| 5191 Plato Theaet. 191D; Alexander 14 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 180D; Fort. Alex. 1.11, Mor. 333A. The seals leave an imprint in soft wax (Plutarch Educ. 5, Mor. 3F). 5192 Apuleius Metam. 10.10; cf. Lyall, Slaves, 148–52. Seals could indicate approval on a legal document, which is what Brown, John, 1:158, sees here; cf. 21:24–25. 5193 E.g., Esth 8LXX; cf. the letter in Chariton 4.5.8. The keeper of the royal signet-ring played an important role in royal courts (Tob 1:22). 5194 E.g., over a wide chronological range, P.Eleph. 1.16–18; 2.17–18; P.Lond. 1727.68–72; P.Tebt. 104.34–35; Rev 5:1. Witnesses might be recalled to testify to the validity of their seals (P.Oxy. 494.31–43; 156–165 C.E.). Seals were also used to identify the contents of merchandise (Carmon, Inscriptions, 108–9, 230–33; cf. perhaps Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.8). 5195 Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 340, §112D (επισφραγζεται). A rhetor could also apply this term to his crowning touches of praise (Menander Rhetor 2.3, 380.2). 5196 Jewish tradition acknowledged that even those in error would ultimately acknowledge the truth of God and Moses (e.g., Koran " s family in b. B.Bat. 74a; Num. Rab. 18:20). 5198 B. Sanh. 64a; p. Sanh. 1:1, §4; Gen. Rab. 8:5; Deut. Rab. 1:10; Bonsirven, Judaism, 150. 5200 For Jesus» χερ, «hand,» of authority, see also 10:28; for the Father " s hand, see 10:29; contrast perhaps 7:30,44; 10:39. 5201 That the Father gives the Spirit to Jesus here is frequently maintained and is probably the majority view, e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 133; Carson, John, 213; Bruce, John, 97; Turner, Spirit, 59: Whitacre, John, 99; Smith, John (1999), 107. 5202 Lev. Rab. 15:2, noted also by Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 14; Carson, John, 213; Turner, Spirit, 59; Hofius, «Geist ohne Mass»; and Bürge, Community, 84, who also notes that the specific expression κ μτρου is foreign to Greek literature in genera1. Musonius Rufus 18B, p. 116.12, applies μετρα negatively to excess (unlimited gluttony); cf. T. Ab. 14:9; 17:7A. |
| Др. раннехрист. текст, вызвавший бурную дискуссию в научной среде,- «Евангелие Петра», известное в цитатах (в сир. Дидаскалии, у мч. Иустина, сщмч. Мелитона и Оригена). Рукопись VIII-IX вв. с полным текстом была обнаружена в 1886-1887 гг. в В. Египте. Хотя изначально большинство ученых поддержали позицию Т. Цана , утверждавшего зависимость этого Е. а. от синоптической традиции (вопреки мнению А. фон Гарнака ), в 80-х гг. XX в. были выдвинуты новые аргументы в пользу его независимости (сначала Р. Камероном, затем Кёстером и Дж. Д. Кроссаном, к-рые апеллировали к папирусному фрагменту P. Oxy. 2949). Кроссан предположил, что в «Евангелии Петра» был использован тот же источник, повествующий о Страстях Господа, что и в Евангелии от Марка, однако в апокриф он был включен в менее редактированном виде ( Crossan. 1985; I dem. 1988). Против гипотезы Кроссана выступил Р. Браун, доказывавший зависимость «Евангелия Петра» от синоптиков на основе метода анализа редакций ( Brown. 1987). Важным аргументом против древности этого апокрифа может служить его ярко выраженная антииудейская направленность. Кроме того, была поставлена под вопрос и принадлежность к этому евангелию указанных папирусных фрагментов (см.: Foster P. Are there any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?//NTS. 2006. Vol. 52. P. 1-28). В целом ответом на позицию либеральных критиков, отстаивающих достоверность Е. а., может служить указание по крайней мере на одно их важное отличие от канонических Евангелий - отсутствие признаков опоры на показания свидетелей, ближайших учеников Христовых (см.: Bauckham R. Jesus and Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids; Camb., 2006). Во 2-й пол. XX в. помимо нового издания труда Шнеемельхера ( Schneemelcher. 