| 6557 Cf. Scott, «Horizons,» 498–99, citing especially Philo Embassy 281; Isa 1:26; 2LXX. 6558 Jub. 8:12; Sib. Or. 5:249–250 (probably late-first- to early-second-century C.E. Egypt); b. Yoma 54b; cf. Ezek 5:5; 38:12 ; Alexander, «Imago Mundi»; Davies, Land, 7. Let. Arts. 83 (cf. 115, μση for seaports also) places it in the midst of Judea, as does Josephus War 3.52. Curiously, 1 En. 18ignores the opportunity to identify where the cornerstone of the earth is located, but this does not mean the tradition was unknown in that period, against Jubilees; 1 En. 26may place the middle of the earth in Jerusalem (26:2–6). On the new Jerusalem image here, see, e.g., Allison, «Water.» 6559 Some of the references in the preceding note; Jub. 8:19; b. Sanh. 37a; Num. Rab. 1:4; Lam. Rab. 3:64, §9; Pesiq. Rab. 10:2; 12:10; cf. Hayman, «Observations»; Schäfer, «Schöpfung»; Goldenberg, «Axis.» For the site of the temple as the «pupil of God " s eye,» cf. b. Ber. 62b; for its elevation, e.g., b. Qidd. 69a; for its identification with the site of the Aqedath Isaac (Mount Moriah), see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 55:7. 6560 T. Kip. 2:14; Lev. Rab. 20:4; Num. Rab. 12:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:4; cf. Böhl, «Verhältnis.» For a «navel» within a city, see Pindar Dithyramb 4, frg. 75 (possibly on a prominent altar within Athens); cf. Pausanias 10.16.3. 6561 Besides clearer data above, cf. 3 En. 22B:7 (from God " s throne); Odes So1. 6:7–13 (to the temple). Let. Aris. 88–91 speaks of an underground water system beneath the temple, no doubt part of its Utopian idealization of the temple; cf. the possible allusion to the source of universal waters in Josephus Ant. 1.38–39 (perhaps even in Gen 2:10–14 ; cf. Diodorus Siculus 1.12.6; Pausanias 2.5.3). 6562 Gaston, Stone, 211; Hooke, «Spirit,» 377–78; cf. Freed, Quotations, 30; Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 132–33. Some naturally see baptismal associations here (Blenkinsopp, «Quenching,» 48; Cullmann, Worship, 82). 6563 Some commentators also note that κοιλα sometimes functions as the equivalent to καρδα in the LXX; elsewhere in John the term applies to the womb (3:4), which is also abdomina1. |
| 8596 Ibid., 101–2; Glasson, Moses, 104–5 (citing John 5:45 ); Windisch, Spirit-Paraclete, 15 (following Billerbeck); Manns, «Paraclet,» 127–31; cf. Bernard, John, 2(following Wetstein); Lee, Thought, 214 (following Schlatter); Westcott, John, 212; Sandmel, Beginnings, 384; in Greek texts, e.g., Aeschines Ctesiphon 37 (taking the laws figuratively as advocates). 8597 Reportedly the Egyptians, lest rhetoric sway judges from the laws» severity (Diodorus Siculus 1.76.1–2). For examples of forensic rhetoric, cf. Cicerós famous defenses or the trial speeches of Isaeus, Lysias, Aeschines, or Demosthenes. 8598 E.g., P.Thead. 15.3, 19 (280–281 C.E.); Chariton 3.4.15; Nin. Rom. frg. 1.A.4; Plutarch Flatterer 20, Mor. 61D; Publicola 2.1 (συνηγορας); Cicero 5.2 (συνηγορεν); 39.5 (βοηθοντος); CPJ 2:84, §157; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.27.15; cf. also σμβουλος (Plutarch Mor. 61D; 4 Macc 15:25; cf. Moses in 4 Macc 9:2, contrasted with Antiochus in 9:3; Mattathias " s successor Simeon as a military νρ βουλς in 1Macc 2:65). In Philostratus " s Heroikos a deceased hero can become a σμβουλος, or advisor, counselor, to his mortal clients (4.7; 14.4; 23.18; 35.1; cf. 16.2; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxix); in Porphyry Marc. 10.189 it is (figuratively) his teachings. 