| Patrick, D. «Casuistic Law Governing Primary Rights and Duties». JBL 92 (1973): 180–187. . «The Covenant Code Source». VT21 (1977): 145–157. . «I and Thou in the Covenant Code». SBL Seminar Papers, 1978, 1, c. 71–86. . «The Rights of the Underprivileged». SBL Seminar Papers, 1975, 1, c. 1–6. Paul, S. «Book of the Covenant». В EncJudA (1971): 1214–1217. . «Exod 21,10 a Threefold Maintenance Clause». JNES 28 (1969): 48–53. . «Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law». (1970). Ploeg, J. P. M. Van der. «Slavery in the Old Testament». SVT22 (1972): 72–87. Sklba, R. J. «Redeemer of Israel ( Ex 19–24 )». CBQ 34 (1972): 1–18. Smith, R. L. «Covenant and Law in Exodus». SWJT20 (1977): 33–41. Snaith, N. H. «Exodus 23, 18 and 34, 25». JTS 20 (1969): 533–534. Tate, M. «The Legal Traditions of the Book of Exodus». RExp 74 (1977): 483–509. Uitti, R. W. «Israel " s Underprivileged and Gemser " s Motive Clause». SBL Seminar Papers. 1975, 1, c. 7–25. Vannoy, J. R. «The Use of the Word hálohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7, 9». В The Law and the Prophets. В честь О. T. Allis. Под ред. John Н. Skilton. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974, c. 225–241. Vriezen, T. C. «The Exegesis of Exodus XXIV, 9–11». OTS 17 (1972): 100–133. Wenham, G. J. «Legal Forms in the Book of the Covenant». ТВ 22 (1971): 95–102. 10. Скиния, золотой телец и обновление завета Исход (25–40) Вполне вероятно, что последний большой раздел Книги Исход (в котором речь идет о скинии) разочаровывает многих современных читателей Ветхого Завета и, возможно, даже кажется утомительным. Кроме некоторых общих наблюдений, кого могут заинтересовать эти главы, за исключением, возможно, художника по интерьеру или архитектора? Тем не менее, Писание предлагает нам сложное описание скинии, которое занимает свыше шестнадцати глав – от Божьих повелений о построении (25–31) до прерывания и отсрочки осуществления работ в результате отступничества (32–34) и окончательного исполнения Божьего повеления (35–40). Скиния (25–31; 35–40) |
| 34) ( Cypr. Carth. Ep. 63. 8; Greg. Illiber. Tract. Script. 1. 5; Caes. Arel. Serm. 103. 3), а также рождение Его от Пресв. Девы ( Ambros. Mediol. Ep. 15//CSEL. Vol. 82. Pars. 3. P. 306). Тертуллиан сопоставляет 40 лет странствия евреев по пустыне с 40 днями поста Христа ( Tertull. De bapt. 20); Евсевий Кесарийский сравнивает странствие евреев с 40-дневным постом Моисея на горе Синай (Исх 34. 28) ( Euseb. Demonstr. III 2//PG. 22. Col. 172). Превращение жезла Аарона в змея и обратно - это образ смерти и воскресения Христова ( Aug. De Trinit. 3. 20; ср.: Iren. Adv. haer. III 21. 7-8), а поглощение жезлом Аарона жезлов волхвов (Исх 7. 12) - уничтожение Крестом Христовым идолов ( Ephraem Syr. In Exod. 7. 4); жезл Моисея обычно интерпретируется как символ Креста Господня и при упоминании в др. стихах (Исх 14. 16 - Caes. Arel. Serm. 112. 4). Тертуллиан усматривал в прокаженной и потом ставшей здоровой руке Моисея пророческое указание на воскресение Христа ( Tertull. De resurr. 28. 1), другие рассматривали его руку как символ боговоплощения ( Ambros. Mediol. De offic. III 15. 95). Древо Моисея, с помощью к-рого он сделал воды Мерры сладкими (Исх 15. 25), является для св. отцов древнейшим образом Креста Христова ( Tertull. De bapt. 9. 2) и Самого Господа, Который, будучи Сам древом жизни, претворяет горькие подвиги ради добродетели в приятные и сладкие ( Суг. Alex. De adorat. I 5). Самым распространенным прообразом распятого на кресте Господа оказывается Моисей, молившийся с поднятыми руками во время сражения Иисуса Навина с Амаликом (Исх 17. 11) ( Barnaba. Ep. 12. 2; Iren. Dem. 46; Tertull. Adv. Marcion. III 18. 6; Cypr. Carth. Test. adv. Jud. II 21; Iust. Martyr. Dial. 111. 1-2; 112. 2; 114. 4; Orig. In Exod. hom. 11. 4; Greg. Nyss. De vita Moys. 2. 147-151, 153). Три дня пути евреев к Красному м. указывают на 3 дня пребывания Христа во гробе ( Orig. In Exod. hom. 5. 2), а переход через Красное м. сопоставляется с хождением Спасителя по водам Галилейского м. ( Euseb. Demonstr. |
