| 3762 L.A.B. 11:14; cf. Sipra VDDen. pq. 2.2.3.3; some believed Moses ascended to heaven to receive Torah and there beheld God (Martyn, History, 103; cf. comment on 3:13). For Philo, Moses saw because he went beyond mortal vision (Names 8) and because he sought a revelation of God (Spec. Laws 1.41; cf. John 14:8 ). One could see God in some sense yet remain alive ( Gen 32:30 ; Ascen. Isa. 3:8–10), or in some traditions be spared temporarily by God " s mercy (Gen. Rab. 65:10; cf. Callimachus Hymns 6.59). Hanson, «Midrash,» thinks that Paul expounded as if Moses saw the preexistent Christ. 3763 Sipre Deut. 357.19.1; b. Ber. 7a; Meg. 19b. The rabbis may have had reason to polemicize here as well if some Diaspora Jews implied that Moses» vision of God divinized him (cf. Van der Horst, «Vision»), as in some Greek traditions of visionary divinization (see on divinization, above; wrongly viewed as better background for 1 John 3by Bousset as reported in Howard, Gospel, 163; Boman, «Thought-Forms,» 22). 3764 Ascen. Isa. 3:8–10. Knibb and many others think this part is pre-Christian, which is possible; the revelations of Isaiah (ch. 6) and Ezekiel were also appropriated by Jewish visionaries in revelations of God " s throne; later rabbis seem to have polemicized against this Isaiah tradition (b. Yebam. 49b). 3765 Cf. 1 En. 90:35; " Abot R. Nat. 1A; Sifra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.5. The righteous deceased could also see God " s face ( , CIJ 1:452, §634, an inscription from Italy; [Ε]ικ[ων] ενορ[ντος] θεου, CIJ 1:509, §696, from Thessaly; Sipra VDDen. pq. 2.2.3.2; Sipre Deut. 357.19.1). 3768 For the double meaning «guide» and «narrate,» see Robert, «Mot»; idem, «Précédent,» citing Plato Rep. 474BC for the same double sense. 3769 The term probably alludes to Sir 43:31 : «Who has seen (τις ερακεν) him [i.e. God] and can fully make him known (εκδιηγσεται)?» (Epp, «Wisdom,» 138). Cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.19, where humanity not only observes God and his acts but must be an εξηγητς of them. The εξηγητς was a Roman provincial administrative office (e.g., P.Ry1. 119.1; P.Oxy. 1025.3) referring to an «explicator» or «adviser» (Lewis, Life, 186). |
| 562 Stein, «Criteria,» 225–28; see also Stanton, Gospel Truth, 60–61; Wright, People of God, 421. 563 Theissen, Gospels, 25–29. Cf. also the presence of Semitisms (e.g., Jeremias, Theology, passim; 565 This image appears in Tannaitic sources (Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.14 [anonymous and R. Akiba]; Sipre Deut. 306.25.1 [perhaps an Amoraic gloss]; 313.2.4; 351.1.2–3 [anonymous and R. Gamaliel]; " Abot R. Nat. 15 A and 29, §§61–62 Β [attributed to Shammai and Hillel]) as well as later Amoraic ones (b. Ber. 5a; Meg. 19b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:7; 10:5; 15:5; Pesiq. Rab. 3:1; Num. Rab. 13:15–16; 14:4; Lam. Rab. proem 2; Song Rab. 1:2, §5; 1:3, §2; cf. Neusner, Sat, 73–74; Patte, Hermeneutic, 23,87–92). Because it completes it, oral law takes precedence over and is more precious than Scripture in later sources (e.g., b. c Abod. Zar. 35a; c Erub. 21b; Menah. 29b; p. c Abod. Zar. 2:7, §3; Hor. 3:5, §3; Sanh. 11:4, §1; Song Rab. 1.2, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 3:2; cf. Sipra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.1; Sipre Deut. 115.1.1–2; 161.1.3; " Abot R. Nat. 2–3A; p. Meg. 1:5, §3; Urbach, Sages, 1:305), but rarely in the earliest rabbinic sources (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 115–125), and never in Josephus or early Christian comments (Bonsirven, Judaism, 85). «Oral law» may have developed the Pharisaic fence of tradition to counter Jewish Christian and gnostic use of Scripture; cf. Chernick, «Responses»; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 159. 