8602 Ladd, Theology, 293; Leaney, «Paraclete,» 61. Cf. the qualifications of Ross, «Lament,» 45–46. 8607 A loanword in rabbinic texts, and appearing in some papyri (Deissmann, Light, 93); cf. 2Macc 4:5. 8608 5. Hag. 13b; p. Roš Haš. 3:2, §6; Lev. Rab. 5:6; 21:10; 30:6. Although none of these references has an attribution before the third century, this may parallel the Greco-Roman dependence on private rather than public prosecutors (Chariton 5.4.9; CPJ 2:64–65, §155; Josephus War 1.637–638; cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 34; for a relevant social depiction of second-century B.C.E. Roman prosecution, see David, «Eloquentia»).– 8609 5. Yoma 77a; Exod. Rab. 18:5; cf. Apoc. Sedr. 14:1; in 2 En. 33(rec. A), Michael will be an intercessor» for Enoch (in rec. J, a «mediator»). He may also be «the Prince of the World» (contrast John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 ), who defends the world before the Holy One (3 En. 30:2), and the angel who intercedes for Israel (T. Levi 5:6; he struggled with Jacob in Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 32:25 ). Cf. Betz, Paraklet, 149–58, for one study on Michael as intercessor. |
| 25 3 Kgd 19:9 ff. 26 Probably an echo of both the chariot in which Elijah ascends into heaven in 4 Kgd 2:11, and of the chariot of the soul in Plato’s Phaedrus (246A-C). 27 Cf. 4 Kgd 2:1ff. 28 Probably commenting on 4 Kgd 1:9–12, but alluding also to 4 Kgd 6:15–17. 29 Cf. 1 Kgd 1:9–20. 30 Cf. Lev. 14:33–42 . 31 Cf. 3 Kgd 17:8–24. 32 Cf. Matt. 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8 , Luke 9:28–36. 33 Cf. Isa. 53:2. 34 Cf. Psa. 44:3. 35 Cf. John 1:1 . 36 Apophasis: Maximus introduces here the technical terms of apophatic and cataphatic theology. 37 Cf. John 1:14 . 38 This section develops the theme just introduced in the dual interpretation of the radiant garments of the Transfigured Christ as both Scriptures and creation. 39 The Evagrian triad of ascetic struggle (praktike), natural contemplation (physike), and theology was related by Origen to a very similar classification of the categories of philosophy in the prologue to his Commentary on the Song of Songs: see Louth (1981), 57–8. 40 Cf. Denys the Areopagite, Ep. 9.1 (1105D). 41 Literally: in a Greek way. It is in contrast with the later ‘in a Jewish way’: cf. St Paul’s contrast between Greeks/Gentiles and Jews, especially in Rom. 1–3 . 42 Cf. Phil. 3.19 . 43 A metaphor for the Incarnation used by Gregory Nazianzen in Sermon 38.2 (PG 36:313B). Maximus devotes a Difficulty to Gregory’s use of the term (suspected of Origenism?): Amb. 33:1285C-1288A, where the Word’s expressing itself in letters and words is one of the interpretations offered of the metaphor. 44 Cf. Gen. 39:11–12 . 45 This is an important section in which Maximus reworks a fundamental Evagrian theme. For Evagrius, the five modes of contemplation are: 1. contemplation of the adorable and holy Trinity, 2. and 3. contemplation of incorporeal and incorporeal beings, 4. and 5. contemplation of judgment and providence (Centuries on Spiritual Knowledge I.27, in Guillaumont 1958 ). Maximus’ understanding is quite different. See Thunberg (1965), 69–75 and Gersh (1978), 226–7. 46 I do not know where Maximus gets these five secret meanings (or hidden logoi) from. They recall Plato’s ‘five greatest kinds’ (being, rest, motion, sameness and difference: see Sophist 254D-255C), but are evidently not the same. |
