| 6136 Dschulnigg, «Überlegungen,» connects «bread of life» in this document with Passover; more persuasively, Sänger, «Missionsliteratur» connects the bread and honeycomb with wisdom and life. 6137 Angels eat from a honeycomb made by the bees of paradise, which provide eternal life, in Jos. Asen. 16:14/16:8; this appears as the «bread of life» in Jos. Asen. 19:5, some MSS. 6138 Philo Heir 191; Creation 158; Flight 138; Names 259–60. The emphasis on «knowledge» (γνσις) remains even in the eucharistie Christian interpretation in Did. 9.3 (cf. 10.3). 6139 Philo Worse 118 (λγον θεον); Alleg. ïnterp. 3.162, 169; Flight 137. Scholars have long noted Philós identification of the Logos and manna (e.g., Howard, Gospel, 161). 6140 Whitacre, John, 159. In context, Deut 8means that God " s decree brought manna even when Israel could not toil for its bread. 6141 E.g., Pesiq Rab Kah. Sup. 3(School of R. Ishmael); Gen. Rab. 43:6; 54:1; 70:5; Exod. Rab. 47:5; Lev. Rab. 30:1; exegesis in Sipre Deut. 48.5b.2; though all eating and drinking could represent Torah (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:1; Ecc1. Rab. 2:24, §1; 5:17, §1; 8:15, §1), and eating at Sinai could represent feasting on the Shekinah (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:9; Lev. Rab. 20:10). Literal bread could also derive from keeping Torah (Sipre Deut. 40.7.1). 6142 In addition to Borgen and some others listed above, e.g., Turner, Spirit, 64; Manns, «Sagesse»; Ellis, World, 26; Longenecker, Christology, 40; for Wisdom motifs, esp. Feuillet, Studies, 76–83. The most thorough study in the Targumim is Malina, Manna Tradition, though this study from the 1960s may be too optimistic about recovering the earliest form of the tradition (cf. Lebram, «Review»). 6143 E.g., Sib. Or. 3.256. Cf. also the tradition of Moses bringing the Torah down from heaven (see comment on John 3:11,13 ). Köstenberger, John, 102–4, relevantly cites God " s own descent (Isa 64:1) at Sinai (64:3). Because God would provide for them, the sixth race of humans was called ορανη (Sib. Or. 1.286; contrast the five races in Hesiod Op. 110–201). |
| 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. |
| 3146 P. Meg. 1:5, §4; cf. b. Šabb. 104a: prophets reinstituted Moses» forgotten laws (cf. 4 Ezra 14:44–46), but even a prophet could make no innovations after Moses. Cf. Sipre Deut. 11:17, cited in Bonsirven, Judaism, 219: the law would not be altered. 3151 See 4Q176, frg. 1, 4, 14, 24, 31 and line 14, as assembled in Wise, Scrolls, 237 (it is unlikely that the «second» law book is Exod or Deut here). 3153 Sipre Deut. 345.2.2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:9; Exod. Rab. 29:4; Song Rab. 8:11, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2. For Torah as God " s daughter cf. also b. Sanh. 101a; Exod. Rab. 33:1; Num. Rab. 12:4; Song Rab. 3:10, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1. Hengel regards this personification of Torah as God " s daughter as equivalent to Philós identification of Logos as God " s son (Judaism, 1:171). Although this is the usual image in rabbinic sources, Jewish people used imagery flexibly; in a much rarer variant, Torah is the bride and the ark is the bridegroom (p. Ta c an. 2:1, §6), or (more often) Israel is God " s daughter rather than his son (e.g., b. Pesah. 56a; Song Rab. 8:9, §2); one may also compare the personification of repentance as God " s daughter in Jos. Asen. 15:7. 3155 Song Rab. 8:14, §1, attributing the parable to R. Levi, early-third-century Palestine. For Torah as intercessor, cf. also Exod. Rab. 29:4. 