| Уповати в Боз е . Taken from Faber, Dominica 10 Post Pentecosten, No. 9 «Docum enta [on the Gospel for the day. viz. Luke 18. 9–14]», sect. 1 «A Christo disce:... 2. non extolli de bonis, nec desperare de malis operibus». The poem expresses the subsection heading, which is also the source of He хвалитися . Упокоение . Taken from Faber, In Festo Matthiae Apostoli, No. 9 «Mysteria [on the Gospel for the day, viz. Matt. 11.25–30]», sect. 8 «Quomodo reficiuntur onerati». 11. 1–4 cf Faber: «Quomodo reficiuntur onerati, qui ad Christum veniunt? Resp. primos oneratos refici in eo, dum ablato ab eorum humeris iugo gravi et importabili veteris legis et servitutis Daemoniacae in gentilismo, imponitur eis iugum Legis Evangelicae leve et suave.» 11. 5–6 cf Faber: «Secundos in eo, dum a peccatorum onere et conscientiae carnificina expediti et liberati, spem salutis acquirunt, et iam in tuto extra laqueos Daemonis positos se vident.» Утаение хр е ха . Taken from MSE (1653), «Confessio», No. 31 «De illo qui Dominicum corpus retinere non potuit nisi prius facta confessione». 11. 1–4 cf MSE: «Erat ibi iuuenis mundanae vanitati, & vt in ilia aetate homines soient, voluptati fraena relaxans... Cum que per aliquantum temporis ac suspicione apud vicinos, quosque teneretur, accidit, vt incurreret in tantam aegritudinem, quae de vita ejus homines cogeret desperare.» 11. 5–10 cf MSE : «Qui cum lecto decumberet, & jam, iamque morti proximus fieret, inuitatus est ad eum, more Ecclesiastico presbyter, vt ejus confessionem susciperet... Quod dum explesset, & rursus super praefato crimine a presbytero interrogaretur, mentitus est dicens se nullatenus reum esse... Presbyter... Dominicam ei communionem iam securus tradidit. Qua ore suscepta, glutiendi virtus aegro protinus ablatus est... Quod dum multoties conaretur, & frustrari semper suos conatus cerneret, coactus ipsa glutiendi im potentia, iuxta lectum quo decumbebat, illud expuendo proiecit.» Simeon states that the sick man deliberately held the Host in his mouth, whereas MSE makes it clear that he was deprived of the ability to swallow. 11. 11–20 cf MSE : «Cuius rei euentu valde territus, presbyterum, qui dicesserat, ad se revocari rogauit... Spiritu Dei agente compunctus, confessus est se male egisse, se Deo mentitum fuisse, verumque quod ante negauerat esse... Presbyter intuens, compassus confitenti, & moerore confecto, eum ut moris est absolvit, atque rursus Dominico corpore refecit. Quo suscepto cum tanta libertate glutivit, ut vere tunc appareret non casu, sed virtute divina, ne ante hoc suscipere posset, prohibitum fuisse. Post hanc igitur reatus confessionem, & corporis Christi perceptionem, paululum supervivens in pace quievit. Petrus Verier. Abbas Cluniacens. Miracul. cap. 3» (pp. 135–6). |
| 5909 It is so pervasive that scholars often recognize the trial motif in this Gospel as a central one (e.g., Lincoln, Lawsuit Motif; van der Watt and Voges, «Elemente»). 5910 As some commentators observe (e.g., Bernard, John, 1:247), the argument should have made sense in an early Jewish milieu; see Odeberg, Gospel, 232–34, for parallels of phrasing in rabbinic texts for every verse of 5:31–47. 5911 Isocrates Nic. 46-A7, Or. 3.36; Publilius Syrus 597; Plutarch Praising, Mor. 539A-547F (esp. 15, Mor. 544D); Dio Chrysostom Or. 57.3–9; Quintilian 11.1.17–19; Phaedrus 1.11; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.1.1; Prov 27:2 . See further Lyons, Autobiography, 44–45,53–59; Marshall, Enmity, 124–29. 