| 3351 Sipre Deut. 330.1.1 (trans. Neusner, 2:376); cf. later texts in Gen. Rab. 3:2; 28:2; Deut. Rab. 5:13; p. Ber. 6:1, §6; Deut 33in Targum Onqelos (Memra; cited in Moore, «Intermediaries,» 46); cf. also 1 Clem. 27. Targum Neofiti on the creation narrative emphasizes the creativity of the word of the Lord even more; see Schwarz, «Gen.» 3352 E.g., Mek. Sir. 3.44–45,49–51; 8.88; 10.29–31; Mek. c Am. 3.154–155; Mek. Bah. 11.111–112; Mek. Nez. 18.67–68; t. B. Qam. 7:10; Sipre Num. 78.4.1; 102.4.1; 103.1.1; SipreDeut. 33.1.1; 38.1.3–4; 49.2.2; 343.8.1; " Abot R. Nat. 1, 27, 37 A. In later texts, cf. the translation «by whose word all things exist» in b. Ber. 12a, 36ab, 38b; 40b, bar.; 44b; Sanh. 19a (pre-Tannaitic attribution); p. Pesah 2:5; Gen. Rab. 4:4,6; 32:3; 55(all Tannaitic attributions); Lev. Rab. 3:7; Num. Rab. 15:11; Deut. Rab. 7:6; Ruth Rab. 5:4; Pesiq. Rab. 21:7; Tg. Neof. on Exod 3:14; cf. Urbach, Sages 1:184–213; Marmorstein, Names, 89 (comparing also a Sumerian psalm). 3357 M. «Abot 5:1; »Abot R. Nat. 31 A; 36, §91 B; 43, §119 B; Gen. Rab. 16:1; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 399, §1092, also cite Pesiq. Rab. 108ab; cf. «The Samaritan Ten Words of Creation» in Bowman, Documents, 1–3. 3359 M. «Abot 3:l4; Sipre Deut. 48.7.1; »Abot R. Nat. 44, §124 B; Exod. Rab. 47:4; Pirqe R. E1. 11 (in Versteeg, Adam, 48); Tanhuma Beresit §l, f.6b (in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 170–71, §454; Harvey, «Torah,» 1236); cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:196–201,287. Some later rabbis went so far as to attribute the world " s creation even to specific letters (e.g., p. Hag. 2:1, §16). 3360 Philo Planting 8–10; Heir 206. God is the bonder of creation in 2 En. 48:6; Marcus Aurelius 10.1; cf. Wis 11:25. For the connection between creating and sustaining, cf. John 5:17 . Lightfoot, Colossians, 156, helpfully cites Philo Flight 112 (word); PlantingS (divine law); Heir 188 (word). 3361 Col 1(sustain; hold together) and commentaries (e.g., Lightfoot, Colossians, 156; Kennedy, Theology, 155; Lohse, Colossians, 52; Johnston, Ephesians, 59; Hanson, Unity, 112; Beasley-Murray, «Colossians,» 174); cf. Cicero Nat. d. 2.11.29 (a Stoic on reason); Wis 7(Wisdom " s movement does not contrast with Platós unchanging forms; Plato and others envisioned rapid motion in the pure heavens–see Winston, Wisdom, 182). Cf. 1 Clem. 27A; Sir 43.26 ; cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:325. |
| 9054 Mitchell, «Friends,» 259, citing Cicero Amic. 6.22. Masters also should avoid confiding in servants (Theophrastus Char. 4.2). 9057 Plutarch Flatterer 24, Mor. 65AB (LCL 1:344–45); cf. Flatterer 17, Mor. 59A; Educ. 17, Mor. 13B. Cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 39. 9063 Aristotle N.E. 9.8.2, 1168b, cited in Stowers, Letter Writing, 58; Witherington, Acts, 205 (on Acts 4:32). Cf. Arius Didymus 11C. 9065 Martial Epigr. 