| Versus 7. «Ego Deus, qui eduxi te de regione Chaldaeorum». Hoc est, quod paulo ante diximus in Hebraeo haberï qui eduxi te de ur chesdim, id est, de incendio Chaldaeorum. Versus 10 et 11. «Et posuit ea contra faciem invicem: aves vero non divisit. Descenderunt autem volucres super cadavera et super divisiones eorum, et sedit cum eis Abram». Non pertinet ad praesens opusculum ejus expositio sacramenti. Hoc tantum dicimus, quia pro his, quae posuimus, in Hebraeo habet: Et descenderunt volucres super cadavera, et abigebat eas Abram. Illius enim merito saepe de angustiis libe-ratus est Israel. Versus 12. «Ad occasum autem solis ecstasis cecidit super Abram». Pro ecstasi in Hebraeo thardema, id est, καταορ, legitur, quam supra vertimus in soporem. Versus 16. «Generatione autem quarta revertentur huc». Haud dubium quin hi, qui de semine fuerint Abrahae. Quaeritur quomodo in Exodo scriptum sit: Quinta autem generatione egressi sunt filii Israel de terra Aegypti (Exod. XIII, 18). Super quo capitulo parvum volumen edidimus. Capitulum XVI Versus 2. «Ecce conclusit me Dominus, ut non pariam: ingredere ergo ad ancillam meam, ut habeam filios ex ea». Diligenter nota, quod procreatio filiorum, in Hebraeo aedificatio scripta est. Legitur enim ibï Ingredere ad ancillam meam, si quo modo aedificer ex ea. Et vide, ne forte hoc sit, quod in Exodo dicitur: Benedixit Deus obstetricibus, et aedificaverunt sibi domos (Exod. I, 20). Versus 7. «Et invenit eam Angelus Domini super fontem aquae in deserto ad fontem in via Sur». Consequenter Aegyptia in via Sur, quae per eremum ducit ad Aegyptum, ire festinabat. Versus 11. «Et vocavit nomen ejus Ismael; quia exaudivit Deus humilitatem meam». Ismael interpretatur, exauditio Dei. Versus 12. «Hic erit rusticus homo. Manus ejus super omnes, et manus omnium fratrum suorum habitabit». Pro rustico in Hebraeo scriptum habet phara, quod interpretatur onager. Significat autem semen ejus habitaturum in eremo, id est, Sarracenos vagos, incertisque sedibus, qui universas gentes, quibus desertum ex latere jungitur incursant, et impugnantur ab omnibus. Capitulum XVII |
| 5024 Explicit references to Moses appear far more widely in the Gospel (1:17, 45; 3:14; 5:45–46; 6:32; 7:19, 22–23; 9:28–29) than references to Jacob (only in 4:5, 12) or Abraham (8:39–40, 52–53, 56–58) or David (7:42). The Johannine audiencés opponents seem to appeal heavily to Moses» law to support their position (cf. esp. 5:45–46; 9:28–29). 5027 Odeberg, Gospel, 72 (on 1 En. 70:2; 71:1; 2 En. 1–24; 3 En. passim; Γ. Levi 2; 2 Bar. passim; Ascen. Isa. passim), 73–88 (Hermetic and Mandean texts), 89–94 (rabbinic literature). See also Borgen, «Agent,» 146 n. 4, following Odeberg; cf. Grese, «Born Again»; Kanagaraj, «Mysticism»; idem, «Mysticism» in John; DeConick, Mystics, 67. Talbert, John, 101, thinks 3may counter Christian mystics (as in 1 John 4:1 ). 5028 Borgen, «Agent,» 146; idem, «Hellenism,» 104–5, citing Philo QE 2.46 (on Exod 24:16), which is probably authentic. Borgen, «Agent,» 146, connects John " s «Son of Man» with Philós «Man after God " s image» (Confusion 146; Alleg. Interp. 1.43). 5030 E.g., m. Roš Haš. 3:8; p. Roš Haš 3:9, §§1–6. Cf. deliverance from serpents in response to Jeremiah " s prayer in Liv. Pro. 2.3 (OTP 2:386; Greek, ed. Schermann, 81–82). 5031 Philo Creation 157; Agriculture 108; Alleg. Interp. 3.159; Migration 66. The «belly» frequently refers to pleasure in ancient texts (Euripides Cyc1. 334–335; Longus 4.11; Plutarch Pleas. L. 3, Mor. 1087D; Epictetus Diatr. 2.9.4; Achilles Tatius 2.23.1; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 1.7; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 60.4; 3Macc 7:10–11; 4 Macc 1:3; Syr. Men. Epit. 6–8; Phil 3:19 ; Apoc. E1. 1:13), including in Philo (Spec. Laws 1.148–150, 192; 4.91). 5032 Exod. Rab. 3:12; Tg. Neof. 1 on Num 21:6 . Were the tradition earlier, one might appeal here to the messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15 , attested in the Targumim (McNamara, Targum, 121) and perhaps as early as the LXX (Martin, «Interpretation»). For texts identifying the serpent with the devil, see comment on 8:44. 5033 The identification of the Jewish lawgiver with «the lawless serpent» in Acts John 94 resembles gnostic anti-Judaism and not first-century tradition. Pace some, the source of Epiphanius Haer. 64.29.6 is probably not pre-Christian (Jacobson, «Serpent»). |