5912 Apocrit. 2.7–12 (probably Porphyry); in the strictest sense, the objection confuses legal testimony with other claims. 5913 " Abot R. Nat. 11A. Cf. Prov 27:2 ; 2Cor 11:12 . 5914 " Abot R. Nat. 1, §1B; cf. Heb 5:4. 5915 E.g., Babrius 114. Revelation applies λαμπδες … καιμεναι to the spirits of God (Rev 4:5; but cf. judgment language in 8:10), whereas λυχνα refers to churches (Rev 1:12–13, 20; 2:1, 5; cf. 11:4). 5916 Moloney, Signs, 21. 5917 So also Brown, John, 1:224, citing also Matt 17:12–13; Mark 9:13 . Moses is presumably the lamp in 2 Bar. 18:1; see further the comments on John 1:4 . Barrett, John, 265, cites also other figures who were lamps, though they are probably less relevant here. 5918 Cf. Ellis, Genius, 96. 5919 Cf. Dio Chrysostom Or. 77/78.37–45, in Malherbe, Exhortation, 51; Stowers, Letter Writing, 140; 1Cor 9:19, 22 . 5920 Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.27.37; Sallust Letter of Gnaeus Pompeius 6; Ovid Metam. 4.276, 284; cf. Virgil Georg. 2.434; Seneca Benef. 3.12.4; Demosthenes Crown 268; Cicero Sest. 26.56; Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 408, §§138D-139D; Phlm 19 . This is specifically applied to quoted testimony in Maximus of Tyre Or. 24.1. See many different sources in Lane, Hebrews, 382–83, on 11:32; rhetorical handbooks in Anderson, Glossary, 88–89; Rowe, «Style,» 149. |
| 4817 Oddly, some have cited Hermetic language as the background for the NT language (e.g., Reitzenstein, Religions, 453–54; Barrett, John, 206–7; Houlden, Epistles, 89). 4818 E.g., Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus in Stobaeus Ec1. 1.1.12; Epictetus Diatr. 4.10.16; Plutarch Plat. Q. 2.1–2, Mor 1000E-1001C; T.T. 8.1.3, Mor. 718A; Marcus Aurelius 10.1; cf. Vellanickal, Sonship, 360; Kelly, Peter, 50. Plato Statesman 270DE records an ancient tale about the rebirth of the cosmos. 4819 Sib. Or. 3.604, 726; 5.284, 328, 360, 406, 498, 500 (probably second century B.C.E., possibly Egyptian Jewish). 4820 E.g., Philo Decalogue 53, 107; Spec. Laws 1.96, 209; cf. Spec. Laws 3.189. See further Lee, Thought, 47. For sonship language in Philo, see esp. Vellanickal, Sonship, 50–51. See the much fuller comment on 1:12; and documentation in Keener, Matthew, 217, on divine fatherhood. 4822 Philo Cherubim 114; cf. the analogy of death and a second birth in Seneca Ep. Luci1. 102.26; Maximus of Tyre Or. 41.5. Wolfson, Philo, 1:405, cites in this connection also QE 2.46, «second birth»; see further Burnett, «Immortality.» The language of the «regeneration» could suggest the Stoic idea of a cosmic conflagration (cf. Philo Eternity 85; Moses 2.65; cf. Matt 19:28), but writers could also use παλιγγενεσα simply with reference to the coming of spring. 4826 Lev. Rab. 29:12; see various citations in Moore, Judaism, 1:533. Re-creation applies to Moses» call in Exod. Rab. 3:15; other sources in Buchanan, Consequences, 210. 4828 E.g., «Abot R. Nat. 26, §54B; of Abraham and Sarah in Sipre Deut. 32.2.1; »Abot R. Nat. 12A; Song Rab. 1:2, §3; see other citations in Davies, Paul, 119. Amoraim also applied the principle to teaching young men (b. Sanh. 99b). 4830 Also 1QS 4.17–20, 23–26; 1 En. 5:8–9; 10:16; 91:8–11, 17; 92:3–5; 107:1; 108:3; Jub. 50:5; 4 Ezra 7:92; T. Zeb. 9:8, MSS; T. Mos. 10:1. 