3157 Exod. Rab. 30:3; on the Holy Spirit " s analogous exclamations, cf., e.g., Exod. Rab. 27:9. 3161 Martens, «Prologue,» 179, finds no pre-Christian data for «an independent Torah theology» with personalization or hypostatization. 3164 Kümmel, Theology, 280, unfortunately uses the lack of «personification» of Torah in Palestinian Judaism to indicate that Torah is inadequate background for the prologue. Dodd and Bultmann (especially the latter) both show lack of firsthand familiarity with rabbinic sources relevant to the prologue; see Kysar, «Background,» 254. 3166 Cf., e.g., Epp, «Wisdom»; Schoneveld, «Thora»; idem, «Torah»; Casselli, «Torah»; Keener, «Pneumatology,» 240–54; idem, «Knowledge,» 44–71. |
| 3512 Sotades of Maronea (third century B.C.E.) in Stobaeus Anthology 4.34.8 (Boring et al, Commentary, 244); see also on rejected wisdom below. 3514 Especially in apocalyptic circles, e.g., J En. 42:1–3 (Sim.); cf. similar images of the world " s depravity in pagan literature (Ovid Metam. 1.149–150; Fasti 1.247–250; Cicero Quinct. 1.5; perhaps Cicero Mi1. 37.101). Commentators note this theme in Wisdom literature (e.g., Schnackenburg, John, 1:228). 3515 Mek. Bah. 5 (in Urbach, Sages, 1:532); Sipre Deut. 343.4.1; b. c Abod. Zar. 2b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:1; 12:10; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:15; Exod. Rab. 17:2; 30:9; Num. Rab. 14:10; Pesiq. Rab. 15:2; 21:2/3; 30:4; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:7; 12:20; also Hengel, Judaism, 1:174–75; Harvey, «Torah,» 1239; Urbach, Sages, 1:327. One may also compare the tradition of the daily bat qol from Mount Horeb condemning the Gentiles for their neglect of Torah (b. " Abot 6:2, bar.; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Lam. Rab. proem 2), and a different tradition in which the nations copy (plagiarize?) elements of Torah (p. Sotah 7:5, §1). While comments about Torah are most common in rabbinic literature, the similar idea of the testimonium in L.A.B. 11by which God would judge the world probably indicates that this tradition was not limited to rabbinic circles. 3518 E.g., Mek. Bah. 6.90ff; Sipre Deut. 343.4.1; b. c Abod. Zar. 2b, 64b, bar.; Sanh. 56ab, bar., 59a, bar. (including Tannaitic attribution), 74b; Yebam. 48b; Gen. Rab. 26(including Tannaitic attribution); 34:14; Exod. Rab. 30:9; Deut. Rab. 1:21; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:1; cf. Num. Rab. 1:8; Urbach, «Self-Affirmation,» 275–78; Moore, Judaism, 274–75. Proselytes and a few pious Gentile prophets also show that the Gentiles are without excuse (e.g., Lev. Rab. 2:9). 3519 «His own» (neuter) may refer to the land, and «his own» (masculine) to the people; see Brown, John, 1:10; cf. Westcott, John, 8. Although Galilee is Jesus» native land, his «own» land that rejects him is Judea (cf. 4:45; Meeks, Prophet-King, 40); in 10:3–4, 12, Jesus» «own» is redefined as his true flock. M. Smith, Parallels, 153, finds in «his own» an allusion to Jesus» deity because Israel is regularly God " s possession in the Hebrew Bible and Tannaitic literature. |
| 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). |
