| 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. |
| 4158 Franzmann and Klinger, «Stories.» 4159 Charlesworth, Disciple, 332, based on the inclusio with ch. 21 (on which he follows Ruckstuhl, «Jünger,» 392) added by one who belonged to the community. Evans, John, 17, suggests John son of Zebedee. 4160 Ridderbos, John, 83–84 (who thinks this fits the author " s claim to be an eyewitness, probably «from the beginning,» p. 3). 4161 Neirynck, «Disciple.» 4162 To follow unquestioningly even at another " s request was a mark of humility (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5), hence considered appropriate for those of lower social status. For the interchange here, cf. also Whitacre, Polemic, 83; Schnackenburg, John, 1:308. 4163 Given Palestinian Judaism " s diversity before 70, no one supervised accreditation and anyone could have followers (Cohen, Maccabees, 122), no matter how much traditions in common Judaism normally dictated some standards (cf. John 7:15 ; Acts 4:13). «Rabbi» («my master») was usually simply thus a respectful title for «teacher» (Matt 23:7–8; see the pre-70 ossuary inscription in Brown, John, 1:74); by John " s day, however, «Rabbi» had taken on more specific nuances and may play into Johannine polemic. 4164 See Davies, Sermon, 134; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 30. Those who deny Jesus the status of «rabbi» do not deny that he was a popular teacher (wisdom sage or prophetic teacher; Freyne, Galilee, 249–50; Hengel, Leader, 42–50,55–56; Jeremias, Theology, 77), and those who allow him the title also distinguish him from other rabbis (Stein, Method 1–3; Cohen, Maccabees, 122); cf. further Borg, Vision, 97–124 (more briefly Meeks, Moral World, 117) on Jesus as a sage. Jesus» ministry bore affinities to rabbis, eschatological preachers, Cynic-Stoic preachers, etc. (Davies, Setting, 422–25; against limits in, e.g., Smith, Magician, 22–23). 4165 Not exalted (as for Moses in Tg. Ps.-J. to Deut 9:19 ). John translates both «Rabbi» and «Rabboni» on their first appearances in the Gospel, but it may be noteworthy that these also constitute the first and last appearances of the «Rabb-» title, which occurs nine times in the Gospel, always for Jesus or (once, 3:26) for John. Tilborg, Ephesus, 99–100, provides information on the office of «teacher» in Ephesus, but it would have been widespread. |
| Grand Rapids, 2002; idem. 4 Maccabees: Introd. and Comment. on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus. Leiden; Boston, 2006; idem. The Sinaiticus Text of 4 Maccabees//CBQ. 2006. Vol. 68. N 1. Р. 47-62; idem. An Example of How to Die Nobly For Religion: The Influence of 4 Maccabees on Origen " s «Exhortatio ad Martyrium»//JECS. 2009. Vol. 17. N 3. P. 337-356; Gruen E. S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley, 1998; idem. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity//Hellenism in the Land of Israel/Ed. J. J. Collins, G. E. Sterling. Notre Dame, 2001. P. 62-93; Horbury W. The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints//NTS. 1998. Vol. 44. N 3. P. 444-469; Levine L. I. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence. Seattle, 1998; Rutgers L. V., ed. The Importance of Scripture in the Conflict between Jews and Christians: The Example of Antioch//The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World. Leuven, 1998. P. 287-303; Boyarin D. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford, 1999; Harrington D. J. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids, 1999; Williams D. S. The Structure of 1 «Maccabees». Wash., 1999; Passoni Dell " Acqua A., ed. Terzo libro dei Maccabei//Apocrifi dell " AT/Ed. P. Sacchi. Brescia, 2000. Vol. 4. P. 571-664; Schneider A. B. Jüdisches Erbe in christlicher Tradition: Eine kanongeschichtliche Untersuch. z. Bedeutung u. Rezeption der Makkabäerbücher in der alten Kirche des Ostens: Diss. Hdlb., 2000; Alexander Ph. A. 3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim//Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of M. P. Weitzman/Ed. A. Rapaport-Albert, G. Greenberg. Sheffield, 2001. P. 321-339; Collins J. J., Sterling G. E., ed. Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Notre Dame, 2001; Hengel M. Judaism and Hellenism Revisited//Ibid. P. 6-37; Cummins S. A. Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch: Maccabean Martyrdom and Galatians 1 and 2. Camb., 2001; Sievers J. Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period: 1-2 Maccabees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12-14. |
