| 72. Dunn J.D. Romans 1–8/WBC. Vol. 38A. Dallas, 1998. 73. Dunn J.D. Romans 9–16/WBC. Vol. 38B. Dallas, 1988. 74. Dunn J.D. C. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon/NIGNT. Grand Rapids, 1996. 75. Easton B.S. The Pastoral Epistles. London, 1948. 76. EUicolt C.J. St. Paul’s Epistles to the Philippians, the Colossians and Philimon. London, 1888. 77. Ellingworth P. The Epistle to the Hebrews: CGT/NIGTC. Grand Rapids, 1993. 78. Ellis E.E. Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society. Lanham, 1996. 79. Ellis E.E. Luke, Saint/Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th edn. 1974. Vol. XI. 80. Eltester F.W. Εκοη im Neuen Testament/BZNW 23. Giessen, 1958. 81. Fee G.D. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians/NICNT. Grand Rapids, 1995. 82. Fee G.D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians/NICNT. Grand Rapids, 1995. 83. Fitzmyer J.A. Romans. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New ork, 1993. 84. Flender Ο. εκν/NIDNTT: In 4 vol./Ed. by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids, 1975, 1986. Vol. 2: G.-Pre. 85. Fletcher-Louis C.H.T. Wisdom Christology and the Parting of the Ways between Judaism and Christianity/Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries (JSNT SS 192). London, 2004. 86. Gaugier E. Der Epheserbrief/Auslegung neutestamentlicher Schriften. Band 6. Zurich.: EVZ-Verlag, 1966. 87. Ceorgi D. Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil 2:6–11 /Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80 Geburtstag. Tubingen, 1964. 88. Gnilka J. Der Epheserbrief/HTKNT. Band X/2. Leipzig, 1971. 89. Gnilka J. Der Philipperbrief/HTKNT. Band X/3. Leipzig, 1968. 90. Gnilka J. Theologie des Neuen Testaments/HTKNT. Supplementband V. Freiburg; Basel; Wien, 1994. 91. Granfield C.E.B. The Epistle to the Romans/ICC. Vol. 1. Edinburgh, 1979. 92. Greehy. J. Philippians/A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Nelson, 1975. 93. Hanson A.T. Studes in Paul " s Technique and Theology. London, 1974. 94. Hanson A.T. The New Testament. Interpretation of Scripture. London, 1980. 95. Hawthorne G.F. Philippians/WBC. Vol. 43. Waco, Texas, 1983. |
| As Diaspora readers would readily recognize, a Gentile hearing about a «kingdom of truth» would think not of political kingship but of a kingship of philosophers (cf. Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.49; Plutarch Flatterer 16, Mor 58E). From Plato on, philosophers claimed that they were the citizens best suited to rule the state, 9919 wrote essays on appropriate forms of rulership, 9920 and sometimes (especially among the Cynics) spoke of themselves as ruling. 9921 No one took such claims as a threat to the security of the state because such philosophers rarely if ever challenged that security. True, Cynics often criticized rulers who fell short of their ideal of true kingship, and this criticism invited suspicion of wandering preachers; 9922 but Pilate could readily discern the difference between such a political troublemaker and the more common form of apolitical visionary. To a pragmatic Roman governor, Jesus was nothing more than a harmless Cynic philosopher; a nuisance, perhaps, but surely no threat. Ironically, whereas Pilate views Jesus as a harmless sage, the Jerusalem aristocracy views him as a threat to Romés interests (19:12, 15; cf. 11:49–50). From their respective inadequate conceptual frameworks, both misconstrue his identity. Pilatés tone may be undecipherable, but as Duke notes, John " s dramatic irony here is clear: Pilate asks, «What is truth?» of the very one who is the truth (14:6). 9923 The meaning of «truth» might be debatable, but Pilate was hardly interested in what appeared to him to be philosophical matters (18:38a); he was interested in politics, and from that vantage point, Jesus was «not guilty» (18:38b). Pilate thus took the matter back to Jesus» accusers (18:38b-19:16). Pilate and the People (18:38b-19:16) This section develops Pilatés encounter with Jesus, augmenting the (in a worldly sense) apolitical character of his kingdom stressed in 18:36–37; Jesus is no threat to Roman security (19:8–12). But the people provide Pilate other political realities to deal with, and become increasingly insistent that Jesus be handed over. |