| 9517 See 4 Macc 6:27–30; 9:7, 24; 17:21–22; cf. 1Macc 2:50; 2Macc 7:9, 37; 1QS 8.3–4; T. Mos. 9; Mek Pisha 1.105–113; b. Ber. 62b; Gen. Rab. 44:5; Lev. Rab. 20:12; Song Rab. 1:15, §2; 4:1, §2. On vicarious atonement through other humans» judgment, e.g., Sipre Deut. 333.5.2; without human bloodshed, cf., e.g., Lev 1:4; 4:20, 26, 31, 35 , and passim; Mek. Bah. 7.18–22; Sipre Deut. 1.10.2; p. Hor. 2:7, §1; 3:2, §10; Sebu. 1:6, §6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:17; Ecc1. Rab. 9:7, §1; without mention of any bloodshed, e.g., Prov 16:6 ; Sir 3:14–15 ; Pss. So1. 3:8–10; 1QS 9.4; b. Ber. 17a; Num. Rab. 14:10; Deut. Rab. 3:5. 9518 E.g., Homer 27. 3.69–70, 86–94, 253–255; 7.66–91, 244–273; Apollonius of Rhodes 2.20–21; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 3.12.3–4; Virgil Aen. 10.439–509; 11.115–118,217–221; 12.723–952; Livy 1.24.1–1.25.14; 7.9.8–7.10.14; Aulus Gellius 9.13.10; also in the Hebrew Bible ( 1Sam 17 ; 2Sam 2:14–16 ; cf. Gordon, Civilizations, 262). 9519 Cf., e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 292–93; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:95–97; other references in Keener, Matthew, 487, on 20:28. 9523 Burridge, Gospels, 146–47, 179–80. The rest of the Gospels foreshadow this climax, and this is also the case in some contemporary biographies (p. 199). 9524 Ibid., 198, has 26 percent for Philostratus; Mons Graupius consumes 26 percent of Tacitus Agricola, and the Persian campaign 37 percent of Plutarch Agesilaus (p. 199). 9526 Mack, Myth, 249; for his arguments, see 249–68. For a critique of Crossan " s approach to the Passion Narrative (depending on the late Gospel of Peter), see Evans, «Passion,» especially analogies with Justin 1 Apo1. 16.9–13 and Mark 16:9–20 (pp. 163–65). 9527 Mack cites Jeremias (a «conservative» scholar, Myth, 254) only three times, and never Blinzler, Hengel, or other more conservative Continental scholars. 9528 Perry, Sources, published as early as 1920; cf. Lietzmann " s skepticism on some points in 1931 («Prozess»). 9529 Dibelius, Tradition, 178–217, thinks that «the Passion story is the only piece of Gospel tradition which in early times gave events in their larger connection.» |
| 5522 Urbach, Sages, 1:349, on Sipre Deut. 80; on merit, see also, e.g., b. Roš Haš. 16b. Dwelling in the land could be said to warrant eternal life (t. Šabb. 1:3; Sipre Deut. 333.6.1, R. Meir; b. Ketub. 111a; Pesah. 113a). 5526 Goodman, State, 43, citing especially t. c Abod. Zar. 4/5:3. Israel " s deserts are better than palaces elsewhere (Gen. Rab. 39:8). The baraita in b. Ketub. 110b is far more emphatic, (hyperbolically?) denying the faith of all Diaspora Jews. 5528 B. Ketub. 111a; p.Ketub. 12:4, §8; Gen. Rab. 74:1; 96:5, some texts; 96 (MV); Pesiq. Rab. 1:4; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 26A; Deut. Rab. 2:9. Ancients apparently anticipated underground conduits for travel (Ovid Metam. 5.501–504). For the emphasis on burial in the land, see also Davies, Land, 62–65. 5529 Burial in Eretz Israel was a privilege and reward (Gen. Rab. 36:6; Pesiq. Rab. 1:4). Guardian angels forsook those who left Eretz Israel (Gen. Rab. 68:12). 5531 E.g., m. Kelim 1:8; Seqa1. 8:1. In Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:4; 15:7, it also sanctified its inhabitants. 5532 E.g., Mek. Pisha 1.44–46; Lev. Rab. 13(attributed to Simeon ben Yohai, second century C.E.). Later tradition united the altars of Adam, Noah, and Abraham on the site (Tg. Ps.-]. on Gen 22:9 ; for Abraham, Tg. Onq. on Gen 22:14 )–even if Jewish interpreters did not, like Samaritans, modify the text of Torah. 5535 E.g., m. Kelim 1:6–9; Mek. Pisha 1.42–50. For the progression of holiness in the biblical tabernacle and temple, see Davies, «Tabernacle,» 498–506; Haran, «Image,» 200–206; Keener and Usry, Faith, 144. 5536 Perhaps in polemic against groups like the Samaritans, some insisted that God had chosen the temple before the creation ( " Abot R. Nat. 37, §95B; but cf. already Wis 9:8; Jub. 3:10). 5540 See CP] 1:80–81; 2:119–36, §§160–229; Dio Cassius R.H. 65.7.2; Hemer, " Ostraka»; Carle-bach, «References.» 5546 E.g., Olsson, Structure, 189. If the dialogue expanded the refutation of these excluded alternatives, it would resemble rhetorical διλμματον (see Cicero Inv. 1.45; Anderson, Glossary, 36). |
