| Omerzu H. Der Prozess des Paulus. Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte. Berlin, 2002. Osborne G.R. The Resurrection Narratives. A Redactional Study. Grand Rapids, 1984. Painter J. «The Light Shines in the Darkness...» Creation, Incarnation and Resurrection in John//The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John/ed. by C. R. Koester and R.Bieringer. Tübingen, 2008. P.21–46. Parker P. Three Variant Readings in Luke-Acts//Journal of Biblical Literature. 83 (1964). P.165–170. Paulus H. Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums. Bde. 1–2. Heidelberg, 1828. Perrin N. The High Priest’s Question and Jesus’ Answer ( Mark 14:61–62 )//The Passion in Mark/Ed. by W.H.Kelber. Philadelphia, 1976. P.80–95. Pesch R. The Trial of Jesus Continues. Princeton, 1996. Pitre B. Jesus and the Last Supper. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2015. Plummer A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke. Edinburgh, 1922. Puig i Tàrrech A. Jesus. A Biography. Waco, Texas, 2011. Pulman P. The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ. Edingurgh, 2010. Ramsay W.M. The Denials of Peter//The Expository Times 28/6. March, 1917. P.276–281. Reardom P.H. Christ in the Psalms. Ben Lomond, CA, 2000. Reinhartz A. Caiaphas the High Priest. Minneapolis, 2011. Rinaldi P. Un documento probante sulla localizzazione in Atene della Santa Sindone dopo il sacheggio de Constantinopoli//Coppini L., Cavazzuti F. La Sindone, szienza e fede. Bologna, 1983. P.109–113. Saldarini A.J. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community. Chicago; London, 1994. Samuelsson G. Crucifixion in Antiquity. Tübingen, 2011. Sanders E.P Jesus and Judaism. London, 1985 (русский перевод: Сандерс Э.П. Иисус и иудаизм. М., 2012). Savio P. Ricerche storiche sulla Santa Sindone. Turin, 1957. Schnackenburg R. The Gospel according to St.John. Vol.1. Montreal, 1968; Vol.2. New York, 1980; Vol.3. New York, 1982. Schneiders S.M. Touching the Risen Jesus: Mary Magdalene and Thomas the Twin in John 20 //The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John//ed. by C. R.Koester and R.Bieringer. Tübingen, 2008. P.153–176. |
| 797 Редко замечаемое подтверждение значения Иерусалима для Павла мы встречаем в 1Кор 14 (если этот отрывок действительно принадлежит Павлу), где автор с сарказмом спрашивает коринфян: «Разве от вас вышло Слово Божие?», повторяя Ис 2:3 : «Из Сиона выйдет закон, и Слово Господне от Иерусалима». В соответствии с этим пророчеством Иерусалим стал географическим источником благовестия. 798 Это замечание сделано T. M. Derico, On the Selection of Oral-Traditional Datä Methodological Prolegomena for the Construction of a New Model of Early Christian Tradition (M. Phil, dissertation, University of St. Andrews, 2001) 55–56. 799 Cm. L.Alexander, The Preface to Luké " s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridgë Cambridge University Press, 1993) 190–191. 800 Комментаторы, как правило, не обращают на это внимания – быть может, потому, что редко рассматривают заглавие книги как часть комментируемого текста. Однако F. Bovon, Luke I (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002) 18, пишет: «Отсутствие имени автора в прологе остается для меня загадкой, несмотря на церковную традицию анонимности и на то, что имя, возможно, упоминалось в заглавии книги». Под «церковной традицией анонимности» он, очевидно, подразумевает представление критиков форм о том, что евангельские предания передавались анонимно. 802 M.Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (tr. J.Bowden; London: SCM, 1985) 65. G.N.Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (SNTSMS 27; Cambridgë Cambridge University Press, 1974) 78, с ним согласен. 803 В дошедшем до нас коптском рукописном Евангелии от Фомы та же форма заглавия используется в конце сочинения, как subscnptiö «Евангелие по Фоме». Однако, возможно, это подражание заглавиям четырех канонических Евангелий. Оригинальное заглавие этой книги находится в начале рукописи: «Вот тайные слова, которые живой Иисус говорил, а Дидим Фома записал» (Н. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (London: SCM, 1990) 20–21). 804 Hengel, Studies, 74; J. P. Small, Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity (New York: Routledge, 1997) 33–35. |