| 589 B. Sanh. 39a (the emperor and late first-century R. Gamaliel II); Bek. 8b (emperor Hadrian and second-century rabbi); p. Meg. 1:11, §3 (concerning a second-century Tanna); 3:2, §3 (ditto); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1(R. Gamaliel); 4(concerning a Tanna, Johanan ben Zakkai, who then gives the correct answer privately to his disciples); Num. Rab. 4(Johanan ben Zakkai); 9(R. Eliezer, late first/early second century); Fed. Rab. 2.8, §2 (Hadrian and second-century rabbi). By observing that these reports concern Tannaim, we do not thereby claim their authenticity; many (such as debates with emperors) are demonstrably untrue. 590 T. c Abod. Zar. 6:7 (in Rome); b. c Abod. Zar. 54b, bar. (Rome); Bek. 8b-9a (Athens); cf. b. Sanh. 39a (Zoroastrian magus). 591 T. Sanh. 13:5; p. Sanh. 10:1, §7; cf. m. " Abot 2(R. Eleazar ben Arach, disciple of Johanan ben Zakkai), expounded in b. Sanh. 38b. 592 Cf. Geiger, « " pyqwrws.» Malherbe, Exhortation, 12, points out that other philosophers stereotypically accused Epicureans (and different competing schools) of «atheism, hedonism, and hatred of humanity» (some of which charges were also applied to Jews and Christians). 595 B. Sanh. 38b, 39a; Hu1. 84a; perhaps b. Yoma 56b-57a (if the Soncino note is correct concerning the possible corruption of min to Sadducee here); Herford, Christianity, 226–27, also lists Ecc1. Rab. 30:9,53cd; b. Hu1. 87a (sic?); Šabb. 152b; Sukkah 48b; cf. Bagatti, Church, 98ff. The baraita in b. Sanh. 43a is based on fanciful wordplays. 597 Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 31, follows many form critics» skepticism here, possibly to maintain his role for Jesus as a charismatic teacher rather than a proto-rabbinic halakist or debater; but in this period the two need not have been mutually exclusive. 598 Howard, Gospel, 229; Taylor, Formation, 116. Chilton, «Transmission»; idem, «Synoptic Development,» suggests that many Gospel traditions were transmitted and developed in ways similar to targumic traditions. 601 Although much has been written, a few references will suffice: Marcus, «Names»; Albright, Stone Age, 256–75; Lieberman, Hellenism; Tcherikover, Civilization; Hengel, Judaism; Avi-Yonah, Hellenism; cf. Goldstein, «Acceptance»; Simon, «Synkretismus»; Davies, «Aboth,» 138–51. Although some scholars above may have overdrawn their case–some regions were more hellenized than others (cf. Feldman, «Hellenism»; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 26), most scholars today concur that substantial hellenization had occurred in Jewish Palestine. |
| The people here are essentially the leaders of the people who bear primary responsibility for leading them to oppose Jesus: hence «the Jews» (18:38; 19:7,12,14) are the «leading priests and officers» (19:6, 15). A flat, composite character, they speak with one voice like a chorus in a Greek tragedy. 9924 1. Preferring a Terrorist (18:38b-40) Pilatés first presentation of Jesus leads to repudiation; the chief priests, who supposedly hand over Jesus for a treason charge (18:33–35) and will claim no king but Caesar (19:15), yet want freedom for an insurgent instead (18:40). 9925 Their real objections to Jesus» claim to be «son of God» may lie elsewhere (19:7; cf. 5:18; 10:33–36), but John " s Asian audience will undoubtedly hear in their claim a support for the emperor cult (19:15), for lack of allegiance to which the Jewish Christians are being betrayed to the Roman authorities. 1A. Pilatés Attempt to Free Jesus (18:38b-39) The conflict between Pilate and the Jewish leaders continues to unfold, emphasizing the responsibility of the leaders of Jesus» own people without denying that of Pilate. 9926 Luke shares with John Pilatés threefold claim to find no guilt in Jesus (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; John 18:38; 19:4, 6 ); if John " s source is not ultimately Luke, then both draw on a common passion tradition here. If Jesus was no threat, Pilate would naturally be inclined to release him (18:39), just as an equally unscrupulous governor a few decades later would release another harmless prophet the chief priests wanted silenced (Josephus War 6.305). 9927 The negative response of the priestly aristocracy is predictable, and one familiar only with this Gospel and not the rest of the gospel tradition (e.g., Mark 15:6–15 ) 9928 might assume that the «Jews» who protest here (18:40) represent the elite with whom Pilate has been dealing (18:28, 35). But the elite often spoke for the masses who trusted and followed them, and John " s audience probably already knows the basic passion story from other sources (cf. |