| The leaders fear that Jesus» signs (11:47) will produce faith among «all people» (11:48), ironically fulfilling the purpose of Jesus» coming into the world and John " s witness (1:7–9), foreshadowing the Gentile mission (12:19–21). Their fear begins to come to pass in 12:18, where even Jerusalem " s crowds begin to follow Jesus because of this sign (cf. also 12:11). (In John, unlike the Synoptics, the crowds do not later pass judgment against Jesus; the responsibility for persecution against Jewish Christians lay primarily at the feet of the nation " s recognized leaders.) Ultimately, their very plan to have Jesus killed to prevent all from coming to him (11:48–50) will have the opposite result (12:32)–thereby confirming the widely recognized ancient view that even attempts to thwart fate (or God " s plan) would simply help fulfill it. 7709 The authorities» frantic question, «What are we doing?» (11:47) is answered in the parallel context in 12:19, when the Pharisees complain that «We are not doing good» (literally, profiting nothing) and that the world is finally going after him (12:19). In a sense, John offers the hostility of such leaders as the reason that the world did not more quickly embrace Jesus. 7710 In a document addressing an audience after 70 C.E., the elités fear that the Romans would take away their place and nation if they did not execute Jesus (11:48) is a striking irony. 7711 If John " s audience felt like many other Jewish Christians, they probably viewed Jerusalem " s destruction as the direct consequence of Jesus» execution (Matt 23:31–39)! Such irony fits earlier biblical models; thus, for example, the very matter that Egypt feared (Israel " s freedom because of their strength–Exod 1:10) the Egyptians provoked by oppressing them (Exod 2:23–25). (The «nation» may mean Judeás freedoms as a national entity in Syria-Palestine; the «place» may refer to Jerusalem but probably refers to the temple.) 7712 Caiaphas " s claim that the priests «know nothing at all» (11:49) represents the epitome of Johannine irony, like the Pharisees» admission that they do nothing good (12:19). The informed readers of the Gospel by this point will read such statements on a much more literal level than their speakers in the story world intended them! 7713 (On unintended truth, see comment on 11:51.) But Paul Duke may be right to point out, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, that while it is true that they know nothing (underlined by three negatives), the high priest goes on to show that he knows even less. 7714 |
| 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. |
| Прор. Моисей перед Неопалимой Купиной. Мозаика ц. Сан-Витале в Равенне. VI в. Прор. Моисей перед Неопалимой Купиной. Мозаика ц. Сан-Витале в Равенне. VI в. Согласно свт. Кириллу Александрийскому, пылающий в огне кустарник указывает на таинство Христа, в Котором «человечеству стало доступно Божество». К. Н. прообразует вселение Бога в храм Девы, чтобы стать «доступным для нас, как стал доступен и огонь тернию». Также свт. Кирилл переносит образ К. Н. на личность христианина: подобно пламени огня, верующих «освящает Христос чрез Святого Духа и пребывает чрез Него (ср.: Рим 8. 15)» ( Суг. Alex. Glaph. in Exod. 1. 8). В то же время не сгорающая в огне К. Н. может символизировать бесчувственность Израиля, которому, как дикому кустарнику, был дан закон, но его свет оказался бесполезным ( Idem. De adorat. 2). Схожая интерпретация, противопоставляющая шипы кустарника и его пламя как символы грехов Израиля и Слова Божия, встречается у Исидора Севильского ( Isid. Hisp. Quaest. in Exod. 7. 1; ср.: Caes. Arel. Serm. 96. 