566 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 97–130; idem, Judaism, 424. The idea does appear in m. " Abot 1–2; this structure cannot be dated before the time of the last disciples mentioned, i.e., to end of the first century C.E. or later, but may derive support from earlier purported esoteric revelations to Moses on Sinai (cf. Charles, Jubilees, p. L, on Jubilees; cf. 4 Ezra 14:6). Sanders (Jesus to Mishnah, 126–27; Judaism, 424) thinks that the Essenes were closer to regarding their own tradition as law ( 11QT) than the Pharisees were (though Essene halakah, in contrast to Pharisaic halakah, was primarily written; see Baumgarten, «Unwritten Law»). Some groups, like Sadducees and Samaritans, pretended to reject postbiblical halakah (cf. Bowman, Documents, v-vi). |
| 6534 E.g., Sipre Deut. 313.3.1; 355.6.1; b. Pesah. 54a. Many of these texts also particularly link the gift with the merit of Miriam (Sipre Deut. 305.3.1; b. Šabb. 35a; Ta c an. 9a; Num. Rab. 1:2; 13:20; Song Rab. 4:5, §2; but cf. Ecc1. Rab. 1:9, §1). 6535 E.g., Dodd, Interpretation, 350; Hunter, John, 84–85; Schnackenburg, John, 2:155. 6536 Hodges, «Rivers,» 244. 6537 Freed, Quotations, 23; Barrett, «Old Testament,» 156; Grelot, «Rocher»; Bürge, Community, 92; Bienaimé, «L " annonce,» 417–54. Hanson, Gospel, 113–14, rightly notes a number of allusions with primary emphasis on Ezek 47 and Zech 14:8. 6538 Long, Philosophy, 52 (citing Lucretius Nat. 3.136ff.). Cf. Sib. Or. 3.762, where minds (φρνας) are located in the breasts (στθεσι). 6539 Burney, «Equivalent,» 79–80; cf. Freed, Quotations, 24; Beasley-Murray, John, 116–17. 6540 Fee, «Once More»; Blenkinsopp, «Note»; Hodges, «Rivers»; Bernard, John, 1:282; Cortes, «Look»; Horton, Spirit, 131; Augustine Jr. Ev. Jo. 32.2.2; Luther, 8th Sermon on John 7; Ridderbos, John, 273. 6541 Fee, «Once More,» 117; Morris, John, 423–24; Hodges, «Rivers,» 242. But if John is citing Scripture, this is weakened; «my» would not have been a preferred substitute. 6542 Hodges, «Rivers,» 242; Cortés, «Look,» 78–79; but cf. 6as a parallel if the source is Christ. 6543 Fee, «Once More,» 116–17. But 7speaks of giving, not receiving, waters and seems to be the source of believers receiving in v. 39. 6544 Cortés, «Look,» 79; Hodges, «Rivers,» 240. 6545 Barrett, John, 326; Cortés, «Look,» 77; Kuhn, «John vii.37–8,» 65. 6546 Dodd, Interpretation, 349; Brown, John, 1:321–23; Dunn, Baptism, 179–80; Michaels, «Discourse,» 208–9; Menken, «Origin»; Smith, John (1999), 174. Punctuated thus, the two lines are parallel, a «rhythmical couplet» (Bruce, Time, 46; cf. Bruce, John, 181–82; Hoskyns, Gospel, 321). 6547 Brown, John, 1:321; Turner, «Punctuation»; cf. some of the early textual evidence in Bruce, Time, 46. Cf. Odes So1. 30:1–7; church fathers appeared on both sides of the question. |
| 3694 Wis 7:22 (μονογενς). Rabbinic texts often identify God as the «unique» or «only» one of the world (e.g., Sipra Sh. M.D. 99.2.3; b. Pesah. 118a–as Abraham was; p. Meg. 1:9, §1; Roš Haš. 1:3, §42; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:1; Gen. Rab. 98:13; Num. Rab. 10:5; Song Rab. 1:9, §2, with a second-century attribution, if reliable). 3695 See Harris, Jesus as God, 84–87, also noting that the issue is not Jesus being «begotten» but being the only one of his kind. 3696 E.g., martyrs» hope «full of immortality» (Wis 3:4). In John, cf. fulness of joy (3:29; 15:11; 16:24; 17:13) or of physical bread (6:12; cf. 6:13,26) or water (cf. 2:7, different term). 3697 Emphasizing «a unified cosmos» (Lincoln, Ephesians, 73; cf. Long, Philosophy, 157); cf. the Cynic Diogenes in Diogenes Laertius 6.2.38. Some suspect popular Stoic influence on the use of the term in Pauline epistles, e.g., Benoit, « " Pleromá»; Lyonnet, «Adversaries,» 147–48. 3698 Bury " s references to the Logos being «full» of divine graces (Logos Doctrine, 28–29; cf. Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.77–78; Planting 87–89; Confusion 123) may be relevant as a parallel usage to John 1:14 , though not as a source for it. In Hellenistic Judaism, the omnipresent God (Let. Aris. 131–132; Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.44; 3.4; Confusion 135–136; Names 27; cf. 2 En. 39:5; Cicero Resp. 6.17.17; cf. references in Knox, Gentiles, 163; Moore, Judaism, 1:370–72), the Spirit, and Wisdom fill the cosmos (Wis 1:7; Sir 24:25 ; cf. Sib. Or. 3.701; cf. Bogdasavich, " Pleroma»), but «fulness» does not always appear in a technical sense (e.g., Sir 1:16 ). 3699 E.g., Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1; Prayer of the Apostle Paul (trans. Dieter Mueller, NHL 28); Gospel of Truth (trans. George W. MacRae, NHL 37). Sandmel, Judaism, 474 n. 5, is among those who dismiss the gnostic sense in John here. It is unlikely elsewhere in the NT as well; cf., e.g., Overfield, «Pleroma»; Arnold, Ephesians, 83–84; Baggott, Approach, 70; Lincoln, Paradise, 146; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 183; Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 46; contrast, e.g., Hanson, Unity, 117. |
| 1704 T. Šabb. 13:5; " Abot R. Nat. 16 A; b. Git. 45b; Šabb. 116a (purportedly Tannaitic); cf. t. Β. Mes?a 2:33; Herford, Christianity 173–80; Schiffmann, «Crossroads,» 144–46. 1708 Christ " s significance in this way provided a strong deterrent to apostasy both in the Fourth Gospel and in Hebrews (Painter, «Israel,» 112). Matsunaga, ««Theos,»» thinks that faith in Jesus» Deity gave them reason to withstand persecution; Herford, Christianity, 383–84, that their high Christology is what made them minim. Fuller, ««Jews,»» 35–36, also sees Christology as centra1. The view of Fortna, «Christology,» may thus be contested. 1709 A motif in Revelation (Rev 5:8–14; 7:9–10; 22:3; cf. 1 En. 48:5–6 in the Similitudes); also the pagan perception of Christianity: Pliny Ep. 10.96; cf. Lucian Peregr. 11. 1710 Justin claimed that rabbis conceded the Messiah " s deity in some sense (Dia1. 68:9), but this is plainly false (see Higgins, «Belief,» 305); the Fourth Gospel itself criticizes existing Jewish views as inadequate (cf. Jonge, «Expectations,» 266). 1713 Cf. McGrath, Apologetic Christology, who argues that Johannine Christology developed in conflict with the synagogue, but much of the Christology was pre-Johannine. 1716 Note the charge of deicide, e.g., in Melitós Paschal Homily, 96 (in Hawthorne, «Translation,» 172). 1717 M. Sanh. 4:5; Sipre Deut. 329.1.1; b. Sanh. 38ab (mainly third century but with some second-century tradition); Pesiq. Rab. 21:6; 3 En. 16(but cf. 12:5); cf. b. Menah. 110a (purportedly Tannaitic); Justin Dia1. 55, 63; Klausner, Jesus, 34–35. Akibás famous error with the two thrones in Daniel almost certainly addresses this charge (b. Sanh. 38b; Hag. 14a). Exod. Rab. 29accepts the late Christian equation of God and «Son of God» but rejects the possibility of God having a son. Cf. Irsai, ««ny mkzb hw.»» Some evidence in the Palestinian Targumim, however, calls into question whether the «ditheists» were always Christians; gnostic dualists are sometimes possible (cf. Bassler, «Cain»). |
| Пророчевство . Taken from Meffreth, Feria 6 Post Iudica. II. 1–10 cf Meffreth: «Dicit B. Augustin, super Gen. Tria sunt, quae faciunt verum Prophetam. Primum est, vt aliquas visiones habeat. Secundum, quod illas visiones intelligat. Tertio, quod illas vision es m anifestare alijs sciât.» II. 11–14 cf Meffreth: «Primum non habuit Nabuchodonosor, quia statuam vidit, vbi supra dixi I.V. Duo vero sequentia non habuit, quia nec intellexit, nec ipsam visionem Danieli ostendere sciuit, ideo Propheta non fuit.» II. 15–18 cf Meffreth: «Duo autem ex his Pharao habuit, quando septem vaccas pulchras, & septem macros, de flumine ascendere vidit, & insuper ipsam