| 353–358. Hauerwas – Jones 1989 – Why Narrative? Readings in Narrative Theology. Ed. by S. Hauerwas and L.G. Jones. Grand Rapids, 1989. Hayes Holladay 1987 – Hayes J.H. & Holladay C.R. Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner» " s Handbook. Louisville, 1987. Hayes 2009 – Hayes J.H. Historiographical Approaches: Survey and Principles//Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David L. Petersen. Ed. byJ.M. LeMon and K.H. Richards. RBS 56. Winona Lake, 2009, pp. 195–212. Haynes – McKenzie 1993 – To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblicat Criticisms and Their Application. Ed. by S.R. Haynes and S.L. McKenzie. Louisville, 1993. Hendel 1987 – Hendel R.S. Of Demigods and the Delugë Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4 //JBL 106, pp. 13–26. Hendel 2004 – Hendel R. The Nephilim Were on the Earth: Genesis 6:1–4 and its Ancient Near Eastern Context//The Fall of the Angels. TBN 6. Ed. by Ch. Auffarth and L.T. Stuckenbruck. Leiden Boston, 2004, pp. 11–34. Hengel 1974 – Hengel M. Judaism and Hellenism. Philadelphia, 1974. Henn 1970 – Henn T.R. The Bible as Literature. New York, 1970. Hobbs 2001 – Hobbs T.R. Hospitality in the First Testament and the «Teleological Fallacy»//JSOT 26, pp. 3–30. Houtman 1983 – Houtman C. Exodus 4:24–26 and Its Interpretation//JNSL 11 (1983), pp. 81–105. Hughes 2001 – Hughes P.E. Compositional History//Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis. Ed. by C.C. Broyles. Grand Rapids, 2001, pp. 221–244. Hyatt 1971 – Hyatt J.P. New Century Biblë Exodus. London, 1971. Iser 1974 – Iser W. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore, 1974. Iser 1978 – Iser W. The Art of Reading. Baltimore, 1978. Jakobson 1960 – Jakobson R. Linguistics and Poetics//Style in Language. Ed. by T. Sebeok, New York London, 1960, pp. 350–377. JBC – The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Ed. by R.E. Brown, J.A. Fitzmyer and R.E. Murphy. London Dublin Melbourne, 1968. Jindo 2009 – Jindo J.Y. Toward a Poetic of Biblical Mind: Language, Culture and Cognition//VT 59, pp. |
| 2538 Also MSS at 18:11. Hengel, Son, 43; Blackburn, «ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,» 189, are not entirely convincing in referring only to the Jewish tradition of applying this language to angels (Wis 5:5). 2540 See Riesenfeld, Tradition, 76; Dunn, Baptism, 30; Albright and Mann, Matthew, 36; Teeple, Prophet, 75–76; Meier, Vision, 59–60; Gundry, Matthew, 53. 2547 Given the prevalence of divine kings in parts of the ancient Near East (De Vaux, Israel, 111; even Akenaton in «The Amarna Letters,» 483–90 in ANET, passim), one sin to which Israel " s and Judah " s rulers had not succumbed (De Vaux, Israel, 113), one may question whether Isaiah would have risked implying that God would be Israel " s ultimate Davidic king if that was not what he meant (against Berger and Wyschogrod, Jews, 43; on the structure cf. De Vaux, Israel, 107; Kitchen, Orient, 110). This idea admittedly lacks parallels elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, but explicit messianic material is scarce in it to begin with. Tg. Isa. 9deliberately alters the grammar to distinguish the Davidic king from the Mighty God. 2548 Before the Qumran texts, in fact, scholars generally agreed that first-century Judaism did not apply «son of God» as a messianic title, in contrast to some OT usage; see Conzelmann, Theology, 76–77; Jeremias, Parables, 73; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:85; Stevens, Theology, 104–105. 2549 Longenecker, Christology, 95; Stanton, Gospels, 225. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 198–99, rightly notes that lQSer(a) (=lQ28a) 2.11–12 is not as clear as 4QFlor; Hengel, Son, 44, also cites a Daniel apocryphon as yet unpublished at the time of his book. Some cite 4Q 242 2.1–2, though it remains debated (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 154–55); see comment below. 4Q174 3.10–11 uses 2Sam 7:11–14 in an explicitly messianic context (4Q174 3.11–13; the passage may also stress, as Bergmeier, «Erfüllung,» argues on 4Q174 2.17–3.13, the eschatological elect and their temple). 2550 See Evans, «Son»; idem, «Prayer of Enosh» (including 4Q458); Abegg, «Introduction to 4Q369,» 329. |