| 1569 Cf. Neusner, Traditions, 3:3; sayings often quickly became property of the schools, and formulaic convention stylized individual utterances for the community. 1571 One could suppose that the later tradition has been read back into an earlier attribution, but the simplicity of the principle («Get for yourself a teacher») could also suggest the reverse. 1572 E.g., Neusner, Legend, 3. This need not imply that anonymity was an important practice in early Pharisaism, as Finkelstein, Making, 187–98, has suggested. 1575 Neusner likewise recognizes a continuity and unity in the ethos of rabbinic Judaism, though not in the sayings or stories (Saying, 189). Horsley, Galilee, 198 finds Mishnaic references «to local folklore or customs» most helpfu1. 1578 Methods of testing in such cases could include common attestation in both Talmuds and attempts to evaluate from which generations literary features derive (Kraemer, «Reliability»). 1579 See, e.g., the argument of Sanders, Judaism, 10. Segal, «Voice,» 3 is correct that the traditions must be evaluated individually. 1582 E.g., Goldenberg, «Halakha»; Goldenberg, " Antiquities iv.» Sanders, Judaism, 463, rightly warns that the parallels reflect common custom, not Josephus " s dependence on rabbinic rules. 1584 Cf. Schiffman, Law; idem, «Light»; Mantel, «Oral Law,» especially from CD; cf. Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 100–114. Neusner, Traditions, 3:175–76, accepts such parallels as valid evidence that particular traditions are early, though he rightly points out that this does not make them peculiarly Pharisaic or rabbinic (his point in that work). 1589 E.g., the hostile reaction to Akibás explanation of the thrones in Dan. 7 (as reported in b. Hag. 14a; Sanh. 38b); the punishment of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus for appreciating a saying of Jesus (Moore, Judaism, 2:250; Dalman, Jesus in Talmud, 36–37, cite t. Hu1. 2:24; b. c Abod. Zar. 16b-17a; Ecc1. Rab. to Eccl 1:8 ); and prohibited interpretations of Scripture that could support Christian «ditheism» (e.g., baraitot in b. Sanh. 38a; R. Johanan in 38b). |
| See «Abot R. Nat. 2 A; »Abot R. Nat. 2, §13 B; b. Hag. 14a; Ber. 12b; c Abod. Zar. 16b-17a (R. Eliezer; cf. Ecc1. Rab. 1:8, §3), 27b (R. Ishmael with a Christian faith healer); Ecc1. Rab. 1:8, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 13:6; Justin Dia1. 35; cf. Herford, Christianity, 218–19; Schiffman, Jew, 64–67. On Justin in the above connection, see Williams, Justin, xxxii, 74 n. 3. Kalmin, «Heretics,» finds the emphasis on their seductiveness especially in early Palestinian materia1. 1638 E.g., b. Sanh. 33b; Hu1. 84a (Amoraic); Herford, Christianity, 226–27; Dalman, Jesus, 36–37. The discussions may be simply a literary form to glorify the rabbis and to present the minim as foolish, but the substance of the debates suggests that some genuine controversies occurred (e.g., perhaps memories of conflicts in Lydda; cf. Schwartz, «Ben Stada»). 1640 Palestinian rabbinic anti-Christian polemic appears sophisticated by the fifth and sixth centuries C.E.; cf. Visotzky, «Polemic.» 1642 Num. Rab. 4:9, 9:48; Ecc1. Rab. 2:8, §2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2, 4(all purportedly from the Johannine period); p. Meg. 1:11, §3 and 3:2, §3 (claiming to reflect Tannaitic tradition); see Barrett, «Anecdotes.» Some antipagan polemical collections may have later been adapted against Christians (Hirschman, «Units»). 1646 E.g., m. «Abot 2:14; b. Sanh. 38b [=»Abot 2:14]; cf. t. Sanh. 13:5; p. Sanh. 10:1, §7; see Geiger, «Apikoros.» 1647 E.g., b. Sanh. 39a; Bek. 8b; Ecc1. Rab. 2:8, §2 (all purportedly Tannaitic; this category is probably fictitious, maybe in response to anti-Jewish propaganda like Acts of Alexandrian Martyrs). 1649 B. Hu1. 84a; Sanh. 38b (purportedly Tannaitic), 39a, 43a, 90b, 99a; Meg. 23a; Ber. 10a; cf. b. Yoma 56b-57a (textual variant and probably a Sadducee); cf. further Moore, «Canon,» 123–24; Maier, Jesus in Überlieferung, 170–71; Bagatti, Church, 98ff. 1650 The forms are culture-specific and are even used of God with his angels (e.g., b. Roš Haš. 32b). Despite this stylization of form, there may have been some similarity to actual debate techniques and issues; cf. Stylianopoulos, Justin, 124. |
