| 8489 In Philo Spec. Laws 1.41 and Posterity 16, Moses» request becomes, εμφνισαν μοι σαυτν; Philo may have also viewed Moses» prophetic ecstasy as milder than Abraham " s or Balaam " s (Levison, «Prophecy in Philo»). For Israel " s desire to see God at the giving of the law, see, e.g., Exod. Rab. 41:3. 8490 For Philo, one could see God only if God manifested himself (Abraham 80; cf. Posterity 16); cf. Wis 1(God εμφανζεται himself to those who do not disbelieve him). 8495 For the Son acting only at the Father " s will, see further comment on 5:19, 30. «The words I speak to you» reflects consistent Johannine idiom (6:63). 8499 E.g., Aristotle Rhet. 2.20.4,1393b; see further Anderson, Glossary, 110–11, and sources there (esp. Quintilian 9.2.100–101). 8502 See, e.g., Kydd, Gifts; Irvin and Sunquist, Movement, 145–47; Shogren, «Prophecy»; sources in Schatzmann, Theology, 82 n. 40. 8510 Dietzfelbinger, «Werke.» On Jesus» activity as a broker or mediator, see more extended comment on 15:15. 8511 Ancients might attribute miracles to disciples of miracle workers, though usually somewhat less dramatically (Iamblichus V.P. 28.135; p. Ta c an. 3:8, §2). 8513 PGM 1.160–161,167,216–217; 12.316; Lucan C.W. 6.732–734; Apuleius Metam. 2.28; 3.29. Pulleyn, «Names,» however, doubts that Greek religion attached magical efficacy to name invocation of its gods. 8514 For the sacred name of Israel " s God, Incant. Text 20.11–12; 69.6–7; CIJ 1:485, §673; 1:486, §674; 1:490, §679; 1:517, §717; 1:523, §724; 2:62–65, §819; 2:90–91, §849; 2:92, §851; 2:217, §1168; Γ. So1. 18:15–16; Pr. Jos. 9; b. Git. 68ab; Num. Rab. 16:24; also revelatory texts in Scholem, Gnosticism, 32–33. For Jewish support of, and opposition to, magic, see sources in Keener, Spirit, 29–30 n. 21. 8517 Though in a later period, Christian magical syncretism also appeared (see, e.g., Gitler, «Amulets»). 8518 Some were against petitionary prayer (Van der Horst, «Maximus»), but this was surely the exception. 8519 E.g., Homer I1. 1.37–38,451–452; 2.412; PGM 4.2916–2927; Cleanthes» Hymn to Zeus; more restrained, ILS 190; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 6:7; Apoc. Ab. 17:8, 13. Garland, Matthew, 79 notes that after Catullus piles up titles of Diana, he concludes, «whatever name you prefer» (Poems 34). |
| 8532 To speak «in God " s name» could, however, simply mean to speak as one loyal to him (Jos. Asen. 9in light of ch. 8; cf. Acts 4:17). 8534 Berg, «Pneumatology,» 152. By contrast, Lee, Thought, 256, suggests that «in the name» represents a Hebraism for prayer addressed to Jesus; but the texts themselves also speak of prayer to the Father in Jesus» name (16:23, 26). 8535 Valerius Maximus 7.2.ext.la; Maximus of Tyre Or. 5 passim (e.g., 5.1, Midas " s prayers); Diogenes Laertius 2.136; 6.2.42; Sent. Sext. 88. 8536 Maximus of Tyre Or. 5.8. For Maximus " s similarity to (though stronger rejection of petition than) the Neoplatonists in 5.9, see Trapp, Maximus, 41. 8538 Contrast Pythagoras in Diogenes Laertius 8.1.9; Iamblichus V.P. 28.145 (though supporting prayer, see VP 28.137; Myst. 1.12,15; 5.26); also Seneca Nat. 4.6.2–3; 4.7.1; asking simply for «good things» generally in Xenophon Mem. 1.3.2; but cf. Rom 8:26 . 8539 E.g., Ovid Metam. 2.44–102; 3.287–298, 308–309; 11.100–105; 14.129–153; Apollodorus 3.4.3; cf. Seneca Ep. Luci1. 95.2, who cites as a familiar saying, «Do not ask for what you will wish you had not gotten.» 8542 E.g., Lev. Rab. 16:9. One guarantee of answered prayer apparently rests on its timing (T. Adam 1:10, probably redacted third century C.E.). 8543 Echoes of such promises abound into second-century tradition, though sometimes offering explanations for delays (e.g., Herrn. Mand. 9, echoing Jas 1:6–8). 8544 Cf. Porphyry Marc. 13.226–227 (cf. 13.227–229) on asking for God himself, and 12.209–218, on asking only for what is eternal and divine. One with secret knowledge assures his guest that he may ask whatever information he wants (Philostratus Hrk. 6.1) concerning the secrets of Protesilaos (5.5–6). The request here could be revelatory, but see John 14:8–9 . 8545 See Lewis, Life, 98. Despite some perceived decline in oracular interest (Plutarch Obso1. passim; Parke, Oracle, 381), they were still widely consulted (see Collins, Oracles, 5; Nilsson, Piety, 166; Aune, Prophecy, 51). |
