| Воздаяние Taken from Faber, Dominica 16 Post Pentecosten, No. 9 «Mysteria [on the Gospel for the day, viz. Luke 14.1–11]», Thema: «Ita etiam Christus, dum in terris conversatus est, quacumque ingrediebatur, non solum animos praesentium recreabat, sed praeterea undique uberem hospitii sui mercedem relinquebat.» The incidents listed by Faber and Simeon are Christ " s visits to the marriage at Cana ( John 2.1–11 ), to Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7.36–50), to Zacchaeus (Luke 19.1–10), to Martha ( John 11.1–46 ), and to Matthew (Matt. 9.9–14). Simeon also mentions the visit to Peter during which Christ healed his mother-in-law (Luke 4. 38–9). Воздаяние злое Taken from Faber, Dominica 5 Post Pentecosten, No. 8 «Causae et fines oblationum», sect. 4 «Ad impetranda vicissim alia bona»: «Misit aliquando S. Basilius Iuliano Imperatori Apostatae optima sane mente tres panes ordeaceos pro benedictione. Sed quid ei muneris remisit impius Apostata? foenum remisit, dicens: «Dat nobis hordeum, pabulum iumentorum, accipiat vicissim foenum.» Sed respondit ingrato Imperatori Basilius: »Nos quidem, Imperator, ea tibi obtulimus, quibus ipsi vescimur: tu vero ea nobis ea restituis, unde bruta victitant, ultro quidem nos irridens.’ Refert Chavas. de notis Eccles. 1. 1. c. 15.» Published in Bylinin. Воздержание Taken from Faber, Dominica 6 Post Pentecosten, No. 1 «Gula et luxus repnehenditur, temperantia et sobrietas commendatur», Thema. 11.1–12 cf Faber: «Duas in paradiso arbores peculiari nota insignivit Deus, arborem vitae, et arborem scientiae boni et mali: ilia gustanti vitam, haec vero afferebat mortem: illam hominibus concessit; hanc autem vetuit Deus. Verum serpens ille dolosus suasit arborem mortis, et vero earn persuasit.» 11. 13–34 cf Faber: «In hoc etiam mundi exilio duas reperimus arbores, praedictis non absimiles, temperantiam et gulam; quarum ilia vitam: haec dat mortem: ilia nobis suadetur, ista prohibetur. Ad hanc vocat nos Diabolus, саго et mundus: ad illam vocat nos Deus et hodiemum Evangelium [viz. Mark 8.1–9 ].» 11. 35– 8 cf Faber: «Quare ut noxiam gulae arborem magis fugiamus, salubrem vero temperantiae magis diligamus, illius noxas, huius commoda videamus.» |
| Лит.: Богословский М. И. Открытие Иосифу, обрученнику Пресв. Девы Марии, тайны воплощения Сына Божия//ПС. 1886. Ч. 3. 10. С. 121-157; Leclerq H. Joseph (Saint)//DACL. Vol. 7. Col. 2659-2666; Klameth G. Über die Herkunft der apokryphen «Geschichte Josephs des Zimmermanns»//Angelos. Lpz., 1928. Bd. 3. S. 6-31; Holzmeister U. De Sancto Ioseph quaestiones biblicae. R., 1945; Engberding H. Der Nil in der liturgischen Frömmigkeit des christlichen Ostens//Oriens Chr. 1953. Bd. 37. S. 56-88; Lefort L. Th. À propos de l " Histoire de Joseph le Charpentier//Le Muséon. 1953. Vol. 66. P. 201-203; Stramare T., Casanova M. L. Giuseppe//BiblSS. 1965. Vol. 6. Col. 1251-1292; Giamberardini G. San Giuseppe nella tradizione Copta. Cairo, 1966. (SOC. Aeg.; 11); Grelot P. e. a. Joseph (Saint)//DSAMDH. 1974. T. 8. Col. 1289-1323; Plümacher E. Joseph (Mann Marias)//TRE. Bd. 17. S. 245-246; Guelich R. A. Mark 1-8: 26. Dallas (Tex.), 1989. P. 305-311. (WBC; 34а); Nolland J. Luke 1: 1-9: 20. Dallas, 1989. P. 36-136, 166-174. (WBC; 35a); Luz U. Matthew. 1-7: A Comment. Edinb., 1990. P. 100-155; Aranda Perez G. Joseph the Carpenter//CoptE. Vol. 5. P. 1371-1374; Beasley-Murray G. R. John. Dallas, 1991. P. 308-363. (WBC; 36); Porter S. E. Joseph, Husband of Mary//ABD. Vol. 3. P. 974-975; Brown R. E. The Birth of the Messiah. L., 19932. P. 111-112, 125-127; Hagner D. A. Matthew 1-13. Dallas, 1993. P. 1-43, 403-409. (WBC; 33a); Bernheim P.-A. James Brother of Jesus. L., 1997; Head P. M. Christology and Synoptic Problem. Camb., 1997; Nagel P. Joseph II (Zimmermann)//RAC. 1997. Bd. 18. Sp. 749-761; Lienhard J. T. St. Joseph in Early Christianity: Devotion and Theology: A Study and an Anthology of Patristic Texts. Phil., 1999; G ö rg M. Die «Heilige Familie»: Zum mythischen Glaubensgrund eines christlichen Topos//Die Zukunft der Familie und deren Gefährungen/Hrsg. N. Goldschmidt e. a. Münster, 2002. S. 57-65; Уизерингтон Б. Рождение Иисуса//Иисус и Евангелия: Слов. М., 2003. С. 531-544; Хуффман Д. С. Генеалогия//Там же. С. 125-130; Filas F. L. Joseph, st.//NCE. Vol. 7. P. 1034-1037. |