| В частности, он пишет: «Самые важные ассоциации, которые имеет это загадочное имя… – с «Ангелом Завета» и «Ангелом Господним». В 6-й главе Судей приведено описание того, как Ангел Господень явился перед Гедеоном. Мы читаем, что «Господь, воззрев на него, сказал» и «сказал ему Господь», и, соответственно, мы отождествляем Ангела с Господом. Гедеон восклицает: «Владыка Господи!.. я видел Ангела Господня лицом к лицу» ( Суд. 6:14, 16, 22 )» 221 . «Талмуд говорит, что имя Метатрон эквивалентно имени «Господь», и Он сидит в Святая святых и действует как Посланец Божий (Sanhedrin 38b, Hagigah 15a и Avoda Zara 3b). Он назван «Ангелом Господним», «Князем вселенной», «Князем лика Его» и даже именем Шехина – «Присутствие Божие» (Tos. le-Hulin 60a, Yebamoth 16b)» 222 . Сантала также ссылается на исследователя древней иудейской литературы шведского раввина Готлиба Клейна, который пишет: «Метатрон является ближайшей личностью к Богу, тем, кто служит Ему. С одной стороны – он посланник Бога, Его доверенное лицо; с другой стороны – он представитель Израиля пред Богом… Метатрон известен также как Sar ha-Panim, «Князь лика Его», или просто как «Князь», и он сидит в самом внутреннем покое Божьем (penim)» 223 . Клейн «отождествляет имя «Метатрон», использованное как эпитет Мессии, с именем «Мемра Яхве», или «Слово». По мнению Клейна, именно арамейское слово легло в основу верования в то, что Христос есть Логос, или Слово Божие, ставшее плотью» 224 . Ангел (или Князь) лица Господня, он же Ангел Завета (ср. Мал. 3:1 ) – посредник между Богом и Его народом, Слово Божие… Что это, как не предвосхищение Нового Завета, в частности Послания к Евреям и пролога Евангелия от Иоанна? В свете новых исследований отождествление многими отцами Церкви Вождя воинства Господня с Сыном Божиим не кажется таким уж необычным, в нем не было и нет неприемлемой для иудеев новизны. Христианский экзегезис первых веков часто оказывается естественным и непрерывным продолжением и развитием иудейского экзегезиса, отраженного в таргумах, мидрашах и Мишне. |
| Pilatés inquiry (18:28–38a) constitutes part of a larger scene (18:28–19:16) in which Pilate plays a lead character; as a foil to Jesus, his character dominates 18:28–19:16. Pilate taunts Jewish nationalism with claims of Jesus» innocence and kingship, 9766 but while not friendly to the Jewish aristocracy–the world remains divided (cf. 7:43; 9:16)–he remains a representative of the «world,» essentially hostile toward Jesus because not one of his followers. 9767 A The Jewish leaders demand Jesus» execution (18:29–32) Β Jesus and Pilate talk (18:33–38a) C Pilate finds no reason to condemn Jesus (18:38b-40) D The scourging and crowning with thorns (19:1–3) C» Pilate finds no reason to condemn Jesus (19:4–8) B» Jesus and Pilate talk (19:9–11) Á The Jewish leaders are granted Jesus» execution (19:12–16) 9768 Although the immediate opposition of John " s audience seems to be the synagogue leadership, as most Johannine scholars have argued, the power of Rome stands not far in the background. The mortal threat of synagogue leadership to John " s urban audience is probably their role as accusers to the Romans (see introduction; comment on 16:2). The gospel tradition makes clear that Jerusalem " s aristocracy and the Roman governor cooperated on Jesus» execution even if the Jerusalem aristocracy had taken the initiative. John undoubtedly has reason to continue to highlight this emphasis, although he, too, emphasizes the initiative of the leaders of his own people because it is they who, he believes, should have known better. 1. The Setting (18:28) The brief transition between Jesus» detention at the hands of the high priest and his betrayal to Pilate provides important chronological markers. Some of these are of primarily historical interest («early»), but the most critical are of theological import (reinforcing the Johannine portrait of Jesus» crucifixion on Passover). The former markers might have been assumed by John " s audience without much comment; the latter probably challenge their expectations and, for those familiar with the Jewish reckoning of Passover chronologies (as most of his audience would be), would strike them immediately. 1A. They Came «Early» |
