| 48 . Brenner 1983: Naomi and Ruth/Athalya Brenner//VT. – 1983. – Vol. 33, 4. – p. 385–397. 49 . Brenner 1999: Ruth and Esther/Ed. by A. Brenner. – Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. – 271 p. – (A feminist companion to the Bible; ser. 2:3). 50 . Brenner 1999a: Ruth as a Foreign Worker and the Politics of Exogamy/Athalya Brenner//Ruth and Esther/Ed. by A. Brenner. – Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. – p. 158–162. – (A feminist companion to the Bible; ser. 2:3). 51 . Briggs 1971: A dictionary of British folk-tales in the English language: incorporating the F.J. Norton collection/Katharine M. Briggs. – London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971. – Part B: Folk legends. – 2 vol. 52 . Britt 2003: Unexpected Attachments: A Literary Approach to the Term ds;x» in the Hebrew Bible/Brian Britt//JSOT. – 2003. – Vol. 27, 3. – p. 289–307. 53 . Brown 1977: The birth of the Messiah: a commentary on the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke/Raymond E. Brown. – Garden City, NY; Image Books, 1977. – 594 p. 54 . Bruner 1990: Matthew, a commentary/By Frederick Dale Bruner. – Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990. – Vol. 2: Matthew 13–28, the Churchbook. – P. XX, 447–1127. 55 . Bruppacher 1966: Bruppacher, H. Die Bedeutung des Namens Ruth//Theologische Zeitschrift. – 1966. – Bd. 22. – S. 12–18. 56 . Burchard 1985: Joseph and Aseneth: a New Translation and Introduction/Christoph Burchard//The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha/Ed. by James H. Charleworth. – Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985. – Vol. 2: Expansions of the «Old Testament» and legends, wisdom and philosophical literature, prayers, psalms, and odes, fragments of lost Judeo-Hellenistic works. – p. 177–247. 57 . Burchard 1996: Burchard, Christoph. Gesammelte Studien zu Joseph und Aseneth/von Christoph Burchard; berichtigt und ergänzt herausgegeben mit Unterstützung von Carsten Burfeind. – Leiden New York, Koln: Brill, 1996. – XXIII, 463 p. – (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha; 13). 58 . Burchard; Fink 2003: Josephund Aseneth/Kritisch herausgegeben von Christoph Burchard, mit Unterstützung von Carsten Burfeind und Uta Barbara Fink. – Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003. – 384 p. |
| 7183 The language would surely be intelligible in a very hellenized Jewish framework (e.g., Philo Creation 53, 66). 7185 For irony, see our introduction, pp. 214–28, under «The Jews»; for oxymoron, see Rowe, «Style,» 143 (citing Gregory Nazianzus Or. 28.30; Augustine Ep. 126.7); Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 582 (citing Rom 6:8 ). 7187 Some other ancient Mediterranean thinkers recognized that those who were most offensive to reason (Lucian Runaways 4) or justice (b. Roš Haš. 16b) were those who claimed most to possess it. 7188 That early Christians often recognized that this kind of abuse of power in the religious community was a potentially Christian as well as Pharisaic problem is clear in some elements of the gospel tradition (e.g., Matt 24:45–51), and it ultimately afflicted some Johannine communities (3 John 9–10). 7189 Bruns, «Shepherd,» 386; Mary, «Shepherd,» 2658. Appold, Motif 247, wrongly doubts the fit between chs. 8 and 9 (hence also 10). 7193 Johnston, «Parables,» 37, on Fiebig. Even among Greeks and Romans, some writers used allegorical images less frequently than others (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Demosth. 5; Cicero Or. Brut. 24.81; 27.94). 7194 Dodd, Tradition, 382–83; Ellis, Genius, 168. Α παροιμα is a proverb in Alciphron Fishermen 18 (Halictypus to Encymon), 1.15; John " s are primarily riddles (Doh, «Paroimiai»); in rhetorical handbooks, see Anderson, Glossary, 91 (citing esp. Demetrius 156). Sages could use parables or riddles to explore God " s mysteries (4Q300 frg. 1,2.1–4; 4Q301 frg. 1, line 2; 4Q302a); on the semantic range of mashal and its Greek translations, see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 371–73. 