| The «prince of this world» probably corresponds to the early Jewish sectarian title «spirit of error.» Some early Jewish sources recognized in the world both the «spirit of truth» and the «spirit of error» (cf. 1 John 4:6 ; see comment on 14:16). As Jesus announces the coming Spirit of truth (14:16–17), the Holy Spirit (14:26), he also announces «the prince of this world» (on this title, see more fully the comment on 12:31; cf. 16:11), apparently an eschatological figure (cf. 1 John 2:18; 4:3 ). 8803 Although it is less clear that they were written before John than Qumran references to a spirit ruling the children of darkness, some other early Jewish texts could likewise speak of Beliar as ruling the world 8804 or Satan as «the ruler of deception» ( ρχων της πλνης) 8805 or the «prince» of even Jews who followed him. 8806 The rabbinic tradition and some other Jewish traditions normally reserve the title «prince of the world» for God, 8807 defining the world as the created order; but once one defines the «world» in terms of the peoples hostile toward God, as John does, it is relevant that the rabbis also acknowledged that evil angels ruled nations hostile toward God " s people. 8808 In this instance the rabbis reflected views held much more widely in early Judaism (Deut 32LXX; Dan 10:13, 20–21 ). 8809 Some suggest that Satan would come «in the person of Judas Iscariot,» comparing the devil " s work through him in 13and Judas " s impending coming in 18:2–3. 8810 Certainly Judas is linked with Satan in John and acts as the devil " s agent (6:70; 13:2); but «prince of the world» is hardly an appropriate title for Judas, who follows, rather than leads, the world " s agenda. The Johannine community was familiar with the tradition of a coming «antichrist,» whose spirit the author of 1 John argues was already in the world (1 John 2:18, 22). As «son of destruction» (17:12), Judas may have embodied this impulse (cf. 2 Thess 2:3). Yet the allusion looks beyond Judas as the devil " s agent. The «ruler of the world» appears in 12:31, 14:30, and 16:11; because the «ruler» is «cast out» by Jesus» realized-eschatological glorification in 12:31, it is likely that at least one segment of the Johannine community would have understood that the casting out refers to an end to Satan " s rights in heaven (Rev 12:8–10). |
| With importunity then, without ceasing, without fainting, He has admonished us in all these passages to ask for the succor of His grace. It was for the sake of sinners that He came, that He might convert them to Himself, and heal those that believe Him. Only let us to the best of our power withdraw ourselves from evil preoccupations, and hate bad pursuits and the deceits of the world, and turn our backs upon wicked and vain thoughts, and ever cleave to Him with all our might, and He readily gives us His help. To this purpose He is merciful, and quickening, curing the maladies that were incurable, working deliverance for those who call upon Him and turn to Him, departing to the best of their ability in will and intention from all worldly affection, and forcing their mind away from the earth, and fastening it upon Him with seeking and longing. To such a soul His help is vouchsafed, the soul that counts all things else unnecessary, and rests upon nothing in the world, but looks to find rest and rejoicing in the repose of His loving kindness, and thus through such a faith attaining the heavenly gift, gaining satisfaction for its desire in full assurance through grace, thenceforward serving the Holy Spirit agreeably and consistently, and daily advancing in that which is good, and abiding in the way of righteousness; and having persevered to the end inflexible and uncomplying towards the side of evil, without grieving grace in anything, it is granted eternal salvation with all the saints, as having lived in the world like a partner and a comrade of theirs, in imitation of them. Amen. St. Macarius the Great 7 марта 2015 г. Gal. 1:4. 1 John 4:17. Phil. 2:12. Ps. 45:7. The word here seems to be used here in the same sense as in Rom. 11:I, I Pet. 2:2. as a practical synonym of the Greek words that mean, " immaterial. " 1 Cor. 4:17. The best MSS., though they read " in newness " in the text, have in the margin " in oneness, " the transposition of two letters. Eph. 3:10. Heb. 11:29, Deut. 4:24. Macarius appears to mean that " Jerusalem, " " Sion, " in such cases is a designation of God Himself. He makes Himself the dwellingplace and fortress of the soul. Heb. 11:22. 1 Cor. 2:9. John 6:58. John 6:35. John 4:14. 1 Cor. 12:13, with 10:4. Gen. 2:24, f. Mt. 19:5. 1 Cor. 14:I Jer. 8:4. Luke 14:26. Rom. 2:4 Rom. 2:5. Rom. 9:5. Mt. 24:2. Luke 15:10. Matt. 18:14. Matt. 21:43. Luke 18:7; cp. 11:13. Luke 11:9, 10. Luke 11:8. Смотри также Комментарии Мы в соцсетях Подпишитесь на нашу рассылку |