19906; предшествующая книга Хеннеке была полностью переработана) вышло неск. собраний Е. а. (в основном в переводах на европ. языки: Erbetta, ed. 1966-1975; Moraldi, ed. 1971; Starowieyski, ed. 1980; Klijn, ed. 1984. Bd. 1; Santos Otero, ed. 19886; Bovon, Geoltrain, ed. 1997; обзор изданий восточнохрист. Е. а. см.: Augustinianum. R., 1983. Vol. 23; Complementi interdisciplinari di patrologia/Ed. A. Quacquarelli. R., 1989). |
| The vine image could thus imply a sense of community 8878 the Jewish believers inherited from early Judaism in genera1. Whereas the Eleusinian cult of Demeter, for example, met only annually and did not lead initiates to associate with one another, early Judaism and Christianity were exclusivistic and carried a strong sense of community. 8879 Nevertheless, early Christian literature provides no examples of early Christian communities with the sort of rigid hierarchical structure expected of Qumran Covenanters (e.g., 1QS 5.23–24; 6.2). Most early Jews and Christians associated for common worship and need; formal structures were less rigid than Qumran, but sufficient. If the vine alludes to Israel, the designation «true» (15:1) may forcefully contrast Jesus with Israe1. 8880 One should not overstate the contrast; whereas «true» can exclude any others (17:3), it can also simply contrast with «mere.» «True bread» does not contrast Jesus with Torah but does contrast him with mere manna (6:32, 55); «true light» contrasts him with an inferior though accurate witness (1:9). Such passages may respond to opponents of the Johannine community " s witness who claim that Jesus» way is not «true» (cf. 5:31–32; 7:18; 8:13–17; 19:35; 21:24). John " s «vine» image may function in the same way that Paul " s «olive tree» image does; in both cases, disobedient branches are broken off ( John 15:2, 6 ; Rom 11:17 ), though John, most of whose audience probably already regards itself as Jewish, does not emphasize any grafting on of foreign branches. Here as elsewhere (cf. comment on 3:3–5), for John, «becoming a true Jew and becoming a Christian are one and the same thing.» 8881 2. The Vinedresser " s Pruning (15:1–3) The figure of God as the vinedresser (15:1) is not completely unexpected. Gardeners often belonged to the poorest class (Apuleius Metam. 9.31), such as those who might lease rather than own a vineyard (P.Oxy. 1631.9–13). 8882 Yet not all farmers (γεωργο) were poor, 8883 and in any case, this fact is less significant than other backgrounds for the image; Jesus himself appears as a sort of gardener in 20:15. 8884 Naturally, Greek texts could sometimes portray Dionysus as the ultimate vinedresser (Achilles Tatius 2.3.2). 8885 Far more important, OT images of Israel as God " s vine imply God or his workers as tenders of that vine; Paul speaks of God " s church as his field, his γεργιον ( 1Cor 3:9 ). 2A. A Vinedresser " s Attention |
| 6774 For «remaining forever,» cf. 12:34; 1 John 2:17; 2 John 2 (there are only three non-Johannine uses in the NT; cf. 1 Esd 4:37–38). That legal adoption of a son was also μνω (P.Oxy. 1206.9) is probably irrelevant. 6775 E.g., Dio Chrysostom Or. 64.13. 6776 E.g., Sipre Deut. 40.6.1 (parable); b. B. Bat. 10a (about Akiba but probably later); Deut. Rab. 3:2; Pesiq. Rab. 27:3; see further Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 117–18. 6777 See Westcott, John, 134; Sanders, John, 221 ; Evans, John, 93. For background on Hagar " s and Ishmael " s «freeing» as slaves, see Sarna, Genesis, 128–29,155–57. 