4831 E.g., Gen. Rab. 89:1; Deut. Rab. 3:11. Rabbinic traditions apply this principle specifically to the evil impulse (p. c Abod . Zar. 4:7, §2; Sukkah 5:2, §2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2; Exod. Rab. 30:17; 46:4; Ecc1. Rab. 2:1, §1; 12:1, §1), often in conjunction with Ezek 36 (b. Sukkah 52a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:17; Exod. Rab. 41:7; Deut. Rab. 6:14; Song Rab. 6:11, §1); cf. postmortem elimination of the impulse in L.A.B. 33:3; Gen. Rab. 9:5. A number of commentators (Dodd, Preaching, 34; Schnackenburg, John, 1:370–71), allude to the Jewish doctrine of eschatological purification here. |
| 6564 See comment on 7concerning the well as a proposed background for the Scripture. 6565 Aune, Prophecy, 155; see comment on 6:14–15. 6566 Painter, John, 72–73; Bruce, Time, 41; Ellis, Genius, 8; Duke, Irony, 67; Ridderbos, John, 277. Cf. Smith, John (1999), 175 (irony, whether because Jesus was from Bethlehem or because he was Messiah without being from there). A Bethlehemite Messiah was a widespread expectation (Longenecker, Christology, 109; Keener, Matthew, 103; also Tg. Mic. 5:1, though it polemically explains away possible ideas of preexistence; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 35:21 , for Messiah " s revelation near Bethlehem; pace Dodd, Interpretation, 90–91). There may also be an allusion here to 2Sam 7LXX, as in 4QFlor 10.11 (Lane, Hebrews, 25), though the verbal parallel is far from coercive. On evidence concerning Jesus as descendant of David, see Matt 1:6; Luke 3:31; Rom 1:3 ; b. Sanh. 43a, bar.; Julius Africanus Letter to Aristides; Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.20; further, e.g., Meier, Marginal Jew, 216–19. 6567 Duke, Irony, 24, citing Sophocles Oedipus the King. 6568 Cf. Jerome Letter 58 to Paulinus 3; Paulinus of Nola Epistles 31.3; Finegan, Archeology, 20–23. 6569 Malina, Windows, 106. 6570 E.g., Terence The Lady of Andros 1–27; The Self-Tormentor 16–52; The Eunuch 1–45; Phormio 1–23; The Mother-in-Law 1–57; The Brothers 1–25; Phaedrus 2.9.7–11; 3.pro1.23; 4.pro1. 15–16; Appian R.H. 3.7.3; 7.5.28; 8.10.68; C.W. 1, introduction 1; 4.8.64; Aulus Gellius 6.19.6; 17.4.3–6; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 4.1–2; 25 (Atticus), 7.1–11.6; Herodian 4.3.2, 5. Such adversarial relations weakened the state or other institutions that it plagued (Sallust Jug. 73.5; Livy 2.60.4; 3.66.4; Herodian 8.8.5). 6571 E.g., Acts 23:7; Chariton 5.4.1–2 (Callirhoés beauty); 5.8.4; 6.1.2–5; Plutarch L.S. 1, Mor. 772C; Josephus Life 139, 142–144. 6572 For the sending of officers to arrest one or transfer detention, see P.Oxy. 65. 6573 See Keener, Matthew, 351–53, 538–49,613–16; cf. Meier, Marginal lew, 3:289–388. |
| 6896 Cicero Vat. 10.25–26. 6897 Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.23.33. 6898 E.g., Josephus Ant. 4.219; m. Yebam. 15:1, 8–10; 16:7; Ketub. 1:6–9; t. Yebam. 14:10; Sipra VDDeho. pq. 7.45.1.1. 6899 It was honorable and in onés favor to have no accuser (Seneca Controv. 2.1.7) or (more relevant here) no past criminal record (e.g., Cicero Sest. 30.64). 6900 Enoch is λεγχων of sins in T. Ab. 11:1–3B, but he appears more as a scribe recounting sins than a prosecutor exposing them. 6901 1 Kgs 8:46; Jub. 21:21; 1QS 11.9; Let. Aris. 277–278; Sir 8:5 ; 4 Ezra 7:138–140; b. Sanh. 101a; Apoc. Zeph. 7:8; Rom 3:23 ; perhaps 1 Esd 4:37–38. 