| 186 В целом проблема рассматривается в работе: Taft R.F. Russian Liturgy, а Mirror of the Russian Soul//Studi albanesi. Studi e testi VI. Флоренция, 1986. P. 413–435. (См. также русский перевод «Русская литургия: зеркало русской души»//Страницы. 1997. 2. С. 565–585). 188 Например, Taft R.F. Hours. Ch. 17; id, Beyond East and West. Ch. 3, 8, 9; id. Eastern-Rite Catholicism. 189 Jungmann J. A. The Defeat of Teutonic Arianism and the Revolution in Religious Culture in the Early Middle Ages, в его же кн.: Pastoral Liturgy. New York, 1962. P. 1–101. Об этом же культурном сдвиге более подробно см. в новой работе: Russel J. C. The Germonization of Early Medieval Christianity. New York/Oxford, 1994. 191 См. Gugerotti C. I riti di ordinatione e la Cilicio armena//OCA. Rome, в печати (на апрель 1997 г. – М. Б.) 194 Некоторые из этих текстов приведены и разобраны в статье Taft R.F. The Precommunion Elevation of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy//OCP. 1996. 62. P. 15–52, особ. 28–29, 32–36. 197 Vita S. Stefani sabaitae Thaumaturgi Monachi=Halkin F. Bibliotheca hagiographica Craeca//SH. 8a. 3rd ed. Brussels, 1957. P. 1670: Acta Sanctorum., Antwerp./Paris/Rome/Brussels: SB, 1643–1910. 13 Julii, 3:504–584, также 506. 198 PG 114, 1113. Более ранний вариант той же легенды можно найти в апокрифе VIII–IX вв. Псевдо-Амфилохия: In vitam et mirocula S. Basilii 9/Combéfis F. (ed.)//SS. Patrum Amphilochii Iconensis, Methodii Patarensis, et Andreae Cretensis opera omnia. Paris, 1644. P. 183=CpG 3253. 199 Oudot J. Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani acta selecta, 2 vols.//Fonti codificazione canónica orientale. Serie II. Fasc. III–IV. Vatican, 1941/Grottaferata, 1967. I, 18. 200 Laurent. P. 116–142, особ. 134, строки 292–304; вариант – 141–142; cp. Taft R.F. Precommunion Elevation. P. 40–41. 204 Taft R.F. The Fruits of Communion in the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom//Psallendum. P. 275–302, особ. 290–297. 205 Taft R.F. Communion via Intinction/Wainwright GWesterfeld Tucker K. (eds.)//Soli Deo gloria. Essays to Recognize the Lifés Work of Wiebe Vos=SL. 26. 1996. P. 225–236. |
| 5932 Jesus is essentially the Father " s voice in 5:37–40; one might compare him to a bat qo1. 5933 E.g., Westcott, John, 91; Morris, John, 330; Michaels, John, 82; Bruce, John, 136; Beasley-Murray, John, 78. 5934 Schnackenburg, John, 2:125, cites, e.g., 1QS 5.11; CD 6.7. See most fully Culpepper, School, 291–99, on darash and ζητω. 5935 So here, e.g., Dodd, Interpretation, 82; Hunter, John, 62; Brown, John, 1:225, citing, e.g., m. " Abot 2:7; see comment on 1:4. It was «the most meritorious of all good deeds» (Sandmel, Judaism, 184). 5936 So also Odeberg, Gospel, 224. 5937 Refuting someone on the basis of the very arguments or witnesses that person cites in his support was good rhetorical technique (e.g., Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 311, §101D; 340, §112D; 343–344, §114D; 446, §150D; Matt 12:37; Luke 19:22; Tit 1:12–13 ). 5938 See Culpepper, School, 298–99. They do not «will» to come to him (5:40), though they had «willed» to listen to John momentarily (5:35). 5939 DeSilva, «Honor and Shame,» 520 (citing Seneca the Younger De constantia sapientis 13.2,5; Epictetus Ench. 24.1). 5940 Not needing such glory was commendable (e.g., Scipio in Macrobius Comm. 2.10.2, in Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 225), though Diogenes the Cynic claimed to deserve public praise (Diogenes Laertius 6.62). 5941 Seeking glory was honorable only if sought in the right places ( Rom 2:7 ; Polybius 6.54.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 5.25.1; 5.27.2; Cicero Earn. 10.12.5; 15.4.13; Sest. 48.102; Valerius Maximus 2.8.5, 7; 4.3.6a; 5.7.ext.4; 8.14; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 94.63–66; Orphic Hymn 15.10–11; Prov 22:1 ; see comment on 12:43). 5942 Cf. Michaels, John, 82. Brown, John, 1:226, suggests an allusion to Moses (leading naturally into 5:45–47), who sought God " s glory (Exod 34:29); cf. comment on 1:14–18. At least some later rabbis believed that Moses exalted God above everything else and after death God exalted him (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:20). 5943 See comment on 14:13–14; comment on agency, pp. 310–17 in the introduction. Cf. also Sanders, John, 73. It is unlikely that this stems from Isaiah (pace Young, «Isaiah,» 223); though God " s name is a dominant motif in Isaiah, «coming» in his name more likely alludes to Ps 118:26 . |
