| 5738 Jeremias, Sayings, 55. 5739 Perkins, «John,» 959, also noting that, despite its original purpose as a «Sheep Pool,» the pool had been developed elaborately, «probably by Herod the Great.» 5740 E.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.2.40; Martial Epigr. 2.42; 12.82; Pausanias 2.3.5; Apuleius Metam. 2.2; Menander Rhetor 1.3, 365.20–21. Although mixed bathing was common in many parts of the empire (see Ward, «Women») and known in early Judaism (though it constituted grounds for divorcing a wife; t. Ketub. 7:6; Num. Rab. 9:12; cf. revelry in Lev. Rab. 5:3), most Jerusalemites probably avoided it (for gender-specific bathhouses, cf. t. Nid. 6:15; for Jewish nudity there, t. B. Qam. 9:12; for preference for those where Jews were clothed, t. Ber. 2:20). Though most accepted bathhouses (Lev. Rab. 34:3), later tradition apparently associated demons with bathhouses (b. Qidd. 39b-40a; Ecc1. Rab. 2:8, §1; Song Rab. 3:7, §5; probably t. Ber. 6:25; as with toilets, b. Ber. 62a; Shab. 67a) and felt them an inappropriate place to discuss Torah (b. c Abod. Zar. 44b; Deut. Rab. 8:6). 5741 Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 105. On such porches (στοα), see also 10:23. 5742 E.g., Acts 3:2; perhaps Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.305. 5743 So, e.g., a later portico from Ephesus to the temple of Artemis in Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.23.605. 5744 For Aesculapia, see, e.g., Aristophanes Plutus 410–411, 620–621; Pausanias 2.10.2; 2.26.1; 2.27.6; Herodian 4.8.3; Koester, Introduction, 1:174; Yamauchi, Archaeology, 45–49; cf. Asclepius associated with a pool in Lucian Hippias/The Bath 5. On healings in the Asclepius cult, see, e.g., Kee, «Self-Definition,» 129–33. 5745 Ferguson, Backgrounds, 175. Koester, Symbolism, 172–73, and Boring et a1., Commentary, 266, cite Vitruvius Arch. 1.2.7; Aelius Aristides Or. 39.6,14–15; such cult centers were widespread (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 271; cf. 46–52). Water also appears in other temples (e.g., Polybius 34.9.5). 5746 Cf., e.g., Hammat Tiberias in, e.g., Josephus War 2.614; 4.11; Life 85; Pliny Nat. 5.15.71; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:16; Ecc1. Rab. 10:8, §1; Hammat Gader in Josephus War 1.657; Pliny Nat. 2.95.208; 5.15.72; Hirschfeld and Solar, «Baths.» Elsewhere, e.g., Eunapius Lives 459; Keener, Matthew, 158. |
| 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). |
| 4058 For the importance of the eyewitness component in «witness,» see, e.g., Aune, Environment, 81; Painter, John, 8; Trites, Witness, 4–19,136–39. 4059 Michaels, Servant, 36. Cranfield, «Baptism,» 58, argues that it was a vision but a real communication to Jesus; Bultmann, History, 248, thinks it describes an objective happening as in Matthew and Luke, but only because it is a faith legend. 4060 Pace Hill, Prophecy, 59; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 18; cf. Bürge, Community, 52; Borg, Vision, 41,53 η. 19; Anderson, Mark, 75; Kelber, Story, 18–19; Hooker, Message, 13; Robinson, Problem, 81; Kingsbury, Structure, 14. 4062 Cf. also the christological inclusio of 1:1,18; 20(elsewhere, e.g., the sympathetic, choruslike εκκλησα, or public assembly, at the opening and close of Chariton Chaereas and Callirhoe). 4063 Cf. also dramatic language for personal deliverances (e.g. Ps 18:7–16 in context and some Qumran hymns, perhaps including the controversial «messianic» text 1 QH 3, which depicts the psalmist " s sufferings in terms of eschatological messianic woes). Mark " s heaven rending corresponds with the temple curtain " s rending (Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 46), but John omits this scene for other reasons than his own omission of the veil (Mark " s connection is subtle anyway). 