6902 T. Ab. 10:13A; " Abot R. Nat. 14A; but normally even the patriarchs were not thought completely sinless (T. Ab. 9:3A; Moore, Judaism, 1:467–68; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 7:8). 6903 Cf. 1QS 6.26–7.9; 7.15–16; Josephus Ant. 3.67; b. Sanh. 101a; references in Edersheim, Life, 378; Beer, «lykwdm.» Publicly shaming onés fellow could be said to warrant exclusion from the coming age (m. " Abot 3:11). 6904 Likewise, «synagogue of Satan» is used for the jarring effect of its disjunctive image in Rev 2and 3:9, not because it had become a standard association of terms; the portrayal of churches as lampstands in Rev 1suggested their continuing Jewishness (see introduction, chs. 4–5). 6905 Brown, Community, 37, uses this to suggest that the Jewish community viewed John " s community as including «Samaritan elements.» By denying the demonization charge but not the Samaritan one, Jesus» response would encourage Samaritan converts (Duke, Irony, 75). 6906 Thus the emphatic σ at the sentencés conclusion (Bernard, John, 2:316). Cullmann, Church, 192, connects the charge with the fact that Jesus, like Samaritans, «was criticized for his attitude to the temple worship» (2:14–16); but the matter of descent from Abraham relates better to this context. 6907 The rhetorical practice of returning a charge had sufficient precedent (e.g., Plato Apo1. 35D; Matt 12:24,45); see further my introduction to 8:37–51. |
| 3666 Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus RA. 3.1.3 (μονογενς). Bernard, John, 1:23, Hoskyns, Gospel 149, and Roberts, «Only Begotten, " » 8, cite, e.g., Judg 11:34 ; Ps 35:17 ; Jer 6:26 ; Amos 8(cf. similarly Tob 3:15; 6:10, 14; 8:17; Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; cf. Plato Tim. 31); technical exceptions include Heb 11:17; Josephus Ant. 20.19–22. They also cite non-Jewish examples in Plautus Captives 1.147,150; Aegeon Comedy of Errors 5.1.329; cf. similarly Du Plessis, ««Only Begotten,»» 30 n. 5 (on Plautus). 3667 Bernard, John, 1:23–24, and Roberts, «Only Begotten, " » 8, cite examples in Psalms (22:21; 25:16; 35:17). 3669 Sir 36:12 (πρωτγονος); Pss. So1. 18:4; 4 Ezra 6(also «only begotten,» OTP 1:536); cf. Jub. 19:29. Israel was beloved to God like an only child (Simeon ben Yohai in Exod. Rab. 52:5; Lev. Rab. 2:5; later rabbis, Song Rab. 5:16, §3; Israel as an only daughter, Song Rab. 2:14, §2; 3:11, §2). «Son» usually represents Israel in rabbinic parables (Johnston, Parables, 587). 3670 Bar 3:36–37 (γαπημνω); Pss. So1. 9(λας, öv γπησας); Jub. 31:15, 20; 4 Ezra 5:27; Rom 11:28 ; " Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B; Sipre Deut. 344.1.1; 344.3.1; 344.5.1; Song Rab. 2:1, §1; 2:1, §3; Tg. Isa. 1:4. Sipre Deut. 97.2 interprets Deut 14as declaring that «every individual Israelite is more beloved before [God] than all the nations of the world» (trans. Neusner, 1:255). Different rabbis applied the title «most beloved [of all things]» variously to Torah, the sanctuary, or Israel (Sipre Deut. 37.1.3); for some rabbis, God " s love for Israel was the heart of Torah (Goshen Gottstein, «Love»). 3671 E.g., R. Ishmael (3 En. 1:8); Esdram (Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1[ed. Wahl, 25] ); articular if the article for «holy prophet» includes this, the κα being epexegetical); Sedrach (Apoc. Sedr. 3[ed. Wahl, 39]). Early Christian texts naturally transfer the title to Jesus ( Mark 1:11; 9:7 ; Matt 3:17: 17:5; Luke 3:22; Eph 1:6 ; Acts Paul 3:11Paul and Thecla 1; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4[ed. Wahl, 30]). Ancients regarded being the «beloved of the gods» (θεοφιλς) a special privilege (Plutarch Lycurgus 5.3, LCL 1:216–17). |