| проект большого издания НЗ, к-рый осуществляется Институтом новозаветных текстологических исследований (Мюнстер; начало публикации в 1997 - Novum Testamentum Graecum: Ed. critica maior/Hrsg. vom Inst. für neutestamentliche Textforschung. IV. Die katholischen Briefe/Hrsg. von B. Aland, K. Aland, G. Mink und K. Wachtel. Stuttg., 1998). Базовый текст заимствован из NA26, привлекается большинство рукописных источников, версии и сочинения греч. авторов до VIII в. При отсутствии исторических концепций у публикаторов издания такого рода могут оказаться лишь хранилищем несистематизированного материала. Успешнее служат исследовательским целям издания отдельных разновидностей новозаветного текста или входящих в них книг. Напр., на базе предшествующих публикаций было осуществлено издание визант. текста: Hodges Z. C. , Farstad A. L. The Greek New Testament: accord. to the Majority Text. Nashville, 1982. После открытия Б. Стритером (1924) т. н. «кесарийского текста» его реконструкцию в объеме Евангелия от Марка издала С. Лейк ( Lake S. Family Π and the Codex Alexandrinus: The text accord. to Mark. L., 1937). Зап. текст Деяний апостолов издавался дважды: Clark A. C. The Acts of the Apostles: A Crit. ed. Oxf., 1977; Boismard M. E. , Lamouille A. Le Texte occidental des Actes des Ap ô tre, reconstution et réhabilitation. P., 1984. 2 vol.; 20002. Толкования Андрея Кесарийского на Апокалипсис оказали влияние на развитие текста Апокалипсиса, что показало их исследование и издание, осуществленное И. Шмидтом ( Schmidt J. Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypsentextes. Münch., 1955-1956. 2 Bde). Еще одной формой научного издания текста является публикация коллаций отдельных рукописей, т. е. разночтений, выявленных при сравнении данной рукописи с известным текстом, им обычно является TR. Публикация коллаций широко практиковалась с сер. XIX до сер. XX в., в эпоху интенсивного освоения рукописного материала. Напр., исключительно в этой форме доступны издания новозаветных лекционариев (см.: Colwell E. C. , Riddle D. W. Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels. Chicago, 1933; Metzger B. M. The Saturday and Sunday Lessons from Luke in the Greek Gospel Lectionary. Chicago, 1944; Geerlings J. The Lectionary Text of Family 13, accord. to Cod. Vat. gr. 1217 (Gregory 547). Salt Lake City, 1959; и т. д.). А. А. Алексеев Рубрики: Ключевые слова: ВЫСОТЫ термин, использованный в рус. Синодальном переводе ВЗ для передачи смысла евр. слова, обозначающего преимущественно место для отправления культа ЕККЛЕСИАСТА КНИГА библейская книга; в христ. традиции входит в число учительных книг; в иудейском каноне - в разд. «Писания» (агиографы) ЕСФИРИ КНИГА название канонической книги ВЗ, входящей в раздел исторических книг (в евр. традиции - в разд. «Писания») |
| Seminary. Louisville, 1949; Gingrich F. W. The Greek NT as a Landmark in the Course of Semantic Change//JBL. 1954. Vol. 73. P. 189-196; Bauer W. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des NT und übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. B., 19585; Morgenthaler R. Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes. Zürich, 1958; Moule C. F. D. An Idiom Book of NT Greek. Camb., 19592; Thrall M. E. Greek Particles in the NT. Leyden, 1962; Blass F., Debrunner A. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Gött., 196512; Zerwick M. Graecitas biblica: NT exemplis illustratur. R., 19665; Black M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxf., 19673; Hill D. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. Camb., 1967; Fitzmyer J. A. A Wandering Aramean: Coll. Aramaic Essays. Missoula (Mont.), 1979; Voelz J. W. The Language of the NT//ANRW. R. 2. B., 1984. Bd. 25. Teilbd. 