| 225 Fischer and Stein, «Marble.» Less demonstrably, some have suggested that his use of conventional forms in his suicide accounts militates against the accuracy of his battle suicides (Newell, «Forms»). 227 Wright, People of God, 378, also comparing Luke 24:51; Acts 1:3. Cf. also the divergent details in Josephus and Philo on the same events (Theissen, Gospels, 149). Josephus follows but apparently modifies some literary sources (see Pucci Ben Zeev, «Reliability»). 228 Sanders, Judaism, 6. Many claims against his reliability are overstated; see, e.g., Rajak, Josephus, 9–10. 229 For specific examples of Josephus " s adaptations, see, e.g., Begg, «Jotham,» «Fall,» «Putsch,» and «Jehoahaz» (improving the character); Feldman, «Elijah,» and other articles by Feldman noted above; Gafhi, «Josephus,» 126–27. In Josephus " s case, the claim not to have added or omitted anything seems pure convention, however (Feldman, «Hellenizations,» 133). 230 Bultmann, Tradition, 369, exaggerated their Hellenistic character (though allowing some Palestinian tradition); contrast Barrett, Jesus, 6. Aune explains Gospel biography by deliberately «oversimplifying» it as exhibiting «Hellenistic form and function with Jewish content» (Environment, 22). Hellenistic narrative techniques were standard in Jewish documents written in Greek (e.g., Cohen, Maccabees, 43). 231 Greek conventions for praising heroes or deities were also sometimes transferred to Jewish heroes; cf., e.g., Van der Horst, «Children.» 232 This is not to deny that the latter depend on ultimate Palestinian sources (Hengel, «Problems,» 238–43, for example, supports the ancient tradition of Mark " s dependence on Peter) but to argue that they articulate their Gospels for a more pluralistic milieu. 233 Stanton, Jesus, 126; Aune, Environment, 37. Granted, the Gospels could draw on biblical narratives focused on persons as well as on Hellenistic sources (Hengel, «Problems,» 219–20); but the suggestion that ancient Near Eastern models provided the later Greek emphasis on individual characters (cf. Dihle, «Biography,» 366–67) is overstated. |
| Dunn J.D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids Cambridge, 1998. Earle Ellis E. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh, 1957. Eichholz G. Jakobus und Paulus. München, 1953. Elliott N. Paul and the Politics of the Empire. – Paul and Politics. Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl. Ed. by R.A.Horsley. P.17–39. Esler Ph.E. Conflict and Identity in Romans. The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis, 2003. Evans C.A. Paul and the Prophets: Prophetic Criticism in the Epistle to the Romans (with special reference to Romans 9–11). – Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65 th Birthday. Ed. by S.K.Soderlund and N.T.Wright. Grand Rapids-Cambridge, 1999. P.115–128. Fay R.C. Was Paul a Trinitarian? A Look at Romans 8. – Paul and His Theology. Ed. by S.E.Porter. Leiden-Boston, 2006. P. 327346. Fee G.D. Gods Empowering Presence. The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Grand Rapids, 1994. Fee G.D. Pauline Christology. Peabody, MA, 2007. Fitzmyer J.A. According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle. New York-Mahwah, NJ, 1992. Fitzmyer J.A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York, 1993. Fuchs E. Die Freiheit des Glaubens: Römer 8–9 ausgelegt. München, 1949. Furnish V.P. The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues. 3 rd ed. Nashville, 2009. Gaston L. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver, 1987. George T. Galatians. Nashville, 1994. Hall D.R. Romans 3:1–8 Reconsidered. – New Testament Studies 29 (1983). P.183–197. Hemer C.J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Tübingen, 2001. Hengel M. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia, 1980. Hengel M. Der Jakobsbrief als antipaulinische Polemik. – Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. Essays in Honor of E.Earle Ellis. Grand Rapids-Tübingen, 1987. P.248–278. Hoet H. “Abraham is Our Father”. – Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel. Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000. Ed. by R.Bieringer, D.Pollefeyt, F.Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Assen, 2001. P.187–201. |