| Like the rest of the Fourth Gospel, John here insists that Jewish believers remain faithful to the God of Israel through fidelity to Jesus, not through satisfying the synagogue leadership (12:42–43). This is because Jesus is God " s faithful agent; he neither spoke (14:10; cf. 16:13) nor acted (5:30; 8:28, 42) on his own (12:49), but only at the Father " s command (12:49; see comment on 5:19). 7989 By again reinforcing the portrait of Jesus as God " s faithful agent, John reminds his hearers that their opponents who in the name of piety opposed a high view of Jesus were actually opposing the God who appointed him to that role. «The Father " s commandment is eternal life» (12:50) is presumably elliptical for «obedience to the Father " s command produces eternal life,» but also fits the identification of the word (1:4), Jesus» words (6:68), and knowing God (17:3) with life. For John, the concept of «command» should not be incompatible with believing in Jesus (6:27; cf. 8:12; 12:25), which is the basis for eternal life (3:15–16; 6:40, 47; 11:25; 20:31); faith involves obedience (3:36; cf. Acts 5:32; Rom 1:5; 2:8; 6:16–17; 15:18; 16:19, 26; 2 Thess 1:8; 1Pet 1:22; 4:17 ). Jesus always obeys his Father " s commands (8:29), including the command to face death (10:18; 14:31); his disciples must follow his model of obedience to his commandments by loving one another sacrificially (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10,12). 7803 Matthew " s stirring of «the entire city» (Matt 21:10), however, may invite the reader to compare this event with an earlier disturbance of Jerusalem (Matt 2:3). 7804 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 306; Catchpole, «Entry.» In favor of reliability, see also Losie, «Entry,» 858–59. 7805 In view of ancient patronal social patterns, Jesus» numerous «benefactions» would also produce an entourage, seeking favors, that could potentially double as a political support base, exacerbating his threat to the political elite (DeSilva, Honor, 135). 7806 Also for Matthew (Matt 21:10–11); in Luke those who hail him are disciples (Luke 19:37, 39); even in Mark, where «many» participate, those who go before and after him are probably those who knew of his ministry in Galilee ( Mark 11:8–9 ). This may represent a very different crowd from the one that condemned him (Matt 27:20–25; Mark 15:11–14 ; Luke 23:13, 18, 21, 23)–certainly in John, where the condemning «Jews» are the «high priests» (19:6–7, 12–15). |
| In the Q traditions Jesus portrays himself not as a mere human teacher but as judge in the day of judgment who will be addresses as «Lord, Lord» (Matt 7:21–23; Luke 13:25). Even John the Baptist recognizes the coming one as greater than a merely human, natural messiah or teacher. He presents him as one whose sandals he was unworthy to unloose or carry (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7 ; Luke 3:16)–that is, as one whose servant he is unworthy to be (see commentary on John 1:27 ). This supernatural figure would not baptize in mere water, but in the Spirit of God; he would perform the divine role of judge, separating the righteous for eternal life and the wicked for damnation (Matt 3:10–12; Luke 3:9, 16–17). If Matthew and Luke believed Jesus to be merely a natural messiah, they did an inexplicably sloppy job of editing Q. Early Christian writers preferred to make their case through a variety of images rather than to focus on answering a small number of precise christological questions no one was yet asking in this century; but these images from the start include a superhuman role beneath the authority of the Father. 