| 3366 2 Bar. 15:7; 21:24; Sipre Deut. 47.3.1–2; b. Ber. 6b, 61b (R. Hanina ben Dosa); Šabb. 30b; Sanh. 98b (David; Moses; Messiah); Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1(Abraham); Gen. Rab. 1(fifth century); Tg. Neof. on Num 22 (the patriarchs); Tg. 1 Chr. 4(the sages); thus some could say the world was created by the righteous (Ruth Rab. 2:3, late), e.g., the patriarchs (Lev. Rab. 36:4, fourth century). 3367 T. Mos. 1:12–13; 4 Ezra 6:59; 7:11; Sipre Deut. 47.3.1; b. Ber. 32b; Pesiq. Rab. 4:1, 3; 28:2; Targum Sheni to Esth 5:1; cf. b. Ber. 32a; even Torah was created for Israel ( Mark 2:27 ; Sipre Deut. 47.3.2; Ecc1. Rab. 1:4, §4, purportedly Tannaitic tradition); the prophets prophesy only for Israel (Mek. Pisha 1.166). Herrn. Vis. 2.4 transfers this image to the church (cf. James in Gos. Thorn. 12); in 2 Bar. 21:7, the world exists for God. For a survey of purposes for creation, see Moore, Judaism, 1:383. 3369 Cicero Nat. d. 2.62.154; Chrysippus in Cicero Fin. 3.20.67; Grant, Gods, 114; on Philós use of Stoic tradition here, see Jobling, «Dominion.» 3372 Also Herrn. Sim. 9.12.2. Stuart, «Examination,» 282, translates «by» him rather than «through» him, contending that δια is not always instrumental before a genitive (e.g., Xenophon Mem. 1.2.14). 3375 Miller, Salvation-History, 14, 76–89 (applying it to the incarnation); Cidrac, «Ponctuation.» Less plausibly, Burney, Origin, 29, suggests an Aramaic reconstruction meaning, " because in him was life.» But it is doubtful that John " s wording represents a mistake or mistranslation even on the unlikely thesis that John used a Semitic original for his prologue (cf. Schlatter, «Problem,» 55). 3378 Van Minnen, «Punctuation,» prefers «nothing came into being without him that exists in him; he was life»; Cohee, «1.3–4,» views ο γγονεν as a gloss. 3379 The importance of light imagery for John is rarely missed; cf., e.g., Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 27; Culpepper, Anatomy, 190–92; more fully, Koester, Symbolism, 123–54. «Darkness» (σκοτα) appears eight times in John, six times in 1 John, and twice elsewhere in the NT (although σκτος occurs often in the NT, it appears only once in John; Tenney, John, 306). Given the theological significance of these themes, the common ancient understanding of light from, rather than to, onés eyes (e.g., 1 En. 106:2; Jos. Asen. 6:6/3; Plutarch T.T. 1.8.4, Mor. 626C; cf. Sir 23:19 ; Allison, «Eye») should never be pressed in John (light was admitted rather than emitted in some texts like Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; cf. Democritus in Diogenes Laertius 9.7.44). |
| 8550 See Trapp, Maximus, 237 (though sometimes repetition stems from treating a topic under various headings; cf. Dillon and Hershbell, «Introduction,» 3). On the rhetorical prominence of John " s repetitions in this discourse, see Kennedy, Interpretation, 85. 8551 Windisch, Spirit-Paraclete, 4, thinks 14:15–17 and 14are doublets and that the condition in 14may represent the same saying as in 15:10. Such observations are possible, though impossible to prove or disprove at our remove. 8553 Lacomara, «Deuteronomy,» 75. Some Jewish farewell discourses (e.g., Jub. 36) included exhortations to obey the law (see Bürge, Community, 26, summarizing U. B. Müller). On keeping the commandments, see further Pancaro, Law, 431–51. 