| 7497 Guthrie, Orpheus, 271, contrasting John and the Orphies with the common Greek deification of cult founders. 7499 E.g., m. c Abod. Zar. 3(Proklos to R. Gamaliel); Gen. Rab. 61:7. Such language could refer to cultural artifacts, as in the usage of «our Vergil» (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 84.3; 86.15, though he disagrees with him in 86.16). 7500 Pancaro, Law, 517–22, argues that it is viewed negatively only to the extent that it has been usurped by Pharisaic interpretation. 7501 See Philo Sacrifices 9; Orphica, long version, 25–41 (not in the short version); Meeks, Prophet-King, 103–6; Runia, «God»; comment on 1:1c. See here Meeks, «Agent,» 56. In the Scrolls, Melchizedek (11Q13 2.10) may be among the «gods» of Ps 82:1 ; perhaps 4Q491 C, frg. 11, speaks of a messianic ruler who is (line 18) among the gods. 7504 Cf. Hill, Prophecy, 55–56, following Boismard; Schuchard, Scripture, 59–70; Stevens, Theology, 34; more generally, Jonge and Van Der Woude, «1 lQMelchizedek,» 312; Freed, Quotations, 63. Jungkuntz, « John 10:34–36 ,» 565, argues that Scripture cannot be kept from fulfillment (10:35), it spoke of one who would be both human and God, hence Jesus is the judge (from Ps 82 ) par excellence. 7505 Jonge and Van Der Woude, «1 lQMelchizedek,» 313. 11Q13 2.10 may place Melchizedek in the divine council of Ps 82 (while 11Q13,2.11–12 refers the unjust judges of Ps 82to Belial and his lot); perhaps (the text is unclear) 4Q181 frg. 1, lines 3–4, may employ similar language for proselytes. 7506 M. " Abot 3:15. Later rabbis contended that one who teaches his neighbor Torah is as if he begot him (e.g., b. Sanh. 19b). 7507 The date and pervasiveness of the tradition is the view " s greatest weakness. Yet Hill, Prophecy, 55, wrongly doubts that the tradition is in view here by doubting whether contemporary Judaism called the law God " s word (cf., e.g., Ps 119:9 )! 7508 Sipre Deut. 306.28.2; Lev. Rab. 4:1; Num. Rab. 16:24; Song Rab. 1:2, §5; Pesiq. Rab. 1:2; 14:10. The later texts tend to state the whole legend more explicitly, suggesting some development; but in all these texts the psalm addresses Israe1. |
| Although He was a Son, He learned obedience through what He suffered, and being made perfect He became the source of salvation to all who obey Him (Heb.5:8–9). Disobedience to God and His Son Jesus Christ is the source of all sin. Refusal to submit to God in all things is the cause of all sorrow and death. Those who hear the Gospel and fail to enter into the eternal rest of God, do so only “because of disobedience” (Heb.5–6; cf. Deut.4:29–31 ). In the Orthodox spiritual tradition, obedience is a basic virtue: obedience to the Lord, to the Gospel, to the Church ( Mt.18:17 ), to the leaders of the Church (Heb.13:7), to one’s parents and elders, to “every ordinance of man” ( 1Pet.2:13 ; Rom.13:1 ), “to one another out of reverence for Christ” ( Eph.6:21 ). There is no spiritual life without obedience, no freedom or liberation from sinful passions and lusts. To submit to God’s discipline in all of its human forms, is the only way to obtain “the glorious liberty of the children of God” ( Rom.8:21 ). God disciplines us as His children out of His great love for us. “He disciplines us for our good, that we might share His holiness” (cf. Heb.12:3–11). Our obedience to God’s commandments and discipline is the exclusive sign of our love for Him and His Son. He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.… If a man loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and we will come and make our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me ( Jn.14:21–24 ). Patience To be obedient in all things to God requires the virtue of patience. Saint Paul lists this virtue as one of the “fruits of the Spirit” ( Gal.5:22 ). Christ Himself in His humble obedience to God was exceedingly patient. To be patient literally means to suffer and endure. It means to wait on the Lord through all tribulations and trials with courage and hope. It means to put up with ones self and others, growing gradually in the grace of God through the daily effort to keep His commandments and to accomplish His will. Only those who are patient, according to Christ, bring forth fruit from the seeds of God’s Word that are sown in their hearts. |