3B. Diverse but Complementary Christologies There is, in fact, little evidence for any strands of early Christianity that did not recognize Jesus as deity; the usual view of Christological development rests on speculation concerning the way views should have developed, rather than on the evidence of early Christian texts themselves. Although Wisdom Christology by itself could portray Jesus» divinity in a merely Arian sense (to borrow the later description), various NT writers modified such Christology by portraying Jesus as the divine Lord, often applying to him OT and Jewish language and imagery for YHWH (cf., e.g., 8:58; Mark 1:3 ; Acts 2:21, 38; Rom 9:5; 10:9–13 ; 1Cor 8:6 ; Phil 2:6,9–11 ; Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:12–13). Neither John nor other first-century Christians felt constrained to distinguish Wisdom and divine Christologies; they adapted both by adding them together, coming to understand Israel " s one God as a composite unity. Interestingly, however, they did avoid the later Jewish-Christian compromise of an angel Christology. 2650 Neither Gal 4:14 2651 nor 1 Thess 4:16 2652 actually teaches it, though Michael is the most likely guess, if any, 2653 for the «archangel» of the latter text, 2654 being the most common archangel in early Jewish texts ( Dan 10:13,21; 12:1 ). 2655 Further, Col 1:16; 2:8–11,18; 2656 and Heb 2:5–16 2657 may effectively polemicize against the temptation of an angel Christology. |
| 7542 It is even possible that Mark may have suppressed the story to protect Lazarus and his sisters, who still lived near Jerusalem. 7543 If the story was originally part of the passion narrative, one might expect protective anonymity, as in the case of some other disciples who figured prominently in it (e.g., Mark 14:51–52 ); 7544 but in this instance the story was well-known enough that drawing attention to it, even anonymously, could have caused trouble for the family ( John 12:10–11 ). By contrast, if the story was not originally part of the passion narrative, Mark is no more obligated to report this event than the resuscitation at Nain (Luke 7:11–17; Q mentioned multiple raisings, Matt 11:5/Luke 7:22) or dramatic healings such as the centurion " s servant (Matt 8:5–13/Luke 7:1–10). If the early passion narrative or, alternatively, Mark, suppressed or simply omitted the story, Matthew and Luke may not have known of it or may not have understood it as critical to the movement of the story in the way John does. John " s community does seem to have already known of Mary " s involvement in the final anointing of Jesus (see comment on 11:2). A number of scholars have concluded that the story probably has a historical core. 7545 As difficult as it is to distinguish tradition and redaction anywhere in this Gospel, including in this narrative, 7546 Meier provides convincing evidence that the Lazarus story goes back to John " s tradition, though it was originally a brief story unrelated to Jesus» passion. Hence he does not regard it as surprising that the Synoptics omit it. 7547 By all critical approaches other than a philosophical predisposition against it, traditions indicate a popular belief that at least on some occasions Jesus raised the dead. 7548 It may be significant that third-century rabbis acknowledged these raisings but attributed them to necromancy; 7549 they may, however, well be responding to later Christian claims from the Gospels rather than to the traditions behind the Gospels. |