6778 E.g., Culpepper, Anatomy, 157. 6779 Jos. Asen. 10:4; 17:4; possibly Acts 13:1; Dixon, Mothers, 128. 6780 For people dwelling in shrines, see, e.g., Livy 40.51.8. 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. 6781 E.g., Isaeus Estate of Astyphilus 16; Estate of Nicostratus 27–31; Lysias Or. 7.24–33, §110–111; 7.41, §112; 16; 18; Cicero Verr. 2.1.6.17; Vat. 1.1–2; Rosc. com. 7.21; Pro Sulla 24.68; 26.72; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Isaeus 3, 9; Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.50.63; Valerius Maximus 8.5.6; Acts 23:1. 6782 E.g., Plutarch Demosthenes 11.4; Cicero 38.2–6; 40.3. Sometimes even the butt of the joke was forced to laugh (Xenophon Cyr. 2.2.16). 6783 Plutarch Cicero 5.4; 27.1; 39.1. Cicero was sometimes intemperate with his vice lists (e.g., Pis. 27.66)! 6784 E.g., Lysias Or. 3.1, §96; Aeschines Against Timarchus passim, esp. (and ironically!) 179; False Embassy 3,14,56,69; Thucydides 3.61.1; Cicero Verr. 2.1.6.17; Rosc. Amer. 30.82–45.132; Cae1. 13.31; 24.60; Quinct. 3.11–9.33 (the entire narratio!); Pro Scauro 13.29; Sest. 37.80; Matt 12:24–45; probably Acts 24(implied in the anacoluthon); cf. comments in Anderson, Glossary, 72–73. Occasionally one brought countercharges only afterward (Thucydides 3.70.3–4); such behavior might serve to deter future claimants. |
| И. не входит в число 12 апостолов, а потому возникает вопрос: веровал ли он в Иисуса Христа до Его Воскресения или уверовал позже? Как евангелист Иоанн, так и евангелисты-синоптики отмечают, что родственники Спасителя на начальном этапе Его общественного служения если не противились Его проповеди, то по крайней мере встретили ее непониманием. В Мк 3. 20-21 приводится высказывание о «ближних» Христа, считавших, что «Он вышел из себя», и желавших увести Его от народа. В Мк 6. 4 Сам Христос, вероятно намекая на отношение к Нему близких, образно говорит, что «не бывает пророк без чести, разве только в отечестве своем и у сродников и в доме своем». Однако в ряде параллельных мест упоминание родственников отсутствует (ср.: Лк 4. 24; Ин 4. 44; Ev. Thom. 31; P. Oxy. 1. 5). Делались даже предположения о том, что евангелист Марк намеренно выставляет братьев Спасителя в негативном свете ввиду полемики, к-рая имела место в момент составления этого Евангелия между сторонниками И. и ап. Павла ( Crossan. 1973). Однако «неверие» братьев отмечает и евангелист Иоанн (Ин 7. 5). В то же время он сообщает, что братья сопровождали Христа в Капернаум (Ин 2. 12), возможно, присутствовали на брачном пиру в Кане (ср.: Ep. apost. 5), а позже предлагали Ему совершить чудеса на празднике Кущей (Ин 7. 2-5). Т. е. скорее следует говорить о неверном понимании или недопонимании братьями целей служения Христа, а не о полном отвержении Его. Тем не менее в Ин 19. 26-27 Спаситель поручает Пресв. Богородицу заботам ап. Иоанна, а не Своих братьев. В Зап. Церкви получила распространение иная т. зр., впервые сформулированная блж. Иеронимом в полемике с Гельвидием. Гельвидий (сочинение к-рого сохр. лишь в цитатах у блж. Иеронима), отрицая приснодевство Марии, настаивал на том, что братья Господни являются Его кровными, родными, братьями, т. е. детьми Девы Марии и Иосифа. В качестве доказательства он обратил внимание на то, что Христос назван первенцем Девы Марии в Мф 1. 24-25 и Лк 2. 7, что подразумевает вероятность рождения др. детей, а также на возможность толкования Мф 1. 18, 25 как указания на последовавшие за Рождеством супружеские отношения Иосифа и Пресв. Девы ( Hieron. Adv. Helvid. 3, 9, 11, 17, 18). Гельвидий также ссылался на предшествующую традицию толкования, в частности на сочинения Тертуллиана, мнение которого, хотя и нечетко выраженное, было похоже на позицию Гельвидия (ср.: Tertull. Adv. Marcion. 4. 19; Idem. De carn. Chr. 7; Idem. De monog. 8). В Новое время теория Гельвидия была возрождена протестант. экзегетами, к-рые настаивали на том, что греч. слово δελφς может обозначать только родных братьев, имеющих одних и тех же отца и мать. |
