| 3311 Nothing comes into being against God " s will except evil deeds (Cleanthes» Hymn to Zeus in Stobaeus Ed. 1.1.12, in Grant, Religions, 153). 3312 1QS 11.11. This comparison was offered as early as Brownlee, «Comparison,» 72, and has often been offered subsequently (Wilcox, «Dualism,» 89; Cross, Library, 215 n. 34). Freed, «Influences,» 146, in fact, calls it «the closest parallel from the Dead Sea Scrolls yet known to any passage in the NT.» 3314 1QS 11.17. Schnackenburg similarly comments on the contrasts between «all» and «nothing» in creation language in this document (John, 1:238); cf. a similar contrast in 1 En. 84:3. 3315 1QS 3.15. Hengel, Judaism, 1:218–19, regards this as analogous to Greek philosophical language. 3316 On the universés or matter " s uncreatedness and consequent eternality (the Peripatetic view), cf. Aristotle Heav. 1.9 (the heavens, not the elements, 3.6); Cicero Tusc. 1.23.54 (the heavens); an Epicurean in Cicero Nat. d. 1.9.21–22; Plotinus Enn. 2.1.1; Philo Eternity passim; Chroust, «Fragment»; idem, «Comments.» On its eternality in particular, cf. Macrobius Comm. 2.10, 19 (Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 223); Lucretius Nat. 1.215–264, 958–1115; Sidebottom, James, 119; on its continual re-creation till the present (closer to the Platonic view, cf. Bauckham, Jude, 301; cf. Stoicism in, e.g., Seneca Berief 4.8.1; Dia1. 6.26.7; Heraclitus in Diogenes Laertius 9.1.7), Gen. Rab. 3:7; Ecc1. Rab. 3:11, §1; cf. disputes in Gen. Rab. 1:5. 3317 A view often espoused, even as late as the late-fourth-century writer Sallustius in Concerning the Gods and the Universe §§7,13,17 (Grant, Religion, 184–85,190–91,192–94). 3318 Plato Tim. 29A-30. The universe thus originates from what is eternal, not from what has become (το γεγονς). 3319 Cf. the Loeb introduction to Plutarch " s Gen. of Soul (Moralia, LCL 13:137); others may have simply echoed the language (e.g., Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 379, §126D; Menander Rhetor 2.17,438.16–17). 3320 Cf. Epitome of Gen. of Soul 2, Mor. 1030E; the note there refers to 1016C, 1017AB, 1014B, 1029DE, and 1030C. Stoics in Paul " s day could picture God as the universés soul (Seneca Nat. 2.45.1–2). |
| 9547 On the opposition Jeremiah faced for his «unpatriotic» prophecies, cf., e.g., Jer 26:6–24 ; Josephus Ant. 10.89–90; angry crowds could also vent their rage on any they felt brought them misfortune (Josephus Life 149). A man inside Tyre likewise reportedly prophesied its judgment and faced the charge of being a traitor (Diodorus Siculus 17.41.7–8, which may be legendary or repeat Alexander " s propaganda). 9548 Cf. Sanders, Figure, 267. A number of followers would be deemed necessary to provide a substantial threat (Xenophon Mem. 1.2.10). 9550 Neyrey, «Shame of Cross,» 113–14; Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 264. This is not to say that the shame of the cross was eliminated for observers in the story world; Paul may have behaved honorably in Philippi, but he still felt he had been publicly humiliated there (1 Thess 2:2; see comment in Bruce, Thessalonians, 25); the term implies no mild insult (e.g., Euripides Tro. 69; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 10.35.3; P.Ha1. 1.210–213). 9551 It is perhaps noteworthy that Porphyry (or whoever wrote Apocrit. 3.1–6) complained that lesus» failure to reveal himself during the passion contradicts his divinity (the opposite of the early Christian perspective). 9552 On the Sadducees, see esp. Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:389–411 (most relevantly here, 393–99). Some, however, believe Sadducean dominance of the priestly aristocracy is generally overstated (e.g., Porton, «Sadducees,» 1052). 9553 1 have taken these comments largely from Keener, Matthew, 613–16; cf. also comments in Basser, «Priests»; Reid, «Sacrifice,» 1048–49. 