| 5049 Concerning a double entendre between crucifixion and exaltation by enthronement, see Schwank, «Erhöht.» The Hebrew for «lift» functions both as status elevation and as execution by hanging in Gen 40 (see Hollis, «Pun»). 5051 Thus Glasson, Moses, 36–38, argues that John presents the cross as a sign here; he does concede, however, that the LXX avoids ψω in the clear «ensign» texts. 5053 Cf. Braun, «Vie.» Many argue that all John " s ψω texts include the resurrection-ascension (Holwerda, Spirit, 9–11; Dibelius, Jesus, 141; Grant, Gnosticism, 173). Pesiq. Rab. 37:1, citing a fourth-century Palestinian Amora, depicts God «lifting up» the Messiah to heaven to protect him. 5054 His death is «not … ignominious … but a return to glory» (Nicholson, Death, 163; cf. Hengel, Son, 88). 5055 E.g., Griffiths, «Deutero-Isaiah,» 360; Lindars, Apologetic, 83, 234; Barrett, John, 214; Bauckham, God Crucified, 64–65. 5056 The later Targum applies Isa 52:13–53to the Messiah but its sufferings to Israel (Lourença «Targum»). Chilton, «John xii 34,» thinks Tg. Isa. 52preserves an exegesis similar to John " s; Adna, «Herrens,» thinks Tg. Ps.-J. on Isa 52:13–53follows a traditional Jewish hermeneutic. 5058 Greek literature could also introduce a matter in a somewhat ambiguous manner (e.g.. Agamemnon " s death in Homer Od. 1.29–43; 3.193–194, 234–235) but later clarify with a more detailed description (Homer Od. 3.253–312). 5059 In John 3the aorists for «loved» and «gave» bear their usual, punctilear sense (also Evans, «γαπν,» 68): here the supreme act of love (Brown, John, 1:133). 5061 See comment on 1:14. Some may overemphasize Aqedah allusions here (e.g., Grigsby. «Cross»; Swetnam, Isaac, 84–85). 5063 Cf. also Hanson, Unity, 138. «Hatred» (3:20) was likewise expressed by deliberate repudiation or abandonment of the group (1 John 2:9, 11, 19), not simply a matter of feelings (see Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 87). 5064 In some cases the senses tend not to appear theologically significant to the case. Reflecting Hebrew idiom, God could also «give» (i.e., install or appoint) a king ( 1Sam 12:13; 1 Kgs 1:48; 2 Chr 2:11; 9:8). |
| 3255 E.g., Sophocles Searchers 212–215 (Sei. Pap. 3:44–45); Euripides Antiope 69–71; Pirithous 22–24 (Sei. Pap. 3:124–125); Virgil Aen. 1.28; Ovid Metam. 2.714–747; 3.1–2, 260–261; 4.234–244; 5.391–408; 10.155–219; 14.765–771; Achilles Tatius 1.5.5–7; Apuleius Metam. 6.22; Apollodorus 3.8.2. On very rare occasions a mortal escaped, outwitting the deity (Apollonius of Rhodes 2.946–954). 3257 E.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.244–246,275; Athenagoras 20–22; Theophilus 1.9; Ps.-Clem. 15.1–19.3. 3258 E.g., Euripides Bacch. 94–98; Appian R.H 12.15.101; Ovid Metam. 3.261–272, 280–309; 4.416–530. 3259 E.g., Euripides Hipp. 1–28,1400–1403 (because deities desire honor, Hipp. 8); Apollonius of Rhodes 3.64–65. 3263 E.g., Ovid Tristia 1.2.4–5. Even if Homer authored both the Iliad and the Odyssey, it remains noteworthy that the former portrays a much less harmonious pantheon; later Roman sources (e.g., the Aeneid) also portray their deities more favorably than the Iliad. 3264 Odysseus in Euripides Cyc1. 606–607. In prayer, pagans often piled up as many names of the deity they were entreating as possible (e.g., Homer I1. 1.37–38, 451–452; 2.412; PGM 4.2916–2927; Cleanthes» Hymn to Zeus; more restrained, ILS 190) and reminded a deity of favors owed, seeking an answer on contractual grounds, as many ancient texts attest (e.g., Homer Il. 1.39–41; 10.291–294; Od. 1.61–62,66–67; 4.762–764; 17.240–242; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.417–419; Virgil Aen. 12.778). 3265 E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.17; Seneca Dia1. 7.26.6; Nat. 2.44.1–2.45.1; Maximus of Tyre Or. 5.1; 35.1. 3268 Cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 7.1.134, 148; Seneca Nat. 1.pref.13. Pantheism was also more widespread (cf. Virgil Georg. 4.221–222, 225; Aeschylus frg. 34, from Clement of Alexandria Stromata 5.14, p. 718; Aeschylus LCL 2adds Philodemus On Piety 22). 3270 Frequently, e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 2.1.25; cf. the identification also in Ps-Aristotle De mundo (according to Grant, Gods, 78). 3271 E.g., Chariton 3.3.16; Plutarch Isis 1, Mor. 351DE; T. T. 8.2.4, Mor. 720A. Cf. Plato Alcib. 1.124C: Socrates spoke of his guardian (επτροπος) as θες. |