| 5982 E.g., Lev. Rab. 22:6, although this is late; Musonius Rufus frg. 45, p. 140.1 (πειρζων), 8–9 (δοκιμαστριω); cf. other forms of testing in Iamblichus V.P. 5.23–24; 17.71; and sources in Keener, Matthew, 476. 5984 Andrew and Philip appear together not only here (6:5–9) but also in 1:40–44 and 12:21–22. Their geographical origin (1:44) and perhaps kinship would have connected them, but greater precision on the matter is no longer possible. 5985 Estimates vary. If Frier, «Annuities,» is correct, the average per capita income in the early empire was about 380 sestertii, which translates (cf. Perkin, «Money,» 407) into roughly a quarter denarius per day. 5986 Tob 5:14; White, «Finances,» 232; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 79; Lachs, Commentary, 334; Perkin, «Money,» 406. 5987 One report from impoverished rural Egypt indicates that pay totaled «two loaves of bread a day, i.e., roughly half a kilogram per person» (Lewis, Life, 69); cf. Plutarch Love of Wealth 2, Mor. 523F. 5988 John refers to the number of νδρες, men (cf. Matt 14:21). Often men alone were counted (e.g., L.A.B. 5:7; 14:4), hence John " s tradition does not report the number of women and children (and unlike perhaps Josephus, some ancient writers were disinclined to invent numbers, recognizing also the tendency of some oral sources to inflate them; Thucydides 5.68.2). Thus we cannot estimate how many would have followed into the wilderness. 5989 Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 24.5.1–2 allegorized the five loaves as the five books of Torah (on bread as Torah, see comment on 6:32–51; but to be consistent, he also allegorized the two fish as the priest and king). 5990 Lads occasionally elsewhere served as protagonists; cf., e.g., T. So1. passim (e.g., 22:12–14); the story line in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5. Although they represent distinct pericopes, John " s dependence on 2 Kgs 4:42–44 suggests to some that he derives the «lad» (παιδριον) from 2 Kgs 4:38,41 LXX. 5991 As in the story of two disciples who shared their food with an old man in p. Šabb. 6:9, §3; or the man who shared his cart with vestal virgins in Valerius Maximus 1.1.10. |
| 6028 For Moses as king, see Josephus Ant. 4.327; L.A.B. 9:16; 20:5; Meeks, Prophet-King, 107–17, 147–50,177–79,181–96, 236. 6029 See Meeks, Prophet-King. Philo for one frequently links the titles, along with priest and lawgiver (Philo Moses 1.334; 2.2–7, 187, 292; Rewards 53; Tiede, Figure, 127). 6031 Sipre Deut. 83.1.1. He was the greatest of prophets (Deut. Rab. 2:4) except when he was not being counted (Deut. Rab. 7:8). On his role as prince of prophets, see, e.g., Sirat and Woog, «Maître.» 6032 Some texts suggest that he was God " s coregent (Sipre Deut. 3.1.1), though he denies it (Sipre Deut. 27.6.1). He was easily greater than Hadrian (Ecc1. Rab. 9:4, §1; Ruth Rab. 3:2). 6037 Diodorus Siculus 34/35.2.22. Eunus was, however, captured and then rotted in prison (34/35.2.22–23). 6038 Hoehner, Antipas, 206; Bammel, «Feeding»; cf. Barnett, «Prophets»; Witherington, Christology, 91, 100. Even among Roman politicians, free handouts of food produced political allegiance (see comment on 6:26). 6039 Theissen, Stories, 161. In its Johannine form, of course, 6has the form of a confession (see Jonge, Jesus, 57). 6041 See, e.g., Jeffers, World, 68–69; Goodman, State, 30–31; Freyne, Galilee, 153; Lewis, Life, 65, 67; MacMullen, Relations, 63, 68. 6043 Holy men might ascend to, and descend from, sacred mountains in pagan tradition (Iamblichus V.R 3.15, if this does not evoke 1 Kgs 18:42), but the biblical tradition is clearer here (see Exod 3:1–2; 19:3; 32:15; 1 Kgs 19:8; see Keener, Matthew, 164). 6044 Most scholars either reject the account in accordance with antisupernaturalistic presuppositions or (more frequently among scholars inclined to reject antisupernaturalistic assumptions) favor authenticity, but some wade between them: Derrett, «Walked,» explains how Jesus could have walked naturally on shallow points. But the setting of our story is a much deeper part of the lake (note the distance in 6:19), and fishermen who knew the lake would surely not have reported a miracle of one walking in shallow water! |