| Phil., 1988; Hare D. R. A. The Son of Man Tradition. Minneapolis, 1990; Brooke G. J. The Messiah of Aaron in the Damascus Document//RevQ. 1991. T. 15. P. 215-230; idem. Kingship and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls// Day. 1998. P. 434-455; Collins J. J. The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism//NTS. 1992. Vol. 38. N 3. P. 448-466; idem. Daniel: A Comment. on the Book of Daniel. Phil., 1993; Jesus and the Messiahs of Israel//Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: FS M. Hengel/Ed. H. Cancik e. a. Tüb., 1996. Bd. 3. S. 286-302; idem. The Apocalyptic Imagination. Grand Rapids, 19982; idem. Messianism and Exegetical Tradition: The Evidence of the LXX Pentateuch// Idem. Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture. Leiden etc., 2005. P. 58-81; idem. Messianism and Exegetical Tradition: The Evidence of the LXX Pentateuch//The Septuagint and Messianism/Ed. M. A. Knibb. Leuven etc., 2006. P. 129-149; idem. What Was Distinctive about Messianic Expectation at Qumran?//The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls/Ed. J. H. Charlesworth. Waco (Tex.), 2006. Vol. 2. P. 71-92; idem. Mowinckel " s «He That Cometh» Revisited//StTheol. 2007. Vol. 61. N 1. P. 3-20; idem. The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids; Camb., 20102; Dunn J. D. G. Messianic Ideas and Their Influence on the Jesus of History// Charlesworth. 1992. P. 365-381; idem. «Son of God» as «Son of Man» in the Dead Sea Scrolls?: A Response to J. Collins on 4Q246//The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After/Ed. C. A. Evans, G. E. Porter. Sheffield, 1997. P. 198-210; Hengel M. Jesus, der Messias Israels//Messiah and Christos: FS D. Flusser/Ed. I. Gurenwald e. a. Tüb., 1992. P. 155-176; The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan/Ed. А. Sperber. Leiden, 1992; Wegner P. D. An Examination of Kingship and Messianic Expectation in Isaiah 1-35. Lewiston (N. Y.), 1992; Brown R. E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. N. Y., 19932; Abegg M. |
| 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. |
| Other Jewish texts in Greek employ Hellenistic philosophical terminology, although generally in a less self-conscious manner than Philo. 2984 Hengel finds the Platonic idea of the «world-soul» (later adapted by Stoicism) in the LXX of Prov 8:22–31 . 2985 The Letter of Aristeas invokes «the natural reason» (τν φυσικν λγον) to explain biblical law, which he considers a manifestation of reason; 2986 the second chapter of 4 Maccabees identifies the law with reason (λογισμς). 2987 Earlier Hellenistic Jewish writers also attributed creative activity and the light at creation to Wisdom. 2988 At least some Diaspora Jews on a popular level personified the Law, entreating its power alongside God " s. 2989 The prevalence of the Logos concept in Hellenistic thought suggests the likelihood that other Hellenistic Jewish thinkers besides Philo would have exploited the concept, although Philo is our primary sample of Hellenistic Jewish philosophy. The same prevalence indicates that Philo may be used to illustrate one position on the spectrum of Logos " s semantic range, without postulating dependence. Most scholars today deny direct dependence, although some will nevertheless argue for a close relationship based on a common stream of thought. 2990 Thus, for example, Albright and Goodenough feel that John " s Logos conception is «more primitive» than Philós and attribute both to a common source. 2991 The value of Philós witness to the term " s usage should not be rejected a priori; 2992 certainly no one today would reject the value of Philo by asserting that a Palestinian Jew like John would not be open to foreign thought, as a writer in 1850 contended! 2993 How closely does Philós use of Logos approach John " s on the term " s semantic range? Merely dismissing his relevance because his Logos is «impersonal» is unhelpful and not entirely accurate; 2994 as noted above, his Logos is often enough personified, and possibly viewed as no less personal than the God for whom he mediates. Like Palestinian Judaism, Hellenistic Judaism did have a personified Logos or Wisdom tradition. 2995 While John " s Logos as a historical person certainly differentiates John from Philo, 2996 it also differentiates him from every other extant non-Christian source of Mediterranean antiquity. |
|
|