9558 Sanders, Figure, 324; see, e.g., Josephus Ant. 20.206–207. For Josephus " s negative view of the Sadducees, see Baumbach, «Sadducees»; of some high priests (but not their office), Thoma, «Priesthood» (attributing it to Josephus " s pro-Hasmonean tendencies). 9559 Perhaps in part because I find myself skeptical that religion regularly changes human nature, especially when it is coupled with power, I am less sympathetic to their piety than is Sanders, Figure, 336. They probably acted in their own self-interest, as well as for the peace, in relations with the Romans (Horsley, «High Priests»). The charges may be stylized, sectarian polemic, as Sanders suggests (and against the priesthood in general he may be right [Judaism, 182–89]), but one should not dismiss too readily the reasons for the polemic (cf. 1QpHab. 9.4–5; Γ. Levi 14:1; 2 Bar. 10:18; t. Menah. 13.21, in Avigad, Jerusalem, 130; Avigad, «Burnt House,» 71; Hengel, Property, 23); corrupt priesthoods were common targets of polemic in the ancient Near East through the first century (Crocker, «Priests»; cf. Plutarch Lysander 26.1–3; Libanius Declamation 44.43). Cf., e.g., the servants of the later Ananias who beat poorer priests to seize their tithes (Josephus Ant. 20.181, 206). |
| 9530 Thus Jewish scholars with no faith commitment to the narratives may also suggest that other gospels draw on pre-Markan passion material (e.g., Flusser, Judaism, 575–87, though he may presuppose Lukan priority here). 9531 E.g., Kollmann, Kreuzigung, sees John " s Passion Narrative as independent from the Synoptics, though using a tradition. 9534 Theissen, Gospels, 166–99. Pesch, «Jerusalem,» argues that the passion narrative was the oldest tradition in the Jerusalem church; Hengel is right, however, that Pesch is too optimistic in his ability to reconstruct sources («Problems,» 209–10). 9537 Theissen, Gospels, 180. When a narrative introduces someone foreign, it often gives the place of birth (e.g., Appian C.W. 1.14.116); lists of names from disparate places typically list the places (e.g., Apollonius of Rhodes 1.40,49,57, 77,95,105–106, 115,118,139–140, 146–147, 151–152,161, 177, 207). 9538 Theissen, Gospels, 171, 182–83. Livy occasionally cites a name as if familiar despite lack of previous mention (e.g., 40.55.2), perhaps incompletely following a source. Dodd, Tradition, 120, thinks the question of treason relevant in Palestine only before 70 C.E., but this argument is questionable; granted, the issue fits Tiberius " s time very well, but it would remain relevant after 70. 9539 Theissen, Gospels, 186–88. Some view the fleeing young man of Mark 14:51–52 only in terms of his symbolic significance in the narrative (Crossan, «Tomb,» 147–48; Fleddermann, «Flight»; Kelber, Story, 77), but Theissen is probably right to find genuine tradition from the early Palestinian church here (Gospels, 186; cf. Dibelius, Tradition, 182–83; Stauffer, Jesus, 121). 9544 Brown, Death, 56 (citing the way some twentieth-century evangelists acquired their style from the KJV). 9545 Soards, «Passion Narrative.» Brown, Death, 554 also emphatically challenges some earlier redaction-critical studies on the trial narrative in Mark 14:55–64 (cf. perhaps Donahue, «Temple»), complaining that though «Mark used earlier materia1... our best methods do not give us the ability to isolate confidently that material in its exact wording, assigning preMarkan verses and half-verses from the existing, thoroughly Markan account» (emphasis his). |
