| 3897 Philo Dreams 2.242–243; Worse 117 (the «fountain of divine wisdom»); Flight 166; see Knox, Gentiles, 87–88; Argyle, «Philo,» 386. Cf. 1QS 10.12, in a hymn that speaks of God as the , the «fountain of knowledge and the spring of holiness»; rabbinic Hebrew uses «fountain» and «spring» also with reference to issuing from the womb, but the image here is more likely for the source of water; cf. further 1QS 3.19; 11.3, 5, 6–7; probably CD 3.16–17. Arabic and Syriac A Ahiqar 1(ed. Charles, 2:726–27) compares a father " s instruction to bread and water. 3900 M. «Abot 1(attributed to a pre-Tannaitic sage); 2(attributed to ben Zakkai, though the form is heavily redacted); Mek. Vay. l:74ff.; Bah. 5(allegorizing OT on water); Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; 306.19.1; 306.22–25; »Abot R. Nat. 18 A; cf. b. Ta c an. 7a; B. Qam. 17a, 82a; Gen. Rab. 41:9; 54:1; 69:5; 70:8–9; 84:16; 97:3; Exod. Rab. 47(and bread); Song Rab. 1:2, §3; Origen Comm. Jo., 13.26–29. 3901 R. Akiba in Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Tg. Neof. on Num 21:18–20 ; cf. Belleville, «Born,» 130, arguing that the rabbis used a well as a symbol of Torah more than they used water in general, to bolster her argument that the water of John 3is not Torah. 3903 E.g., Gen. Rab. 71:8; see further Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 163ff. Nevertheless, Jesus the Word never appears as «water» in the Fourth Gospel, but only as its source (so also Culpepper, Anatomy, 196; cf. Lee, Thought, 218). 3905 E.g., Smalley, «Relationship,» 97, although he sees it as less developed than Paul " s. Brown, John, l:cxi, cites Cullmann, Vawter, Hoskyns, Lightfoot, and Barrett as tending toward the sacramental view. 3906 Brown, John, l:cxi, cites Bornkamm, Bultmann, Lohse, and Schweizer as holding a non-sacramental or antisacramental understanding of John. For a summary of the major views before 1945, see esp. Howard, Gospel, 206–14. 3908 MacGregor, «Eucharist,» 118. Ottós parallel with pagan magical sacramentalism depends on Western sources geographically removed from Christian baptism " s origins in the Baptist (see Kraeling, John, 120). |
| 4901 Howard, Gospel, 206, mentions as a possibility that «water» here uses proselyte baptism as an illustration. 4903 See the references in White, Initiation, 66. This is not a novel view; in the early twentieth century Mayor, James, 201, cites earlier sources to this effect. 4906 As noted above, we believe that «baptism in the Spirit» can refer to the whole sphere of the Spirit " s eschatological work among believers and that some early Christian writers applied the phrase to conversion (as here) whereas others (like Luke) could apply it to a subsequent empowerment or empowerments (on a popular level, see Keener, Questions, 17–78; idem, Giver, 52–66,157–68). 4907 We assume that the Gospel as a literary work was meant to be read and heard on multiple occasions, hence not merely interpreted from the vantage point of the first-time reader. 4908 E.g., m. «Abot 1:4; 2:8; Mek. Vay. l:74ff. (ed. Lauterbach, 2:89–90); Bah. 5(237); Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; 306.19.1; 306.22–25; »Abot R. Nat. 18 A. 4909 Michaels, John, 43, thinks the grammar suggests a single entity, but the same construction in 1 John 5points to two, so the matter cannot be decided merely on grammatical grounds. Porsch, Wort, 128–30, objects to the epexegetical reading of the και, noting that this is not the most normal way to read the text because it introduces another complication. The construction may not be decisive, but Johannine usage warrants the reading here. 4910 Bürge, Community, 166; Dunn, Baptism, 192; Bates, «Born,» 235; Snodgrass, «ΠΝΕΥΜΑ,» 192–93; cf. Morris, John, 218. (Ancient rhetoricians apparently did not use this term, which appeared later; see Rowe, «Style,» 143.) Although it is not his own view, Robinson, «Baptism,» 19–20, regards a hendiadys here as clearly possible and notes that it was maintained by Origen, the English Reformers, the Lollards, Calvin, and others. For other possible hendiadys in John, see, e.g., 4:23–24; cf. 12:49; in other early Christian texts, see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 228, §442.16. |