| 10621 Schnackenburg, John, 3:318; Brown, John, 2:992; McPolin, John, 255; Morris, John, 841; Bruce, John, 389; Carson, John, 644; Whitacre, John, 476; Smith, John (1999), 377. 10622 One could try to distinguish the prohibition for Mary from the invitation to Thomas by suggesting that Mary as a woman might be impure ( Lev 15:19–30 ), but apart from lacking clues in the text, this position would violate Johannine thought about purity as well as about gender (e.g., 2:6; 4:9). 10623 One might sever the first imperative grammatically from the following statement if one could take 20:17 " s γρ as anticipatory («since,» for the following clause) rather than causal (for the preceding; McGehee, «Reading»), but Johannine style makes that suggestion less likely. 10624 Bruce, John, 389; Carson, John, 644. 10625 Cf. McPolin, John, 255. 10626 Schneiders, «Encounter,» 165. 10627 Witherington, Acts, 112–13. 10628 This real presence was, however, stronger than the mere epistolary presence that such language conventions as «absent in body, present in spirit» could imply ( 1Cor 5:3 ; Col 2:5; 1 Thess 2:17; Isocrates Nic. 51–52, Or. 3.37; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 32.1; Achilles Tatius 5.20.5; Stowers, Letter Writing, 60; Funk, «Parousia» 264; cf. Diogenes Laertius 7.1.24; contrast Diogenes Ep. 17). 10629 E.g., Homer I1. 12.15. The Iliad regularly predicts (e.g., I1. 21.110; 23.80–81) but does not narrate Achilles» death. 10630 Homer Il. 6.403; 22.506–507. 10631 E.g., Homer Od. 23.266–284. 10632 Apollonius of Rhodes 3.64, 75, 1135; 4.241–245. Writing after Euripides, this must be expected. 10633 E.g., Ovid Metam. 14.824–828; Diogenes Laertius 8.2.68; Phaedrus 4.12.3; cf. Euripides Iph. au1. 1608, 1614,1622. See more fully Talbert, «Immortals.» 10634 See also 2 En. 67:1–3; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:7; more fully, Palatty, «Ascension»; Luke, «Ascension»; Tabor, «Divinity»; Begg, «Disappearance.» 10635 Seealso Jos. Asen. 17:8, MSS; T. Ab. 4:5; 8:1; 15:11; 20:12A; 4:4; 8:1; 10:2B; cf. Jub. 32:20–21. 10636 Because of Heracles» apotheosis, people searched only vainly for his corpse (Diodorus Siculus 4.38.3–5); Romulus «vanished» (Plutarch Camillus 33.7); other deified persons, such as Aeneas, also «disappeared» (φανσθη, Diodorus Siculus 7.5.2; the term applies to Heracles in Lysias Or. 2.11, §191), as did Moses in Josephus Ant. 4.326. Boring et a1., Commentary, 163–64, also compare the first-century B.C.E. traditions of Romulus " s ascension (Livy 1.16.2–8; Ovid Metam. 14.805–851; Vir. illustr. 2.13; Plutarch Numa 11.2–3), even by horses and carriage (Ovid Fasti 2.475–510; cf. 2 Kgs 2:11–18), and Job " s children in T. Job 39:8–40:4. |
| 6908 Hesiod Op. 719–721; Livy 44.34.4–5; Horace Sat. 1.4.81–82; Martial Epigr. 3.28; Dio Chrysostom Or. 37.32–33; Lucian A True Story 1; Slander passim; Marcus Aurelius 6.30.2. 6909 1QS 7.15–16; Sib. Or. 1.178; Josephus Ant. 13.294–295; 16.81; Ag. Ap. 2.89; War 1.77, 443, 532, 564; Philo Abraham 20; Spec. Laws 4.59–60; T. Ab. 12:6–7B; Rom 1:30 ; Sipre Deut. 1.8.2–3; 275.1.1; " Abot R. Nat. 9, 40A; 41, §116B; b. c Arak. 15a-16a; B. Bat. 39ab; Pesah. 118a; Sanh. 103a; Ta c an. 7b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:2; Gen. Rab. 79:1; 98:19; Exod. Rab. 3:13; Lev. Rab. 16:6; 26:2; 37:1; Num. Rab. 16:6; Deut. Rab. 5:10; 6:8,14; Ecc1. Rab. 3§1. 