2.43.1–16; Herodian 3.6.1–2; Cornelius Nepos 15 (Epaminondas), 3.4; Iambli-chus V.P. 19.92 (cf. 29.162; 30.167–168; 33.237–240); cf. 1Macc 12and perhaps Ps.-Phoc. 30; Euripides Andr. 585 (but cf. 632–635); Plutarch Bride 19, Mor. 140D; Longus 1.10; Martial Epigr. 8.18.9–10. 9066 E.g., Alciphron Farmers 27 (Ampelion to Euergus), 3.30, par. 3; 29 (Comarchides to Euchaetes), 3.73, par. 2; Fishermen 7 (Thlassus to Pontius), 1.7. 9069 Diogenes Laertius 7.1.125; Plutarch Cicero 25.4. On friendship between good men and the gods, cf., e.g., Seneca Dia1. 1.1.5; on all things belonging to them, Seneca Benef. 7.4.6, cf. Philo Cherubim 84. The maxim is especially cited in works on 1Corinthians (Willis, Meat, 169; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 80; cf. also Fitzgerald, Cracks, 200–201; Grant, Christianity, 102–3). 9070 E.g., people invoked divinities as φλοι, to help them in battle (Aeschylus Sept. 174); cf. a mortal as a «friend» who honors his patron demigod in Philostratus Hrk. 58.1 (the hero is also his friend in 10.2); cf. perhaps Iamblichus V.P. 10.53 (where the friendship is demonstrated by deities» past favors). 9071 This observation (in contrast to some other observations above) may run counter to the suggestion of Judge (Pattern, 38) that w. 13–15 of John 15 «reveal the peculiar combination of intimacy and subordination» characteristic of the patronal relationship. 9073 Maximus of Tyre Or. 19.4; Iamblichus V.P. 33.229. This might involve sharing the divine character (Iamblichus V.P. 33.240). 9074 Crates Ep. 26, to the Athenians (Gyn. Ep. 76–77); cf. likewise Diog. Ep. 10, to Metrocles (Cyn. Ep. 104–5). Cf. Plato Leg. 4.716D (cited in Mayor, James, cxxv); fellowship between mortals and deities in the golden age (Babrius pro1.13). |
| 1247 Sambursky, «Gematria»; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 103, citing Cicero Inv. 2.40.116; Hengel, Hellenism, l:80ff.; Lieberman, Hellenism, 47–82. Some may also reflect Babylonian sources (Cavigneaux, «Sources»). 1248 Judith 16:7; Josephus War 1.353; 2.155–158; Ag. Ap. 1.255; 2.263; Pesiq. Rab. 20(cf. Greek Phlegethon; cf. the Elysian plain and Acherusian lake in Sib. Or. 2.337–338, probably Christian redaction; Apoc. Mos. 37:3). 1249 E.g., Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27.3; Sib. Or. 2.15 (Poseidon); 2.19 (Hephaistos); 3.22 (Tethys); 3.110–116, 121–155, 551–554, 588 (euhemeristic; cf. similarly Let. Aris. 136; Sib. Or. 3.723; 8.43–47); 5.334 (personification; cf. also 7.46; 11.104, 147, 187, 205, 219, 278; 12:53, 278; 14.56, 115); T. Job 1.3 (cornucopia); 51:1/2 (perhaps allusion to Nereus, also in Sib. Or. 1.232); cf. (not Greek) Ishtar as an evil spirit in Text 43:6–7, perhaps 53:12, Isbell, 103; cf. art (some of it in Palestinian synagogues) in Goodenough, Symbols, vols. 7–8 (and Dura Europos synagogue, vols. 9–11, and 12:158–183). 1250 The clear examples are few (even Egyptian use may have been more common; cf. «Biblés Psalm»), despite apologetic protestations to the contrary (e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.165; 2.257). 1252 E.g., Martin, Colossians, 18–19; Knox, Gentiles, 149; Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 259. Although an Egyptian provenance for the Testament of Solomon is possible, I would favor an Asian provenance, given its date (cf. also Artemis in 8:11, etc.), and stress the magical-mystical nature of some of Judaism in Asia. 1253 So Kennedy, Epistles, 14, 22; Robinson, Redating, 294. Palestine had its Pharisees and Essenes, but had even more Am Háarets. 