| 3561 Sipre Deut. 43.8.1; b. Šabb. 31a; Yoma 76a; Exod. Rab. 15:30; Lev. Rab. 10:3; Num. Rab. 16:7; Deut. Rab. 2:24; 10:4; Lam. Rab. proem 2; Lam. Rab. 1:17, §52; SongRab. 2:16, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 15(often in parables); cf. Gen. Rab. 86(modeled after Exod 4:22, but the tradition is attested early in Jub. 19:29). 3562 E.g., " Abot R. Nat. 35, §77; 44, §124 B; Sipra Behuq.pq. 2.262.1.9; Sipre Deut. 43.16.1; 45.1.2; 352.7.1; b. Šabb. 31a, 128a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:5; 14:5; Exod. Rab. 46:4–5; Num. Rab. 5:3; 10:2; Deut. Rab. 1:6; 3:15; Lam. Rab. proem 23; Lam. Rab. 3:20, §7. 3563 Sipre Deut. 96.4.1; cf. similarly Sipre Deut. 308.1.2. The discussion continues in later texts: Israel are God " s children when they obey him (Deut. Rab. 7:9); God begot Israel as an only child, but will treat them as slaves if they disobey (Pesiq. Rab. 27:3; cf. John 8:35 ); Bonsirven, Judaism, 48–49, cites some other revelant texts (including Sipre Num. on 15:41). 3564 E.g., b. Ber. 7a (apocryphal bat qol to R. Ishmael), 19a (Honi the Circle-Drawer, but the antiquity of the tradition is difficult to date); cf. Sukkah 45b (R. Simeon ben Yohai). See especially Vermes on charismatic rabbis, discussed on pp. 270–72 (Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 210–11, citing b. Ta c an. 23b; followed by Borg, Vision, 45; tentatively by Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 82). 3565 See on «the Jews» in the introduction, above; cf. similarly Ellis, Genius, 24. Early Jewish readers, both Christian and non-Christian, probably assumed the idea of future inheritance in sonship language; see Hester, Inheritance, 42. 3566 E.g., m. Sotah 9:15; t. B. Qam. 7:6; Hag. 2:1; Péah 4:21; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.15; Sipre Deut. 352.1.2; b. Ber. 30a, bar.; p. Sanh. 10:2, §8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Lev. Rab. 1:3; 7:1; 35:10; see further texts in Marmorstein, Names, 56–58; cf. 3Macc 5:7; 7:6; personal prayer in Jos. Asen. 12:14. Outside 3Macc 6:8, the title appears regularly in prayers, especially in rabbinic texts (Moore, Judaism, 2:202–10; cf. McNamara, Targum, 116ff.), but these probably reflect some early and widespread prayer language (e.g., the Kaddish, adapted no later than Q in the Palestinian Jesus tradition; see Moore, Judaism, 2:213; Smith, Parallels, 136; Jeremias, Theology, 21; Jeremias, Prayers, 98); see esp. Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 40. «My father» may have sounded strange (Jeremias, Message, 17; idem, Prayers, 57; Israel as a whole applies it in Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13), but «our Father» certainly did not. For OT usage, see Jeremias, Prayers, 12; for «intertestamental» literature, see ibid., 15–16; nor is the title unique to Judaism and its religious descendants (Mbiti, Religions, 63, 83). |
| 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. |
| 3131 «Abot R. Nat. 15 A (reportedly of Shammai and Hillel); »Abot R. Nat. 29, §§61–62 B; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.14 (citing also Akiba); Sipre Deut. 306.25.1; 351.1.2, 3 (the latter citing R. Gamaliel II); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:7; 10:5; 15:5; Num. Rab. 13:15–16; Song Rab. 1:2, §5; 1:3, §2; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 3 A; Sipra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.1; Sipre Deut. 115.1.1–2; 161.1.3; Pesiq. Rab. 3:1; probably also Sipre Deut. 335.1.1 (the «threads» probably represent what is actually written, and the «mountains» the meanings drawn from them by the sages); Boring et a1., Commentary, 102 cites Seder Eliahu Zuta 2. Thus not only later Scripture (e.g., Esther in p. Meg. 1:5, §3) was revealed on Sinai, but also the correct rabbinic interpretations implicit in Torah (b. Ber. 5a; Meg. 19b; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:304). On oral Torah, cf., e.g., Ehrlich, «Tora.» 3132 P. Ber. 1:3; Péah 2:6, §3; Sanh. 11:4, §1; c Abod. Zar. 2:7, §3; Hor. 3:5, §3; b. c Abod. Zar. 35a; c Erub. 21b; Num. Rab. 14:4; Song Rab. 1:2, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 3:2; cf. b. Menah. 