| Secunda, paupertas honestatis. Tertia, paupertas vanitatis.» 11. 7–32 cf Meffreth: «Prima miserabilis, quia voluntati contraria, & hanc sustinent illi inuoluntarij pauperes, qui libenter haberent, si possent. Isti Deum acusant de iniquitate, & proximum de tenacitate, fortunam suam de infelicitate, & isti sunt pleni murmurationibus, odijs, furtis & mendacijs, & licet vitiosi sint, vt plurimum tarnen pium est eorum defectibus subuenire. Iuxta illud Psalm. 40 Beatus qui intelligit super egenum & pauperem. Et glos. Hiero. super Eccles. 12.[Ecclus. 12.4] Da misericordi, & ne suscipias peccatores. sic dicit. Qui indigenti misericordiam tribuit, nec pro delicto spemit misericordiam, bene facit, natura enim respicienda est non persona. Qui enim dat indigenti peccatori, non quia peccator est, sed quia homo est, non peccatorem, sed iustum nutrit, quia non delictum diligit, sed naturam.» 11. 33–38 cf Meffreth: «Secunda est paupertas honestatis, & haec est commendabilis, quia virtuose voluntaria propter Christum, qua homo non solum sollicitudinem seculi deserit, imo indigentijs multis se exponit. Et isti habent triplicem securitatem.» 11. 39–46 cf Meffreth: «Et Primo tales quidem similiores sunt Christo in conuersatione; quia ille realiter & effectualiter factus est pauper pro nobis, scilicet, nascendo, viuendo, docendo & moriendo.» 11. 47–62 cf Meffreth: «Secundo, sunt validiores in tentatione. ... Et ideo dicit beatus Gregorius 1. homil. Nudi cum nudo luctari debemus, facilius enim ad terram trahitur, qui in se habet vnde teneatur. Serpens enim sicut dicit Magister in histo: hominem nudum fugit: sed insilit in vestitum. Sic diabolus qui est serpens antiquus pauperes fugit, & in diuites insilit.» 11. 63–64 cf Meffreth: «Tertio, pauperes isti sunt beatiores in remuneratione.» 11. 65–66 cf Matt. 5.3. Meffreth does not mention the Apostles at this point. 11. 71–80 cf Meffreth: «Tertia est paupertas vanitatis, & haec vituperabilis est, & nulli necessaria, & hanc habent illi, qui relinquunt diuitias propter vanam gloriam, sicut quidam Philosophi tempore beati Ioannis Euangelistae, qui propter gloriam mundi gemmas praetiosas fregerunt in signum mundani contemptus, quos arguit Ioannes, vt in sua legenda clarius continetur» (Pars aestiv., p. |
| Although John " s Jewish contemporaries would agree that God can judge sins in the present time, 5100 they would emphasize that a person " s works would be publicly exposed in the eschatological time; 5101 but John " s Christology leads to a realized eschatology in which that judgment and revelation occur in the present (11:24–26; 12:44–50). 5102 This is not to claim that John denies future eschatology here (cf., e.g., 5:28–29; 6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48); rather, ones future state depends on how one responds to Jesus in the present. John " s illustration of intrusive light for realized eschatological judgment may play on the eschatological «day of the Lord» (as in Rom 13:11–12; 1 Thess 5:2, 4–5); 5103 then again, he also exhibits no prejudice against mixing metaphors (e.g., 3:5, 8). In this context the world " s love for darkness (3:19; cf. 1 John 2:15 ) contrasts emphatically with God " s love for the world (3:16); if the world is alienated from God, it is because it has stubbornly refused his self-sacrificial offer of reconciliation. 