6910 Kraeling, John, 11–12. 6911 E.g., Justin Dia1. 69:7; b. Sanh. 43a; 107b. For more detailed discussion, see Klausner, Jesus, 27–28, 49–51, 293; Dalman, Jesus in Talmud, 45–50; Herford, Christianity 50–62; Gero, «Polemic»; Horbury, «Brigand,» 183–95; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 156–58. 6912 E.g., Homer Od. 18.15,406; 19.71; see more detailed comment on John 7:20 . 6913 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 161–62, suggesting that Mark 3and Q attest it independently. (But Mark may follow Q here.) 6914 Deut 4:2; 33:9; 1 Chr 10:13; esp. Ps 119:9, 17, 67, 101, 158 ; John 17:6; 1 John 2:5 ; Jub. 2:28; CD 6.18; 10.14,16; 20.17; 1QS 5.9; 8.3; 10.21; Sib. Or. 1.52–53. See Pancaro, Law, 403–30. 6915 Also, e.g., T.Ab. 11:5B. 6916 E.g., 4 Bar. 5:28. Cf. John 3:3 , where only the righteous will «see» the kingdom. 6917 E.g., Mark 9:1 ; Heb 2:9; Sib. Or. 1.82 (of Adam); Gen. Rab. 21:5; Lev. Rab. 18:1; Pesiq. Rab. 48:2; «taste death " s cup» in Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 40:23 ; and on Deut 32:1 ; cf. Homer Od. 21.98. A newborn infant who died had merely «tasted life» (IG 14 1607 2171, in Horsley, Documents, 4:40, §12); cf. Longus 1.19; Musonius Rufus 19, p. 122.1. 6918 E.g., Gen 42:2; 43:8; 47:19 ; Num 4:19 ; Deut 33:6; 2 Kgs 18:32; Ps 118:17 ; Ezek 18:17, 21, 28; 33:15 ; L.A.B. 23:10. 6919 Cf. Philo Abraham 51–55; 4 Macc 16:25; Ecc1. Rab. 9:5, §1. In other Jewish traditions, the prophets died (cf. also T. Mos. 1:14–15) but their words endure (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 13:3; Pesiq. Rab. 1:2). Of course, the observation that all great people have died and no one will escape this is a natural one (e.g., Lucretius Nat. 3.1024–1052). |
| 10669 Freyne, Galilee, 195. He attributes the lack of early Roman persecution of Jesus» followers to Galilean-Judean differences (p. 196), but is it not possible that they simply did not view Jesus» disciples as a threat (18:36–38)? 10670 Safrai, «Home,» 734; cf. Aristophanes Wasps 154–155. 10671 Cf. different views on the nature of the resurrection body in early Judaism (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 439–40). 10672 Cook, «Exegesis,» 4. 10673 E.g., Homer Od. 4.795–803, 838–839; Boring et a1., Commentary, 306, cites Hom. Hymn, Hymn to Hermes 145–146. Laurin, John, 258, speculates on «molecular displacement,» an image not likely to have crossed the minds of John " s audience. 10674 Cf. Tholuck, John, 452–53. 10675 Witherington, Wisdom, 342. 10676 Cook, «Exegesis,» 4. 10677 E.g., Jub. 12:29; 18:16; 19:29; 21:25; Gen. Rab. 100:7. It appears commonly in tomb inscriptions as well (Goodenough, Symbols, 2:108). 10678 For situation-appropriate words of «peace,» see, e.g., Tob 12(at an angelophany). On the efficacy of such words, cf. 1QS 2.9 10679 Mbiti, Religions, 85. 10680 So also others, e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 335; Haenchen, John, 2:210; Cook, «Exegesis,» 5. 10681 Also Cicero Verr. 2.5.1.3; Seneca Controv. 1.4.2. Likewise, wounds could be displayed in corpses to stir indignation (Ovid Fasti 2.849; Plutarch Caesar 68.1). 10682 E.g., Ovid Metam. 13.262–267; Fasti 2.696–699 (in this case deceptively); Plutarch Alex. 50.6; Arrian Alex. 7.10.1–3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.62.3; Livy 45.39.17; Valerius Maximus 7.7.1; cf. Sallust Letter of Gnaeus Pompeius 1–2; Caesar C.W. 1.72; Silius Italicus 9.350–351; Valerius Maximus 3.2.24; or citing dangers one had faced, e.g., Aeschines False Embassy 168–169; Cicero Cat. 4.1.2; 1Cor 15:30 . Cf. also bruises as marks of athletic exertion (Maximus of Tyre Or. 3.4). 10683 E.g., Homer Od. 19.467–473; P.Ry1. 174.6–7; P.Lond. 334.6; P.Oxy. 494.31; Philostratus Hrk. 12.4. 10684 E.g., 2 Bar. 50:2–4; Gen. Rab. 95:1; Ecc1. Rab. 1:4, §2; for very literalistic understandings of the resurrection, Osborne, «Resurrection,» 933, cites 2Macc 7:10–11; 14:46; Sib. Or. 4.176–82. This idea probably is assumed in Matt 5but appears less probable in 1Cor 15:35–44, 50 . |