7199 Robinson, «Parable,» 234; Robinson, Studies, 68; Dodd, Tradition, 383; Dodd, More Studies, 31. In 10the door could represent Jesus " death (Meyer, «Note,» 233–34), whereas in 10Jesus himself is the door; but rabbis and eschatological teachers, including Jesus, were not always bound to the consistency of their images. 7200 See Johnston, «Parables,» 601–2; Stern, Parables, 11; discussion in Keener, Matthew, 381–84, and the sources cited there; cf. also Brown, Essays, 321–33. |
| Crucifixion victims often had wounds, and those who had been wounded often showed their wounds to make a point (see comment on 20:20); that Jesus did so stems from pre-Johannine tradition (Luke 24:39–40, though 24is textually uncertain). Soldiers who carried out crucifixions often used rope 10755 but also used nails through the wrists, 10756 which seem to have been used for Jesus (20:25, 27). Dibelius, noting that Matthew and Mark omit the piercing of hands and/or feet, which appears only as hints in the Easter narratives of Luke (24:39) and John (20:20,25,27), thinks the hints of piercing stem from Ps 22rather than historical recollection. 10757 But Dibelius " s skepticism on this point is unwarranted for several reasons: all four extant first-century gospels omit it in descriptions of the crucifixion (as well as many other explicit details, such as the height of the cross, shape of the cross, and other variables we must reconstruct secondhand); Mark and Matthew include the briefest resurrection narratives, Mark without any appearances, so one would not expect them to recount it there; and finally, Luke and John probably supply independent attestation of a tradition that predates both of them, yet neither allude clearly to Ps 22:17 . 10758 Putting hands into Jesus» wounds would convince Thomas that this was the same Jesus (see comment on 20:20); no trickery would be possible. 10759 John omits another tradition in which Jesus confirms his bodily resurrection by eating with the disciples (Luke 24:41–43), preferring the stronger proof of his corporal resurrection. 10760 In the third-century Vita Apollonii by Philostratus, Apollonius invites two of his disciples to grasp him to confirm that he has not, in fact, been executed; 10761 but the Christian resurrection narratives were widespread in the Roman Empire by the time Philostratus dictated his stories. 10762 2C. The Climactic Christological Confession (20:28–29) Ancient writers often used characterization to communicate points about «kinds» of people. Nicodemus was slow to believe (3:2; cf. 7:50) but eventually proved a faithful disciple (19:38–42). Likewise, Thomas had missed the first corporate resurrection appearance, which convinced most of his fellow disciples; given the problem with secessionists in some Johannine communities (1 John 2:19), his missing might provide a warning to continue in fellowship with fellow believers (to whatever extent Thomas " s fellow disciples had already been disciples and believers when Jesus first appeared at that point!) Nevertheless, Thomas becomes the chief spokesman for full christological faith here (20:28–29)–and the foil by which John calls his readers to a faith deeper than the initial resurrection faith of any of the twelve disciples (20:29). |