| Central to the setting is the matter of ritual purification; John " s disciples disagree with traditional views about purification (3:25), as does the Fourth Gospel " s author (2:6; cf. 11:55). 5127 Yet his disciples, perhaps like some of his followers in the late first century, also held an inadequate view of purification; they may have seen Jesus as competition (3:26). As in 1:29–37 John again needs to point his disciples to the greater one (3:27–30). John, who offers the best form of Jewish purification, offers merely purification in water; Jesus offers a baptism in the Spirit (1:31–33; 3:5). 5128 That purification and baptismal questions are central to this section is clear from its unity with 4:l-3. 5129 Μετ τατα (3:22) is a frequent transitional device in John (5:1,14; 6:1; 7:1; 19:38; 21:1) 5130 and Revelation (1:19; 4:1; 7:9; 9:12; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1; 20:3) which also occurs seven times in Luke-Acts and on only two other occasions in the NT. 1A. Jesus» Ministry and John " s Ministry (3:22–23, 26) Regardless of the applicability to followers of the Baptist in the time in which the Fourth Gospel was written, a historical reminiscence likely stands behind the tension between John " s and Jesus» followers. 5131 The Synoptics allow for little overlap between John and Jesus, presenting Jesus as John " s successor and the fulfillment of his message. One might suppose that John, whose story world extends the ministry of Jesus to two or three years, overlaps Jesus and John the Baptist. For an apologetic against followers of the Baptist, however, the chronology followed in the Synoptic tradition would have worked well enough. (John apparently knew the tradition circulated through Mark and his Synoptic followers; 3seems to explicitly respond to it.) 5132 The Fourth Gospel thus allows the tension between the two movements to stand as early as Jesus» ministry, but clarifies the appropriate place of the Baptist movement through the Baptist " s own words. The Synoptics may well have suppressed the overlap as a potential embarrassment, 5133 although there is less evidence of tension with a Baptist community at that point. |
| 9701 Matt 26:3, 57 and Luke 3mention Caiaphas; Luke 3briefly mentions Annas; neither name appears in Mark. John may mention both because the Synoptics attest two inquiries (Barrett, John, 529), but this is less probable given John " s independence on the inquiries themselves. 9702 losephus Ant. 18.26. Ananus is a variant Greek rendering of Annas; one may survey the frequent names, both masculine and feminine, cognate to Annas in antiquity (e.g., CIJ1:62, §88; 1:228, §290; 1:244, §310; 1:314–15, §411; 2:127, §907; 2:155, §967; 2:186, §§1013, 1014; 2:195, §1066; CPJ 1:165–66, §24; Acts 9:10; see more fully CPJ 3:169). 9709 Wiles, Gospel, 9, citing Theodore of Mopsuestia 233.23; John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 83.2; Cyril of Alexandria 3.29.26–27 on John 18:15 . Interestingly, Chrysostom (2.1) nevertheless thought that John must have been very poor or his father would not have allowed him to leave fishing to follow Jesus (Wiles, Gospel, 10). Fishermen could make more income if they sold directly to the rich rather than through middlemen (Alciphron Fishermen 9 [Aegialeus to Struthion], 1.9). 