29b. Transgression of sages» teachings was «a mortal offense» CAbot R. Nat. 2 A, tr., 26; cf. b. c Erub. 21b), and a person could be fined for transgressing the words of a Tanna, e.g., R. Akiba ( " Abot R. Nat. 3 A). The words of the scribes were nearly always on a lower level than the words of Torah in the earliest rabbinic sources, however (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 115–25; Sipre Deut. 154.2.1 ). 3133 Later amplification was understood to have been implicit in the Sinai Torah from the very beginning (Sipre Deut. 313.2.4); cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:305, 376. 3134 See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 97–130; on the varying value of tradition among early Tannaim, cf. Landman, «Traditions,» 111–28. Chernick, «Responses,» 393–406, suggests that this emphasis reflects a polemical response to Jewish Christians and gnosticism (cf. similarly Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 159). This observation contrasts with the assumptions of much earlier scholarship, e.g., Sandmel, Judaism, 183; Köhler, Theology, 355; Simon, Sects, 34; Bonsirven, Judaism, 85 (although the last notes that the term is rare in the early period, «traditions» being preferred). |
| 5504 T. c Abod. Zar. 3(the tradition probably stems from ca. 200 C.E.); b. c Abod. Zar. 27a, bar.; p. Yebam. 8:1, §10. One rabbi dissents from the ruling, but not from the view that Samaritans circumcize in this name. 5506 E.g., 4Q372 frg. 1, line 12 (with 4Q371 frg. 1, 8, 11, in Wise, Scrolls, 333. It was the major known issue of rift between the groups (see Spencer, Philip, 73–75). 5507 Gen. Rab. 32:10; 81(trans. Midrash Rabbah, 1:255, 748). The story was popular, and later tradition settled on R. Jonathan (Deut. Rab. 3:6; Song Rab. 4:4, §5). Probably in response to the Samaritan tradition in this passage denying that the flood covered Gerizim, R. Levi (third-century C.E. Palestine) denied that it covered Eretz Israel (Gen. Rab. 33:6; cf. Sipre Deut. 37.3.5). On the normally low status of donkey-drivers (νηλται), cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.5.92. 5510 E.g., m. Kelim 1:6; cf. Esth. Rab. 1:17, although it also notes excessive hypocrisy in Jerusalem; Hester, Inheritance, 76. In some traditions, it is more precious to God than anything else (Num. Rab. 23:7). 5511 Though Shem owned Palestine (Jub. 9:1–13) and those who violated this division were cursed (9:14–15), Canaan specifically warranted the curse by taking Shem " s possession (9:27–34). 5512 Probably to avoid revolutionary-type implications in the minds of his Gentile readers (cf. Amaru, «Theology»). 5513 E.g., Sipre Deut. 37.1.4–6; 37.2–3.7. For the emphasis on the land in early Judaism, see, e.g., Allison, «Land,» 643. 5514 Sipre Deut. 37.3.5–6. Praising cities was a standard part of ancient rhetoric ( Ps 48 ; Aelius Aristides Oration to Rome; Isocrates Panegyricus; Panathenaicus; 5Q15; Quintilian 3.7.26; Rev 21:10–23; cf. Balch, «Encomia»). 5517 B. Móed Qat. 25a. Some Babylonian Amoraim, however, did view emigration to Eretz Israel unfavorably (b. Ber. 24b). Palestinian Amoraim often called Babylonian rabbis «rabbis of that other place» (e.g., p. Yebam. 10:1, §1) or «from over there» (e.g., p. Yebam. 10:3, §1) and urged their emigration (p. c Abod. Zar. 2:1, §1); tension over the authority of their respective rulings sometimes existed between them (p. c Abod. Zar. 2:8, §5; Ned. 6:8, §3; Sanh. 1:2, §10; cf. Stemberger, «Bedeutung»). |