| 268 Anderson, «4 Maccabees,» 555. Here the freedom is probably that of the author of 4 Maccabees, who appears to expand earlier sources, whereas 2Maccabees probably stays closer to its sources, since it is an abridgement. 270 Cf., e.g., 4Q422, a homiletic paraphrase of Genesis (Elgvin, «Section»); see further below on rewritings of biblical history. 271 Chilton, «Transmission»; idem, «Development,» suggests that Gospel traditions were transmitted and developed in ways similar to targumic traditions. For the view that John developed Jesus» message in a manner analogous to the Targumim, which included interpretive amplification but sought fidelity to the meaning, see Taylor, Formation, 116. 272 The negative use of the criterion of dissimilarity (as applied to Jesus» continuity with early Judaism and early Christianity) has been severely critiqued in recent years: Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 16; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 21; Stanton, Gospels, 161; idem, Gospel Truth, 143; Borg, Conflict, 21; Stein, ««Criteria,»» 242–43; France, «Authenticity,» 110–11; Catchpole, «Tradition History,» 174–76; Young, Theologian, 257; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:173; Brown, Death, 1:19. 273 See Stanton, Jesus, 4–9; Chilton, «Exorcism,» 253, against some earlier scholars, contrasts with modern biography notwithstanding. Skepticism toward traditional form criticism has prevailed especially since Sanders, Tendencies (Theissen, Gospels, 5; Hill, Matthew, 58; Stuhlmacher, «Theme,» 2–12; cf. Gamble, «Literacy,» 646). 276 Cf. Shuler, Genre, 85 (on encomium biography); idem, «Hypothesis.» Shuler asserts that encomium biography is the Greco-Roman pattern to which the gospels are closest; cf. the mild cautions of Talbert, Gospel, 13. Most biography was, of course, somewhat encomiastic (Josephus Life fits this category; see Neyrey, «Encomium»), but writers like Suetonius tend away from this direction (cf. Talbert, Gospel, 17). 278 In favor are Goulder, Midrash, passim; Drury, Design, 45 (on gospel redaction in general); Gundry, Matthew, 628 (citing Jubilees, Josephus, and others who took similar liberties but respected the biblical text as God " s word). Against are authors such as Scott, «Intention»; Cunningham and Bock, «Midrash»; Payne, «Midrash.» See especially the reservations of Chilton, «Midrash,» 27–28 on the narrower and broader senses of «midrash.» |
| 3857 Bruce, Time, 36–42, esp. 39; cf. Longenecker, Christology, 34. Simon, Stephen, 61, 73, affirms that the Mosaic prophet-messiah appears in the Samaritan Táeh (Taheb) but not in Judaism; but Qumran employed the same texts (see Gaster, Scriptures, 393,444–46), including Deut 18 (Villalon, «Sources,» 62–63; cf. Vermes, Scrolls, 247–48). 3858 Brown, John, 1(citing Teeple); Bruce, Time, 40. 3859 See Hill, Prophecy, 53–54; Robinson, Studies, 32. 3860 For Acts and John here, see Cribbs, «Agreements,» 55; but both probably derive the language from earlier Jewish or Christian tradition. On the correspondence between Acts and traditional Jewish language here, cf. de Waard, «Quotation.» Teeple, Prophet, 86, also finds allusion to Lev 23:29 . Aune, Prophecy, 155, thinks this reflects older tradition (because Luke neglects Moses redivivus imagery in his Gospel); contrast Meeks, Prophet-King, 27–28. Many note the helpful double entendre on «raise up» in Acts 3:22, 26 (Doeve, Hermeneutics, 155; ÓToole, «Observations»; Ellis, «Uses,» 202). 3861 Davies, Sermon, 24; Gundry, Matthew, 342; Lane, Mark, 321; Bruce, Time, 40. 3862 Cf. Davies, Sermon, 20–21; Argyle, Matthew, 132; Lane, Mark, 317. 3863 See Meeks, Prophet-King, especially his proposition on p. 25. 3864 On the Johannine community and prophetism, see esp. Keener, «Pneumatology,» 284–329; see the discussion of the Paraclete and prophetism on 14:16. 3865 For short reference, Jewish testimonia collections sometimes attributed composite citations to the more prominent author (Longenecker, Exegesis, 138). 3866 Roman-period Jews still understood Isaiah " s language («preaching good news,» etc.) with respect to eschatological salvation and Israel " s restoration, e.g., Pss. So1. 11:1, and expectation of a new exodus continued (e.g., 4Q389 frg. 2). 