9711 Dodd, Tradition, 86–87. Dodd (p. 88) thus suggests that the Fourth Gospel provides information from a Judean disciplés source comparatively neglected by the Synoptics (though they also, he believes, show some Judean supporters of Jesus). 9712 For this disciplés favorable comparison with Peter here, see also Haenchen, John, 2:168; see comment on 13:23–24. 9713 Vicent Cernuda, «Desvaido,» suggests Lazarus, which could be plausible if 12is fictitious, but again, why not name him this late if John knows his identity? 9714 See also Charlesworth, Disciple, 336–59, but his proposal that the disciple was Judas (pp. 342–59) seems unlikely though Judas was probably from Judea and handled Jesus» money (343). John would probably name Judas if he implied him, though it is possible (as ibid., 359) that Judas played this role in John " s tradition but John wished not to name him. 9715 E.g., Ovid Amores 1.6.1–2; Plutarch Cicero 15.1; 36.3; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 19.11; implied in Seneca Controv. 10.4.22. Householders who had porters had no reason to answer the door themselves (Theophrastus Char. 4.9 considers it ignorant behavior); a household member sneaking to answer the door might be suspected of mischief (Tibullus 1.2.7, 15–24, 41, 55–56). Undoubtedly porters screened unwelcome guests, provided safety, and moved the sometimes heavy doors. |
| 4883 M. «Abot 3:1; »Abot R. Nat. 16, 19A; b. c Abod. Zar. 20a; Gen. Rab. 63:8; Lev. Rab. 14:2, 5–6; 18:1; other texts in Urbach, Sages, 1:232. More helpfully regarding date, Michaels, John, 38, cites 1QH 1.21; 3.24; 12.25; 13.15. Cf. probably also PGM 4.645–648 (though it could perhaps imply natural birth as well). 4884 It represents saliva in Lev. Rab. 16:4. Rain itself can represent life for the (agricultural) world (e.g., p. Ta c an. 1:1, §2). 4885 Cf. Seneca Ep. Luci1. 29.2; 38.2; Philo Heir 119; 4Ezra 9:31,33; b. Ber. 63a. Seed, admittedly, refers also more broadly to divine conception of the soul (Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.4; Maximus of Tyre Or. 10.4; Philo Moses 1.279; Alleg. Interp. 3.40; Posterity 171), which language John might reapply to spiritual rebirth (cf. comment on John 3:13 ); but the metaphor had various uses (e.g., Plutarch Cor. 16.2). 4890 Against this, Belleville, «Born,» 126–27, notes that «water» and «Spirit» are coordinated, not opposed; but the objection would not stand if Spirit baptism replaces proselyte baptism yet retains the image of water in a positive sense, as we argue below. 4891 Bürge, Community, 162–63; Beasley-Murray, John, 48–49; Ridderbos, John, 128. John " s baptism in this connection is also mentioned, though not fully endorsed, by Howard, Gospel, 206; Morris, John, 215. 4892 Bürge, Community, 164–65, thinks baptism as Nicodemus would have understood it here refers to John " s lustrations in 3:22–30. 4894 Many hold this view or variations on it, e.g., Vermes, Religion, 150; Gabriel, «Faith»; Evans, John, 31; Moloney, Belief, 113; Quast, Reading, 26; Brown, Essays, 127–30. Cf. also Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 11.1.2 (baptism in the true church vs. the schismatics); Luther, 22d and 23d Sermons on John, on John 3 ; 2d Sermon on John 4 (baptismal water becoming efficacious through the Spirit and the Word; citing Tit 3:5 ). 4900 Cf. also Robinson, «Baptism,» 20–21, addressing a contrast between traditional Jewish ritual and birth by the Spirit. |