| 10829 On the coherency of 20:30–21:25 if one wishes to read the Gospel as a whole, see Segovia, «Farewel1.» 10831 Talbert, John, 63–64, points out that we have this chapter in the final, canonical form of the text, which is the available object for literary inquiry. 10832 Sandmel, Judaism, 389. Philostratus " s third-century C.E. Heroikos distributes Protesilaos " s appearances over a wide geographic range (Hrk. 11.7–8; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxvi-xxvii), but this may be too late and peripheral to prove relevant. 10835 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:896–904; Quast, Reading, 141; cf. Fuller, Formation, 151. Perhaps less likely is the view that Luke uses a resurrection appearance account in a pre-Easter context (Fuller, Formation, 160–61), making John more helpful for historical reconstruction here (Brown, Essays, 269–70). 10836 Blomberg, «Miracles as Parables,» 345. Many who find a parallel doubt «a direct literary relationship» (see Smith, John 390–91). 10839 Later, CD 4.15–17; 1QH 5.7–8; L.A.B. 3:11; Matt 13:47; Strauss, «Quellen.» For proposals on this background, see Jeremias, Theology, 132–33; Fenton, Matthew, 73; Gundry, Matthew, 62; Lane, Mark, 67–68; MacLaurin, «Fishermen.» 10843 A bilingual milieu may also help explain Jesus» use of the figure, since «catch» (Heb. tzud, Aram, tzade) could apply to both physical catching and to winning others by deception or debate (Lachs, Commentary, 58–59); that image also appears in Greek (Boring et a1., Commentary, 55). 10844 See Keener, Matthew, 148–49; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 393–94; Witherington, Christology, 129–30. 10846 Safrai, «Home,» 747. Cf. fishing implements found in Bethsaida (Arav, «Bethsaida») and the Galilean fishing boat that was uncovered (Stone, «Boat»). Cf. also the abundance of small boats available for crossing the sea from one town to another (Josephus Life 163–164). 10847 Pliny Nat. 22.68.138; Horsley, Documents, 5:99; Lewis, Life, 68. Among the poor, smoked fish could rank «the most popular item» in a general market " s sales for a day (P.Oxy. |
| 9017 E.g., Polybius 1.62.8; 14.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 3.28.7; 3.51.1; 5.26.4; 5.50.3; 6.21.2; 6.95.1; 8.9.3; 8.36.3; 15.7.2; Diodorus Siculus 14.30.4; 14.56.2; 17.39.1; 17.54.2; 19.66.6; 19.67.1; 21.12.6; 31.5.3; 32.16.1; 33.28b.4; 40.1.2; Livy 6.2.3; 27.4.6; 43.6.9; 45.12.6; Sallust Jug. 14.17; 102.6; Herodian 4.7.3; 4.15.8; 1Macc 12:1,3,8; 14:40; cf. 1 Kgs 5:1; 2Macc 11:14. For further discussion in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, see Balch, «Friendship.» 9018 Often in Plutarch (e.g., Agesilaus 23.6; Pompey 70.4; Statecraft 13, Mor. 806F-809B; Philosophers and Men in Power 1, Mor. 776AB; O.M.P.A. 6, Mor. 787B); but also elsewhere (e.g., Achilles Tatius 4.6.1–3). Contrast the older Stoic values of Chrysippus in Diogenes Laertius 7.7.189; but cf. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 74. Even among Greeks, whereas Aristotle notes friendships based on goodness, pleasure, or utility (E.E. 7.2.9–13,1236a; 7.10.10,1242b; N.E. 8.13.1,1162ab), he assigns most to utility (E.E. 7.2.14, 1236a). 9020 Friedländer, Life, 1:225. Cf. Judge, Pattern, 33–34 (in the context of imperial friendships): «not simply a spontaneous relationship of mutual affection. It was a status of intimacy conferred on trusted companions.» 