| 6145 2 Bar 29:8; Mek. Vay. 3.42ff.; 5.63–65. Cf. the manna restored with the ark (2Macc 2:8; cf. 4 Bar. 3:11). 6146 Many commentators, often following Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:481,4:890,954 (e.g., Dodd, Interpretation, 335; Cullmann, Worship, 96); see further Rev 2:17; probably also 4Q511 frg. 10.9. This image continued in Christian tradition (Sib. Or. 7.149), in which Christ was the holy manna-giver (γλε μαννοδτα, Sib. Or. 2.347). Cf. also the préexistent manna (b. Pesah. 54a; Hoskyns, Gospel, 294, cites Sipre Deut. 355). 6147 E.g., m. " Abot 3:16; 4:16; b. Ber. 34b; Sanh. 98b; see further Feuillet, Studies, 70–72, and our introductory comments on John 2:1–11 ; probably also lQSa (=lQ28a) 2.11–12, 19–21. Kuzenzama, «Préhistoire,» suggests that receiving Torah was the prerequisite. 6148 Lev. Rab. 27:4; Ruth Rab. 5:6; Ecc1. Rab. 3:15, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 31:10; 52:8. Israel would continue to celebrate the exodus in the messianic era but would celebrate the kingdom more (t. Ber. 1:10; b. Ber. 12b). 6150 See, e.g., Glasson, Moses, 15–19, on Isaiah. For exodus typology in the Hebrew Bible, see Daube, Pattern, passim. 6152 E.g., early Amoraic tradition in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:8; Num. Rab. 11:2; Ruth Rab. 5:6; Ecc1. Rab. 1:9, §1; in some cases (Exod. Rab. 2:6; Deut. Rab. 9:9) Moses himself would lead Israel in the end time. On the hidden Messiah tradition, see comment on John 8:59 . 6153 E.g., Edersheim, Life, 334; Billerbeck, Kommentar, ad loc; Dodd, Interpretation, 83; Hunter, lohn, 71. 6154 See b. Ta c an. 9a; Num. Rab. 1:2; 13:20; Song Rab. 4:5, §2; Tg. Jon. to Deut 10:6 ; though cf. also Abraham in Gen. Rab. 48:12. Tannaim might recount similar details without the names (Sipre Deut. 313.3.1; 355.6.1). Haggadah also commented on the adjustable flavors of manna (Sipre Deut. 87.2.1; Exod. Rab. 5:9; 25:3), that it fell sixty cubits deep (b. Yoma 76a), that more fell nearer the homes of the righteous (b. Yoma 75a), and that it was préexistent (b. Pesah. 54a). 6155 That the second line repeats the final «gives/gave bread from heaven» fits typical ancient Mediterranean speech forms (πιφορ, ντιστροφ; Anderson, Glossary, 23, 54; idem, Rhetorical Theory 163; Rowe, «Style,» 131; in the NT, see Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 579; Black, «Oration at Olivet,» 86; in the LXX, see Lee, «Translations of OT,» 779), thereby drawing further attention to the contrast. |
| 508 E.g., Xenophon Mem. 1.2.3; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 108.4. Writers cared about both the words and «deeds» of characters (e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 5.1.1; Mem. 1.5.6; 4.4.10; on this pairing see further Keener, Matthew, 255, 540; the apparently contrary statement of Eunapius Vit. soph, intro. 452–453 refers in context to casual activities only–cf. Xenophon Symp. 1.1). 509 Josephus Life 8; Ag. Ap. 1.60; 2.171–173, 204. Josephus " s statements on Jewish literacy, like that in m. " Abot 5:21, may reflect the literate elite, with much of the population learning Torah orally (Horsley, Galilee, 246–47); but there were undoubtedly reasons others considered Judeans a «nation of philosophers» (Stern, Authors, 1:8–11,46–50; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 39), and «the synagogue was a comparatively intellectual milieu» (Riesner, «Synagogues,» 209). Philo (Boccaccini, Judaism, 192–94) and Pseudo-Aristeas (Boccaccini, Judaism, 194–98) also stress memory, blending Greek language with Jewish memorial traditions concerning God " s historic acts. 511 Sipre Deut. 48.1.1–4; Goodman, State, 79; cf. Sipre Deut. 4.2.1; 306.19.1–3; b. Ber. 38b; p. Meg. 4:1, §4; Gerhardsson, Memory, 113–21,127–29,168–70; Zlotnick, «Memory.» 512 See documentation in Keener, Matthew, 25–29. Greek and Roman philosophers also could do the same (Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.22.523), even using poetry to reinforce their teaching for early students (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 108.9–10), though not advanced ones (ibid. 108.12; poetry and song involved memorization, Apollodorus 1.3.1; Seneca Controv. 1.pref.2,19). 513 E.g., t. Yebam. 3:1; Mek. Pisha 1.135–136; Sipre Deut. 48.2.6; " Abot R. Nat. 24 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; b. Sukkah 28a; p. Šeqa1. 2:5; cf. m. c Ed. 1:4–6; Sipra Behuq. pq. 13.277.1.12; see further Moore, Judaism, 1:99; Urbach, Sages, 1:68; Gerhardsson, Memory, 122–70; idem, Origins, 19–24; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 14–17. When the proper attribution was unknown, this was sometimes stated (p. Ter. 8:5). 514 This distinction between «net» and «chain» transmission (D. C. Rubin, «Transmission,» Chap. T, 1989) was pointed out to me by Margaret Bradley, a Duke student researching memory from a psychological perspective. |
|
|