| Barrett, Jesus Barrett, C. K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. London: SPCK, 1967. Barrett, John Barrett, C. K. The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. Barrett, John and Judaism Barrett, C. K. The Gospel of John and Judaism. Translated from the German by D. Moody Smith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Barrett, «John and Judaism» Barrett, C. K. «John and Judaism.» Pages 401–17 in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000. Edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001. Barrett, «Katelaben» Barrett, C. K. «Katelaben in John i.5.» ExpTim 53 (1941–1942): 297. Barrett, «Lamb» Barrett, C. K. «The Lamb of God.» NTS 1 (1954–1955): 210–18. Barrett, «Old Testament» Barrett, C. K. «The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospe1.» JTS 48/191–92 (July 1947): 155–69. Barrett, «Parallels» Barrett, C. K. «The Parallels between Acts and John.» Pages 163–78 in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Barrett, Spirit Barrett, C. K. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition. London: SPCK, 1966. Barrett, «Spirit» Barrett, C. K. «The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospe1.» JTS NS 1 (1950): 1–15. Barrett, «Synoptic Gospels» Barrett, C. K. «John and the Synoptic Gospels.» ExpTim 85 (1973–1974): 228–33. Barrett, «Vocabulary» Barrett, C. K. «The Theological Vocabulary of the Fourth Gospel and the Gospel of Truth.» Pages 210–23 in Current Issues in NT Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper. Edited by William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Barry, «Aristocrats» Barry, W. D. «Aristocrats, Orators, and the " Mob»: Dio Chrysostom and the World of the Alexandrians.» Historia 42 (1993): 82–103. Barth, Ephesians Barth, Markus. Ephesians. 2 vols. AB 34, 34A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974. |
| John " s audience could be assured that neither those who left the community in John " s day (1 John 2:29) nor Judas (6:64) took Jesus by surprise. As «son of destruction,» 9451 the betrayer was destined or foreknown for his role (17:12). Jewish wisdom texts could call wicked Sodom «people of destruction» (θνος απλειας), that is, «people for destruction» ( Sir 16:9 ). The Dead Sea Scrolls speak of the wicked as «children of the pit» (), that is, those destined for destruction (CD 6.15; 8.14); Jubilees also calls the wicked of past eras «children of destruction.» 9452 Perhaps most strikingly, at least one extant witness to early Christian tradition suggests that some Christians had already designated the anticipated «man of lawlessness» 9453 as a «son of destruction» (2 Thess 2:3; cf. Rev 17:8). Just as many «antichrists» who opposed the true teaching about Christ could reflect the character of a future anticipated antichrist (1 John 2:18) and just as the Fourth Gospel emphasizes the eschatological condition of the present more frequently than future eschatology, Judas functions as a paradigm for human evi1. 9454 Because Judas probably also provides a model for apostate members of the community (cf. 6:66–71; as does the antichrist, 1 John 2:18–19), this association casts apostates in a very negative light (cf. 15:6). Opponents of John " s audience may have complained about what appeared to them an inconsistency in the gospel tradition: Jesus is omniscient, yet he chose a disciple who ultimately betrayed him. John is at pains to point out that Jesus foreknew the betrayer, whose role was part of God " s plan (6:64, 71; 13:21, 26, 27); in support of such a thesis is the point that the only disciple whom Jesus lost was, in fact, the betrayer himself. John reinforces this point by informing his audience that the loss of the betrayer fulfilled Scripture (17:12) and hence was necessary because, as even their opponents recognized, Scripture cannot be broken (10:35). The necessity of a betrayer might be inferred simply from Scripture concerning Jesus» suffering (cf., e.g., 19:24,28,36–37; 20:9), but «Scripture» here probably alludes to the passage already cited in 13about the betrayer. It is not necessary to find a text that directly mentions a «son of destruction.» 9455 When John later refers back to this text, however, it is not only that Scripture (the Hebrew Bible or its Greek translations) might be fulfilled but also that the «word» of Jesus might be fulfilled (18:9); for John, both are God " s message. |