1). В толковании Иоанна Кассиана Римлянина К. Н. становится символом тела подвижника, которое не должно возбуждаться, т. е. сгорать от огня естественных потребностей ( Ioan. Cassian. Collat. XII 11). Весьма редкое толкование приводится у свт. Василия Великого, по мнению которого явленное в К. Н. двойное действие огня - как дающего свет и при этом не сжигающего - таинственно указывает на посмертное воздаяние, когда «естество огня будет разделено и свет предоставлен в наслаждение праведным, а мучительность жжения назначена наказываемым» ( Basil. Magn. Hom. in Hex. 6. 5). Неопалимая Купина в мон-ре вмц. Екатерины на Синае Неопалимая Купина в мон-ре вмц. Екатерины на Синае Подробную интерпретацию К. Н. приводит во 2-й ч. «Жизни Моисея» свт. Григорий Нисский. Он предлагает ее мариологическое истолкование: в образе К. Н. мы приобщаемся «таинству, явленному в Деве, от Которой в рождении воссиявший человеческой жизни свет Божества сохранил воспламененную купину несгораемою, так что и по рождении не увял стебель девства». |
| 3449 Painter, «Christology,» 51: «In the beginning» vs. «came to be» (though cf. 1:14); «was with God» vs. «sent from God» (though this often depicts Christ, too); «was God» vs. «his name was lohn»; «in the beginning with God» vs. «came for a witness»; «all things came to be through him … in him was life … the light of men» vs. «to witness concerning the light.» These parallels are inexact, but the contrast of 1:8–9 is explicit. 3450 Fritsch, Community, 117, who adds that this «could explain how the Evangelist came to know so much about John the Baptist and the Essene-Covenanter background out of which he came.» Longenecker, Ministry, 70, suggests that the «one baptism» of Eph 4shares this polemical context. Cf. Bultmann, Tradition, 165; Morris, John, 88. 3451 Daniélou, Theology, 62. Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.54 warns that some followers of the Baptist proclaimed him the Christ (cited in Michaels, John, 7; cf. Luke 3:15). 3452 Stanton, Gospels, 167; Kysar, «Contributions of Prologue,» 359 n. 32; cf. still more strongly Smalley, John, 127. Taking an exalted self-understanding back to the Baptist himself (Hengel, Leader, 36) is even harder to argue. 3453 Cf. Kysar, «Contributions,» 359 (suggesting «Jewish opponents… arguing that Jesus was the equal of John the Baptist but no more»). His concessions to Bultmann, but with the warning that Bultmann certainly exaggerated, are in his n. 32. 3454 Cf. Fiorenza, Revelation, 195; cf. also Collins, Oracles, 118, who remarks concerning Egyptian oracles that the purpose of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles «was primarily to establish common ground between the Jewish and gentile worlds.» 3455 «Balaam» suggests an oracular connection (Aune, Prophecy, 218; as the greatest pagan prophet, cf. Josephus Ant. 4.104; Sipre Deut. 343.6.1; 357.18.1–2; Exod. Rab. 32:3; Num. Rab. 14:20; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1; as philosopher or sage, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Gen. Rab. 65:20; 93:10; Lam. Rab. proem 2), but he also epitomized wickedness in Jewish lore (e.g., «the wicked Balaam» in m. " Abot 5:19; b. c Abod. Zar. 4a; Ber. 7a; Sanh. 105b, 106a; cf. Exod. Rab. 30:20; Num. Rab. 20:6), these traditions supplying details missing in Num 22–25 ; Mic 6:5 : leading Israel to immorality, hence judgment (Josephus Ant. 4.157; LA.B. 18:13; Sipre Deut. 252.1.4; p. Sanh. 10:2, §8; cf. Jude 11; Judith 5:20–21; p. Ta c an. 4:5, §10), greed and eschatological shortsightedness ( 2Pet 2:15 ; Pesiq. Rab. 41:3), folly ( 2Pet 2:15 ; Philo Cherubim 32; Worse 71; Unchangeable 181; Confusion 64, 159; Migration 115–cited by LCL l:xxv; Ecc1. Rab. 2:15, §2), and vanity (Philo Confusion 159; m. " Abot 5:19); cf. Caird, Revelation, 39, who cites Philo Moses 1.292–304; Josephus Ant. 4.126–130 in support of the idea that religious syncretism is in view here. |