| The Feast of Tabernacles (Exod. 23:16; Lev. 23:34–44 ; Num. 29:12–40 ; Deut. 16:13–15 cf. Neh. 8:13–18). This was an eight-day feast beginning the fifteenth day of the seventh month in the religious calendar. Thus the people generally had just enough time to go from their homes to the tabernacle or temple after the Day of Atonement. Its purpose was probably twofold. It was a thanksgiving for the crops already gathered. It was therefore sometimes called the Feast of Ingathering (Exod. 23:16; 34:22). To this feast they would take the tithes of the previous year’s harvest and increase of cattle. It also celebrated God’s care for the Israelites during the forty years of wandering in the desert. Three practices engaged in during the week commemorated the providential care for their fathers. During the week the people dwelt in booths in imitation of their fathers dwelling in tents in the wilderness ( Lev. 23:40–43 ; Neh. 8:14–15). Great candelabra with many lights were erected in the Court of the Women in commemoration of the pillar of fire which guided the people in the wilderness by night. On the last day of the feast a pitcher of water was brought from the pool of Siloam by the multitude and poured out with great ceremony at the foot of the altar in the Court of the Priests in commemoration of the water which the Israelites had received from the Lord out of the rock (Exod. 17:5–6; Num. 20:11 ). John has given an account of one Feast of Tabernacles which Jesus attended (ch. 7). The Scriptures The Jews of New Testament times, including Jesus, regarded the Old Testament as the word of God ( John 10:35 ). At that time they had come to think of their Scripture as composed of three groups of books: the Law, the five books of Moses; the Prophets, including many books of history as well as most of the books of prophecy; and the Writings, including the Psalms and many other books of our Old Testament (Luke 24:44). In their minds the books of the Law came from God through Moses ( John 7:19, 9:28–29 ). Moses was insistent that the commandments and the other things he wrote should be received and kept as coming from God ( Deut. 6:6; 31:9–13, 24–26 ) and from the time of the settlement in the land of Caanan these books of Moses were regarded as God’s law (Josh. 1:8; 8:32–36). There were, however, long periods of neglect of the law. At the time of the captivity the Jews must have been permitted to take with them to Babylon copies of the law and of other treasured books – history and prophecy and the Psalms and books of wisdom. A new interest in the study of the law was stirred during the Babylonian Exile. At that time the Jewish captives, being in a strange land and deprived of their temple and their sacrificial system would gather in groups for a study of the law, the singing of the Psalms and prayer ( Ezek. 8:1 ; Ps. 137 ). |
| 3096 He lists b. Zebah. 116a; cf. Šabb. 88b; Sipre Deut. 11:10, §37 (76ab); b. Pesah. 54a; Ned. 39b; Gen. Rab. 1:2; 8:2; Pesiq. Rab. 46:1; Midr. Pss. 90, §12; 72, §6; 93, §3. 3098 He lists " Abot R. Nat. 31 (8b); Midr. Pss. 90, §12; Exod. Rab. 33 (94a); Lev. Rab. 20(120a); Sanh. 101a, bar. 3113 Cf. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 127. One may compare the unconscious assumption of the biblical reliability of information gleaned from Scofield " s reference notes on the part of many earlyto mid-twentieth-century North American fundamentalists. 3114 Ibid., 126–27, especially on 11QT (though the DSS can warn against adding or subtracting measures regarding sacrifices, Oxford Geniza Text co1. D, lines 17–19). But Essenes frequently wrote their halakah, in contrast to that of the Pharisees (cf. Baumgarten, «Unwritten Law,» 7–29). 3126 P. Roš Haš 1:3, §24 (R. Eleazar; 57b); b. Ber. 7a; Pesiq. Rab. 14:6. Harvey, «Torah,» 1239, cites b. c Abod. Zar. 3b to show that God studies it daily, to which we may add Tg. Neof. 1 on Deut. 32:4 ; cf. Marmorstein, Anthropomorphism, 66–68. 3129 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Lam. Rab. proem 2; cf. P. Hag. 1:7, §3. To those familiar with rabbinic literature, the language is obviously hyperbolic here, meant to underline the point; further, one must obey as well as study Torah (e.g., b. c Abod. Zar. 17b). Many may have literally agreed, however, with the Tannaitic tradition that a person would first give account in the judgment for Torah study (b. Sanh. 7a). The importance of Torah study appears in many other Amoraic texts (e.g., b. Menah. 110a; Roš Haš. 4a; Šabb. 83b; Exod. Rab. 41:7; see further references in Patte, Hermeneutic, 25–26). 3130 Sandmel, Genius, 47. Translations regularly speak of the «revelation» at Sinai (e.g., in Sipra Sav pq. 18.97.1.4; Sipra Taz. par. 1.121.1.6; b. Hag. 6a, in purported discussion of the Schools of Shammai and Hillel; Gen. Rab. 34:9; Exod. Rab. 28:5; Num. Rab. 7:1; Deut. Rab. 2:31; 7:8); see Ross, «Revelation,» 119. |