3867 The idea of making a highway straight for a king or other travelers by leveling ground was still widely known in the late first century (in Trajan " s reign, cf., e.g., ILS 5863, in Sherk, Empire, 155 (100 C.E.); similarly Galen 10.633 in Sherk, Empire, 164) and hence would not be lost on John " s readers (cf. |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла Снятие с креста. Роспись крипты базилики в Аквилее. 2-я пол. XII в. (Мария Иаковлева) (I в.), упомянутая в синоптических Евангелиях мать Иакова и Иосии, ученица и последовательница Иисуса Христа. В Евангелиях от Матфея и от Марка она именуется «Мария, мать Иакова меньшего и Иосии» (Μαρα το Ιακβου κα Ιωσφ μτηρ - Мф 27. 56; Мк 15. 40). В др. местах евангелисты называют ее по имени одного из сыновей: «Мария Иосиева» (Μαρα Ιωστος - Мк 15. 47) или «Мария Иаковлева» (Μαρα Ιακβου - Мк 16. 1; Лк 24. 10). По частоте упоминаний в повествованиях о Страстях и Воскресении она - 2-я после Марии Магдалины среди последовательниц Христа. У евангелиста Марка М. встречается в сценах стояния у Креста (Мк 15. 40), погребения Спасителя (Мк 15. 47) и возле пустой гробницы Воскресшего Иисуса (Мк 16. 1); у евангелиста Матфея - в сцене у Креста (Мф 27. 56); у евангелиста Луки - в сцене обнаружения пустой гробницы (Лк 24. 10). Исходя из повествования Мф 27 и параллельных текстов др. Евангелий, можно предположить, что евангелист Матфей упоминает в сценах погребения и воскресения Спасителя под именем «другой Марии» также эту М. (Мф 27. 61; 28. 1 - Bruner. 2004. P. 801; Luz. 2005. P. 580; Бокэм. 2015. С. 362). М. выступает в евангельском повествовании как одна из наиболее преданных учениц Христовых: она следовала за Господом во время Его проповеди в Галилее, служила Ему и сопровождала Его в последнем путешествии в Иерусалим (Мф 27. 55-56). Вместе с др. женщинами она стала одной из основных свидетельниц крестных страданий Спасителя, Его погребения и ангельской вести о Его воскресении (Мк 16. 1-9; Мф 28. 8; Лк 24. 9-11). Учитывая популярность имени Мария, авторы Евангелий описывают М. по именам ее сыновей. Судя по этому наименованию, вероятно, она была вдовой. В иудейской эпиграфике того времени встречаются сообщения о женщинах, называемых по именам сыновей (CIJ, N 948, 1000, 1007, 1061, 1160). По всей видимости, М., как и ее сыновья, была хорошо известна в раннехрист. общине. Описание М. как матери «Иакова младшего» служило, безусловно, для того, чтобы отличить его от др. носителей весьма распространенного имени, в т. ч., вероятно, и от Иакова, брата Господня. По всей видимости, М. была матерью Иакова Алфеева (ср.: Мк 15. 40 - Luz. 2005. P. 573; Marcus. 2000. P. 655) - именно это отождествление следует считать наиболее достоверным (ср. предание об этом у отдельных авторов древней Церкви, напр.: Beda. Exp. Act. Apost. 1. 13//CCSL. Vol. 121. P. 10). Точная идентификация ее др. сына, Иосии, не представляется возможной ( Hagner D. A. Matthew 14-28. Dallas, 1995. P. 854. (WBC; 2)). |
| В параллельном отрывке Лк 17. 26-27 упоминание о «днях Ноя» не совпадает лишь в деталях: в отличие от Евангелия от Матфея эти дни сравниваются со «днями Лота» (Лк 17. 28-29) в контексте рассказа о «днях Сына Человеческого», т. о. они предостерегают об опасности безразличия и беспечности «рода сего» (Лк 17. 25). Слова в Лк 17. 27 об уничтожении человечества являются аллюзией на Быт 7. 21-23. Т. о., сцены потопа во времена Н. для христ. авторов предстают как первые наглядные картины грядущего апокалипсиса. В Лк 3. 36, в родословии Иисуса Христа, Н. упоминается как предок Иосифа Обручника по линии царя Давида. Снисхождение Св. Духа на Христа в водах Иордана в образе голубя в сцене Крещения Господня (Мф 3. 16; Лк 3. 22; Ин 1. 32), по мнению мн. исследователей, содержит отсылку к потопу, напоминая о голубе, к-рого Н. посылал из ковчега над бушующими водами и к-рый принес ему весть о прекращении катастрофы (Быт 8. 