| 1154 That the Jerusalem church reflected many distinctive ideals of its setting is attested not only by Luke (Acts 21:20–21) and later Christian writers but possibly as early as the 60s if the ossuary belonging to «James brother of Jesus» represents the early Christian James (see Lemaire, «Burial Box of James»); but this may not be authentic. Even Paul gives a special role to the Jerusalem church ( Rom 15:25–27 ), and the original «mother church» is even more important to Lukés Diaspora portrait. 1155 Smith, Johannine Christianity, 22; Bultmann, John, 12; Kümmel, Introduction, 247; Aune, Eschatology, 25; cf. Fenton, John, 16. 1156 In OTP 2:727. Ignatius «may have known and even quoted from» the Odes (ibid.), but the clear contacts with other bishops indicated by his letters leaves little hope of localizing his tradition on this basis alone. 1157 Cf. Kümmel, Introduction, 247; Charlesworth, Disciple, 8. Burney, Origin, 127–29, locates the Gospel in Syria, probably Antioch, because he thinks it was written in Aramaic (but is not Palestinian becase John explains some Jewish customs); the Greek of the Fourth Gospel is typical Jewish (or general) Koine, however. For some works, it is unclear whether they were originally composed in Hebrew or Syriac (e.g., Klijn, «Introduction,» 616); but outside of Antioch, most Syrian works were probably not composed in Greek. 1159 On travel in antiquity, cf. Sir 31:9–12 ; Ramsay, «Roads»; Casson, Travel, 163–96; Friedländer, Life, 1:268–303, 316–428. Even the rapid spread of the Eastern cults was apparently caused by normal patterns of circulation (Bowers, «Paul,» 320). 1160 Cicero Part. or. 23.80; Off. 2.18.64; Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.3.4; Epictetus Diatr. 1.28.23; Demetrius 3.157; Socrates Ep. 2; Apuleius Metam. 1.26; Ovid Metam. 10.224; Greek Anthology 7.516. 1161 Homer I1. 6.212–231; 9.199–220; 13.624–625; Od. 1.118–124; 3.345–358; 4.26–36; 9.176; Euripides Cyc1. 125–128,299–301; E1. 357–363. 1162 Homer Od. 6.207–208; 9.478–479; 14.57–58; Euripides Cyc1. 355; Apollonius of Rhodes 2.1131–1133; 3.193. |
| Nevertheless, scholars who dismiss too quickly the possibility of substantial historical tradition in John ignore abundant details that would have made fullest sense only in a Palestinian Jewish setting, as well as numerous incidental parallels in the Synoptics. Some questions can be answered only by examining passages one at a time (particularly those which appear to overlap or conflict with Synoptic claims). 391 For the most part, such a comparison (see commentary) suggests that John adapts fairly freely at points (more than one would expect from a Luke, for example) but within the setting of traditional events or sayings. It is, however, appropriate to frame the discussion with some general issues here (a few of which summarize arguments above). The Fourth Gospel, no less than the Synoptics, fits the general format of ancient biography, as we have already suggested. 392 Its purpose reported in 20was a legitimate purpose in ancient biographies, especially in philosophical bioi? 393 The explicit centrality of Jesus» «works» in the Fourth Gospel ( ) fits the biographical genre followed by the Synoptics and most other biographical works. 394 In its genre, John is certainly closer to the Synoptics than to «sayings sources» like Thomas, 395 and it is those most familiar with the four canonical gospels, rather than those approaching these gospels in the context of Greco-Roman literature as a whole, who are inclined to emphasize the differences most strongly. 396 It is difficult to deny that much historical tradition about Jesus existed in the first century that was never recorded in the Synoptics. No one in Mediterranean antiquity would assume that a one-volume account sampling an oral cycle would be comprehensive; the countless allusions to other stories in Homer (e.g., to the voyage of the Argonauts in Od. 12.69–72) lent themselves to later development, but clearly refer to fuller stories Homer " s works did not record. In the case of the Gospels, the writers themselves assume knowledge of traditions about Jesus not recorded in their Gospels (e.g., Acts 20:35; John 20:30 ). |