| Here again John alludes to Exod 33–34, this time to the second giving of Torah from Sinai. 3740 Gods character of grace and truth was revealed with the giving of law (Exod 34:6), but made fully available to humanity ultimately through Christ. The contrast is one of intensity more than of quality; 3741 John accepts the witness of the law to the fulness of grace and truth in Christ, but Christ is the full embodiment of the law, the actual model of lived-out commandments, in flesh. John does not oppose Torah 3742 or doubt that grace and truth may still be found there in some measure; 3743 he identifies it with Jesus and declares that only followers of Jesus submit to its ultimate eschatological expression. 3744 Moses» writings remain God " s Word, but they were not the same as «the revelation of grace and truth incarnate.» 3745 Thus Moses and the law testify to Jesus (1:45; 5:45–47). Those who contend with Jesus on the basis of the law (7:49; 9:28–29; 18:31; 19:7) actually misunderstand (7:23; 8:17; 10:34; 15:25) and disobey (7:19,51) the law themselves. (Interestingly, John does not apply γραφ with the same polemical sense as νμος.) The lack of adversative conjunction here does not eliminate the contrast (compare the lack of adversatives in 1:18; 2:9,10; 7:36), 3746 but it also does not permit us to exaggerate the force of the contrast. 3747 Context must dictate the force of contrast, as in m. «Abot 2:7, which similarly implies a contrast without a conjunction: «One who gains a good name (indeed) gains (something) for oneself; (but) one who gains for himself the words of Torah gains for himself life in the world to come.» 3748 As in m. »Abot 2:7, the contrast of John 1is between something good and something better, which are not mutually exclusive. None of John " s audience would have viewed grace negatively; not only the Jewish Bible but early Judaism emphasized grace. 3749 Most Jewish sources concur that the law was given through Moses–that God was the author and Moses the mediator. 3750 The only evidence for a contrary view became a gnostic position against the law in the second century. 3751 John accepts the divine origin of Torah («it was given» is presumably a divine passive) and the Mosaic agency, but contends that Christ, not Moses, is the mediator of the character of God to which the law bore witness. In contrast to Abraham (mentioned eleven times in the Gospel), John " s mentions of Moses (twelve times) generally are at pains to subordinate Moses as an agent and a witness. 3752 John consistently portrays Jesus as the true gifts to which Moses» gifts of Torah, manna, and lifting up the serpent point. 3753 The community " s opponents appeal to Moses as their witness (9:28–29), but he is a witness against them (5:45–46). 3C. Beholding God " s Face in Christ (1:18) |
| 6861 Hoskyns, Gospel, 343; Lightfoot, Gospel, 197; Hunter, John, 93; Barrett, John, 349. For Satan " s origination of such activity in rabbinic sources, see Odeberg, Gospel, 303. Early Judaism associated sin " s origin with Adam, the devil, and/or the evil yetzer (see Baudry, «Péché»). 6862 On Satan " s involvement in deception, see, e.g., T. Dan 3:6; T. Job 3:6/3:5. 6863 E.g., Wis 2:23–24; Rev 12:9; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 3in McNamara, Targum, 121 (Ellul, «Targum,» argues here for the angel of death); 3 Bar. 9:7 ; Apoc. Ab. 23:1,11; Apoc. Sedr. 5:1–6; contrast 1 En. 69:6); others saw the serpent as his agent (Apoc. Mos. 16:1, 5); for more general evil associations, cf. Horace Sat. 1.8.33–35; Sir 21:2; 1 En. 69:12; Luke 10:19; 2 Bar. 10:8; Incant. Text 2.3–4; 6.8; Exod. Rab. 9:3. 6864 Though sometimes employed thus, T. Mos. 12:4; Incant. Text 20:11–12; perhaps Rom 1:20 ; 1 En. 69:18; T. Mos. 1:12–13; Diogenes Laertius 10.1.75. 