4065 Frequent in rabbinic texts, e.g., Sipre Deut. 357.10.3; b. B. Bat. 58a, 73b, 85b; c Erub. 54b; Mak. 23b; Pesah. 114a (=Hu1. 44a); Sanh. 104b; Šabb. 88a; p. c Abod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Hor. 3:5, §3; Sotah 9:16, §2; Ta c an. 4:5, §10; Lev. Rab. 19:5–6; Lam. Rab. 1:16, §50; Ruth Rab. 6:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:2, 11:16,17:5; reportedly Tannaitic sources in b. Hu1. 44a; Ketub. 104a; Šabb. 33b; Sotah 21a; Ecc1. Rab. 7:12, §1; Song Rab. 8:9, §3 (but many of the attributions are presumably part of later haggadah). For nonrabbinic parallels, see comment on 12:28. The connection cannot be limited to an Aqedah allusion (contrast Stegner, «Baptism»). 4067 B. Pesah. 94a; Hag. 13a, anachronistically attributed to ben Zakkai; similarly R. Isaac in b. Sanh. 39b. Although the evidence is quite late, it might be relevant that the bat qol could have eschatological ramifications in some very late rabbinic sources (Lev. Rab. 27:2). |
| Так, блж. Феодорит Кирский предостерегает своих читателей от того, чтобы считать неприличным прообразование страдания Спасителя посредством К. о., поскольку уже евангелист Иоанн Богослов именовал Его агнцем (Ин 1. 29), а также напоминает, что Спаситель пострадал не за праведных только, но и за грешных, которые Им Самим называются козлами (Мф 25. 33). Если считать это прообразование неподобающим, то, по мнению Феодорита, не менее неприличным должно выглядеть прообразование Христа через медного змия, к-рого Сам Господь обозначил Своим прообразом в Евангелии (Ин 3. 14-15). Свт. Кирилл Александрийский помогает избежать всяких двусмысленных ассоциаций с главным объектом обряда Дня очищения, специально сопоставляя уничижительный характер этой жертвы с домостроительным кенозисом Спасителя: «Козел же был образом Христа, сделавшегося ради нас грехом». Ведь Сам Христос по Своему домостроительству был «к злодеям причтен» (Мк 15. 28; ср.: Ис 53. 12) и распят вместе с разбойниками, был опозорен и проклят, «ибо написано: «проклят всяк, висящий на древе»» (Гал 3. 13) ( Cyr. Alex. De adorat. 9). Символом же злодеев (или беззаконных) служит как раз козел, в образе которого можно видеть уподобление нам, как грешникам, Самого Спасителя ( Cyr. Alex. De adorat. 15). Блж. Феодорит отвергает понимание слова «во отпущение» (τ ποπομπα) (Лев 16. 8) как указания на то, что этот обряд мог быть посвящен некоему демону, поскольку это противоречило бы самой сути ветхозаветного богослужения и божественным заповедям (ср.: Исх 20. 3-5; Theodoret. Quaest. in Lev. 22//PG. 80. Col. 328). Свт. Кирилл Александрийский также видел в подобном мнении «нелепое суеверие» и отголоски «эллинского заблуждения» и «развращенности мыслей», противоречащие содержанию ветхозаветного закона, который «всячески отвлекает от заблуждения многобожия и свидетельствует о едином и истинном Господе вселенной и всегда руководит к познанию истины» ( Cyr. Alex. Glaph. in Lev. 2). При этом грекоязычные экзегеты не упоминают слово «Азазель», к-рое можно было бы интерпретировать как именование демона, поскольку ориентировались при истолковании этого места на текст Септуагинты, а в своей полемике, очевидно, реагировали на толкования др. |
| 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. |
