то что в тексте говорится о его мирной кончине; город, где святой проповедовал Христа, назван «Скипсеосейстем градом». В южнослав. рукописях с XV в. встречается пространное Житие К. С., написанное прп. Симеоном Метафрастом ( Иванова К. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Balcano-Slavica. София, 2008. С. 202-203). Ист.: BHG, N 370y - 371; ActaSS. Febr. T. 1. P. 279-285; PG. 114. Col. 1293-1312 [ Симеон Метафраст. Мученичество Корнилия Сотника]; PG. 117. Col. 117 [Минологий Василия II]; MartRom. P. 46; SynCP. Col. 37-40; Νικδημος. Συναξαριστς. Τ. 1. Σ. 131-134; ЖСв. Сент. С. 276-286; ВМЧ. Сент. Дни 1-13. Стб. 653, 670; Halkin F. Un abrégé inédit de la vie ancienne et disparue de Corneille le Centurion//RSBN. N. S. 1964. Vol. 1. P. 31-39; Древний метафрастический сб./Сост.: Н. Гогуадзе. Тбилиси, 1986. (ПДГП; 8) (на груз. яз.); Георгий Мтацминдели, прп. Месяцеслов Георгия Святогорца: Сент./Сост.: Л. Джгамаия. Тбилиси, 2007. С. 188-192. (ПДГП; 9) (на груз. яз.); Синаксарь: Жития святых Правосл. Церкви/Авт.-сост.: иером. Макарий Симонопетрский. М., 2011. T. 1. С. 186-188. Лит.: Сергий (Спасский). Месяцеслов. Т. 2. С. 281; Т. 3. С. 370; Quentin H. Les martyrologes historiques du Moyen Âge. P., 1908. P. 417, 460, 589, 591; Van Doren R. Κορνλιος//DHGE. T. 13. Col. 895; Halkin F. Une Passion inédite de Corneille le Centurion?: (BHG 370y)//AnBoll. 1963. T. 81. P. 28-31; Orbiso T. G., de. Cornelio//BiblSS. Vol. 4. Col. 189-192; ΘΗΕ. Τ. 7. Στ. 868-869; Conzelmann H. Acts of the Apostles. Phil., 1987; Gaventa B. R. Cornelius//ABD. 1992. Vol. 1. P. 1154-1155; Σωφρνιος (Εστρατιδης). Αγιολγιον. Στ. 257; Fitzmyer J. A. The Acts of the Apostles. N. Y., 1998; Левинская И. А. Деяния Апостолов на фоне евр. диаспоры. СПб., 2000; она же. Деяния Апостолов: Гл. 9-28: Ист.-филол. коммент. СПб., 2008; Петков Г. Стишният Пролог в старата българска, сръбска и руска лит-ра: XIV-XV вв. Пловдив, 2000. С. 243; Габидзашвили. Переводные памятники. 2004. Т. 1. С. 261; 2011. Т. 5. С. 399. |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла ИУСТ [Иосиф Варсав(в)а Иуст; греч. Ιωσφ Βαρσαβ(β)ς Ιοστος; лат. Iosephus Barsabbas Iustus] (I в.), ап. от 70 (пам. 30 окт. и 4 янв. (в Соборе 70 апостолов); пам. визант. 21, 22, 30 июня, 21 июля, 20 окт.; пам. зап. 20 июля). После смерти Иуды Искариота апостолы решили восполнить число 12 учеников и выбрали 2 кандидатов - «Иосифа, называемого Варсавой, который прозван Иустом» (Деян 1. 23) и Матфия . Оба они были вместе с апостолами во время проповеди Спасителя от Крещения до Вознесения и являлись свидетелями Воскресения Христова (Деян 1. 21-22). Жребий быть сопричтенным 11 апостолам выпал Матфию. Лат. прозвище Иуст означает «праведный». По словам свт. Иоанна Златоуста , этот апостол именовался Иосифом Варсавой и Иустом или во избежание путаницы с др. Иосифами, или «из-за изменения образа жизни, а, может, по его собственному желанию» ( Ioan. Chrysost. In Act. 3. 2//PG. 60. Col. 36). Нек-рые библеисты, исходя из наблюдения, что в рим. период иудеи старались выбирать лат. имя, созвучное своему евр. имени, предположили, что апостол использовал имя Иуст вместо Иосиф в латиноязычной среде ( Conzelmann. 1987. P. 12; Bruce. 1988. P. 46; Pervo. 2009. Р. 55). По мнению Ч. Барретта, Иосиф Варсава носил имя Иуст как рим. гражданин ( Barrett. 2002. P. 13; Idem. 2004. Vol. 1. P. 102). Большинство исследователей считают, что Варсава - патроним, т. е. И. был сыном некоего Саввы. Мн. комментаторы предполагают, что И. был братом Иуды Варсавы ( Strahan. 1916. P. 649; Munck. 1967. P. 143; Hunter. 1982. P. 1151; Kerr. 1982. P. 1130 и др.). Кроме того, высказывались мнения, что это не патроним, а прозвище, к-рое означает «сын субботы» (т. е. «рожденный в субботу» - Bruce. 1988. P. 46; Williams M. H. Palestinian Jewish Personal Names in Acts// Bauckham R. The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Grand Rapids (Mich.), 1995. P. 101-102 и др.), «сын старца» ( Strahan. 1916. P. 649; Fry. 1992. P. 614 и др.), «сын клятвы», «сын обращения» или «сын безмолвия» ( Kerr. 1982. P. 1130). |