2. S. 893-977; Black D. A. NT Semitisms//The Bible Translator. L., 1988. Vol. 39. N 2. P. 215-223; Cotterell P., Turner M. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. L., 1989; Greek-English Lexicon of the NT: Based on Semantic Domains/Ed. J. P. Louw, E. A. Nida. N. Y., 19892. 2 vol.; Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity/Ed. M. J. Mulder. Assen, 1990; Славятинская М. Н. Учебник древнегреч. языка. М., 1996. 2 ч.; Ламбдин Т. О. Учебник древнеевр. языка/Пер. с англ.: Я. Эйделькинд. М., 1998; Casey M. The Aramaic Sources of Mark " s Gospel. Camb.; N. Y., 1998; idem. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Mattew and Luke. N. Y., 2002; Грилихес Л., свящ. Археология текста: Сравн. анализ Евангелий от Матфея и от Марка. М., 1999; он же. Гебраизмы в Евангелии от Матфея: К вопр. об оригинальном языке первого канонич. Евангелия//БВ. 2004. 4. С. 106-122; Porter S. E. Dialect and Register in the Greek of the NT: Theory//Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation/Ed. |
| The Journal of Theological Studies. — Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005 (April). — Vol. 56 (New Series): 1 8 июля 2005 г. 16:03 Содержание номера Статьи Campbell D. A. Possible Inscriptional Attestation to Sergius Paul[L]US (Acts 13:6–12), and the Implications for Pauline Chronology. Mosser C. The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of PSALM 82, Jewish Antecedents, and the Origin of Christian Deification. Zachhuber J. Once Again: Gregory of Nyssa on Universals. Заметки и публикации McDonough S. M. Competent to Judge: The Old Testament Connection Between 1 Corinthians 5 and 6. Van Nuffelen P. Two Fragments from the Apology for Origen in the Church History of Socrates Scholasticus. Edwards M. J. Constantine " s Donation to the Bishop and Pope of the City of Rome’. Рецензии на книги Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Glimpses of a Strange Land: Studies in Old Testament Ethics Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships. Stockmen from Tekoa, Sycomores from Sheba: A Study of Amos’ Occupations. Reading for History in the Damascus Document: A Methodological Study. Christianity in the Making, volume 1: Jesus Remembered. Not the Righteous but Sinners: M. M. Bakhtin " s Theory of Aesthetics and the Problem of Reader-Character Interaction in Matthew " s Gospel. The Gospel of Matthew " s Dependence on the Didache. Jesus " Defeat of Death: Persuading Mark " s Early Readers. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. Creation-Covenant Scheme and Justification by Faith: A Canonical Study of the God–Human Drama in the Pentateuch and the Letter to the Romans. Das Gesetz im Römerbrief und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament. Where to Live? The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul " s Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3:1–14. Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn. The Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics of James. |
| Библиография : W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. → From Stone Age to Christianity. → Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands. → «Recent Discoveries in Palestine and the Gospel of St. John»//W. D. Davies and David Daube, eds., The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology. → William Albright: Toward a More Conservative View//Christianity Today (18 January 1963). R. Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate. D. Estrada and W. White, Jr., The First New Testament. E. Fisher, «New Testament Documents among the Dead Sea Scrolls?»//The Bible Today 61 (1972). P. Garnet, «O’Cullahan’s Fragments: Our Earliest New Testament Texts?»//Evangelical Quarterly 45 (1972). N. Geisler, General Introduction to the Bible. C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. B. Orchard, «А Fragment of St. Mark’s Gospel Dating from before A. D. 50?»