8-11). Тем самым событие из жизни Н. становится символом Божественного прощения, прекращения наказания, связанного с началом эпохи пришествия Сына Божия в мир (см., напр.: Hagner D. A. Matthew 1-13. Dallas, 2002. P. 58; Ferguson E. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids, 2009. P. 123). Нек-рые постановления Апостольского Собора в Иерусалиме для христиан из язычников в отношении запрета на поедание мяса с кровью (Деян 15. 20, 29; ср.: 21. 25) сходны с заповедью, данной сыновьям Н. (Быт 9. 4), и с известными из раввинистической традиции т. н. заповедями сыновей Ноя, предназначенными для прозелитов ( Левинская И. А. Деяния Апостолов: Гл. 9-28. СПб., 2008. С. 250). В 1 Петр 3. 20-21 повествуется о проповеди Христа «некогда заключенным в темнице духам», в т. ч. и «непокорным», чье непослушание и погибель отнесены ко «дням Ноя». Проповедь могла быть адресована как непокорным людям, уничтоженным потопом, или душам мертвых, и, вероятно, неправедных людей, так и греховным ангельским силам, чье непослушание спровоцировало Божественное наказание в виде потопа ( Elliott J. |
| 10200 Who are the bystanders who give Jesus drink in 19:29? Because John " s audience probably knew the basic story of the passion in a form similar to the Synoptic passion narratives, they may have assumed that those who offered Jesus the drink did so in mockery ( Mark 15:36 ). It is also grammatically possible–though hardly historically conceivable, given the soldiers at the cross–that John allows his audience to think of the disciple and Jesus» mother as the subjects of the verb ( John 19:26–27 ), in which case they seek to care for Jesus» need. 10201 But on the theological as well as the historical level, John apparently expects his audience to presuppose the hostility of those providing the drink, for they fulfill the role of persecutors in the psalm to which John here alludes. Whether the scriptural allusion is to Ps 22 or to Ps 69 , 10202 both place the righteous sufferer " s thirst in the context of persecution. The probably widespread passion tradition followed in Mark ( Mark 15:23 ) was understood by Matthew as a reference to Ps 69:21 (68LXX): they gave me «gall» (Matt 27:34). 10203 The other line of this verse in the psalm indicates that the psalmist " s persecutors gave him vinegar for his thirst. 10204 Likewise, the popular passion tradition included a citation from Ps 22 ( Mark 15:34 ); because Jewish traditions could allude to a larger context by citing only a small sampling, John may suspect (reasonably) that Jesus recited more of the psalm, including its cry of thirst ( Ps 22 10205 That John intends an allusion to one of these verses is clear in his observation that Jesus declared his thirst so «Scripture might be fulfilled» (19:28). 10206 Most significantly, those already familiar with the passion tradition would recognize once more that Jesus himself remains in control of the events surrounding his death, consciously fulfilling Scripture (10:18; 13:26). In the popular passion tradition, the sour wine lifted to Jesus» mouth is part of the ridicule heaped against him (conjoined with the skepticism that Elijah would rescue him; Mark 15:36 ); here, however, Jesus deliberately invites the sour wine to fulfill Scripture (19:28–29). |