| 2637 Conjoined with the oft-recognized probable allusion to Christ " s deity in the «I am» of Mark 6 (Lane, Mark, 237–38; Hurtado, Mark, 91; cf. Argyle, Matthew, 115; Ellis, Genius, 110–11; Appold, Motif, 82), this allusion is very likely. But «I am» in Mark 13may simply mean «I am [messiah]» (Reim, Studien, 261 η. 20). 2638 Given the two Lords of Ps 110 , Peter argues, on which «Lord» should one call (Juel, «Dimensions,» 544–45; see Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 22; Knowling, «Acts,» 81; Ladd, Church, 50–51; idem, Theology, 338–41). That 2concludes an exposition of 2is clear from the fact that 2picks up the rest of the Joel passage where Peter left off in 2(the allusion is noted, e.g., by Zehnle, Discourse, 34; Dupont, Salvation, 22; Haenchen, Acts, 184 n. 5). 2639 See Abrahams, Studies, 1:45; De Ridder, Discipling, 107, for evidence that Jewish proselyte baptism could occasionally be described as «in God " s name»; cf. Longenecker, Christology, 42–46, 127–28; Urbach, Sages, 1:124–34, for a discussion of the «name.» 2640 For divine language, cf., e.g., Danker, «God With Us» (though it is not necessarily «Hellenistic»). Cf. the emphasis on Jesus» deity in Heb (1:8), also probably in ethnically Jewish (albeit very hellenized) circles. Longenecker, Christology, 139, also notes that the most strictly Jewish circles in early Christianity most emphasized Jesus» deity. 2641 See examples in Smith, Parallels, 152–54 (m. " Abot 3to Matt 18:20; Sipra on 25to Matt 10:25; Mekilta on 15and Matt 13/Luke 10:24; Mekilta on 18and Matt 10:40; Midrash Tannaim 15to Matt 25:35,40). 2643 E.g., Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 102; cf. T. Sol 6for what is probably the earliest extant non-Christian exegesis of this Matthean text or of its subsequent use. 2645 As in Did. 7.1–3; Odes So1. 23:22. Various analyses recognize Matthew " s emphasis here on Jesus» centrality and authority (e.g., Meier, Matthew, 371; Brooks, «Design»; Schaberg, Father, 336–37 [emphasizing Jesus as the supreme teacher, not the Trinity]; Parkhurst, «Reconsidered» [connecting Jesus» words here with the worship of 28:17]). On the possible antiquity of the tradition, see Albright and Mann, Matthew, 362. |
| 5714 See Burridge, Gospel, 228. Van der Waal, «Gospel,» 35, argues that the transposition also negates the sequence of feasts in the story world to which 7alludes. 5715 Smith, Composition, 130; Beasley-Murray, John, xliii. 5716 E.g., Judg 1:9; 16:4 ; 2Sam 3:28; 8:1; 10:1; 13:1; 15:1; 21:18; 1 Chr 20:4; 2 Chr 20:1; Tob 11:1; Let. Aris. 179; Xenophon Anab. 6.4.12; cf. 1 En. 89:30; Josephus Life 427; see more fully the comment on John 5:1 . 5717 For a fuller exploration of the pattern, cf. Lee, Narratives, 12–13. 5718 The parallels with Marks story of the paralytic, based on the use of κραβαττς in both ( Mark 2:4, 9, 11–12 ; John 5:8–11 ), are inadequate to suggest a common source (Nunn, Authorship, 18; Schnackenburg, John, 2:96; cf. Mark 6:55 ; Acts 5:15; 9:33). The Markan term can denote «a «poor man " s bed»» (Horsley, Documents, 2:15), which may be why Matthew and Luke change it (Thiselton, «Semantics,» 93)–and why the same term would fit this story, which would be consistent with Mark on Jesus» healing methods. 5719 So Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:681, adding that John «has to " tack on» the motifs of Sabbath and sin (5:9b, 14)» to unite the story with the discourse that follows. 5720 See Witherington, Christology, 66. 5721 John 3:22; 5:14; 6:1; 7:1; 19:38; 21:1 ; cf. 13:7; Rev 1:19; 4:1; 7:9; 9:12; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1; 20:3. Elsewhere in the NT see esp. Luke (Luke 5:27; 10:1; 12:4; 17:8; 18:4; Acts 7:7; 13:20; 15:16; 18:1) but also Mark 16:8 ; Heb 4:8; 1Pet 1:11 ; cf. Mark 16:12 ; in the LXX, e.g., Gen 15:14; 23:19; 41:30 ; Exod 5:1; Num 8:22; 12:16 ; Esth 1:4; 3:1; 1 Esd 1:14; 5:1, 51; Tob 10:14; 1Macc 1:5; 11:54; 13:20; 14:24. 5722 Bowman, Gospel, 36–38, 99–159 (99–109, establishing the possibility, is better than 111–59, drawing parallels between Purim and John 5 ); Watkins, John, 111–12; this would fit between 4and 6(but only assuming a strict and unbroken chronology). 5723 Bruns, Art, 26; Rigato, «Quale»; cf. Brown, John, 1:225, who sees this as possible because of the discussion of Torah in John 5 . |