//Biblical Apostolate 6 (1972). W. N. Pickering, The Identification of the New Testament Text. W. White, Jr., «O " Callahan’s Identifications: Confirmation and Its Consequences»//Westminster Journal 35 (1972). J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. H. C. Theissen, Introduction to the New Testament. J. Wenham, Redating Matthew. Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. E. Yamauchi, «Easter – Myth, Hallucination, or History»//Christianity Today (15 March 1974; 29 March 1974). Новый Завет: задачи апологетики (NEW TESTAMENT APOLOGETIC CONCERNS) Историческая достоверность Нового Завета утверждается на основе свидетельства о том, что история познаваема, аутентичности новозаветных рукописей и показаний новозаветных очевидцев (см. Новый Завет: историческая достоверность). В число последних входят новозаветные священнописатели, бывшие очевидцами и/или современниками событий; имеются также достаточно древние светские источники. Эти положения являются критически важным звеном в общей христианской апологетике (см. апологетика: основные положения). Не будь у нас достоверного Нового Завета, у нас не было бы и объективных, исторических способов узнать, что говорил и совершал Иисус. Мы не смогли бы установить, был ли Он Богом, чему Он учил, а также что совершали и чему учили Его последователи. Доказательство достоверности новозаветных документов состоит из двух главных шагов. Во-первых, мы должны показать, что рукописи были написаны достаточно рано и с достаточным вниманием к деталям, чтобы быть достоверными документами. Сопутствующий вопрос, но тоже важный – действительно ли новозаветные рукописи копировались настолько точно, чтобы мы могли с уверенностью судить, что было сказано в их оригиналах, в автографах? Во-вторых, мы должны узнать, надёжны ли источники и показания очевидцев, на которые опирались священнописатели. |
| But if its narrative function (in terms of its full theological weight) is in some sense symbolic of an outpouring of the Spirit, one need not seek a chronological harmonization with Acts 2. 10663 As Bürge emphasizes, Luke-Acts itself provides a similar chronological situation: because Luke must end his Gospel where he does, he describes the ascension as if it occurs on Easter (Luke 24:51) even though he will soon inform or remind his readers that it occurred only forty days afterward (Acts 1:3, 9). Likewise, «knowing his Gospel would have no sequel,» the Fourth Evangelist theologically compressed «the appearances, ascension, and Pentecost into Easter. Yet for him, this is not simply a matter of literary convenience.... John weaves these events into " the hour» with explicit theological intentions.» 10664 1B. The Setting (20:19) By announcing that it was evening on the first day of the week (20:19), John informs the reader that the first revelation to the gathered disciples occurred shortly after the resurrection appearances began. Although some question the timing, 10665 it certainly appears consistent with the gospel tradition ( 1Cor 15:5 ). 10666 Luke in particular indicates that Jesus left two Judean disciples about sundown (Luke 24:29, 31) and the disciples hurried immediately to Jerusalem (Luke 24:33), where Jesus greeted all the disciples together (Luke 24:36). Mark " s Galilean emphasis makes sense of why Jesus promises an appearance to the disciples in Galilee ( Mark 14:28; 16:7 ), which John does not treat as incompatible with a prior Judean appearance such as in Luke ( John 21:1 ). The disciples would also be continuing in their most intense mourning period at this time; later rabbinic traditions suggest that such mourning included sitting without shoes on the ground, abstaining from working, washing, anointing, and even study of Torah. 10667 John may mention the time of day particularly to connect the events of this paragraph closely with the one that preceded. 10668 There Jesus surprised Mary, who did not recognize him, and commissioned her to tell his other followers the remaining detail of his mission (20:17), which she carried out (20:18). Now he commissions the disciples to carry his message to those who are not yet his disciples (20:21–23); the story world presumes that they, too, would prove obedient to their commission (17:20). |