6865 Also in L.A.B. 1:1; Hesiod Theog. 452. «From the beginning» appears often in the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (McNamara, Targum, 143) but is a frequent phrase in Johannine texts (6:64; 15:27; 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13–14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 5–6 ). 6866 Sir 25:24 ; Sib. Or. 2.42–45; L.A.E. 18:1; 35; 38:1–2; 44:1–5; Apoc. Mos. 9; 11:1–2; 14; 31–32; 42–43; Philo Creation 151–152, 165; " Abot R. Nat. 9, §25B; p. Sanh. 2:4, §2; Gen. Rab. 17:8; 21:5; Exod. Rab. 28:2; Lev. Rab. 18:2; 1Tim 2:14 ; perhaps influence from the Greek tradition of Pandora amplified Evés guilt (Hesiod Op. 90–95; cf. Babrius 58). In another line of tradition, he also deceived her sexually (see comment above), but there is no reason to see that idea here. 6867 On other traditions about the devil " s or serpent " s envy, see also Josephus Ant. 1.41; " Abot R. Nat. 1A; b. Sanh. 59b. 6868 In Jubilees, see 11:5,11; 17:16; 18:9; 48:2,9. Yadin, War Scroll 233–34, compares the use of this term in Jubilees with 1QM 13.4, 11; 14.9; Ginsberg, «Scrolls,» 79, compares its use in Jubilees and CD (cf. Driver, Scrolls, 451). Mastemoth in 1QS 3.23 is probably not a proper noun (though associated with Belial and angel of darkness–1QS 1.18,21; 2.19; 3.22) but reflects the same linguistic milieu (cf. also Marcus, «Scrolls,» 12–13). The name may appear in 4QAmram b (Kobelski, «Melchizedek,» 64). |
| Thieves and wolves are often listed together as enemies of onés animals, 7422 and a keeper of animals who suspected a thief of stealing animals might find the «thief» to be a natural predator instead. 7423 In a Greek novel, one goatherd complained that no wolf had successfully seized any goats, but that now the enemy (invaders) had taken the goats and would harm them. 7424 Sheep were safer in a flock; once scattered, they became easier prey for attackers ( Ezek 34:8 ); God had complained that Israels leaders had allowed his flock to be scattered 7425 for lack of a genuinely concerned shepherd ( Jer 23:1–2 ; Ezek 34:5–6 ; cf. Ezek 34:21 ; Zech 11:16–17). 7426 God himself would gather and restore his scattered flock ( Jer 23:3 ; Ezek 34:11–16 ; cf. John 16:32–33 ). Here the wolf seeks to «snatch» members of the flock (10:13), but Jesus promises that no wolf can snatch them from his or his Father " s hand ( 10:28–29); a superhumanly empowered shepherd (contrast Gen 31:39 ), Jesus lost none of the flock the Father entrusted to him (6:39; 17:12; 18:9). 4B. The Shepherd " s Relationship with the Sheep (10:14–15) Jesus» sacrifice expresses his care for the sheep (10:11–13) as well as obedience to his Father (10:15,17). His «own» (τα μ) are those sheep the Father has given him (17:9–10), those who are his own (τ δια) mentioned earlier in the passage who are intimate with him. The theme of his relationship with the sheep picks up the image from 10:3–5 (see comment there) and provides a pivotal statement of the theme of knowing God that pervades the Fourth Gospel (see introduction). The healed man came to know Jesus; his opponents admitted that they lacked knowledge of him (9:29; see comment on 9:13–17). Background for the passage lies close at hand, given the likely assumption that John " s ideal audience was biblically literate. God summoned Israel to «know» him in terms of recognizing him and acknowledging his authority. 7427 When John speaks of «knowing» the shepherd " s voice, one could hear this phrase merely in terms of recognition. But the Scriptures could also use «knowing» God as part of the covenant motif (Exod 6:7), especially with regard to the new covenant ( Jer 24:7; 31:33–34 ). In the new covenant, such knowledge of God would stem from God " s word in his peoplés hearts ( Jer 31:33–34 ), and may allude also to the language of covenant marital intimacy ( Jer 31:32 ; Hos 5:4 ), a familiar image (e.g., Gen 4:1 ). 7428 That Jesus» own (his sheep) 7429 «know» him as the Father knows him and he knows the Father (10:14–15) indicates an intimacy that would exceed that of the biblical prophets. 7430 Given the behavior and misunderstandings of the disciples on a narrative level (and Jesus» acknowledgement of it, e.g., 13:38), and its contrast with the perfect relationship in which Jesus walks with the Father, it is doubtful that John wishes us to understand this equation in a quantitative sense even after his resurrection (cf. 1Cor 13:9,12 ). |