| 721 See the argument in Ridderbos, John, 4–6 (cf. ibid. 382), though he leaves the question unanswered. 722 Brown, Community, 82–84; cf. Hengel, Mark, 52, who argues that the comparison exalts the guarantor of the Johannine tradition over «the guarantor of the Markan-Synoptic tradition.» Gunther, «Relation,» suggests that the disciple was Jesus» physical brother. 725 The false apostles of 11:13–15 may have claimed the backing of the Jerusalem apostles; opinions are divided whether he addresses the false apostles or genuine apostles in 11:5, although direct authorization of the false apostles by Jerusalem is unlikely. For various sides of the issue, see Georgi, Opponents, 32; Bultmann, Corinthians, 215; Thrall, «Super-apostles»; McClelland, ««Super-apostles»»; Bruce, Corinthians, 236; Carson, Triumphalism, 25–26. 727 Brownlee, «Whence,» 192–93; Sanders, «Who,» 82; Léonard, «Notule»; Sanders, John, 3Iff.; Nepper-Christensen, «Discipel»; Garcia, «Lazare.» Sanders, «Patmos,» 84, thinks that the basis of John " s work was the possibly Aramaic work of Lazarus. See a survey of views in Charlesworth, Disciple, 185–92. 728 Vicent Cernuda, «Desvaido,» suggesting that Lazarus worked for Annas (but cf. 12:10), and that Lazarus was the beloved disciple at the cross, but John son of Zebedee in 13:23. 729 For detailed argument, see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11,98–101; Witherington, Christology, 126–27. 731 Charlesworth, Disciple, 291–324, thoroughly responds to possible objections to Thomas as the beloved disciple. 733 Ibid., 302–3. For Thomas " s role as spokesman for the disciples in this Gospel, see Xavier, «Thomas.» For a very different view of the Gospel with Thomas traditions, see DeConick, Mystics. 738 Brown, Community, 89. For a full survey of views that the disciple is a symbolic figure, see Charlesworth, Disciple, 134–41. 741 Cf. Watty, «Anonymity»; Kurz, «Disciple»; Collins, Written, 42–45; Hill, Prophecy, 147, also sees the symbol " s referent as disciples in genera1. As David Beck argues at fullest length, central characters are rarely anonymous in Greco-Roman literature (Beck, Paradigm, 17–26), but in the Fourth Gospel anonymous characters may facilitate reader identification, especially in the case of the beloved disciple (132–36); all disciples become «beloved» ( John 17:23,26 ). |
| 1380 Cf. Safrai, «Education,» 960; Scholem, Trends, 42. Contrast the metaphoric use of the chariot in Gen. Rab. 47:6; 69:3; 82(Resh Lakish, early Amoraic). 1382 Abelson, Immanence, 340–56; cf. Scholem, Trends, 11–12, who argues that the mystics were near rabbinic Judaism " s center, not its fringes. 1383 Jewish mystical texts vary in the degree to which they emphasize the mystic " s responsibility to his community; see Chernus, «Individua1.» 1385 Halperin, «Midrash»; Goodenough, Symbols, 1:221, 8:17; cf. 12:198.4QS140 maybe significant here; cf. Patte, Hermeneutic, 290; Gaster, Scriptures, 285–88; Vermes, Scrolls, 210–11; Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 333–34; Alexander, «3 Enoch,» 235. Cf. the chariot in 1.A.E. 25.2–3; 28:4; cf. Apoc. Mos. 22:3; 33:2; similar language is used of Job " s throne in T. Job 33 (cf. 33:9). 1386 Alexander, «3 Enoch,» 232; Scholem, Trends, 8; on the development, cf. Neusner, «Development»; idem, Legend, 5–6. 1388 Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 149–51. Gaster, Studies, l:369ff., more accurately finds gnosticism in the Zohar. 1391 E.g., Conzelmann, Theology, 11; Jonas, Religion, 32–33; Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 187, 245. For a survey of the view " s development, see Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 21–24; Ridderbos, Paul, 27–28. 1394 Compare gnosticism with descriptions of neoplatonists in Dillon, Platonists, 7, 385; cf. Plotinus Enn. 2:9. 1395 Koester, Introduction, 1:194; Jonas, Religion, 38; Bultmann, Christianity, 161; but contrast Hengel, Son, 28. 1397 For gnosticism " s debt to earlier Christianity, see Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 68,256; Yamauchi. Gnosticism, 20; Burkitt, Gnosis, viii; Grant, Gnosticism, 13–14. 1398 See Albright, Stone Age, 282, 306; Munck, «Gnosticism,» 236; Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 16–18; Smalley, John, 51; Wilson, Gnosis and NT, 30, 142; idem, Gnostic Problem, 97; Arrington, Theology, 186; Ladd, Criticism, 204–5. 1401 Robinson, «Trajectory,» 263; Schnackenburg, John, 1:543–57, allows for some assimilation to this myth but places John " s roots instead in Wisdom speculation (556). |