| Charlesworth, Disciple Charlesworth, James H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995. Charlesworth, «Exclusivism» Charlesworth, James H. «The Gospel of John: Exclusivism Caused by a Social Setting Different from That of Jesus (John 11and 14:6).» Pages 479–513 in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000. Edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001. Charlesworth, «Introduction» Charlesworth, James H., with J. A. Sanders. Introduction to «More Psalms of David.» OTP 2:609–11. Charlesworth, «Judeo-Hellenistic Works» Charlesworth, James H. «Editor " s Introduction to Fragments of Lost ludeo-Hellenistic Works.» OTP 2:775–76. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT Charlesworth, James H. OTP and the New Testament: Prolegomena for the Study of Christian Origins. SNTSMS 54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Charlesworth, «Qumran and Odes» Charlesworth, James H. «Qumran, John, and the Odes of Solomon.» Pages 107–36 in John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972. Charlesworth, «Reinterpreting» Charlesworth, James H. «Reinterpreting John: How the Dead Sea Scrolls Have Revolutionized Our Understanding of the Gospel of John.» Bible Review 9, no. 1 (February 1993): 18–25, 54. Charlesworth, Routes Charlesworth, M. P. Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire. 2d rev. ed. New York: Cooper Square, 1970. Charlesworth, «Scrolls and Gospel» Charlesworth, James H. «The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John.» Pages 65–97 in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Charlesworth, «Voice» Charlesworth, James H. «The Jewish Roots of Christology: The Discovery of the Hypostatic Voice.» SJT 39 (1986): 19–41. Charlier, «L " exégèse» Charlier, Jean-Pierre. «L " exégèse johannique d " un précepte légal: Jean VIII 17.«RB 67 (1960): 503–15. |
| perhaps Prov 22:21 . 3821 Edersheim, Life, 142, citing m. Sanh. 1on the later view of the procedure. 3822 Josephus Ant. 18.118–119; cf., e.g., Meier, «John,» 226–27; Kraeling, John, 85–91; Hoehner, Antipas, 143–44. 3823 In either case, the group speaks as a chorus, reflecting a corporate perspective (Malina, Windows, 140) familiar in antiquity (e.g., Virgil Aen. 11.122–131; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.10.1; 6.87.1; Acts 4:24; cf. 1Sam 11:4 ; 2Sam 5:1–2 ). 3824 Their «What therefore?» was common idiom, frequent in various forms in early Christian writers (cf. John 6:30 ; Acts 21:22; Rom 3:1, 9; 4:1; 6:1 ; 1Cor 3:5; 14:26 ) and elsewhere (Musonius Rufus 5, p. 50.21; 16, p. 104.8; Menander Rhetor 2.1–2, 376.4; cf. Seneca Dia1. 3.6.1). 3825 Cf. Freed, " Eg Eimi.» Westcott, John, 18, noted the contrast between the Baptist and Christ implied in the emphatic egö throughout this section (1:23,26,27,30,31,33,34); John may say ειμ εγ here rather than εγ εμι to distinguish him from Jesus. 3826 «Confession» (ομολογα) can appear in the setting of witness (μαρτυρα); cf. the Hellenistic Rhet. Alex. 15, 1431b.21. 3827 Contrast the traditional idiom in «answered and said» (1:26, 48), common in Semitic texts and their translations (e.g., 1 En. 106:13; 4 Ezra 4:13, 19, 20, 22, 26, 33–34, 36, 38, 40, 44, 52; 2 Bar. 14:1; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1; 18:1; 19:1). 3828 See comments on 1:6–8 above. One should not press too much the distinction between «confessed» and «denied not» (as Westcott, John, 18, endeavors to do). 3829 So many commentators, e.g., Hooker, Message, 9; Ladd, Theology, 35; Lane, Mark, 51. Nortjé, «John,» sees Jesus as a John, hence Elijah, redivivus. 3830 Hunter, John, 22, suggests that our author " s remark is difficult to explain if the author knew Mark. 3831 Martyn thinks that the Fourth Gospel suppressed a source identifying Jesus as Elijah to conform to the broader Christian tradition. Another proposal, that Jesus viewed himself as a new Elisha following John the new Elijah (Bostock, «Elisha»), is reasonable but lacks adequate supporting evidence. |
| 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. |
|
|