| 9474 The emphasis throughout this prayer on the unity of believers probably points to a need for unity among believers in, and in the proximity of, John " s audience (cf. Käsemann, Testament, 57). 9475 Cf. Minear, «Audience,» 345, 348. 9476 Robinson, Coming, 179, thinks this the Johannine equivalent of worldwide evangelism in Mark 13:10 ; Matt 24:14. 9477 Sectarian groups tend to be cohesive; for comparison and contrast between unity here and that in the Qumran Scrolls, see de Wet, «Unity.» 9478 This is not to attribute to Greeks an individualistic concept that transcended group loyalties; see Martin, «Ideology.» 9479 Heraclitus Ep. 9; Babrius 15.5–9; Herodian 3.2.7–8; Yamauchi, Archaeology, 164–65; Ramsay, Cities, 115; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.36.2–3; Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.3.4; Gen. Rah. 34:15. 9480 E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.53.1; Livy 2.33.1; 5.7.10; 24.22.1, 13, 17; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 94.46; Musonius Rufus 8, p. 64.13; Maximus of Tyre Or. 16.3; Menander Rhetor 2.3, 384.23–25; some thinkers even applied this globally (cf. Whitacre, John, 417; Keener, Revelation, 341). In early Christianity, cf. 1Cor 1:10; 11:18–19 ; Phil 2:1–2; 4:2 . 9481 Babrius 85. 9482 Valerius Maximus 2.6.8 (spoken to children and grandchildren by one about to die, as in testaments). 9483 E.g., Homer I1. 1.255–258; Livy 2.60.4; 3.66.4; Sallust Jug. 73.5; Herodian 8.8.5; Babrius 44.7–8; 47. 9484 E.g., Homer Od. 1.369–371; Iamblichus V.P. 7.34; 9.45. 9485 E.g., Sallust Jug. 73.5; Plutarch Sulla 4.4; 7.1; Aulus Gellius 6.19.6; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 4.1; 25 (Atticus), 7.1–11.6. 9486 See esp. Winter, Philo and Paul, passim. 9487 E.g., Aulus Gellius 17.4.3–6; Plutarch Cimon 8.7. Note the need for self-defense in most of Terencés prologues (e.g., Lady of Andros 1–27; Self-Tormentor 16–52; Eunuch 1–45; Phormio 1–23; Mother-in-Law 1–57; Brothers 1–25) and in Phaedrus 2.9.7–11; 3.pro1.23; 4.pro1.l5–16. 9488 See Valerius Maximus 4.2 passim. 9489 For the parallelism, see, e.g., Brown, John, 2:769; Appold, Motif, 157, though the alleged parallel between 17and 17is unconvincing. |
| 476 The speeches in Acts borrow considerable language from the LXX (Soards, Speeches, 160) and function similarly to interpretive speeches in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Samuel-Kings (Soards, Speeches, 12–13,156–57). The same may well be true of John " s discourses. 477 Some have suggested that Mark drew on complexes of tradition rather than merely individual sayings and stories (Jeremias, Theology, 37–38; Taylor, Mark, 90; cf. Dodd, Preaching, 46–51; idem, Studies, 10); while some general arrangements may have become traditional, however, it remains unclear that Mark drew on connected oral narratives, except perhaps on Q at points. 478 Lewis, History, 43; on a more popular level, cf. the accuracy of the griot " s basic information in Alex Haley " s popular work Roots (New York: Dell, 1976), 717–25. 479 Anthologists and others felt free to redact sacred cultural texts (e.g., Cicero Nat. d. 3.16.42 [concerning Homer Od. 11.600ff.; see esp. Cicero LCL 19:324–25 n. a]; Diogenes Laertius 1.48: Solon into Homer I1. 