| Владелец: vitpapkou Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Описание владельца: Прошу помочь узнать более подробно об этой иконе Богородицы с младенцем. Была семейной реликвией, утрачена в 1970-х, осталось фото и список с иконы. Заранее благодарю всех, откликнувшихся помочь. [Добавлено 2016-07-04 22:28:10]: заранее извиняюсь за офф-топ... изображение загрузилось перевернутым. Буду благодарен модераторам сайта, если помогут привести в порядок (сам не догадался. как это сделать) Ответов: 7. Последний ответ: Я тоже ищу информацию об этой иконе. И тоже находила, что ее подписывают как Иерусалимскую. Но в обсуждении на azbuka.ru нашла еще одно предположение: Гербовецкая. И как раз описание Гербовецкой иконы полностью соответствует этому изображению, тольк [...] Добавлено на опознание: 2016-06-30 14:46:59 Владелец: antikvolgo Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Описание владельца: Здравствуйте, подскажите пожалуйста что за Икона. Ответов: 2. Последний ответ: Большое спасибо! Добавлено на опознание: 2016-06-21 20:29:54 Владелец: Lev Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Описание владельца: Извините за качество. Икона в плачевном состоянии. Размер 11 см. на. 13 см. Дерево. Ответов: 3. Последний ответ: Спасибо. И спасибо за оперативный ответ. Добавлено на опознание: 2016-06-21 20:25:00 Владелец: Lev Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Ответов нет. Добавлено на опознание: 2016-06-19 14:14:21 Владелец: Andrey777 Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Описание владельца: [Добавлено 2016-06-19 15:33:19]: икона на дереве,моей бабушке дала ее бабушка,пол года назад поставил в рамку,зарание спасибо. Ответов: 1. Последний ответ: Икона " Воскресение Христово " Добавлено на опознание: 2016-06-18 11:43:27 Владелец: Slava71 Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Ответов: 1. Последний ответ: Образ Богородицы " Почаевская " , явление на горе Почаевской в 1340г. отпечаток ноги до сих пор и там целебное озеро. Добавлено на опознание: 2016-06-15 16:32:26 |
| 6136 Dschulnigg, «Überlegungen,» connects «bread of life» in this document with Passover; more persuasively, Sänger, «Missionsliteratur» connects the bread and honeycomb with wisdom and life. 6137 Angels eat from a honeycomb made by the bees of paradise, which provide eternal life, in Jos. Asen. 16:14/16:8; this appears as the «bread of life» in Jos. Asen. 19:5, some MSS. 6138 Philo Heir 191; Creation 158; Flight 138; Names 259–60. The emphasis on «knowledge» (γνσις) remains even in the eucharistie Christian interpretation in Did. 9.3 (cf. 10.3). 6139 Philo Worse 118 (λγον θεον); Alleg. ïnterp. 3.162, 169; Flight 137. Scholars have long noted Philós identification of the Logos and manna (e.g., Howard, Gospel, 161). 6140 Whitacre, John, 159. In context, Deut 8means that God " s decree brought manna even when Israel could not toil for its bread. 6141 E.g., Pesiq Rab Kah. Sup. 3(School of R. Ishmael); Gen. Rab. 43:6; 54:1; 70:5; Exod. Rab. 47:5; Lev. Rab. 30:1; exegesis in Sipre Deut. 48.5b.2; though all eating and drinking could represent Torah (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:1; Ecc1. Rab. 2:24, §1; 5:17, §1; 8:15, §1), and eating at Sinai could represent feasting on the Shekinah (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:9; Lev. Rab. 20:10). Literal bread could also derive from keeping Torah (Sipre Deut. 40.7.1). 6142 In addition to Borgen and some others listed above, e.g., Turner, Spirit, 64; Manns, «Sagesse»; Ellis, World, 26; Longenecker, Christology, 40; for Wisdom motifs, esp. Feuillet, Studies, 76–83. The most thorough study in the Targumim is Malina, Manna Tradition, though this study from the 1960s may be too optimistic about recovering the earliest form of the tradition (cf. Lebram, «Review»). 6143 E.g., Sib. Or. 3.256. Cf. also the tradition of Moses bringing the Torah down from heaven (see comment on John 3:11,13 ). Köstenberger, John, 102–4, relevantly cites God " s own descent (Isa 64:1) at Sinai (64:3). Because God would provide for them, the sixth race of humans was called ορανη (Sib. Or. 1.286; contrast the five races in Hesiod Op. 110–201). |