| 6805 Scripture already emphasized that God had blessed Israel for Abraham " s sake (Exod 2:24; Lev 26:42 ; Deut 4:37; 7:8; 9:5; 10:15; 2 Kgs 13:23; Ps 105:8–9, 42–45 ; Mic 7:18–20 ), and that he could be entreated on that basis (Exod 32:13; Deut 9:27 ). 6806 But God had also warned against depending on that heritage ( Deut 7:7; 10:22; 26:5 ; cf. Dan 9:18 ). The first of the Eighteen Benedictions, likely pre-Christian, reminded God of the righteous deeds of the ancestors and on this basis prayed for him to send a redeemer; Tannaim summarized this benediction under the title «fathers» (m. Roš Haš. 4:5). In the early period, the issue may have been simply Israel " s deliverance as a people and the expectation that Abraham " s Israelite descendants would all be saved, except for those who broke covenant (cf. m. Sanh. 10:1). 6807 Later Jewish traditions elaborated that point more explicitly, graphically illustrating more basic principles established in earlier traditions. Abraham filled the special role of intercessor in later Jewish tradition, 6808 a portrait the rabbis applied especially to his posthumously efficacious intercession for Israe1. 6809 They also developed the tradition that all Israel would be saved into the idea that Abraham rescued all but the most wicked Israelites from Gehenna, 6810 or that God created him afterward to set straight the result of Adam s sin. 6811 Perhaps because of their haggadic character, many of the detailed stories appear in our sources by the third century, but if even the most basic elements of such Abraham traditions circulated in the first century, they make much sense of early Christian polemic against dependence on genetic descent from Abraham (Matt 3:9; Rom 4:16; 9:6–13 ). When the date of available evidence has been weighed, the later explicit doctrine of «merits» is probably not in view here; dependence on membership in Israel as Abraham " s children, however, probably is in view. Although they do the «works» of another father (8:41), Jesus invites them in 8to do the «works» of Abraham and so prove themselves Abraham " s children. |
| 9563 «Sanhedrin» is a broad rather than restrictive term, applicable also in Greek texts to an informal assembly of advisors (Diodorus Siculus 13.111.1) or frequently to Romés «senate» (e.g., Diodorus Siculus 40.1.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 5.70.5; 6.30.2; 6.81.1; 6.85.2; 8.69.2; 9.32.5; 10.2.6; 12.1.14; 12.6.2 in these texts it appears interchangeably with βουλ, a more common term, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 5.71.1; 6.1.1; 6.21.1; 6.81.4). Usage was broad; a βουλ traditionally could constitute a local council (Aristophanes Knights 475, 653) but also a leader " s war council (Homer I1. 2.84). 9564 Officials could also assemble their own administrative «councils» from among their friends (e.g., Josephus Life 368). 9566 Overman, Community, 372–73, 385, regards the Sanhédrin as a Roman political institution, although conceding that «some of the local Jewish elite may have been involved.» Yet the dominance of the Jewish elite is clear; in cities like Jerusalem, Rome ruled through municipal aristocracies– here, pro-Roman Jewish aristocrats. 9567 M. Sank 1:6; cf. later Tg. Neof. 1 on Exod 15:27. Cf. also Josephus " s Galilean council of 70 in War 2.570 and Life 79, and that of the Zealots in War 4.336, both undoubtedly following the standard contemporary model; the models probably ultimately derive from Mosaic tradition (Exod 24:9; Num 11:16,24 ; cf. Ezek 8:11 ). Josephus also assumed a council of seven judges as a lower court in every city (War 2.571; Ant. 4.214). An odd number to break a tie made sense; as in Roman law (Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.64.6), a tie vote would yield acquitta1. 9568 Brown, Death, 348–49, doubts that an exact list of seventy-one members existed in the first century, suggesting that it merely included elders from distinguished families alongside chief priests, representatives of whom were expected to appear. 9570 T. Seqa1. 3:27; b. Yoma 25a; Gen. Rab. 70:8; Num. Rab. 19:26; Ecc1. Rab. 1:1, §1. A location near the temple is not surprising; at times other peoples» leaders could use temples (the senate in Cicero Fam. 8.4.4). |