| 4093 Cf. in Isaacs, Spirit, 47, citing Philo Flight 132; Moses 1.175 for Moses being the Spirit " s «recipient par excellence» and Giants 47 for the Spirit abiding with him longer than with others. 4094 Whitacre, Polemic, 98; see the thesis of Keener, «Pneumatology,» passim. 4095 See, e.g., Mattill, Last Things, 4; Robinson, Studies, 161; Dunn, Baptism, 42; cf. Minear, Kingdom, 135. Tannehill, Sword, 145; idem, Luke, 1:251, connects with the context of division. For authenticity, see Hill, Prophecy, 67. 4096 Ps 1:4 ; Hos 13:3 ; Isa 17:13; cf. Exod 15:7; Jer 4:11–13; 13:24; 15:7 ; Isa 29:5; 33:11; 41:15–16; Zeph 2:2. Cf. Matt 9:38; 13:39; 21:34. Cf. the «threshing-floor» in 4 Ezra 4:30–32. 4097 Isa 26:11; 66:15–16,24; cf. 2 Thess 1:6–7 and many other early Christian sources; cf. Ps 97:3 ; Nah 1:6; Zeph 1(which readers could have taken eschatologically, although historic judgments stood in the foreground); or for noneschatological judgment, e.g., Num 11:1 ; Jer 4:4; 15:14; 17:4; 21:12 ; Ezek 21:31; 22:20–21 . The Semitic expression «wrath burned» is common in the Hebrew Bible, and the cognate appears, e.g., in the Moabite Mesha inscription (ANET 320–21). 4098 Chaff did not burn eternally (Ladd, Theology, 37, cites Isa 1:31; 66:24; Jer 7:20 ); that Q " s fire is unquenchable suggests a particular Jewish image of judgment as eternal (the worst sinners in 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanh. 13:5; probably 1 En. 108:5–6; L.A.B. 38:4; Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2; Plutarch D. V. 31, Mor. 567DE). There was no unanimous Jewish view; see the probably first-century dispute in " Abot R. Nat. 41 A; cf. also 36 A. Matthew " s view is more obviously Jewish than Lukés (cf. Milikowsky, «Gehenna»; Goulder, Matthew, 63), though Lukés Hellenistic contextualization does not abandon future eschatology (Acts 17:31–32; 23:6; 24:15; contrast to some extent, e.g., Josephus Ant. 18.14, 18; War 2.163; Philo Sacrifices 5, 8). 4099 In the most common rabbinic view, most sinners endure it temporarily till destruction (cf. 1QS 4.13–14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in t. Sanh. 13:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5) or release (Num. Rab. 18:20; other texts are unclear, e.g., Sir 7:16 ; Sipre Num. 40.1.9; Sipre Deut. 311.3.1; 357.6.7; " Abot R. Nat. 16 A; 32, §69 B; 37, §95 B). Many Jewish storytellers conflated Gehenna with the Greek Tartarus (e.g., Sib. Or. 1.10, 101–103, 119; 4.186; 5.178; 11.138; cf. Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:22; b. Git. 56b-57a; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2; Apoc. Pet. 5–12; on the relationship between Jewish and Greek concepts, cf. also Serrano, «Sheol»). |