| 661 E.g., Townsend, «Speeches»; Schweizer, «Speeches»; Dibelius, Studies, 138–85; idem, Paul, 11; idem, Tradition, 16–18. 665 Cf. Dodd, Preaching, 17–19; Martin, «Evidence,» 59; Payne, «Semitisms»; Ehrhardt, Acts, 1. Torrey, Composition, first argued for Aramaic sources throughout the first half of the book, especially in the speeches, but he may have underestimated the extent to which Koine, Semitic or «Jewish Greek,» and translation Greek overlap (cf. LXX; Jos. Asen.; «Jewish Greek» in Turner, «Thoughts,» 46; Nock, «Vocabulary,» 138–39; though for Rome contrast Leon, Jews, 92); further, an intentional Septuagintalizing (Hengel, Acts, 62; De Zwaan, «Language») or Semitizing to fit the character of his speakers, and perhaps the character of Acts 1–12 as a whole, is plausible. (Aune, Environment, 117, regards it as equivalent to Lukés contemporaries» Atticizing style; by contrast, Most, «Luke,» protests that this form of translation Greek differs from the LXX and reflects Luke following Hebrew sources.) 668 Hengel, Acts, 61. With regard to Paul " s speeches, an interested traveling companion could have learned from Paul " s recollections the gist of those speeches he missed (Robertson, Luke, 228). 669 Nor do even most conservative biblical apologists today, including in the words of the Johannine Jesus; cf. Wenham, Bible, 92–95; Feinberg, «Meaning,» 299–301 (the exact voice, but not words, of Jesus); Bock, «Words,» 75–77; cf. Edersheim, Life, 203. 671 Bauckham, ««Midrash,»» 68; thus L.A.BI:s careful treatment of the Decalogue may provide a closer analogy than his composition of speeches. 673 Ridderbos, John, 382–83, cites Luke 19as implying that the Synoptics also recognize a fuller ministry outside Galilee, but the verse may refer simply to Galilean pilgrims present for the festiva1. 674 As plain as Mark " s Messianic Secret has been since Wrede, its interpretation is no more obvious today than John " s. Wrede, Secret, 228, explains it as a Markan cover for the fact that Jesus did not claim messiahship before the resurrection. Burkill, Light, 1–38, argues that it is pre-Markan and may go back to Jesus (Ellis, «Composition,» shows that Q also contained the motif). Longenecker, Christology, 70–73, argues that messiahship could be publicly confirmed only at the resurrection. Cullmann, State, 26, thinks Jesus avoided the title because of its political overtones. Theissen, Stories, 64,68–69, 141–42, compares the secrecy commands to prohibitions against revealing formulas in magical texts. Hooker, Message of Mark, 61, explains the secret as hiding Jesus» identity from those who will not believe. Jesus» danger from the authorities (see Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 87) could also explain the secret on a literary leve1. The Johannine version of the theme is addressed in more detail on John 3:4 , below. |
| 363 A. M. Farrer in Muddiman, «John " s Use»; cf. Gundry, Matthew, 2. Although the case for Matthew is not certain, it is often affirmed: e.g., Goppelt, «Church in History,» 198; Zumstein, «Antioche»; Gundry, Matthew, 609; Ellis, Matthew, 6; Hengel, Acts, 98; some opt for Palestine, e.g., Viviano, «Matthew.» For the suggestion of Matthew " s Sitz im Leben as conflict with Yavneh or neo-Pharisaic authorities, resembling the scenario often proposed for John, cf. Davies, Setting, and Tilborg, Leaders. 364 See the thorough treatment of scholars» perspectives on the relationship between John and Luke in Smith, John Among Gospels, 85–110. For agreements with Acts, see Cribbs, «Agreements.» 366 Eller, Disciple, 47. For the thesis that Luke may have used John in his Passion Narrative, see Maison, Dialogue. 367 See Myllykoski, «Luke and John,» esp. 152; for the thesis of a common document on which they depend, see Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 1:15. 