visionem Ioseph narrauit, Gen. 41 II. 19–22 cf Meffreth: «Tertium tantum Caiphas habuit. Ipse enim de morte Christi nullam reuelationem habuit, nec intellexit, sed tantum mortem Christi necessarium esse nuntiauit. Ideo Propheta non fuit.» II. 23–30 cf Meffreth: «Balaam fuit Propheta, Num. 24 . cum dixit: Orietur Stella ex Iacob [v. 17], & tamen malus fuit homo, & cultor idolorum & daemonum» (Pars hyem ., p. 335). Просим и неприемлем . Taken from Faber, Dominica 5 Post Pascha, No. 4 «Causae cur interdum non audiantur preces nostrae a Deo». The poem summarises the whole serm on, as reflected in the section headings. 1. 1 cf James 4.3. 1. 5 cf sect. 1 «Defectus fiduciae». 1. 6 cf sect. 3 «Quia non ferventer petimus». 1. 7 cf sect. 2 «Non petim us ea quae convenit». 1. 8 cf sect. 4 «Quia forte in peccatis haeremus». II. 9–10 cf sect. 5 «Quia forte noxia petimus». Просити . Taken from Faber, In Festo S. Nicolai, No. 3 «Unumquemque suis talentis contentum esse debere», sect. 3 «Bonis exten d s industria partis»: «Cogita secundo, auream m ediocritatem esse optimam et tutissimam, quam petebat a Deo Salomon, dum dixit: Duo rogo te, ne deneges mihi antequam moriar, divitias et paupertatem ne dederis mihi, sed tantum victui meo tribue necessaria . Prov. 30 8].» Просити 2 . Taken from Faber, ibid., the passage immediately following: «Paupertas enim fere cupida est et solicita, indeque im patiens et proclivis ad rapiendum. Divitiae vero periculosae sunt et spinae.» |
| у Вилкера по ссылке, которую уже пару раз давал) от Вифании близ Иерусалима – 1:28, 11Местность Енон, близ Салима упомянута только автором четвертого Евангелия – 3Автор знает о том, что колодец Иакова был глубоким – 4Топография Иерусалима более чем точная Называется точное местоположение Вифезды – 5Упоминается купальня Силоам – 9Упоминается wadi Kidron – 18Упоминается Gabbatha – 19Более чем достаточно мелких подробностей, касающихся строительства храма – сорок шесть лет строительства 2– упоминание о сокровищнице 8– упоминание о портике Соломона 10 Причем, тут сделаю несколько замечаний. Хотя каждый этот случай весьма интересен. Дело в том, что до сих пор в интернете плавает аргумент Штрауса, что никакой купальни Вифезда не существует и автор ее выдумал. Проблема с аргументом в том, что во время Штрауса о ней действительно не знали, но сегодня многое изменилось 8 . Или, например, поток Кедрон, тут употребляется слово, которое мог употребить только очевидец (речь о том, что лощина наполнялась водой только в период дождей) и т.д. Очень серьезные аргументы в пользу того, что автор четвертого Евангелия был не из язычников дает текстологический анализ текста Совершенно очевидный факт, который самого Робинсона привел в замешательство, это то, что автор четвертого Евангелия не зависит от Септуагинты. Так, автор цитирует ВЗ – там, где Септаугинта и еврейский текст согласны (12:38, cf. Is. 53:1, 19:24 , cf. Ps 2210:34 , cf. Ps 82:6, 15:25 , cf. Ps 34и.т.д.) – в некоторых местах, где Септаугинта и еврейский текст не согласны, автор дает свою версию текста Ветхого Завета (очевидно перефраз, или цитирование по памяти) отличную и от Септуагинты и от МТ (12:14–15, cf. Zech 9:9, 12:40, cf. Is. 6:10, 19:36 , cf. Exod 12:46, Num 9:12, 6:31 , cf. Ps 78:24 , Exod 16:4, 15). – но, в значительном количестве случаев там, где Септаугинта и еврейский текст не согласны, автор цитирует еврейский текст против Септуагинты (19:37, cf. Zach. 12:10, 6:45, cf. Is. 54:13, 13:18 , cf. Ps 41:9 ) – В четвертом Евангелии нет случая цитирования ВЗ с Септуагинтой против еврейского текста В Евангелии от Иоанна больше чем во всех синоптических Евангелиях есть подробности, которые в текстологии считаются подробностями очевидца (имеется ввиду упоминание лишних подробностей, типа, кто, где сел, кто во сколько пришел и т.д. |