| Sheffield, 1984; Hengel M. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. L., 1985; The Interpretation of Mark/Ed. W. Telford. Phil.; L., 1985; Lührmann D. Das Markusevangelium. Tüb., 1987; Yarbro Collins A. The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as Son of Man//HarvTR. 1987. Vol. 80. N 4. P. 391-407; eadem. Daniel 7 and the Historical Jesus//Of Scribes and Scrolls/Ed. H. W. Attridge e. a. Lanham (MD), 1990. P. 187-193; Crossan J. D. The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San Francisco, 1988; Mack B. L. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Phil., 1988; Edwards J. R. Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives//NTIQ. 1989. Vol. 31. N 3. P. 193-216; Kingsbury J. D. The Christology of Mark " s Gospel. Phil., 19892; Tolbert M. A. Sowing the Gospel: Mark " s World in Literary-Historical Perspective. Minneapolis, 1989; Blackburn B. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Aner Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark. Tüb., 1991; Fowler R. M. Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis, 1991; Head P. M. A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1. 1: «The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ»//NTS. 1991. Vol. 37. N 4. P. 621-629; idem. Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority. N. Y., 1997; idem. The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations//TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. Atlanta, 2008. Vol. 13. P. 1-38 (var. pag.); Wenham J. W. Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. L., 1991; Camery-Hoggatt J. Irony in Mark " s Gospel: Text and Subtext. Camb., 1992; Collins J. J. The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism//NTS. 1992. Vol. 38. N 3. P. 448-466; Neirynck F. The Gospel of Mark: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1990. Leuven, 1992 [Библиогр.]; Marcus J. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the OT in the Gospel of Mark. |
| 3362 B. Ned. 32a, bar.; Pesah. 68b; Gen. Rab. 4(R. Meir, second century); Exod. Rab. 37:4; Pesiq. Rab. 21:21; perhaps 1 En. 2(cosmic law in the Ethiopie; the Aramaic here is illegible); 72:2; 73:1: 74:1; 76:14; 78:10; 79:1–2; 1QM 10.12–13. This identifying of creative Wisdom and Torah «corresponded in an astonishing way with the Stoic idea of the world nomos and the moral law ordering the life of the individual» (Hengel, Judaism, 1:170; see comments on natural law in our introductory chapter on the prologue). 3363 M. " Abot 1:2; b. Ned. 32a, bar., R. Judah; p. Ta c an. 4:2, §13; Deut. Rab. 8:5; thus Resh Lakish (third-century Palestine) declared that had Israel not accepted Torah, God would have returned creation to nonexistence (b. c Abod. Zar. 3a, 5a; Šabb. 88a; echoed by later rabbis in Exod. Rab. 40:1; 47:4; Num. Rab. 2:6; Ruth Rab. proem 1); Israel " s existence also depends on observing Torah (Mek. c Am. 1.6–7). For practicing the cosmic law, cf. similarly Hengel, Judaism, 1:170. 