368 E.g., Streeter, Gospels, 393–426 (plus Lukés Passion Narrative). MacGregor, John, x, thinks this «can hardly be questioned,» though he does not presume that John had Mark directly in front of him. 369 Vogler, «Johannes als Kritiker.» Some writers did critique predecessors (see, e.g., Diodorus Siculus 1.3.1–2; Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 67); others, however, sought merely to supplement them (cf. Xenophon Apo1. 1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.1.1). 370 Stein, «Agreements.» Cf. Smith, Johannine Christianity, 12: though Bent Noack has overstated the case, the parallels may indicate oral traditions that the Johannine and Synoptic communities held in common. 371 Cf. Borgen, «Passion Narrative,» 259. But much of their redaction could also depend on prior common tradition. 372 Barrett, «Synoptic Gospels,» allows that John had something akin to Mark, but that he only alluded to the material rather than depending on it as Matthew and Luke did. But John " s use of Mark may have been even less significant than this, given other available sources (cf. Luke 1:1) and above all his own independent tradition. |
| 4126 E.g., Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 332–33; but this is also the view of nearly all the commentators below. 4127 See Bright, History, 225–26; Harrelson, Cult, 86–87; cf. De Vaux, Israel, 109, for comparison with ancient coronations. Later Judaism generally regarded the psalm as specifically messianic (e.g., b. Sukkah 52a; Longenecker, Christology, 113). 4128 See Kim, «Mark,» 92. 4129 Kingsbury, Christology, 66. 4130 Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 335; Jeremias, Theology, 53–54; Kingsbury, Christology, 40, 65; Bruce, History, 168; Hurtado, Mark, 6; Schweizer, Matthew, 37; Robinson, Studies, 162; Taylor, Mark, 162 (with Isa 44:2); Bürge, Community, 61. We do not here contest the possibility of influence by the language («echoes»; Robinson, Taylor), but doubt that the phrasing here is intended to evoke the picture of the Servant (in contrast to Matthew). 4131 Hooker, Servant, 72; cf. Anderson, Mark, 79–80. 4132 Hooker, Servant, 72–73. 4133 Schweizer, Matthew, 38. 4134 Ibid., 38. 4135 Ibid., 37–38. 4136 Cf., e.g., Prabhu, Quotations. 4137 Pace Rodd, «Spirit.» Matthew changes the more Semitic «finger» to fit his own context, perhaps as midrash on Isa 42 just cited; Luke includes the Spirit whenever he can, suggesting it was there missing from his source (cf. also Schweizer, Matthew, 287; Gundry, Matthew, 235). 4138 Best, Mark, 81. Others admit it as probable (e.g., Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 335; Kingsbury, Christology, 65) or find echoes (Taylor, Mark, 162). 4139 Cf. Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 328. 4140 Dodd, Parables, 130 n. 1; Ladd, Theology, 164; Schweizer, Mark, 41. 4141 Matthew and Luke seem to have followed the standard biographical procedure of following one primary (Mark) and another secondary source (presumably Q) before weaving in material around it, whereas John goes his own way. See introduction. 4142 An almost certainly historical tradition; see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98–101. Variations in the lists of names support this, indicating that the number existed before the lists were standardized (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 101). The names may have varied because people often had multiple names (Acts 1:23; CIJ 1:24, §30; 1:279, §279; 2:111, §879; CP J 2:140, 143, 146–147, §§261, 269–270,274–276; 2:151,153–154,156, §§298,304,311,321; 3:9, §453; see Leon, Jews, 107,111–12); cf. also OT examples, which, regardless of their origins, were by the early Christian period regarded as from one source (e.g., Horeb as Sinai, Exod 3:1; 19:11; 24:13; Jethro as Reuel, Exod 2:18; 4:18; 18:1–12; Num 10:29 ). On nicknames, see below; nor is twelve an exorbitant number for disciples (e.g., Diogenes Laertius 8.1.39). |
|
|