1258 Cf. CD 5.6–8; lQpHab 9.6–7. Others also believed that profaning the temple could bring judgment, although not applying it to this time (Pss. So1. 1:8; 2:1–10; Josephus War 5.17–18; cf. the ambiguous evaluation of Tannaitic sources in Goldenberg, «Explanations»). 1263 Grant, Gods, 51; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 121–22; Conzelmann, «Areopagus,» 224; van de Bunt-van den Hoek, «Aristobulos»; cf. Renehan, «Quotations.» Jewish and early Christian texts often followed the Greek practice (instilled in school memorization exercises) of citing or alluding to Homer (e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 195–197; Syr. Men. 78–93; Josephus Ant. 1.222; Sib. Or. 3.401–432, passim; 3.814; 5.9; 2 Bar. 10:8; Tatian 8; cf. Rahmani, «Cameo») or other poets (Acts 17:28; 1Cor 15:33 ; Tit 1:12 ; Justin 1 Apo1. 39; Theophilus 2.37; Athenagoras 5–6; cf. Manns, «Source»), or proverbs originally based on them. |
| 6439 For the utility of antithesis in rhetoric, see Rhet. Alex. 26,1435b.25–39; Anderson, Glossary, 21–22 (citing Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.21, 58; Demetrius 22–24, 247, 250). 6440 R. Eliezer (ca. 90 C.E.) in t. Šabb. 15:16; and other passages (cf. b. Yoma 85b) cited by commentators (e.g., Dodd, Tradition, 332; Hoskyns, Gospel, 316; Smith, Parallels, 138; Schnackenburg, John, 2:134). Later rabbis also applied qal vaomer arguments to other matters superseding the Sabbath (p. Roš Haš. 4:3, §3). Haenchen, John, 2:15, cites another line of argument from Num. Rab. 12 (the foreskin as a physical blemish), but it is late and probably irrelevant. 6441 Josephus Ant. 12.277; 13.12–13; 14.63; War 1.146; b. c Arak. 7a; Yoma 84b, bar.; Gen. Rab. 80:9; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:368; it overrides even Yom Kippur (b. Yoma 82b). One should care for all a birthing mother " s needs even on the Sabbath (Safrai, «Home,» 765, cites m. Šabb. 18:3; Roš Haš. 2:5). 6442 E.g., m. " Abot 1:6, 8; 2:4. In broader Greco-Roman thought, see, e.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 14.1; 94.13; for rhetorical invitation to «judge for yourselves,» see, e.g., Alciphron Courtesans 7 (Thaïs to Euthydemus), 1.34, par. 7; Acts 4:19; 1Cor 10:15; 11:13 . The more specific contrast some offer to the Tabernacles ritual (Moloney, Signs, 79–80) may presuppose knowledge not available even to most Tabernacles pilgrims over two decades before the Gospel " s writing. 6443 Cicero Off 2.14.51 6444 Cato Col1. dist. 53; Columbanus, (probably) Catonian lines, line 27; Hesiod Precepts of Chiron 2. 6445 Brown, John, 1:313. 6446 Populist support could shield a person from the Jerusalem elites power (e.g., Josephus Life 250). Yet pace Morris, John, 415, the language of 7and 7does suggest that by this point they wished to arrest, not merely watch, Jesus. 6447 Cf. Yee, Feasts, 78. 6448 See, e.g., Judg 19:17 ; 1Sam 25:11 ; Homer Od. 19.104–105; Euripides Cyc1. 102, 275–276; Helen 86; Iph. taur. 495, 505; Rhesus 682; Virgil Aen. 2.74; 8.112–114; Terence Eunuch 306; Propertius Eleg. 1.22.1–2; Appian C.W. 1.14.116; Parthenius L.R. 26.4. See comment on 3:8. |