| IV 83. 1-2). Слова Иова (без ссылки на них) используются Климентом в качестве тестимоний из Свящ. Писания, напр. в наставлении против многословия (Ibid. I 48. 4; VI 65. 2; ср.: Иов 11. 2-3), в доказательстве проповеди Христа при сошествии в ад (Ibid. VI 45. 1; ср.: Иов 28. 22: «Аваддон и смерть говорят: «ушами нашими слышали мы слух о ней (Премудрости.- Авт.)»»), при описании Суда Божия (Ibid. IV 170. 1; ср.: Иов 34. 2; 35. 13-14; 36. 10, 12) или в характеристике своего труда в «Строматах» ссылкой на Иов 5. 25 (Ibid. IV 6. 1). Не во всех случаях ссылки на И. к. убедительно обосновывают сказанное Климентом (напр., обоснование сокровенности тайны Свящ. Писания словами Иов 21. 10 - Ibid. VII 94. 2; ср.: Ibid. IV 160. 3 и Иов 21. 17). Восхваление творения Божия в Иов 38-39 сильно повлияло на описания творения христ. авторами. В «Увещевании к язычникам» Климент ссылается на Иов 38. 8-11 ( Clem. Alex. Protrept. I 5. 1). Здесь же он на основании Иов 10. 11 выступает против изображений идолов (Ibid. X 98. 2). В подлинных работах александрийского богослова достаточно цитат (по Канненгиссеру, более 300 - Kannengiesser. 1974. Col. 1220), к-рые позволяют понять, как Ориген оценивал личность и жизнь Иова и какие части И. к. он толковал чаще других. Как и в известной раннеиудейской экзегетической традиции, Иов у Оригена - потомок Исава, нечестивца, к-рый жил прежде прор. Моисея и дарования закона ( Orig. In Ep. ad Rom. 3. 6). Но он также праведник, ибо терпел страдания, устоял в искушениях, праведен во всех своих делах и свободен от зла (Ibid. 2. 12; 7. 4//PG. 14. Col. 899, 1107; Idem. Comm. in Matth. 77; Idem. In Exod. hom. 11. 3). Праведность Иова делает его образцом для каждого христианина, ибо, как и жизнь Иова, жизнь каждого человека на земле - испытание ( Idem. Hom. in Job. 7. 1; Idem. Cant. Cantic. 2. 3). Иов - прообраз христ. мученика ( Idem. Hom. in Job. 31. 27-28; Idem. Exhort. ad martyr. 33) и даже (впервые у христ. авторов) прообраз Христа. В Толковании на Евангелие от Матфея ( Idem. |
| Like the Qumran community, John " s outlook is sectarian and dualistic; 8331 «the world» is arrayed against the community (15:18–25), demanding internal cohesion (15:12–17). But the comparison even here should not be overdrawn; it is highly unlikely that the Johannine community had withdrawn from the world physically (17:11, 15, 18, 21), certainly not into a wilderness enclave as the Qumran community had. As Painter notes, John in no way negates love for those outside the community: first, the stated purpose for loving one another is as a witness to the world (13:35); second, they are not said to hate unbelievers as at Qumran (as noted above); third, God " s love for Jesus (17:23,26) and the world of humanity (3:16) should be active in disciples (17:26); fourth, the Father " s love for Jesus (15:9) is the basis for his special love for disciples (15:12). 8332 That the world would see the truth through disciples» love for one another (13:35) is significant. Just as Moses» signs of judgment become signs of mercy in John (2:11), so the signs of judgment through which the Gentiles might know God " s identity (Exod 6:7; 7:5,17; 8:10, 22; 9:29; 10:2; 14:4,18) become such signs of mercy in John, and ultimately this sign of the way believers treat one another (13:35; 17:21–23). «By this» (èv τοτω) elsewhere in this discourse applies to revealing God to the world (15:8); 8333 it is an essential part of witnesses» testimony to πντες (13:35), humanity as in 1and the «world» as in 3:16. To this point in the book, disciples have followed Jesus (2:12; 3:22; 11:7–16, 54; cf. 1:37; 18:15–16), believed in Jesus (2:11; cf. 4:27; 9:27–28), and done Jesus» work (4:2; 6:12; cf. 19:26–27); perseverance also is a criterion for true discipleship (8:31; cf. 2:17,22; 12:16), and some disciples, by failing to persevere, have failed the test (6:60–61, 66; 12:4; cf. 8:31; 18:2, 17, 25). But here the mark of discipleship is following their master " s example (13:34–35); pupils imitated their teachers. |
| 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. |
|
|