| 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). |
| 376 Arguments for this source may be found in Robinson, «Trajectory,» 235–38; Appold, Motif, 87; Fortna, «Christology,» 504. Cf. Smith, «Book of Signs,» 441–57, who notes (441) that one need not accept this source as distinct from the Gospe1. We are inclined to agree with the judgment of Carson, «Source Criticism,» 428, that none of the proposed source theories for the Fourth Gospel has been adequately demonstrated. 377 E.g., Brown, John, 1:xliv-xlvii; Schnackenburg, John, 1:42; Dodd, ««Herrenworte,»» 86; Robinson, Twelve Studies, 96; Smalley, John, 38; Hunter, John, 5; Ladd, Theology, 219–20; Morris, Studies, 15–63. Gardner-Smith, Gospels, was an early and able proponent of this thesis, which carried much of Johannine scholarship. 378 See Smith, John Among Gospels, 139–176. This book represents the most thorough treatment of different views on the question to date. 380 E.g., Marsh, John, 44–46; Yee, Feasts, 11–12; Smith, John (1999), 14; see esp. idem, Among Gospels, 195–241. 381 Early Christians assumed that John knew the Synoptics and regularly compared them (Wiles, Gospel, 13–21); but apologetic considerations more than tradition may have shaped their communal memory. 383 People often sent mail when they heard of someone traveling in the right direction (e.g., Cicero Att. 1.10,13; 4.1; 8.14); one letter from as far as Britain reached Cicero in less than a month (Cicero Quint, fratr. 3.1.8.25). In the present day, despite the availability of a postal service, travelers to and from many parts of Nigeria, Kenya, and Cameroon still carry mail for acquaintances. 384 See esp. Smith, «John and Synoptics,» 425–44; also Sanders, John, 10; Conzelmann, Theology, 324; Goppelt, Jesus, Paul, and Judaism, 40–41; Beasley-Murray, John, xxxv-xxxvii; Bordiert, John, 37–41; Witherington, Wisdom, 5–9; Brown, Essays, 194–96; Dvorak, «Relationship»; Blomberg, Reliability, 48–49; Köstenberger, John, 37. 390 Smith, «Problem,» 267. One cannot a priori use Mark " s framework, which he may have imposed on tradition, to evaluate John " s reliability (Moloney, «Jesus of History»). |
| 2690 See Foakes Jackson and Lake, «Development,» 327–28; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 54; Richardson, Theology, 285. Many scholars connect the NT church with Israel " s qahal (e.g., Cerfaux, Church, 100–105; Barth, People of God, 11–12; Bruce, Books, 84; Meeks, Christians, 79; Ladd, Theology, 109–10). The DSS had already adopted the Hebrew term for their own community (Gaster, Scriptures, 17; Pfeiffer, Scrolls, 50–51). 2696 Lake, «Twelve,» 46. Anderson, Mark, 171, thinks it unlikely that Jesus regarded the Twelve as shaliachim, but reasonable that the Jerusalem church saw them in these terms. 2697 Conzelmann, Theology, 45–46; Bultmann, Theology, 2(Bultmann accepting the derivation from the shaliach). 2702 T. Ta c an. 3(trans. Neusner, 2:274); also m. Ber. 5:5; b. Naz. 12b. For the sender " s responsibility, see m. Me c i1. 6:1; but reportedly pre-Christian tradition in b. Qidd. 43a holds the agent liable even if the sender is liable also. 2703 P. Git. 1:1, §1. For discussion of how a sender could nullify an agent " s task, see p. Git. 4:1, §1; the stricter rule required speaking to the agent (see m. Git. 4:1). 2704 E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.88.2; Diodorus Siculus 40.1.1; Josephus Life 65, 72–73, 196–198; 2Macc 1:20. Cf. Zenós dispatch of two fellow scholars in his place in Diogenes Laertius 7.1.9. 2706 Cf. Euripides Herac1. 272; Xenophon Anab. 5.7.18–19, 34; Apollodorus Epitome 3.28–29: Polybius 15.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 8.43.4; Diodorus Siculus 36.15.1–2; Dio Cassius 19.61; Appian R.H. 3.6.1–2; 3.7.2–3; 4.11; 8.8.53; Valerius Maximus 6.6.3–4. This was important, since receivers of news sometimes responded positively or negatively to messengers depending on the news they received (e.g., Homer Il. 17.694–696; 18.15–21; Euripides Medea 1125–1129; Appian R.H. 12.12.84; Arrian Ind. 34.4; 35.1; 2Sam 1:15; 18:20, 22 ; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.35, 37). 2710 Wenham, Bible, 114–15. In the broader Mediterranean culture, cf., e.g., Demosthenes Or the Embassy 4–5. |