| 7099 In apposition to the pronoun αυτν earlier, this title functions as epitheton (similar to an-tonomasia; see Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.31.42; Anderson, Glossary, 23, 52–53; Rowe, «Style,» 128; Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 579–80). 7100 Culpepper, John, 177. In the last case, the Pharisees do not know as much as they hope (9:29), as the man points out (9:30). 7101 Interestingly, however, what «we [Jews] know» is correct when laid against the knowledge of the Samaritans (4:22), except for Samaritans who affirm Christ (4:42); preresurrection disciples also could admit inadequate knowledge (14:5; 16:30; 20:2; but cf. 21:24). 7102 On their meaning, see «knowledge» in the introduction; I suspect οδα clusters in ch. 9 for solely stylistic reasons, either because the term was fresh on John " s mind or because he wished to emphasize the continuity of the term in the debate. 7103 For further comment, cf. introduction, ch. 6; also Keener, «Knowledge,» 34–40,94–98. Probably a rhetorically trained reader would have viewed this repetition of epistemological language as akin to diaphora, «the repeated use of the same word, which acquires added or different significance in the repetition» (Rowe, «Style,» 133–34; cf. Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 580). 7105 Many teachers probably permitted medicine if it had been prepared before the Sabbath (t. Šabb. 12:12) or the act was medically urgent (m. Ed. 2:5; Šabb. 22:6; Yoma 8:6; Lachs, Commentary, 199–200 adds Mek. Sab. 1.15–23 on Exod 31:13, which speaks of saving life on the Sabbath), which most of Jesus» healings were not (cf. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 13; idem, Figure, 208). 7106 Cf. Falk, Jesus, 149. Tradition reported that the Shammaites were usually stricter (e.g., b. Ber. 23b; Hu1. 104). Probably all Pharisees allowed what was necessary to preserve life (m. Yoma 8:6), but the blind man is not in danger of dying. 7107 M. Šabb. 1:4; t. Šabb. 1:16; b. Besah 20a; majority opinion came to carry much weight among the sages (t. Ber. 4:15; b. Ber. 37a; p. Moed Qat. 3:1, §6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:17; Gen. Rab. 79:6; Ecc1. Rab. 10:8, §1; Song Rab. 1:1, §5; cf. Essenes in josephus War 2.145). |
| 3238 Wis 8:3. Cf. the close relationship between Isis and Osiris, Isis being mediator (Plutarch Mor. 352A in Betz and Smith, «De Iside,» 41). 3239 Gen. Rab. 1:1, using language from Prov. 8:30 . Freedman and Simon observe (Midrash Rabbah 1n. 1) that here «the Torah was with God as with a tutor, reared, as it were, by the Almighty.» Cf. Burkitt, Gnosis, 95, who suggests that John here echoes Genesis, which pictures God «producing the creation by consulting with Himself.» 3240 Pollard, «Relationships,» 364–65 (all six instances outside John connote «active relationship or intercourse «with»»); cf. Carson, Discourse, 92. The construction here represents neither movement toward God (Ellis, John, 21; Stevens, Theology, 90; cf. Morris, John, 76) nor an Aramaism; by this period, prepositions were becoming more ambiguous (cf., e.g., μετ» αλλλων in 6and προς αλλλους in 6:52). 3241 E.g., Pereira, «Word,» 182, citing 7:29. On relations among Father, Son, and Spirit in this Gospel, see more fully Harner, Analysis, 1–43; cf. also Gruenler, Trinity. 