9021 Cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 29: «It is doubtful that any but those with some wealth and leisure could attain either the Greek or the Roman ideal of friendship.» 9022 Also Cicero Verr. 1.7.18 (one must be careful what one says about friends of rank); on friendship in his letters, see Fiore, «Theory.» 9023 E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lit. Comp. 1; Valerius Maximus 7.8.7; Philostratus Hrk. 4.3; 10.2; Acts 19:31; cf. AE 1912.171 (in Sherk, Empire, 235). Iamblichus V.P. 22.101; 33.230, admonishes respect for benefactors in a friendship. 9024 Martial Epigr. 3.36.1–3; 3Macc 5:26; probably P.Oxy. 2861 (in Stowers, Letter Writing, 63); cf. Musonius Rufus 15, p. 98.5–6; DeSilva, Honor, 99. See also, e.g., a magician dependent on a spirit (PGM 1.172, 190–191). 9028 |
| 2909 Cf. Clark, Logos, 18–19, who suspects an anti-pagan polemical use of the Logos (emphasizing the distinctiveness of the incarnation, 28). 2914 Conzelmann, Theology, 335. For a description of the theme in Poimandres and other Hermetica, see Lee, Thought, 84–85, though he contrasts Johns «ethical interest» with the Poimandres» «magical» outlook. 2917 Lyman, «Religion,» 270, suggested a common dependence on the Logos of Heraclitus, John via Philo, the Hermetica via the Stoics. 2926 Read explores the value of the Hellenistic Logos in «Logos.» Many modern attempts to employ John " s Logos in interreligious dialogue, however, rest on a misapprehension of his semantic horizon (cf. Lukito, «Christology»). 2927 Diogenes Laertius 9.1.1. Diogenes Laertius provides ancient sources on Heraclitus in 9.1 (LCL 2:409–425). 2928 Lee, Thought, 79; cf. summaries in Allen, Philosophy, 10; Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 1–2; Barclay, «Themes,» 80. 2929 In Stobaeus Eel 1.1.12 (Grant, Religions, 152–54). One may compare Orphic Hymns 64: nomos is what arranges the stars and the whole cosmos; Pindar frg. 169a (in P.Oxy. 2450). 2930 Long, Philosophy, 131,145. Glasson, «Logos Doctrine,» noting that Heraclitus " s extant sayings on the subject are few (p. 234), wrongly suspects that the Stoics created them; see the critique in Miller, «Updating.» 2931 Bruce, History, 44; compare Heraclitus frg. 20 with Zeno frg. 98 (the latter available in Barrett, Background, 62). 2932 Diogenes Laertius 7.1.88. On divine law meaning living according to nature, see also Epictetus Diatr. 2.16.28; on one law and Logos in the universe, see Marcus Aurelius 7.9. For a full discussion of natural law in Stoicism, see Watson, «Natural Law.» For the connotative difference between logos and physis (nature), see Long, Philosophy, 120, 148–49. 2933 In Plato, e.g., see Diogenes Laertius 3.86; cf. Cicero in Frank, Aspects, 109; Maximus of Tyre Or. 6.5; 11.12 (comparing mind and law; in 27.8 he regards God as pure Mind); even Lucan C.W. 7.1; Sib. Or. 3.757. Cf. in Palestinian Judaism 1 En. 72:2; 73:1; 74:1; 76:14; 78:10; 79:1–2; 1QM 10.12–13. |
| 10324 E.g., Cornelius Nepos 5 (Cimon), 3.1; 8 (Thrasybulus), 4.1–2; 12 (Chabrias), 3.3; 14 (Datâmes), 5.2; 15 (Epaminondas), 7.1; 18 (Eumenes), 7.2; 10.2; 19 (Phocion), 4.3; 23 (Hannibal), 1.2; Herodian 3.2.3; Plutarch Demosthenes 26.5. 10328 John Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 88 also takes Joseph of Arimathea as a model of courage, risking enmity and death. 10331 Pace Goulder, «Nicodemus,» Nicodemus is not negative throughout the Gospel; he grows closer to a disciple and further from the Jerusalem leaders (Dschulnigg, «Nikodemus»). 10332 Washing the corpse was standard preburial practice in Mediterranean antiquity (e.g., Homer I1. 18.345, 350; 24.582; Euripides Phoen. 