| 8237 Brown, John, 2:574; Whitacre, John, 335. Jesus» two closest associates would normally be on either side [b. Ber. 46b; Blomberg, Reliability, 192–93). 8238 Fritsch, Community, 123, following K. G. Kuhn; Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 226. Others suggest that John simply emphasizes the beloved disciplés paradigmatic discipleship function against Peter " s pastoral one (cf. Hartin, «Peter»). 8240 Cicero Div. Caec. 12.37; Brutus 93.321–322; in rhetoric, cf. Demosthenes On the Embassy 174; Anderson, Glossary, 110–11 and πεξαρεσι,ς («removal» of another " s claims), p. 121. 8241 E.g., Cicero Verr. 2.4.54.121; Phi1. 3.6.15; Rhet. Alex. 3, 1426a.27–32; Valerius Maximus 5.2; sometimes using oneself, e.g., Cicero Pis. 22.51; also noted by Marshall, Enmity, 52–55, 348–53. On comparing characters, see Theon Progymn. 10.3–4; cf. Aphthonius 42.31R comment on the Spirit as «successor» in John 14:16 . 8242 Explicit in Menander Rhetor 2.1–2, 376.31–377.2; 2.3, 378.18–26; 2.3, 380.30–31; 2.6, 402.26–29; 2.6, 403.26–32; 2.6, 404.5–8 (402–404 concern praise of bride and groom); 2.10, 417.5–17; Philostratus Hrk. 27.4; 37.2; 38.1. One could even contrast a single writer " s best and worst passages (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thucyd. 35, end). For synkrisisin biography, see Shuler, Genre, 50; Stanton, New People, 77–80, 83. 8243 E.g., Philostratus Hrk. 13.3–4; 27.4. Some philosophers did wish to minimize competition among friends, while conceding that in practice this might be possible only toward social superiors Iamblichus V.P. 22.101; 33.230). 8246 E.g., Plutarch Comparison of Aristides with Marcus Cato 5.1, 3–4; 6.1. Plutarch Comparison of Alcibiades and Coriohnus could still include contrasts (e.g., 3.1; cf. likewise Comparison of Lysander and Sulla 5.5), and Plutarch also told distinctive stories about each (in Plutarch Alc. passim, and Cor. passim). After his respective biographies of Aristides and Marcus Cato, he provides Comparison of Aristides with Marcus Cato; likewise, Comparison of Lucullus and Cimon; and so forth. |
| 483 See below; also Witherington, Christology, 8, 17–19, critiquing Kelber. Lampe and Luz, «Overview,» 404, provide one humorous example of an oral tradition transmitted probably accurately for over 140 years in the modern academy. 484 E.g., Pausanias 1.23.2; cf. also Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc-xci. Some claim such centuries-long accuracy for rabbinic tradition (Hilton and Marshall, Gospels and Judaism, 15). While I suspect many customs and story lines were thus preserved, attributions might be more difficult. 485 Eunapius Lives 453 (writing it down fixed it and prevented further changes). Even first-century writers recognized that centuries of oral transmission could produce variations in ancient documents (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.12). 486 Cf. Seneca Ep. Luci1. 108.6; also Stowers, «Diatribe,» 74, on Arrian " s notes on Epictetus; Lutz, «Musonius,» 7,10, on notes from Musonius " s pupils. Cf. the brief discussion of Plutarch " s notebooks in the Loeb introduction to Stoic Contradictions (LCL 13:369–603, pp. 398–99). 488 Loeb introduction to Epictetus, xii-xiii. Even in the Enchiridion, where Arrian organizes and summarizes his master " s teaching, Epictetus " s character dominates. 490 Quintilian 1.pref.7–8 (LCL 1:8–9). Other teachers also had problems with people pirating their books and publishing them before they could nuance them properly (Diodorus Siculus 40.8.1). 491 Gempf, «Speaking,» 299, citing especially Quintilian 11.2.2. Cf. also the less formal school setting of declamations (Seneca Suasoriae 3.2). 493 Gerhardsson, Memory, 160–62; cf. Safrai, «Education,» 966. Orality and literacy coexisted in Mediterranean school settings; see Gamble, «Literacy,» 646. 495 Cf. this practice alleged even among the far more secretive Pythagoreans (Iamblichus V.P. 23.104), whose initial reticence seems unusual (32.226). 496 Some early second-century fathers even preferred oral tradition, though cf. the preference in Eunapius Lives 459–460 for written sources when an event seemed incredible. |