| 3503 E.g., 1QM 11.12–13; 14.7; 15.1–2; 17.1–2; t. Sanh. 13:2; b. Roš Haš. 17a; Lev. Rab. 13:2; Num. Rab. 19:32; Ecc1. Rab. 1:9, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 10:5; 11:5; cf. 1 En. 99:4; other texts in Bonsirven, Judaism, 65–68; Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 52–54. Some of these texts include in the judgment the wicked of Israel as wel1. 3504 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 214–15. Urbach, «Self-Affirmation,» 278–84, attributes the predominantly negative attitude toward Gentiles to the period before 70, suggesting that rabbis at Yavneh emended it to avoid profaning God " s name. Jeremias, Promise, 40–41, suggests that the negative view (which he may overemphasize) climaxed in such statements as that of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, ca. 90 C.E.: «No Gentile shall have a part in the world to come.» But Moore, Judaism, 2:385–86, cites texts indicating that R. Eliezer was believed to have changed his mind; see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 215, for a critique of Jeremias on this point. 3505 CD 12.6–8; m. Git. 5:9; Ecc1. Rab. 11:1, §1; though cf. Bonsirven, Judaism, 154, for qualifications of this principle. The principle was widespread; Isocrates Ad Nic. 22, Or. 2, stresses the obligation to treat foreigners well for reputation " s sake. Ps.-Phoc. 39–40 may be directed toward just treatment of Alexandrian Jewry rather than toward witness to Gentiles. 3506 Let. Aris. 279 (Ptolemy Philadelphus); t. Sanh. 13:2; Sipre Deut. 307.4.2. This tradition may have served an apologetic purpose, since idolatry and sexual immorality excluded most Gentile men from the broadest Jewish definition of «righteous»; nevertheless, individual righteous Gentiles do appear (e.g., Sipra A.M. pq. 13.194.2.15; b. Hu1. 92a; Lev. Rab. 1:3; cf. also a third-century C.E. Phrygian inscription, praising one who «knew the law of the Jews " –CI J 2:34, §774). See further Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 65–69; for surveys of ancient Jewish texts» diverse positions on the lostness of the Gentiles, see Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 206–12; Bonsirven, Judaism, 66–70; Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 52–74; for a broad sampling of rabbinic texts on Gentiles, see Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 556–65. |
| 6785 As noted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 24; see likewise Cicero Or. Brut. 40.137. Cf. returning the charges in other handbooks: Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442b.6–9; Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.3.6; Hermogenes Issues 39.1–5. 6786 E.g., Xenophon Hel1. 2.3.37. 6787 Thus Cicero Mur. 29.60, dealing softly with Marcus Cato. 6788 E.g., Horace Carm. 4.6. 6789 Dodd, «L " arrière-plan»; idem, More Studies, 46–47; cf. Dozeman, «Sperma» Dodd, More Studies, 41–42, heavily emphasizes the Abraham material here. Contrast Robinson, «Destination,» 123–24 n.1. 6790 For such sarcasm in the face of hostility, see, e.g., Silius Italicus 11.254–255; Matt 23:32; perhaps 1 Kgs 22:15. 6791 Thus Jesus employs parody (see Stibbe, Gospel 118; cf. Rev 13:3, 18; 17:8). Some later philosophers also spoke of hearing and speaking God " s message as if in his presence (Porphyry Marc. 15.258–259, though for him this means undistracted by bodily desires). 6792 See, e.g., Aeschines Timarchus 107; Cicero Pis. 2.3; Verr. 2.2.1.1–2; Agr. 24.63–64; Cat. 1.6.14; perhaps Acts 24:19. 6793 E.g., Rom 4:1 ; Sipre Deut. 311.1.1; 313.1.3; " Abot R. Nat. 23, §46B; 36, §94; b. Ber. 6b; Ned. 32a. Those not his descendants also could greet him with the honorary title «father» (T. Ab. 2:3A; 9:4B); in some sense he was father of the whole world (t. Ber. 1on Gen 17:5 ). Cf. «our fathers» in 6:31. 6794 E.g., Gal 3:7; 4 Macc 6:17, 22; 18:1. Later teachers even emphasized God " s special pre-creation forethought for the patriarchs (Gen. Rab. 1:4, citing Hos 9:10 ). 