1667; Virgil Aen. 6.219; 9.487; Ovid Metam. 13.531–532; Apuleius Metam. 9.30; Acts 9:37), and anointing appears to be frequent as well (e.g., Homer I1. 18.350–351; 24.582; Virgil Aen. 6.219; Martial Epigr. 3.12; T. Ab. 20:11A); for ointments in embalming, e.g., Herodian 4.2.8; Hagner, Matthew, 758, cites P.Oxy. 736.13; Artemidorus 1.5; Gen 50LXX. For the practice in other cultures, see Mbiti, Religions, 329. 10335 T. Ab. 20:10A; L.A.E. 48.1; Apoc. Mos. 40.1–3; b. Ber. 18b; cf. white wrappings in L.A.B. 64:6; Gen. Rab. 96:5. 10338 E.g., Babinet, «Sindon.» Although the radiocarbon dating seems against it (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 119–20, noting the three independent carbon 14 tests, each claiming 95 percent certainty) and the colors are known from medieval artists» pigments (cf. Thompson, Debate, 238–43, who surveys both sides), traces of Palestinian plant fibers and early-first-century Judean burial customs suggest elements of accurate portrayal in the Shroud of Turin. For a thorough and well-documented survey of scientific data for the latter, as well as scientific evaluations on the contamination of the radiocarbon sample, see Borkan, «Authenticity.» If the Shroud dates from 1260 to 1390 as the radiocarbon tests suggest, it displays remarkable technology. 10339 Thompson, Debate, 240; Ducatillon, «Linceu1.» In Death, 1264–65, Brown argues that the Synoptics probably think of a single cloth whereas John has multiple wrappings. |
| 3004 Dahood, «Ebla,» on «Temple of the Word» (provided this points to an actual temple devoted to the worship of the personified Word; much Ebla material is still debatable). 3005 Words sometimes carried magical efficacy in ancient Near Eastern thought (e.g., Moriarty, «Word»), as in some other non-Western cultures (cf. Prince, «Psychiatry,» 99). 3006 Albright, «Logos,» 143–51, esp. 150. This is not to say that preexilic Mesopotamian ideas could not be transmitted over time (a giant is apparently called «Gilgamesh» in 4Q531 frg. 1, line 12; 4Q530 2.1; cf. also Reeves, «Utnapishtim»), but that the burden of proof remains on one asserting direct connections to demonstrate the media of transmission. 3013 Ibid., 172–93. The Persian prototypes that some have suggested (hypostatic Amesha Spentas in the Gathas, mentioned by Vos, «Range,» 387, as known by the first century) may be of more dubious relevance. 3018 Cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:255, for Greek mythology " s personification of wisdom; many recognize Greek influence on Jewish thought (Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 5; Sanders, John, 69). Non-Jewish personifications of wisdom include Plutarch Fort. Rom. 1, Mor. 316D (probable; it is compared with Fate; Law, νμος, is personified in Pindar frg. 169a in P.Oxy. 2450); likewise, Latin personifications (as a rhetorical device, e.g., Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.53.66; Cicero Nat. d. 2.23.60–62), also include Wisdom (e.g., Cicero Resp. 3.8.12; Acad. 2.9.27; Fin. 4.13.34; similarly, Philosophia in Seneca Ep. Luci1. 95.10; Virtue in Ep. Luci1. 66.27, though Ep. Luci1. 113 mocks a more literalistic personification of the Virtues). 3020 Burney, Origin, 38; J. A. Robinson, Historical Character, 104–5; Hayward, «Name»; Brown-lee, «Whence,» 179; Barclay, «Themes,» 79–80; cf. Westcott, John, xvi. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen. 1does associate the Memra with Wisdom. 3022 Box, «Intermediation» (answering Moore); Stuart, «Examination,» 20–22 (occasionally); cf. Middleton, «Logos,» 129. Middleton, «Logos,» argues that Shekinah (pp. 113–23) and Yekara (128) are also used as circumlocutions. |
|
|