8554 Also Sir 3:15–17 . Love is the highest motivation for obedience (Sipre Deut. 32.1.1). Cf. also «lover of the law» (φιλνομος) or «of the commandment» (φιλντολος) in CIJ 1:78, §111; 1:92, §132; 1:372, §509; cf. 1:372, §508. 8557 Josephus Ant. 3.192; b. Sank 39b; see also L.A.B. 42(God " s message); Sipre Deut. 176.1.1 (prophets); t. Sanh. 4(gift of Torah). 8558 E.g., 3 En. 2:4; " Abot R. Nat. 14A; 28, §57B; b. B. Bat. 10a; Sotah 48b; Num. Rab. 12:21; Deut. Rab. 6:14. 8560 God first loved his people ( Deut 7:6–8 ) and would keep covenant with them if they obeyed (7:9–10); thus, they should obey him (7:11). For a broader Mediterranean perspective, cf. also patrons» free gifts to clients, the continuance of which depended on clients» displays of gratitude (DeSilva, Honor, 148). 8561 Jesus speaks of keeping his commandments, but John " s verb often appears in conjunction with observing God " s commandments (Brown, John, 2:638). 8562 The primary function of the Paraclete promise is to stress Jesus» continuing presence (Berg, " Pneumatology,» 123). 8563 For the Spirit as Jesus» gift in John, see Büchsei, Geist, 490–98. For links between 14and 14:16, see Becker, Evangelium, 2:464. 8565 As Berg, «Pneumatology,» 72, points out, scholars have increasingly «recognized that the understanding of the paraclete must be centered upon the presentation in G [John] itself.» |
| 7123 Continued by rabbis in the second century (m. Ki1. 8:3; Mak. 1:1–3; 3:1–11; Naz. 4:3; Pesah. 7:11; Tem. 1:1; t. Tern. 1:1; Sipra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; Sipre Deut. 286.4.1; 286.5.1) and later (b. B. Mesia 85b; 115b; Hag. 15a; Ker. 15a; Ketub. 33b; Pesah. 24ab; Yoma 77a; p. Besah 5:2, §11; Meg. 1:6, §2; Naz. 4:2, §1; Ter. 7:1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3; Gen. Rab. 7:2; Num. Rab. 5:4; 19:3,» 19; Deut. Rab. 2:18; Eccl Rab. 7:23, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 14:9; 22:6). 7124 That their words in 9begin with οδαμεν and end with οδαμεν in 9suggests deliberate wording (though the sort of «circle» involved in a period, as in Anderson, Glossary, 69, is much more elaborate; cf. a very broad but not technical usage of anadiplosis); the repetition of the term at the end of two successive clauses in 9also suggests antistrophe, also called epiphora (see Rowe, «Style,» 131; Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 579; Lee, «Translations of OT,» 779; Black, «Oration at Olivet,» 86; Anderson, Glossary, 23, 54; idem, Rhetorical Theory, 163). 7125 Marsh, John, 383, suggests that he may not have been much older, but acknowledges that it is impossible to know for sure. 7126 That both his parents remained alive suggests that he was probably not extremely old; to the limited extent that inscriptions can supply us an accurate picture, many adults probably did not have living fathers. 7128 E.g., Plutarch Cimon 6.4; this violated ideals of virtue (cf. e.g., Musonius Rufus 3, p. 40.32). 7129 Structurally this may also place 9at the center of an inclusio (prosapodosis; cf. Rowe, «Style,» 130, for use with clauses; Anderson, Glossary, 105), hence underlining its emphatic position. 7130 See the introduction, pp. 194–227. We say «perhaps» because our knowledge of the conflict is predominantly Syro-Palestinian, and we have less knowledge of the status of synagogue communities in Smyrna and Philadelphia (where conflict was clearly occurring–Rev 2:9–10; 3:8–11) than in Sardis, where we know the synagogue was well situated socially (e.g., CIJ 2:16, §§750–751; Josephus Ant. 14.235,259; Kraabel, «Judaism,» 198–240; Hanfmann, Sardis, 168–90) but hear nothing of a synagogue conflict (Rev 3:2–4). |
|
|