6795 Many Tannaim probably even denied the use of the phrase to proselytes (m. Bik. 1:4–5; Cohen, «Fathers»). 6796 Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 42.5.2 triumphantly reads the stones in that passage as Gentile Christians. 6797 Schnackenburg, John, 2:210. 6798 E.g., Mek. Pisha 16.165–168 (other opinions in 16.169–172); p. Ta c an. 1:1, §8; Gen. Rab. 55:8; 74:12; 76(Jacob " s merit); 84and 87(Joseph " s merit); Exod. Rab. 2:4; 15:10; 23:5; Lev. Rab. 34:8, bar; Num. Rab. 13:20; Song Rab. 4:4, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 10(in prayer); see further Moore, Judaism, 1:537. Some Tannaim suggested they could have used more merit (Sipre Deut. 2.1.1–4); some Amoraim attributed the exodus to the merit of, or faith in, Moses (Exod. Rab. 15:3; 16:1), to righteous acts (Exod. Rab. 1:28; Lev. Rab. 28:4; Num. Rab. 20:22), to the merits of Israelite women (Exod. Rab. 1:12; Num. Rab. 3:6, bar.), or to various factors, including patriarchal merits (Deut. Rab. 2:23). |
| And yet Clement’s seemingly open attitude toward marital sexual relations in this passage is not typical of church writers at this time, not even of Clement himself. It was more characteristic of these writers to view all proscriptions of the Mosaic Law as purely symbolic except those concerning sex and sexuality. In fact, the early church writers had a tendency to view any manifestation of sexuality, including menstruation, marital relations, and childbirth as “impure” and thus incompatible with participation in the liturgical life of the Church. The reasons for this are numerous. In an age before the Church’s teaching had crystallized into a defined dogmatic system, there were many ideas, philosophies, and outright heresies floating in the air, some of which found their way into the writings of early Christian writers. Pioneers of Christian theology like Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria and others, highly-educated men of their time, were in part under the influence of the pre-Christian philosophical and religious systems that dominated the classical education of their day. For example, the so-called “Stoic axiom,” or the Stoic view that sexual intercourse is justifiable solely as a means for procreation, is repeated by Tertullian, Lactantius, and Clement of Alexandria. The Mosaic prohibition in Lev 18: 19 of sexual intercourse during menstruation thus acquired a new rationale: it was not only “defiling”; if it could not result in procreation it was sinful even within wedlock. Note in this context that Christ only mentions sexual intercourse once in the Gospel, “…and the two shall become one flesh” (Mt 9: 5), without mentioning procreation. Tertullian, who embraced the ultra-ascetical heresy of Montanism in his latter years, went further than most and even considered prayer after sexual intercourse impossible. The famous Origen was notoriously influenced by the contemporary eclectic Middle Platonism, with its characteristic depreciation of all things physical, and indeed of the material world in general. His ascetical and ethical doctrine, while primarily biblical, are also to be found in Stoicism, Platonism, and to a lesser degree in Aristotelianism. Not surprisingly, then, Origen views menstruation as “impure” in and of itself. He is also the first Christian writer to accept the Old Testament concept in Lev 12 of childbirth as something “impure.” It is perhaps significant that the cited theologians came from Egypt, where Judaic spirituality peaceably coexisted with a developing Christian theology: the Jewish population, constantly diminishing from the beginning of the 2nd century in the capital city of Alexandria, exerted an often unnoticeable yet strong influence on local Christians, themselves largely Jewish converts. |
|
|