2.557), philosophical works (e.g., possibly Hierocles in Stobaeus; Malherbe, Exhortation, 85), although Jewish scribes were quite restrained in practicing this with Scripture (despite an occasional fourth-century Palestinian Amora who reportedly attempted some redaction criticism on Scripture: cf. Lev. Rab. 6:6; 15:2). 480 See Gundry, «Genre,» 102; Witherington, Christology, 22; contrast the older approach of Dibelius, Tradition, 3. Those who transmitted traditions would have preserved sayings with greater detail, allowing greater variation in recounting narratives (Pesch, «Jerusalem,» 107; cf. Culpepper, John, 21–22). 481 Cf., e.g., Hoeree and Hoogbergen, «History»; Aron-Schnapper and Hanet, «Archives»; on rote memorization in traditional Quranic education, cf. Wagner and Lotfi, «Learning.» Limitations do, however, exist, especially over time (e.g., Iglesias, «Reflexoes»; Harms, «Tradition»; Raphael, «Travail»). 482 Though exact words are fixed only at the written stage, the basic story is already stable at the oral stage (Lord, Singer, 138). |
| 2886 Aristotle Rhet. 3.8.1, 1408b; Cicero Or. Brut. 50.168–69.231; cf. Rowe, «Style,» 154; balanced clauses in Anderson, Glossary, 90–91. Mythical language would fit poetry (Menander Rhetor 1.1, 333.31–334.5; cf., e.g., Isa 51:9) but does not require it (cf., e.g., Rev 12:1–9). 2888 See Cicero Or. Brut. 20.67 (though complaining that poetry can emphasize euphony over intelligible content, 20.68). 2890 Even very careful syllabic structures may represent prose rhetoric rather than poetry per se; e.g., the parallelism characteristic of isocolon and homoeoteleuton; see Rhet. Alex. 27.1435b.39–40; 1436a.1–4; Rowe, «Style,» 137 (citing Isocrates Paneg. 4.39; Cicero Mur. 9; Gorgias He1. 7); Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 580; Anderson, Glossary, 90–91 (citing, e.g., Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.27–28; Demetrius 25). 2894 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 24. Rhetorical handbooks already insisted that the introduction should summarize the arguments the speech would use (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thucyd. 19; LCL 1:512–513 n. 1 cites Rhet. Alex. 29), though there were some exceptions in spoken rhetoric (Seneca Dial, 1.pref.21). 2896 Quintilian 4.1.5; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 17; Cicero Or. Brut. 40.137; also Heath, «Invention,» 103. 2897 Artemidorus Onir. 1.pref.; 2Macc 2(at the end of a long prologue). This is not to deny the possibility of long introductory sections after various sorts of prologues (e.g., Polybius 1–2; cf. 2.71.7; Luke 1:5–4:30; Matt 1:18–2:23; probably John 1:1–51 ). 2899 E.g., Xenophon Agesilaus 1.2; Plutarch Themistocles 1.1; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 1.2; but this was not necessary (Philostratus Vit. soph, pref.480). Noble ancestry (especially from deities) helped define a person " s heroic power (Homer II. 20.215–241); it did not, however, guarantee positive outcome in the end (Sallust Cati1. 5.1). 2902 Käsemann, Questions, 164; cf. comments on the Logos " s mythical language in Kümmel, Theology, 282. 2904 An inclusio surrounding a proem appears in a widely read Greek classic, Homer Od. 1.1–10, where 1.1–2 and 1.10 invoke the Muse to tell the story while 1.2–9 summarizes the whole book " s plot, inclusio is frequent (e.g., Catullus 52.1,4; 57.1,10). Cf. also repetition of a refrain in narratives ( Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25 ); or especially poetry: the wedding invocation to Hymen in Catullus 61.4–5, 39–40, 49–50, 59–60; 62.4–5, 10, 19, 25,31,38, 48,66 (with to added, 61.117–118, 137–138, 142–143, 147–148, 152–153, 157–158, 162–163, 167–168, 172–173, 177–178, 182–183); the bridal summons (Catullus 61.96,106,113); invocation to the Fates (Catullus 64.327, in briefer form thereafter in 333, 337, 342, 347, 352, 356, 361, 365, 371, 375, 381); or a summons to love (Perv. Ven. 1, 8, 27, 36, 48, 57–58, 68, 75, 80, 93). |
|
|