| 2538 Also MSS at 18:11. Hengel, Son, 43; Blackburn, «ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,» 189, are not entirely convincing in referring only to the Jewish tradition of applying this language to angels (Wis 5:5). 2540 See Riesenfeld, Tradition, 76; Dunn, Baptism, 30; Albright and Mann, Matthew, 36; Teeple, Prophet, 75–76; Meier, Vision, 59–60; Gundry, Matthew, 53. 2547 Given the prevalence of divine kings in parts of the ancient Near East (De Vaux, Israel, 111; even Akenaton in «The Amarna Letters,» 483–90 in ANET, passim), one sin to which Israel " s and Judah " s rulers had not succumbed (De Vaux, Israel, 113), one may question whether Isaiah would have risked implying that God would be Israel " s ultimate Davidic king if that was not what he meant (against Berger and Wyschogrod, Jews, 43; on the structure cf. De Vaux, Israel, 107; Kitchen, Orient, 110). This idea admittedly lacks parallels elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, but explicit messianic material is scarce in it to begin with. Tg. Isa. 9deliberately alters the grammar to distinguish the Davidic king from the Mighty God. 2548 Before the Qumran texts, in fact, scholars generally agreed that first-century Judaism did not apply «son of God» as a messianic title, in contrast to some OT usage; see Conzelmann, Theology, 76–77; Jeremias, Parables, 73; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:85; Stevens, Theology, 104–105. 2549 Longenecker, Christology, 95; Stanton, Gospels, 225. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 198–99, rightly notes that lQSer(a) (=lQ28a) 2.11–12 is not as clear as 4QFlor; Hengel, Son, 44, also cites a Daniel apocryphon as yet unpublished at the time of his book. Some cite 4Q 242 2.1–2, though it remains debated (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 154–55); see comment below. 4Q174 3.10–11 uses 2Sam 7:11–14 in an explicitly messianic context (4Q174 3.11–13; the passage may also stress, as Bergmeier, «Erfüllung,» argues on 4Q174 2.17–3.13, the eschatological elect and their temple). 2550 See Evans, «Son»; idem, «Prayer of Enosh» (including 4Q458); Abegg, «Introduction to 4Q369,» 329. |
| In every language there is a word to describe a person who is sent by the king or by the magistrates to act as their authorized representative. The Aramaic word for such persons is . There is nothing unusual about it, and if Jesus sent out authorized representatives as Mark says that he did, this is the name which he would naturally have used. In the New Testament this is generally rendered into Greek by απστολος, but this word, though etymologically correct, is not customary in non-Christian Greek. 2696 Having argued that the shaliach provides a general context for the nt idea of agency (particularly apostleship), however, it is also important to recognize the quite different conception of agency in the nt. Conzelmann and Bultmann, for instance, observe that the shaliach is often a temporary position, whereas that of nt apostles is permanent. 2697 While this need not affect the derivation of the image, it does affect the sense. Others also insist that the different nt usage qualifies the meaning, and they are right. 