| 4287 For an example of the question demeaning one, cf. perhaps the later p. Pesah. 6(involving Hillel, and where he is vindicated). 4289 Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 56, suggest 1600–2000 inhabitants, based on the tombs; cf. p. 27. More recent estimates suggest below 500 (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 112; Horsley, Galilee, 193); perhaps those who lived in the nearby countryside would count themselves inhabitants in a more general way. Although some opined that coming from a famous city was necessary for happiness (Plutarch Demosthenes 1.1), Plutarch thinks life in a famous city necessary only if one needed exposure (Demosthenes 2.1; cf. John 7:3–4 ). 4290 Cf. Finkelstein, Pharisees, 1:41. See Harvey, History, 3, for a summary of the initial archaeological discoveries concerning early Roman Nazareth (for an early defense of Jesus» Nazarene connection " s authenticity, see Moore, «Nazarene»; more speculatively on earlier excavations of Joseph " s legendary home, cf. de Nazareth, «Maison»). 4291 Horsley, Galilee, 193. Cf. the more concrete data in Egyptian tax records in Lewis, Life, 67–68. 4293 The theater seated 4000–5000 (Freyne, Galilee, 138; cf. further Boatwright, «Theaters»). For a summary of archaeological and literary evidence on the city, see Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers, «Sepphoris»; cf. Boelter, «Sepphoris»; for the Dionysus mosaic, Weiss and Netzer, «Sty»; for its wealth, Meyers, Netzer and Meyers, «Byt-mydwt.» 4294 Later rabbis told of individual minim there (t. Hu1. 2:24) but do not provide details for an entire Jewish-Christian community (Miller, " Minim»). 4295 See Avi-Yonah, «Geography,» 105, citing especially Josephus Ant. 18.37; Life 67; and aniconic coins after 67 C.E.; Freyne, Galilee, 138; for Tiberias, see Josephus Life 275, 279. Cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5; later rabbinic Judaism found a welcome home there (see Meyers, «Judaism and Christianity,» 76). This is not to say that it was entirely orthodox by Pharisaic standards (cf., e.g., Cornfeld, Josephus, 216); more Gentiles may have also moved there, at least after 135 (see Horsley, Galilee, 104). For Christians coming there, cf., e.g., b. c Abod. Zar. 17a; Herford, Christianity, 115; Crocker, «Sepphoris.» |
| 8596 Ibid., 101–2; Glasson, Moses, 104–5 (citing John 5:45 ); Windisch, Spirit-Paraclete, 15 (following Billerbeck); Manns, «Paraclet,» 127–31; cf. Bernard, John, 2(following Wetstein); Lee, Thought, 214 (following Schlatter); Westcott, John, 212; Sandmel, Beginnings, 384; in Greek texts, e.g., Aeschines Ctesiphon 37 (taking the laws figuratively as advocates). 8597 Reportedly the Egyptians, lest rhetoric sway judges from the laws» severity (Diodorus Siculus 1.76.1–2). For examples of forensic rhetoric, cf. Cicerós famous defenses or the trial speeches of Isaeus, Lysias, Aeschines, or Demosthenes. 8598 E.g., P.Thead. 15.3, 19 (280–281 C.E.); Chariton 3.4.15; Nin. Rom. frg. 1.A.4; Plutarch Flatterer 20, Mor. 61D; Publicola 2.1 (συνηγορας); Cicero 5.2 (συνηγορεν); 39.5 (βοηθοντος); CPJ 2:84, §157; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.27.15; cf. also σμβουλος (Plutarch Mor. 61D; 4 Macc 15:25; cf. Moses in 4 Macc 9:2, contrasted with Antiochus in 9:3; Mattathias " s successor Simeon as a military νρ βουλς in 1Macc 2:65). In Philostratus " s Heroikos a deceased hero can become a σμβουλος, or advisor, counselor, to his mortal clients (4.7; 14.4; 23.18; 35.1; cf. 16.2; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxix); in Porphyry Marc. 10.189 it is (figuratively) his teachings. 8602 Ladd, Theology, 293; Leaney, «Paraclete,» 61. Cf. the qualifications of Ross, «Lament,» 45–46. 8607 A loanword in rabbinic texts, and appearing in some papyri (Deissmann, Light, 93); cf. 2Macc 4:5. 