| 7156 «From the [beginning of] the age» (9:32) might ironically recall Jesus» preexistence by means of his power to heal what no one else could (cf. 1:1–2; 17:24), but the link is at best a possibility. 7158 This response sidesteps the question of demonic involvement in sorcery, which his interrogators presumably would have considered (see pp. 274–75); but John comments little on demons and addressed this charge against Jesus in earlier chapters (7:20; 8:48). 7160 E.g., CIJ 1:365, §500; 2:14, §748; on the frequency of Roman Jewish names alluding to this virtue, see CIJ l:lxvii. 7161 E.g., Abraham in T. Ab. 4:6A; Joseph in Jos. Asen. 4:7/9; Jewish elders from Palestine in Let. Aris. 179. 7162 Citing notably the Aphrodisias inscriptions, Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 51–82; idem, «Aphrodisias»; Tannenbaum, «God-Fearers»; Van der Horst, «Aphrodisias»; Feldman, «Sympathizers»; idem, «God-Fearers.» Citing especially other sources, Lifshitz, «Sympathisants»; Gager, «Synagogues»; Horsley, Documents, 3, §17, p. 54; Finn, «God-Fearers»; Overman, «God-Fearers.» 7163 Kraabel, «Disappearance»; idem, «Jews»; MacLennan and Kraabel, «God-Fearers.» The designation functioned in various ways (Murphy-ÓConnor, «God-Fearers»; cf. Wilcox, «God-Fearers»); for various perspectives on detail, cf., e.g., Cohen, «Respect»; Siegert, «Gottesfürchtige.» 7164 E.g., Ps 66:18 ; Gen. Rab. 60:13; Exod. Rab. 22:3; cf. 1Pet 3:7,12 ; Iamblichus V.P. 11.54; Porphyry Marc. 24.374–375. Many commentators cite this principle here (Dodd, Interpretation, 81; Edersheim, 408). Abrahams, Studies, 2:40, citing 1 Kgs 8:41–43, argues that the rabbis would have to affirm that God heard some pagan prayers; in Studies, 1:61, he points to a sinner whom God heard for one act of piety (p. Taan. 1:2). 7165 His denial that he could do nothing at all is an emphatic double negative and contrasts with that of the opponents who do «nothing» good and know «nothing» (11:49; 12:19). 7166 It may be only coincidental; κβλλω appears with sheep in the NT only in 2:15, which hardly provides a favorable model for 10:4. Still, this is an unusual term to apply to leading forth sheep, appearing nowhere with them in the LXX (Exod 2applies to the shepherds driving away the priest " s daughters). |
| 4547 Calvin, John, 1(on John 2:6 ), calculated that it was enough wine for a banquet of up to 150 men, and a clear enough miracle that those who knew about the lack of wine (servants, disciples, and Jesus» mother) would know it was a miracle. 4549 Lee, Thought, 17; Roth, «Vessels.» Gamble, «Philosophy,» 51–52, regards the amount as a historical reminiscence. 4550 Safrai, «Religion,» 830, citing Sipra Sh. 8; Sipra Mezora Zabim 6; m. Miqwáot. The first-century houses debate in m. Ber. 8presupposes a restricted form of handwashing by pouring. 4551 Let. Arts. 305–306; Sib. Or. 3.591–593. Cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31; Jub. 21:16; Exod. Rab. 22:3; cf. Acts 16. 4552 For handwashing before prayer or other important purposes, e.g., Homer I1. 6.266; 9.171; 24.304–305; Od. 2.260–261; 12.336–337; Hesiod Op. 724–726, 737–741; Lysias Or. 6.52, §§107–108; Virgil Aen. 2.717–720; for expicit reference to ritual and other water being poured over hands, e.g., Homer/. 9.174; 24.302–303; Od. 1.136–138; 3.338; 4.52–54, 216; 21.270. 4553 McNamara, Judaism, 196, assumes it; Bernard, John, 1:77, applies this to the washing of hands before and after meals. P. Hag. 2:5, §3, demonstrates that the pool of forty séahs could also be used for the washing of hands. 4554 Some waterpots were «permanently embedded in the ground,» normally kept filled by girls of the home (Safrai, «Home,» 742; cf. Jeffers, World, 68). It is not clear, however, that such waterpots were in view here. 4555 The village «Cana» in Josephus War 1.102 lacks necessities for survival, but it seems unlikely that John could have expected his readers to have known of this; «Cana» does not appear in the LXX. An Amoraic tradition in p. Šabb. 14(Urbach, Sages, 1:281) associates the Sepphoris area with cold weather. 4557 The specific term γεμζω appears only in 2and 6:13, but as elsewhere John employs diverse synonyms for the sake of literary variation. 4558 Jewish texts, especially those sharing an apocalyptic vertical dualism, naturally portrayed God as νω (e.g., T. Ab. 7A). |
|
|