| 10566 Mary probably did not recognize, but probably should have, that the figures before her in 20were angels, partly because of their garb. To be sure, white clothes could allude to a variety of nonangelic functions. Mediterranean religion often employed white for the worship of heavenly deities; 10567 priests generally wore linen, including Egyptian priests, 10568 those at the temple of Artemis (Acts John 38), and Jewish priests (Josephus War 5.229). 10569 Worshipers wore white or linen in other worship settings, 10570 including in the Jerusalem temple (Josephus War 2.1; Ant. 11.327) 10571 and the Therapeutae during worship (Philo Contemp1. Life 66). Some schools of philosophers such as Pythagoras and his sect might wear white (Iamblichus V.P. 28.153, 155; whether linen, as in V.P. 21.100; 28.149, or wool, replaced in later times with linen, as in Diogenes Laertius 8.1.19). Perhaps because white could signify good and black, evil (Diogenes Laertius 8.1.34) 10572 – which in turn probably reflects associations with day and night 10573 –converts might wear linen (Jos. Asen. 14:12/13). 10574 But in paganism, pagan deities could appear in white garments; 10575 more important, Jewish angels likewise appeared in linen (L.A.B. 9:10; Rev 15:6) or white (e.g., 1 En. 71: l) 10576 garments or clothed in glory (3Macc 6:18). 10577 In John 20:12 , the angelic or theophanic functions are paramount. Because black garb typically symbolized mourning or death 10578 and white, joy, 10579 their garb also signified that the departure of the body represented good news, ending the mourning appropriate for a death. The white also probably fits John " s «light/darkness» motif, though the mention of white makes sense, as we have noted, even had he omitted the light/darkness motif. 2C. Recognizing Jesus (20:14–16) Mary " s encounter with Jesus in 20:14–16 is one of several «recognition scenes» in the Gospel, reflecting a dramatic-type scene in ancient literature. 10580 Mary turns because Jesus initially appears «behind» her (20:14; cf. |
| 10495 See Boring et a1., Commentary, 162–63; Robbins, Jesus, 192. 10496 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 41. 10497 Many scholars think that tomb robberies were common enough to warrant the fear (Kysar, John, 296; Beasley-Murray, John, 371); cf. Iamblichus Bab. St. 7 (Photius Bibliotheca 94.75a). Many tomb inscriptions threatened curses on tomb violators (Jeffers, World, 45); Cyrus " s tomb reportedly bore the warning not to rob it, for it held little wealth (Plutarch Alex. 69.2). For the sanctity of tombs, see, e.g., Seneca Controv. 4.4 excerpts, introduction; Diodorus Siculus 17.17.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 8.24.6; 11.10.1; Appian R.H. 8.12.89; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.58. 10498 Cf. also Xenophon Eph. 3.8–9; perhaps Apol1. Κ. Tyre 32 (though cf. 44). 10499 Stauffer, Jesus, 144–45, who suspects the question also stands behind John 20 (where it is not clear), points out that the theory continued to circulate in later times (Justin Dia1. 108; Tertullian Spec. 30). 10500 Lewis, Life, 96. 10501 E.g., Apollonius of Rhodes 4.51–53; Lucan C.W. 6.538–568, 626; Ovid Her. 6.90; see especially the tale of Telephron in Apuleius Metam. 2.30; in other cultures, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 261. 10502 PGM 1.248–249; 2.49–50; 4.342–343, 1390–1395, 1402–1403, 2211–2217; 57.5–6; 58.5–9; 67.21; 101.1–3; these ghosts were more malevolent (Plutarch Cimon 1.6; 6.5–6). If Jesus» enemies considered him a magician (Matt 12:24), some Jewish leaders may have even anticipated the theft of the body as in Matt 27:64. In less severe cases, tombs generally settled for divine threats against robbers (e.g., IG 3.1417, in Grant, Religions, 9). Both tying rope from a cross (Pliny Nat. 28.11.46) and iron pounded through the hands (Lucan C.W. 6.547) were used in witchcraft (as a superstitious cure in m. Šabb. 6:10; p. Šabb. 6:9, §2). 10503 Grave robbing was not only impious (e.g., Plutarch Mor. 173B) but a capital offense (e.g., SEG 8.13, in Sherk, Empire, 52, §27). 10504 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 40. On Matthew " s guards, see Keener, Matthew, 696–97, 713–15. |