5104 This preference for the world " s values rather than God characterizes Jesus» enemies, religiously committed though they may be (5:42; 12:25,43; 15:19); 5105 even Jesus» disciples would be tested in the priorities of their love (21:15–17). Ancient moralists might recognize that not everyone «loved the truth,» 5106 but emphasized that people should. 5107 John claims that only those who practice the truth will come to the light. This claim suggests that Jesus confronts people with the character they already have. 5108 Thus, for example, Nathanael is already a «true Israelite» when he confronts Jesus, and responds accordingly (with faith demonstrated by a correct Christology; 1:49). Some read this as a statement of John " s predestinarian outlook (cf. 1 John 2:19 ). 5109 Granted, some segments of early Judaism included a heavy predestinarian element, albeit usually not to the exclusion of human responsibility. 5110 In 1 Enoch, those «born in darkness» who were not «of the generation of light» will be thrown into darkness, whereas the righteous will shine forever (J En. 108:11–14). 5111 Early Jewish sources particularly emphasize the chosenness of Israel or (especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls) its righteous remnant ( Deut 4:37; 10:15 ). 5112 But just as Jesus» predestinarian language about his parables in Mark 4:11–12 and Matt 13:11–12 invites hearers to choose to become part of the group of persevering disciples, so does Jesus in John (e.g., 8:31; 15:5–6). Most Jewish groups affirmed human responsibility alongside God " s sovereignty, 5113 at least when it became an issue in dispute in the determinist mood of late antiquity. 5114 In contrast to some systems then and later, most Jews probably viewed predestination and human responsibility as compatible. 5115 |
| 6417 Raynor, «Moeragenes»; Apuleius Apology; cf. Schmidt, «Einweihung.» 6418 Remus, «Magic.» 6419 Insanity was regarded as possession (Brown, John, 1:312). For this accusation of insanity against some prophets, see 2 Kgs 9:11; Bamberger, «Prophet,» 305; see Keener, Spirit, 23–26. Dionysus as a δαμων (in the nonpejorative classical sense) can cause prophetic madness (Euripides Bacch. 298–299). 6420 Speaking by demons is a capital offense in CD 12.2–3. 6421 Different works might understand demonology differently (see, e.g., Noack, «Qumran and Jubilees,» 200); but cf. the Mishnah, which because of its halakic focus includes few references to demons (m. «Abot 5:6; Yamauchi, «Magic,» 121 says only m. »Abot 5:6; but cf. also Šabb. 2:5; Erub. 4:1); John focuses on seven major signs. 6422 Beasley-Murray, John, 109; Ridderbos, John, 264. This sense of «deed» or «work» (in favor of God " s law) in 7is picked up in 8:39–41. 6423 Arguing from the agreed to the disputed was an established rhetorical practice; e.g., Cicero characterizes the opponents as supporters of Clodius, who was disliked by his audience (Cicero Mi1. 2.3). 6424 Occasionally the Sabbath outranked a festival day on a matter (p. Meg. 1:6, §3; Pesah 4:4). Punishment for breaking the Sabbath sometimes exceeds that for breaking a festival (p. Besah 5:2, §11; Meg. 1:6, §2; Šabb. 7:2, §15). 