| He or she makes it visible and accessible to all in a prophetic and practical manner. This is the “deacon-shaped hole” created by the mission deficit in post-Christian cultures. Happily, that hole can be filled from the treasury of the Church’s ministerial practice in Tradition. Absolutely nothing new is being called for here, just the re-imagining of the diaconate, both male and female, for the modern context, and the boldness to implement that! Possible Ways Forward If the Orthodox Church were to act to renew the diaconate then no one can predict how that ministry might evolve in today’s conditions. New challenges will doubtless arise with new opportunities. This should not deter us from action for Gamaliel’s famous test still applies:– “ if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it” (Acts 5:38b-39a). Because I believe that we have now come to the point of action rather than merely a yet more extended repetitive debate, I humbly submit these proposals as possible ways forward for a renewed diaconate. 1. Commission readers, acolytes and subdeacons in numerous parishes. There are a significant number of competent, theologically informed and godly believers in many parishes who might well have a vocation to become deacons but who are not aware of that vocation. In one sense, this is good, because future deacons should be selected on account of the need to accomplish a specific ministry, rather than because an individual has a desire within themselves to be ordained. However, in another sense, this lack of awareness of a possible vocation is due in part to the existing absence of long-term deacons within parishes and the resulting lack of models for potential future deacons. An important and readily achievable first step in promoting the diaconate in today’s Church would be to appoint suitably qualified readers, acolytes and subdeacons in every possible parish. This would provide an opportunity for potential deacons to become better acquainted with the liturgical service. In tonsuring these people, both young and old, to become readers, acolytes and subdeacons, it should be stressed that these roles are of value in and of themselves. The possibility of a specific reader, acolyte or subdeacon becoming a deacon should then be considered prayerfully by the candidate, the parish priest, the community and the bishop. 2. Welcome the diaconate as a possible lifelong vocation. |
| 1718 Martyn, «Glimpses,» 162. John uses the same formula to cite both Jesus and the OT (Smith, Parallels, 194). 1720 The rabbis probably «conflated» their polemic against various groups of adversaries (Goodman, State, 105). 1721 Segal, «Ruler,» 255; cf. Dunn, Partings, 207–29. Tg. Isa. on 9is reworded to avoid the idea that the royal child is God; Gen. Rab. 1and p. Ber. 9:1, §6 guard against multiple powers in creation; p. Šabb. 6:9, §3, rejects the «son of God» idea that could be read into Dan 3:25 ; and b. Hag. 14a; Sanh. 38b report the hostile reaction to Akibás view of two thrones in heaven. 1723 See Keener, «Pneumatology,» 77–94 (assuming also the connection between the Spirit and prophecy, 69–77). 1724 Schäfer, Vorstellung, 89–114, esp. 116–33. Schäfer is convincing despite the critique of Reif, «Review,» 158, who complains that Schäfer «offers no concrete evidence to convince the reader that his interpretation is preferable to that of Urbach» and others who suggest that Judaism was polemicizing against Christianity. Undoubtedly the influence worked in both directions. 1726 Flusser, Judaism, 54; cf. Coppens, «Don,» 209; Foerster, «Geist» (though it was especially on the Teacher of Righteousness and those of special position). As the early Jewish-Christian material in Ascen. Isa. 9declares, the Holy Spirit speaks in all the righteous. 1728 Cf. Aune, Prophecy, 104; Greenspahn, «Prophecy»; Keener, Spirit, 15–16. Some Gentiles also believed that oracles had declined in their era (Lucan C.W. 5.139–140; Plutarch Obsol), though their assertion is questionable. 1729 Davies, «Mekilta.» Davies suggests that this accounts for the greater discussion of the Spirit in the Mekilta than in later documents («Mekilta,» 104). 1730 Glatzer, «Prophecy,» 115–16,121–22. In contrast, the rabbis seem to have effected a compromise to resolve the tension between spontaneity and orderly prayer in early Judaism (Cohen, Maccabees, 67). 1733 See, e.g., Sipre Deut. 344.3.2. (P. Hor. 3.1, §2 might be relevant, but the «ruler» to which it refers is probably Judah ha-Nasi himself.) |
|
|