2698 The synthesis noted by J. A. Kirk is helpful; the rabbinic institution provides an analogy to apostleship, but neither the word nor the function of an απστολος Χριστο , Ιησο can strictly be derived from . … As Rengstorf himself suggests, although the idea may have come from rabbinic Judaism its characteristic use in the New Testament has a peculiarly Christian origin and em-phasis. Like many other words which occur in contemporary literature, its characteristic mean-ing in the New Testament is quite unique. 2699 The general institution of agency therefore informs the early Christian, including Johannine, conception of agency, but specific nuances of agency, which early Christian writers may have adopted and adapted, remain to be examined. 3. Meaning of Agency and Apostleship Agency represented commission and authorization, the sense of the concept which provides a broad conceptual background for early Christian agency. The agent " s own legal status may have been low; 2700 under rabbinic rulings, even slaves were permitted to fill the position. |
| 2586 See Hayman, «Monotheism,» though he probably overstates the case for the pervasiveness of dualistic monotheism. Cf. Fauth, «Metatron»; Abrams, «Boundaries»; Alexander, «3 Enoch,» 235. 2587 With Bauckham, God Crucified, 2–4,27–28, who believes Jesus in early Christian texts functions like Wisdom, being within the unique divine identity (26–42). 2588 Pritz, Jewish Christianity, 110; Flusser, Judaism, 620, 624. Barrett, John and Judaism, 48–49, thinks rabbinic teaching on God " s unity reflects some polemic against Christianity. 2590 For detailed argument, see most fully Bauckham, God Crucified, 2–15,26–42; cf. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 35; Wright, Paul, 63–72. 2591 Moore, Judaism, 1:437. Even later Judaism, however, regarded Gentile (as opposed to Jewish) adherence to Trinitarian views as Shittuf (partnership) rather than idolatry (cf. Falk, Jesus, 33–35; Borowitz, Christologies, 32; Berger and Wyschogrod, Jews, 33; Schoeps, Argument, 16–17). 2593 See comment on 1:1–18; further, e.g., Dunn, «John,» 314–16, who finds it pervasive throughout the Gospe1. 2594 Paul modifies Hellenistic (see Nock, Christianity, 34; Koester, Introduction, 1:162; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 145)–both Stoic (Moffatt, Corinthians, 106; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 130; Meeks, Christians, 91) and Platonic (cf. Grant, Gods, 48; Horsley, «Formula»)–and Hellenistic Jewish (Lohse, Colossians, 50; cf. Sib. Or. 3.277–278; Grant, Gods, 84–85) language here; his wording probably represents esp. an adaptation of the Shema (Goppelt, Theology, 2:83; Hering, 1Corinthians, 69; Bruce, Corinthians, 80), pervasive use of which is attested early, e.g., the Nash Papyrus (second century B.C.E.); m. Ber. 2:5. 2595 Some have seen elements of an Adam Christology (e.g., Martin, Carmen Christi, 116–18; idem, " Morphë»; Hunter, Predecessors, 43; Johnston, Ephesians, 41; Beare, Philippians, 80; Ridderbos, Paul, 74; Furness, «Hymn»); others have denied it (Glasson, «Notes,» 137–39; Wanamaker, «Philippians»; Bornkamm, Experience, 114) or held that Paul revised an earlier Adam Christology (Barrett, Adam, 71). Regardless of possible allusions to Adam as God " s image (e.g., Philo Creation 69; 4 Ezra 8:44; 9:13; L.A.E. 37:3; 39:3; Apoc. Mos. 10:3; 12:2; 33:5; m. Sanh. 4:5; h. Sanh. 38a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 8:10; Ecc1. Rab. 6:10, §1), Wisdom was God " s image in the ultimate sense (Wis 7:26; Philo Planting 18; Confusion 97; 147; Heir 230; Flight 101; Dreams 1.239; 2.45; Spec. Laws 1.81), which this text distinguishes from the human sense ( Phil 2:7–8 ), especially in presenting Jesus» divinity (cf. Phil 2:10–11 with Isa 45:23). Paul here assumes Christ " s préexistence (Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 156–68; against Talbert, «Problem»); on other christological hymns stressing Christ " s préexistence, see Martin, Carmen Christi, 19. |
|
|