6425 T. Pisha 5(R. Eliezer, by John " s day); but cf. t. Pisha 4:13. 6426 T. Sukkah 3:1. 6427 T. Šabb. 15:16; p. Roš Haš. 4:3, §3; Matt 12:5. Qumranites may have been stricter; 4Q265 2 2.3 prohibits priests from sprinkling cleansing water on the Sabbath. 6428 See Gen 17:11–14 ; Exod 12:48; Lev 12:3 ; Sir 44:20 ; Jdt 14:10; 2Macc 6:10; 4 Macc 4:25; Josephus Ant. 12.256; 20.44; t. c Abod. Zar. 3:12; Ber. 6:13. Jewish Christians practiced circumcision (Acts 21:21), though apparently only the strictest required it for Gentiles (Acts 15:15). 6429 E.g., m. Ned. 3:11; Šabb. 18:3; 19:1–2; t. Shehitat Hullin 6:2; Mek. c Am. 3.109–110; b. Hu1. 84b, bar.; p. Ned. 3:9, §2; Šabb. 19:3, §3; cf. in doubtful cases (Sipra Taz. pq. 1.123.1.8; p. Yebam. 8:1, §12). Some debated whether this could also apply to the son of a Gentile woman (Gen. Rab. 7:2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3). Some principles (such as protecting life) could even override circumcision (b. Hul 4b). |
| 6512 E.g., 3 En. 48A:7; t. Sotah 12:2; Sipra A.M. pq. 11.191.1.3; par. 8.193.1.7; " Abot R. Nat. 28, 30A; 23, §46B; Esth. Rab. 10:5; Rom 4:3; 9:17 ; Matt 19:4–5; 1 Clem. 56.3; cf. the similar wording, probably intended as analogous to oracular authority, in Epictetus Diatr. 1.10; and appeal to philosophic authority in Epictetus Diatr. 3.13.11. 6513 Guilding, Worship, esp. 92–120. Some have tried to date the triennial cycle as early as the first century (Monshouwer, «Reading»). 6514 See Morris, Lectionaries. 6515 Ancient texts, like modern ones, often assume a fair degree of cultural competence for their ideal audience (e.g., Philostratus Hrk. 1.3; see Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 5 n. 6). Informed members of even very hellenized churches a few decades before John knew of the festivals (e.g., 1Cor 5:7; 16:8 ; Acts 20:6,16; 27:9). That some of this information might be unknown in John " s day, however, could also be used to support the tradition " s authenticity (Blomberg, Reliability, 137–38). 6516 Commentators often note this lectionary reading, e.g., Dodd, Interpretation, 350; Hunter, John, 84–85; Schnackenburg, John, 2(citing b. Meg. 31a); Bruce, Time, 46. Haenchen, John, 2:17, curiously takes the tradition for Zech 14, Ezek 47 , and Isa 12 back to 90 C.E. (R. Eliezer b. Jacob) but then denies its relevance to the Fourth Gospe1. Early synagogue readings from the prophets are probable (Riesner, «Synagogues,» 202–3, cites the Masada synagogue scroll and Luke 4:17), though early standard lections are not. 6517 T. Sukkah 3(trans. Neusner, 2:222–23). 6518 T. Sukkah 3:3–10. 6519 T. Sukkah 3(4) (trans. Neusner, 2:218–19). 6520 T. Sukkah 3(trans. Neusner, 2:220). 6521 T. Sukkah 3(trans. Neusner, 2:220). 6522 The gate of John 10 could allude to the prince and his people going in and out through the gate of Ezek 46:9–10 , but the phraseology may be much broader than that: Num 27:17 ; 2Sam 5:2; 1 Kgs 3:7; 1 Chr 11:2. 6523 Hodges, «Rivers,» 247; the other uses of «last day» in the Fourth Gospel are uniformly eschatological (6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). We base this opinion on Johns propensity for double entendres and his usual use of «last day,» not on the construction, which is acceptable in the form in which it appears (cf., e.g., 1QM 18.1). |
|
|