| Для таких людей апостол был строг к себе и другим, – ни в чем не уступал им, тогда как в других случаях был с иудеями как иудей. В ст. 6–10. Павел объясняет, что прочие апостолы признали в нем истинного апостола Христова. В ст. 6 состав слов опять довольно затруднителен. Если слова: πο δ τ. δοκουντων соединить со словами: ουδν μη διαφρει понимая последнее так: ничем я не различаюсь – то тогда надлежало бы сказать: κατ – οδεν (Dioms halic. s. 5, 21) или ουδενος εγω διφρω (Dio ehnsost. 8. p. 130), или по крайней мере των δ δοκουντων ουδε διαφρω (Iamblich. 5, 1). Если тоже соединение слов принимать в таком смысле: что же касается до знаменитых, для меня все равно (рус. перев): то против сего справедливо замечание о неправильности употребления частицы π вместо περι. Ничто не мешает в сем случае дать сей частице значение: «со стороны и таким образом удержать ея точное значение; смысл будет тот: со стороны знаменитых чем либо для меня все равно. Такой смысл давали древние (Златоуст, Феодорит, и другие). Якови некогда быша, – каковыми бы, в каком бы уважении они ни были; апостол, говоря о прошедшем (ποτε), имеет преимущественно во внимании, как и прежде, время пребывания своего во Иерусалиме, – где хотя апостолы Петр, Иаков и Иоанн, давали решение о законе, но тем, как даст видеть учитель языков, не уничтожали они его апостольской важности. В таком виде говорит он корифеянам о равенстве своем с прочими апостолами. 2Кор. 11:5. 12, 11 . Лица Бог человеча не приемлет – не смотрит на внешние преимущества, как напр. на то, что прочие апостолы прежде призваны, прежде его проповедовали. Он подкрепил Павла в апостольском служении его, так же как и Петра; облек его правами апостольства, как и других 2Пет. 12. 11 . Измаил и Исаак, Исав и Иаков представляют подобные примеры тому, как Бог свободно избирает людей на служение себе. Некоторые (Иероним, Златоуст, Феофилакт), полагают, будто Павел в ст. 6 говорит: учили ли, или неучили апостолы иудействовать, мне дела нет, о том рассудит нелицеприятный Судия. – Но такое объяснение не имеет оснований ни в словах к галатам, ни в повествовании св. Луки о соборе иерусалимском; здесь ни слова нет о приспособлении апостолов к лицам. В доказательство того, что Бог не взирает на лица при раздаянии даров, апостол указывает на собственный опыт: μο γρ – ουδν προστανθεντο: последним словом апостол напоминает о прежнем своем слове: νεθεμεν ст. 1, я им предложил свое благовестие: но они ничего не прибавили к моей мысли, не возложили на меня нового, или как говорит Златоуст: «ничего не прибавили, ничего не поправили». |
| The Jesus tradition provides material for prophecy, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that the reverse must be true. This is true even in most charismatic traditions least anchored to the authority of the church " s traditional canon. Indeed, at least some ancients who claimed that a sayings tradition was inspired viewed that inspiration as stemming, from the very start, from a divine teacher (Iamblichus V.P. 31.213), although they might also accept early subsequent exposition as sharing this divine character ( V.P. 29.157). Third, the Paraclete serves to bring to remembrance the sayings of Jesus ( John 14:26 ). Although this undoubtedly includes interpretation, it grounds the Paracletés revelation of Jesus in what he said and did in real history. 988 Thus 1 John calls its readers back to what was «in the beginning,» the Jesus who had «come in the flesh» (4:2). 989 In contrast to the protognostic opponents in 1 John whose prophecies were not rooted in the historical Jesus (4:2), the Gospels author chose the genre of historical narrative (not a mere sayings-gospel) to convey his theology because he located its basis in, and measured its substance by, the historical Jesus. Finally, the discourses of the Fourth Gospel do not present themselves as prophecies. Both written and oral oracle collections were known and circulated in antiquity, 990 and were often full literary units. 991 The traveling prophets who expounded these oracles based their authority on the earlier oracles, not on their own inspiration. 992 But the discourses of the Fourth Gospel, including their narrative context and responses to often hostile interlocutors, fit together with the whole Gospel far too well to represent a collection of distinct oracles. This is not to deny that the author could have reshaped existing prophecies into an unrecognizable form; ancient oracles were apparently generally reworked into more literary forms. 993 But to assert that the prophecies are now unrecognizable is to concede that we have no evidence for them. |
|
|