3249 E.g., Euripides E1. 1298–1300; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.245; cf. Homer Il. 18.94–96; Ovid Metam. 4.234–244. Most deities could not restore life once it was gone (Ovid Metam. 2.612–613). 3250 E.g., Homer Od. 4.459–461; Apollodorus 2.5.11 (cf. magical papyri for the manipulation of demons). 3251 E.g., 2Macc 6:26; 3Macc 5:7; Wis 7:25; Let. Arts. 185; Sib. Or. 1.66; T. Ab. 8:3; 15:12A; b. Šabb. 88b; Yebam. 105b; Yoma 12a; cf. Goodenough, Symbols, 2:179. 3252 E.g., Virgil Aen. 1.60; 3.251; 4.25, 206, 220; 6.592; 7.141, 770; 8.398; 9.625; 10.100, 668; 12.178,791; Georg. 2.325; Ovid Metam. 1.154; 2.304,401,505; 3.336; 9.271; 14.816; Valerius Flaccus 3.249; Plutarch Isis 2, Mor. 352A; Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 232, also cites Macrobius Sat. 1.23.21. But Juno might be omnipotens (Virgil Aen. 7.428) yet prove unable to prevail against Fate (7.314); other deities appear as omnipotent, e.g., Pluto in Orphic Hymns 18.17 (but perhaps as the «chthonic Zeus,» 18.3). In unrelated religious traditions, see, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 40–41. |
| 3273 See Meeks, Prophet-King, 103–6. It is helpful here to compare the divinization of Plato and other teachers in Hellenistic tradition (e.g., Diogenes Laertius 2.100; 6.2.63; 6.9.104; 8.1.11; 9.7.39; Plutarch Profit by Enemies 8, Mor. 90C; Apol1. 36, Mor. 120D; cf. Cicero Leg. 3.1.1); cf. lawgivers in Musonius Rufus 15, p. 96.24. One may also think of hyperbolic comparisons employed in popular rhetoric; see, e.g., Cicero De or. 1.10.40; 1.38.172; Or. Brut. 19.62. 3274 E.g., Philo Sacrifices 9; cf. Runia, «God.» Cf. explanations of Exod 7in Exod. Rab. 8:1; Num. Rab. 15:13. Cf. Metatron (originally a personification) as a lesser YHWH in 3 En. 12(though he turns out to be Enoch in 3 En. 4:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 4:24 ; cf. further Scholem, Gnosticism, 43–46); the righteous Messiah, and Jerusalem called by the Lord " s name (b. B. Bat. 75b; cf. Jer 23:6 ; Ezek 48:35 ); and Israel as a god (Gen. Rab. 98:3, fourth-century Amoraim). Yet R. Simeon ben Yohai (late second century) taught that associating God " s name with other gods was worse than denying his existence (b. Sanh. 63a). 3276 Contrast Williamson, «Philo»; Chilton, Approaches, 200–201; their comparisons are nevertheless valuable. 3277 Cf. also Bultmann, John, 33 (rejecting especially Hellenistic and gnostic «polytheistic conceptions and emanationist theories» that neglect the text " s monotheistic sense); Stuart, «Examination,» 42. Greek scholars consistently deride the «a god» translation; cf., e.g., Metzger, «Translation,» 125; and esp. Bruce, Booh, 60 n. 4: those who translate «a god» here «prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar.» 3279 E.g., Josephus Ant. 10.180; cf. Stuart, «Examination,» 42; Bultmann, John, 33; Brown, John, 1:5; Harris, Jesus as God, 287. On Josephus " s general sense for τ θεv, cf. Shutt, «Concept.» 3282 Metzger, «Translation,» 125; cf. Clark, Logos, 21; Sanders, John, 70 (citing the predicate nominative of 1:4). It should be noted, of course, that a writer who wished to emphasize that a predicate noun was definite was free to insert the article (Harner, «Nouns,» 87); and the pattern does not always obtain even in the context ( John 1:8–9 ). |
|
|