3364 B. Sanh. 113b, bar.; p. c Abod. Zar. 2:1, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:11; cf. m. " Abot 1:2, 18; perhaps Isa 51:16; Rom 9:22–23 ; 2Pet 3:9 . This could apply specifically to Israel (e.g., L.A.B. 44:6–8; b. Ta c an. 3b, third century; Exod. Rab. 2:5; Num. Rab. 1:3; Deut. Rab. 7:7, bar.; Song Rab. 7:1, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5), to Moses and David (Sipre Deut. 26.1.1), or the patriarchs (Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.5; Lev. Rab. 36:5) such as Abraham (e.g., Gen. Rab. 12:9, Tannaitic; Ruth Rab. proem 7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:20) or Jacob (Gen. Rab. 96 MSV, Tannaitic); or the sages (Targum to 1 Chr 4:23). The merit of the righteous also preserved localities (e.g., b. Ta c an. 21b). 3365 «Abot R. Nat. 31, §66; Gen. Rab. 1:4, 10; 12(fourth century); Lev. Rab. 23(fourth century); Song Rab. 5:11, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 4:3; 21:21; cf. Co1. 1:15–16; Davies, Paul, 171 (who seeks to press the earlier m. »Abot 1into use). R. Akiba reportedly said this especially of Song of Songs (Song Rab. 1:11, §11), perhaps to keep it canonized. Some thus said that the world was created on the merit of Torah (Num. Rab. 13:15–16; 14:12), and that Torah was greater than creation (reportedly third-century Palestinian source in Exod. Rab. 47:5; Pesiq. Rab. 21:21; 51:1). |
| 3395 It existed before visible things (2 En. 24:4, A, J; cf. R. Judah " s view in Exod. Rab. 50:1) or appeared on the first day (e.g., b. Hag. 12a; Gen. Rab. 42:3; see fuller discussion in Urbach, Sages, 1:208–10), and by it one could see from one end of the world to the other (3 En. 5:3; b. Hag. 12a; p. Ber. 8:6, §5; Gen. Rab. 42:3; Lev. Rab. 11:7; Num. Rab. 13:5; Ruth Rab. proem 7; Pesiq. Rab. 23:6). Hengel, Judaism, 1:169, points to the «way Jewish-Palestinian and Pythagorean-Platonic and Stoic conceptions are intermingled in Aristobulus» on the primeval light; cf. perhaps the sun " s scattering of chaos in Menander Rhetor 2.17, 438.20–24. Cf. the Yozer Or, «The Creator of Light» prayer, in later synagogue liturgy (Bowman, Gospel, 68); Philo Creation 30–35. 3396 Borgen, «Logos,» thinks John midrashically connects Torah with Word and light on the basis of Jewish traditions on Gen 1:1–3 (note esp. 117, 124, 129); cf. Martin Luther, 1st Sermon on John 1 . Pagels, «Exegesis,» thinks the Gospel of Thomas interprets primeval light as continuing since creation, but John refutes it. 3398 Because of human sin, it was hidden till the eschatological time (cf. b. Hag. 12a; Gen. Rab. 11:2; 42:3; Exod. Rab. 18:11; Lev. Rab. 11:7; Num. Rab. 13:5; Pesiq. Rab. 23:6; 42:4). 3399 E.g., 1 En. 1:8; 5:7; 108:11–14; 1QM 17.6–7; 4Q541 9 1.4–5; Sib. Or. 2.316 (probably in Christian redaction); " Abot R. Nat. 37, §95 B; b. Hag. 12b; Pesah. 50a; Sanh. 91b; Ta c an. 15a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:3–5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:1; Exod. Rab. 14:3; 18:11; Lev. Rab. 6:6; Song Rab. 1:3, §3; Ecc1. Rab. 11:7, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 36:1; 42:4; Matt 13:43; Rev 22:5. Boismard, Prologue, 119–24, is impressed with eschatological light in the OT ( Job 30:26 ; Ps 35:8–10 ; Isa 45for light representing good, ultimately applied to the future in Isa 9:2–6; 42:6–7; 49:6; 60:1–11) as a background for John 1:4 ; Freed, «Influences,» 145–47, cites numerous passages but believes that Isa 60:1–3,5,19, esp. 1–3, forms the primary background. |
| Truth liberates by placing beings in communion. 71 See J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961), and recently the massive study by M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, – II (1974). 75 E.g. Parmenides, Fragments 5d, 7: “Thought and being are one and the same. Thought and that for which thought. exists are one and the same.” Cf. Plato, Parmenides 128b. Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VI. 76 On the nuances of the relationship between εναι and λγος, see M. Heidegger’s observations in his Einfübrung in die Metaphysik (1953), esp. p. 88f. 77 This is found as late in the history of Greek thought as the Neoplatonic period. See e.g. Plotinus, En. V, 1, 8, etc. Cf. K. Kremer, Die neuplatonische Seinsphilosophie und ihre Wirkung auf Thomas von Aquin (1966 p. 79ff. Concerning the fact that we have here a survival of the original monism of Greek thought, see C.J. De Vogel, Philosophia Studies in Greek Philosophy (Philosophical Texts and Studies, 19) I (1970), pp. 397 – 416. Cf. on these problems Chapter I of this book. 78 The idea of the good appears also to be identical with truth, and it is the λγος which creates this identity so that ρετ and γνσις become one and the same (e.g. throughout the Meno and in the Republic of Plato). 79 Greek classical historiography used this method. See. C.N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (1944), p. 457ff. 80 Neoplatonic thought betrays this attitude. According to his biographer Porphyry, Plotinus was ashamed of his body and refused to speak of his ancestors or to pose for a sculptor or painter. (Porphyry, Vita Plot. I). 81 Cf. E. L. Mascall, The Openness of Being (1971), p. 246f., who refers to classical Greek thought, Platonic and Aristotelian alike, as holding a doctrine of “closed” natures. For all pagan Greeks “everything had a nicely rounded- off nature which contained implicitly everything that the being could ever become… What Greek thought could not have tolerated… would have been the idea that a being could become more perfect in its kind by acquiring some characteristic which was not implicit in its nature before.” 82 It is noteworthy that, whatever notion of history one encounters in Middle Platonism, one is always faced with the conviction that the original truth suffers a sort of deprivation or “fall” when it passes through history. |
| 204. Мы не будем заниматься причиной несоблюдения правил. Объяснений предлагается много, из экономических можем привести пример из теории игр, в соответствии с которым на индивидуальном уровне отдельным участникам часто выгодно правил не придерживаться, быть безбилетным пассажиром, использовать доверие остальных и выполнение ими правил, что на общественном уровне приводит, однако, к падению общего благосостояния. См. также: Sedláek T. Spontaneous Rule Creation. 205. Притч. 11:31. Еще один пример, коих в Ветхом Завете множество: «Можно поручиться, что порочный не останется ненаказанным; семя же праведных спасется» (Притч. 11:21). Более того, у евреев не было проявляющего себя открыто олицетворения зла, дьявола, которого также принесет с собой христианство. В рамках данной работы подробно изучить древнееврейскую этику, к сожалению, невозможно. Тем не менее ясно, что добро и зло являлись атрибутами Господа. «Я образую свет и творю тьму, делаю мир и произвожу бедствия; Я, Господь, делаю все это» (Ис. 45:7). Еще один очень интересный пример можно найти, сравнивая две книги, описывающие одно и то же событие. В Первой книге Паралипоменон (21:1) появляется следующий пассаж: «И восстал сатана на Израиля, и возбудил Давида сделать счисление Израильтян». В другой книге то же событие описано следующими словами: «Гнев Господень опять возгорелся на Израильтян, и возбудил он в них Давида сказать: пойди, исчисли Израиля и Иуду» (2 Цар. 24:1). 206. Зомбарт В. Евреи и экономика. С. 395. 207. Мал. 3:9–12. Про такое отношение можно прочитать во многих местах Ветхого Завета. Как пример: «…Не поклоняйся им и не служи им, ибо Я Господь, Бог твой, Бог ревнитель, наказывающий детей за вину отцов до третьего и четвертого рода, ненавидящих Меня, и творящий милость до тысячи родов любящим Меня и соблюдающим заповеди Мои» (Исх. 20:5–6). 208. Так это метко называет Ян Пейн в своей книге «Откуда берется зло?» (Payne J. Odkud zlo. Р. 69). Что касается последующего разделения хасидских традиций и профетических школ, ссылаюсь на: Hengel M. Judentum und Hellenismus. Р. 310–381, 394–453. |
|
|