| 9490 Beasley-Murray, John, 302. 9491 Ibid., 307. 9492 Pamment, «17:20–23.» Contrast the oneness (unum) of Stoic writers, who tended toward pantheism (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 95.52). 9493 Cf. Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 100. 9494 See esp. Epp, «Wisdom,» 144. 9495 The Father " s love for the Son before the «foundation of the world» (17:24) is equivalent to «in the beginning» (1:1–2; cf. 9:32; καταβολ in Matt 13:35; Luke 11:50; Heb 4:3; 9:26; it often appears in the NT in predestinarian contexts, such as Rev 13:8; 17:8; Matt 25:34; Eph 1:4 ; 1Pet 1:20 ); they shared glory before the world began (17:5). 9496 Sipre Deut. 97.2 , on Deut 14:2 . 9497 With Beck, Paradigm, 132 (following Kurz, «Disciple,» 102), which he rightly takes (pp. 133–36) as evidence for reader identification with the beloved disciple. 9498 This refers to the experience of the Spirit, not merely to heaven after death (pace, e.g., Witherington, Wisdom, 271). 9499 Even Glasson " s moderately worded connection with Moses» préexistent mission in As. Mos. 1(Moses, 77; cf. Bernard, John, 2:580, based on a few words) is too far from the mark; the preexistence here is divine (Barrett, John, 514), the sort of préexistent glory attributed to Wisdom and Torah (see comment on 1:1–2). 9500 The long discourse of chs. 13–17 concludes with a note that Jesus had «said these things» (18:1), a familiar way for a narrator to close a discourse (Jub. 32:20; 50:13; Musonius Rufus 8, p. 66.26; Acts 20:36; it becomes standard in Matthew–7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; cf. Keener, Matthew, 256). 9501 Cf. 1 En. 90(«Lord of righteousness,» which could be rendered «righteous Lord»). This was appropriate for a ruler (cf. Prov 20:28; 25:5 ); cf. the address to Ptolemy (βασιλε δκαιε) in Let. Arts. 46. 9502 See Painter, John, 61. Cf. Isa 1:27; 56:1; 58:8; 1QS 10.11; 11.2, 5, 9, 12–14; 1QH 4.29–32, 36–37; Przybylski, Righteousness, 37–38; in the LXX and elsewhere, see Stendahl, Paul, 31; Dahl, Paul, 99; Piper, Justification, 90–96; in the rabbis, e.g., Gen. Rab. 33:1; Ruth Rab. proem 1. |
| 675 In both, the Isaiah text indicates that Jesus» word hardens the stubborn. On the text in Mark, cf. Evans, «Note.» 676 For esoteric teachings, cf., e.g., 4 Ezra 14:45–47; t. Hag. 2:1; b. Hag. 13a-14b; Pesah. 119a; Šabb. 80b; p. Hag. 2:1, §§3–4; for other private teachings or those understood only within wisdom circles, cf., e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 89–90; various Qumran texts (lQpHab 7.4–5; 1QH 2.13–14; 9.23–24; 11.9–10, 16–17; 12.11–13; 13.13–14; 1QS 8.12; 9.17–19; cf. 1QS 8.1–2; 11.5; 1QM 17.9); Gen. Rab. 8:9; Num. Rab. 9:48; 19(purportedly from ben Zakkai); Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3; 22:2; perhaps Wis 2:21–22; 7:21; 2 Bar. 48:3; b. Sukkah 49b. In Pythagoreanism, cf. Diogenes Laertius 8.1.15; perhaps Plato in Diogenes Laertius 3.63; others in Eunapius Lives 456. Cf. also the passing on of esoteric books from Moses to Joshua in Γ. Mos. 1(possibly early first century C.E.). 677 Bruce, Documents, 57. Cf. Stein, Method, 27–32. By itself this would not demand authenticity. Goulder, Midrash, 89–92, thinks that Jesus gave some teaching in poetry but Matthew created it in many additional sayings. 678 «Amen» normally confirmed prayers, oaths, curses, or blessings. The Gospel usage in confirming Jesus» words as he speaks them is rare (against Jeremias, Theology, 35,79, it is not unique; see Aune, Prophecy, 165; Hill, Prophecy, 64–66); it is almost certainly authentic (with Aune; Hill; Burkitt, Sources, 18). (Boring, Sayings, 132–33, thinks it continued in early Christian prophetic usage, but even Rev 2–3 avoids it). Cf. Gen 18:13 . 679 Bruce, Documents, 57–58. The introductory «amen» appears about 30 times in Matthew, 13 in Mark, 6 in Luke, and 50 in John (Smith, Parallels, 6). The double form appears rarely, e.g., in the current text of L.A.B. 22:6 (the answer of the people to Joshuás words); 26(response to Kenaz " s curse invocation); PGM 22b.21, 25 (closing an invocation); and as an oath formula in p. Qidd. 1:5, §8. Culpepper, «Sayings,» argues that the double amen sayings in John frequently (though not always) reflect historical material, often «core sayings that generate the dialogue or discourse material that follows» (100). |
|
|