| 9839 Others viewed this act as misappropriation of funds (Josephus War 2.175–176; cf. Ant. 18.60; The Suda, Korbanas, in Sherk, Empire, 75); Pilate, however, probably assumed that he followed safe Roman precedent: Augustus and others paid for workmen on aqueducts from public and imperial treasuries (Frontinus De aquis 2.89–101, 116–118, in Jones, History, 207), and the use of public money would have been expected (Josephus Life 199) had it not been from the temple treasury. Romans themselves complained when designated funds in a public treasury were redirected (Appian C.W. 2.6.41; Lysias Or. 25.19, §173; 27.7, §178; 27.16, §179; Plutarch Cicero 17.2; Caesar 35.2–4; worse, despoiling temple treasuries, e.g., Valerius Maximus 1.1.21; see further Keener, Matthew, 557 n. 72); they would have been angriest had he profited himself, which sometimes happened (Catullus 10.7–13; cf. Jeffers, World, 111–12). 9841 E.g., Cicero Verr. 1.1.2; 1.4.12; 2.3.22.55; 2.3.28.69; Sest. 25.55; many Judean governors as presented by Josephus, e.g., Ant. 20.106–117, 162–163, 215, 253–257; War 2.223–245, 272–279. 9842 Cf. Benoit, Jesus, 1:141–42. Some first-century writers complained about societal injustice (e.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 95.30). 9844 Cf. Brown, Death, 697. Smallwood, «Historians,» concludes that Philo is even more accurate than Josephus when reporting the same historical events (in this case, concerning Caligula). 9845 Still despised in a later period, e.g., in Juvenal Sat. 10.66, 76, 89–90, 104; Phaedrus 3.pro1.41–44; cf. also Brown, Death, 694, on Philo Flaccus 1; Embassy 160–161. 9846 Cf. rumors circulating in Luke 13and Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 75. Brown, Death, 695–705, ultimately concludes, as we do, that most of the Gospel portrait fits what we know of Pilate from the other sources once all has been taken into account. 9848 The baraita in b. Sanh. 43a suggesting special caution regarding Jesus» conviction «because he was close to the kingdom» would be a Jewish deterrent but could have actually aggravated Roman hostility; it is, however, probably derived from later debate with Jewish Christians. |
| 7768 Glasson, Moses, 72, who also compares (less persuasively) glory revealed on a seventh day in 2(where chronology is not mentioned) and possibly 7(which we believe may be the eighth) 7769 E.g., Bruce, John, 255. It may have been a meal in Jesus» honor; for the significance of this and status issues of seating, see Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 207–8; and our comment on status and the foot washing in ch. 13. 7770 It occurs sixteen times in the Synoptics, including in a saying quite consonant with John 12 ( Mark 10:45 ; Matt 20:28; Luke 22:26–27). Seven of its appearances are in Luke alone, including Luke 10:40; but it appears frequently enough elsewhere for one to doubt that John must simply reproduce Lukés style rather than earlier tradition here. 7771 Beare, Matthew, 505, complains that such a quantity would not fit in a usual alabaster flask; but even if this is the case, John omits mention of such a flask (a common container; see Witherington, Women, 55) present in the Synoptic accounts (Matt 26:7; Mark 14:3 ; Luke 7:37), reinforcing our picture that John is independent of them here. 7772 Catullus 13.9–14; by contrast, Seneca Ep. Luci1. 108.16 and others advocated avoiding perfumes (unguento), preferring no scent. 7773 Brown, John, 1:448. Essentially the same population type lived on both sides of the Red Sea (Huntingford, «Axum,» 28; Rashidi, «Africans,» 22–23). On myrrh, see further Harrison, «Myrrh.» 7775 Ibid., also commenting that the rare πιστικς may translate overliteraly an Aramaic expression that can mean «genuine» nard or apply to «faith» (better than Hunter, John, 121). 7778 See Witherington, Women, 113, citing Athenaeus Deipn. 12.553 and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 1:427–28, 986. Bruns, « Jn 12:3 ,» cites the same Athenaeus reference and relates anointing to royalty byPolybius 26.1.12–14. 7782 Morris, John, 576–77; Witherington, Women, 55; on the eastern Mediterranean Jewish custom, see, e.g., m. Ketub. 7:6; Sotah 1:5; Sipre Num. 11.2.3; " AbotR. Nat. 3; 17A; 14, §35B; cf. Jos. Asen. 15:1–2; 18:6; Belkin, Philo, 230; further sources in Keener, Paul, 19–69; idem, «Headcoverings.» |
|
|