8608 5. Hag. 13b; p. Roš Haš. 3:2, §6; Lev. Rab. 5:6; 21:10; 30:6. Although none of these references has an attribution before the third century, this may parallel the Greco-Roman dependence on private rather than public prosecutors (Chariton 5.4.9; CPJ 2:64–65, §155; Josephus War 1.637–638; cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 34; for a relevant social depiction of second-century B.C.E. Roman prosecution, see David, «Eloquentia»).– 8609 5. Yoma 77a; Exod. Rab. 18:5; cf. Apoc. Sedr. 14:1; in 2 En. 33(rec. A), Michael will be an intercessor» for Enoch (in rec. J, a «mediator»). He may also be «the Prince of the World» (contrast John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 ), who defends the world before the Holy One (3 En. 30:2), and the angel who intercedes for Israel (T. Levi 5:6; he struggled with Jacob in Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 32:25 ). Cf. Betz, Paraklet, 149–58, for one study on Michael as intercessor. |
| Similarly, the Gospel naturally stresses signs of grace whereas the Apocalypse stresses signs of judgment; but it may be more than coincidence that the first of John " s seven signs, turning water to wine (2:9), reflects the first of Moses» signs in Exodus, turning water to blood (Exod 7:20; cf. Jub. 48:5), 1071 a prominent source of judgment imagery in two of Revelation " s three sets of seven plagues (8:8–11,16:3–4). John does not mention the marriage supper (Rev 19), but this concept provides part of the eschatological backdrop for John 6 and perhaps also chs. 2 and 21. The new Jerusalem naturally occurs only in Revelation (3:12, ch. 21), but the idea complements well the Fourth Gospel " s emphasis on the genuine Jewishness of the true people of God, as well as his negative portrayal of the earthly Jerusalem. The new Jerusalem " s dimensions probably simply represent the presence of God (a cube, like the holy of holies, 21:16); 1072 its gates (Rev 21:12–13) are part of the imagery of the renewed city (Isa 60:18; Ezek 48:30–34 ), and are thus not incompatible with (though neither are they identical to) the sheepfold image of Jesus as the way and door ( John 10:7, 9; 14:6 ). John " s «dwelling» motif, expressed by his characteristic menö, is replaced by katoicheö and the motif of the heavenly temple (e.g., Rev 21:3); but this fits the contrasting eschatological perspectives of the two books. Revelation " s temple imagery (e.g., 3:12, 4:6, 5:8, 8:3, 15:2) is apocalyptic, but fits well theologically with John " s portrayal of Jesus» replacement of the temple (2:21, 8:35,14:2); they function in a roughly equivalent manner on the theological level (Rev 21:22; cf. the tabernacle in 7:15,13:6,15:5; John 1:14 ). Only Revelation includes the common Jewish image of the book of life (Rev 3:5, 20:12), but an apocalyptic image is hardly mandatory for a gospel; John, unlike the Synoptics, does stress eternal life as a possession in the present. White robes (Rev 3:4–5; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; but cf. John 19:40; 20:12 ), the «new name» (Rev 2:17; 3:12; 7:3; 14:1; 22:4; cf. 17:5; 19:16; cf. John 1:42; 10:3 ), the crown imagery (Rev 2:11; 4:4; 12:1; 14:14; 19:12), angels (Rev passim; cf. John 20:12 ), the morning star (Rev 2:28; 22:16), the «nations» (Rev 2:26; 11:18; 12:5; 15:4; 19:15; 21:24; 22:2; but cf. John " s kosmos), thunder (Rev 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16[Exod 19:16; Ezek 1:4,13 ]; cf. John 12:29 ), a cry for vengeance (Rev 6[reflecting the OT; cf. 4 Ezra 4:33–37]), darkness (Rev 6:12–14; John omits the Synoptic tradition " s darkness at the cross), trumpets (1:10; 4:1; 8:2), locusts (9:3–11 [ Joel 2:4–5 ]), and antichrist imagery (Rev 13; though cf. 1 John 2and possibly John 5:43; 10:1 ), are examples of apocalyptic motifs that play little or no part in the Fourth Gospe1. But this should simply be expected on the basis of different genres. |
|
|