| 6500 E.g., t. Roš Haš. 1:13; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 7:2; p. Roš Haš. 1:3, §43; perhaps also m. Roš Haš. 1(but cf. m. Ta c an. 1:1). Cf. the association instead with his decrees at the New Year (Rosh Hashanah) in Sipre Deut. 40.4.2; p. Roš Haš. 1:3, §§45–46. 6501 B. Ta c an. 25b. 6502 Cf. also the invitation of a sage to drink from the wisdom he offers ( Sir 51:23–24 ; cf. here, e.g., Reim, Studien, 193); wisdom or wise speech (Philo Worse 117; Sib. Or. 1.33–34) and prophecy (Plutarch Obso1. 5, Mor. 41 IF) as a stream or river. Some (e.g., Blenkinsopp, «Quenching,» 44–45; Pancaro, Law, 480–81; Whitacre, John, 193; cf. Turner, Spirit, 62) find wisdom background here; Jeremias, Theology, 159, finds the familiar cry of the seller of water (cf. Isa 55:1). Contrast the fanciful identification with John the Baptist in Thiering, Hypothesis, 191. 6503 Noted by Painter, John, 49. 6504 M. «Abot 1:4; 2:8; Mek. Vay. l:74ff.; Bah. 5:99; Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; 306.19.1; 306.22–25; »Abot R. Nat. 18 A; cf. b. Ta c an. 7a; B. Qam. 17a, 82a; Gen. Rab. 41:9, 54:1, 69:5, 70:8–9, 84:16, 97:3; Exod. Rab. 31(Wisdom); 47:5; Song Rab. 1:2, §3; as a well, Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; for heresy as bad water, m. " Abot 1:11; Sipre Deut. 48.2.5. 6505 Some suggest the Spirit may take here the role the Torah held in early Judaism (e.g., Freed, Quotations, 38). 6506 Gen 1may associate the Spirit more with wind than with water itself. 6507 E.g., p. Sukkah 5:1, §3 and Ruth Rab. 4:8, citing Isa 12:3; Pesiq. Rab. 1:2. People reportedly sang from Isa 12during the water libations (Westcott, John, 123). 6508 E.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 184; Bowman, Gospel, 323; Lee, Thought, 217; Hunter, John, 84; Barrett, John, 329. Dodd, Interpretation, 350–51, also cites «a somewhat vague tradition» that the Messiah might appear near the time of this festiva1. 6509 Assuming the correctness of the attribution to R. Joshua b. Levi in Pesiq. Rab. 1:2. 6510 Gen. Rab. 70:8. 6511 On the symbolism of Rev 22:1, see, e.g., Ladd, Revelation, 286. |
| 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. |
| 3512 Sotades of Maronea (third century B.C.E.) in Stobaeus Anthology 4.34.8 (Boring et al, Commentary, 244); see also on rejected wisdom below. 3514 Especially in apocalyptic circles, e.g., J En. 42:1–3 (Sim.); cf. similar images of the world " s depravity in pagan literature (Ovid Metam. 1.149–150; Fasti 1.247–250; Cicero Quinct. 1.5; perhaps Cicero Mi1. 37.101). Commentators note this theme in Wisdom literature (e.g., Schnackenburg, John, 1:228). 3515 Mek. Bah. 5 (in Urbach, Sages, 1:532); Sipre Deut. 343.4.1; b. c Abod. Zar. 2b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:1; 12:10; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:15; Exod. Rab. 17:2; 30:9; Num. Rab. 14:10; Pesiq. Rab. 15:2; 21:2/3; 30:4; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:7; 12:20; also Hengel, Judaism, 1:174–75; Harvey, «Torah,» 1239; Urbach, Sages, 1:327. One may also compare the tradition of the daily bat qol from Mount Horeb condemning the Gentiles for their neglect of Torah (b. " Abot 6:2, bar.; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Lam. Rab. proem 2), and a different tradition in which the nations copy (plagiarize?) elements of Torah (p. Sotah 7:5, §1). While comments about Torah are most common in rabbinic literature, the similar idea of the testimonium in L.A.B. 11by which God would judge the world probably indicates that this tradition was not limited to rabbinic circles. 3518 E.g., Mek. Bah. 6.90ff; Sipre Deut. 343.4.1; b. c Abod. Zar. 2b, 64b, bar.; Sanh. 56ab, bar., 59a, bar. (including Tannaitic attribution), 74b; Yebam. 48b; Gen. Rab. 26(including Tannaitic attribution); 34:14; Exod. Rab. 30:9; Deut. Rab. 1:21; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:1; cf. Num. Rab. 1:8; Urbach, «Self-Affirmation,» 275–78; Moore, Judaism, 274–75. Proselytes and a few pious Gentile prophets also show that the Gentiles are without excuse (e.g., Lev. Rab. 2:9). 3519 «His own» (neuter) may refer to the land, and «his own» (masculine) to the people; see Brown, John, 1:10; cf. Westcott, John, 8. Although Galilee is Jesus» native land, his «own» land that rejects him is Judea (cf. 4:45; Meeks, Prophet-King, 40); in 10:3–4, 12, Jesus» «own» is redefined as his true flock. M. Smith, Parallels, 153, finds in «his own» an allusion to Jesus» deity because Israel is regularly God " s possession in the Hebrew Bible and Tannaitic literature. |
| 5394 Occasionally pagans also suggested that mortals who rejected deities did so because they did not recognize who they were (e.g., Apollo to Daphne, albeit in erotic circumstances, in Ovid Metam. 1.514–515). 5395 Boers, Mountain, 166. Most interpreters through history have viewed her as a model for conversion, but Reformed commentators also typically portrayed her as insolently ridiculing Jesus (see Farmer, «Samaritan Woman»). But given some portrayals of bold flirtation in sources of this period, if the narrative is at all already headed in that direction (4:17), a somewhat more curious and playful banter might be in view (cf. also the widely coveted woman in dialogue with Socrates in Xenophon Mem. 3.9.18). 5402 Cf., e.g., Pesiq. Rab. 47:3, where God asks Job if he considered himself greater than Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, or Aaron; the question assumes that any normal person recognizes that he or she is not. 5403 That Jesus made such claims is historically likely; cf. the Q material in Matt 12:41–42; Luke 11:31–32. 5404 Whitacre, Polemic, 89; Lightfoot, Gospel, 134. For John " s use of «greater,» see comment on 1:50. 5405 For 4:13, cf. perhaps Xenophon Oec. 7.40, where drawing water with a leaky jar was an old Greek figure for laboring in vain. 5406 E.g., Sipre Deut. 32.5.10; see comment on 1:17. Greeks and Romans spoke of wine as του δρου του Διονσου (Plutarch frg. 54, from Scholia on Hesiod Op. 368–369 in Plutarch LCL 15:146–47) and (sometimes coupled or contrasted, e.g., Euripides Bacch. 275–280) bread as the «gift of Ceres» (Ovid Metam. 11.122). Origen Comm. Jo. 13.26–39 thinks the point of this passage is that Jesus» water is greater than that of Scripture (allegorizing the well). 5407 E.g., m. " Abot 1:4, 11; 2:8; Mek. Vay. l:74ff.; see much more fully the comment on John 1:25–26 . Schnackenburg, John, 1:430, cites the late Yalqut Shim " oni 2.480 for Torah becoming a spring within a student. Greeks could compare oracular prophecy to streams of water (Plutarch Obso1. |
| 3622 B. Šabb. 33a; Gen. Rab. 97 (NV); Exod. Rab. 2:2; for similar association of glory with the temple, see Pesiq. Rab. 1:2; 32:1. For the Spirit dwelling in God " s temple, see Isaacs, Spirit, 25 (citing Josephus Ant. 8.114 as a Spirit-parallel to rabbinic Judaism " s Shekinah). Sievers, «Shekhinah,» thinks that the Shekinah may have been more universalized after the templés destruction in 70. Naturally God " s glory was also portrayed as dwelling in heaven (1QS 10.3). 3624 Exod 13:21; 40:36–38; Neh 9:12; Ps 78:14 ; Mek. Šir. 3.67 ff.; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:1; cf. Ps 80:1 ; Isa 63:14; Urbach, Sages, 1(citing Sipre Num. 80, 84). Glory, of course, had always been associated with that event (e.g., 2Macc 2:7–8; Pss. So1. 11:2–6). From at least the second century, however, rabbinic tradition indicated that the Shekinah also participated in Israel " s captivity in Egypt and Babylonia (Mek. Pisha 14.87ff.; Mek. Bes. 3.82–83; Sipra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.6; Sipre Num. 84.4.1; p. Ta c an. 1:1, §10, citing a Tanna; Exod. Rab. 15:16; Num. Rab. 7:10; Lam. Rab. 1:5, §32; cf. Cohen, «Shekhinta»; as late as the Zohar, cited in Siegal, «Israel,» 106). 3625 Abelson, Immanence, 380–82, notes that although kabod («glory») sometimes is identified with Shekinah, they are not always the same; but he feels that δξα in the NT covers the semantic range of both terms (380). Burney, Origin, 36, imports the Aramaic yekara («glory») alongside Shekinah (presence) here. 3627 See Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 11, and passim. Coloe also points to other Johannine passages pregnant with temple symbolism. 3628 E.g., Num. Rab. 20:10; see Kadushin, Mind, 223–26 (against medieval philosophers); cf. Abelson, Immanence, 98–134, followed also by Isaacs, Spirit, 25–26. In one late personification, the departing Shekinah kissed the walls of the temple (Lam. Rab. proem 25). 3629 Kadushin, Mind, 226–29; cf. Abelson, Immanence, on the Shekinah as the «immanent God» (pp. 117–34). 3632 E.g., " Abot R. Nat. 38 A; Sipra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.1; par. 4.206.2.6; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; 320.2.1; b. Ber. 5b; Roš Haš. 31a; Šabb. 33a, 139a; Yebam. 64a, bar.; Yoma 21b;p. Sanh. 8:8, §1; Deut. Rab. 5:10; 6:14; Ruth Rab. 1:2; cf. Sipre Num. 1.10.3; Urbach, Sages, 1:286–87 (citing Mek. Pisha 5); pagan deities in Ovid Fasti 1.247–250; Plutarch Them. 10.1; so with Wisdom (Wis 1:4; 6:12–25, esp. 6:23; cf. Wis 7:25–26; Babrius 126). The Shekinah was progressively banished from, and then reinvited to, earth CAbotR. Nat. 34 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; Gen. Rab. 19:7; Song Rab. 5:1, §1); because of sin, his tabernacle or temple was necessary to bring his presence (Pesiq. Rab 7:4). For the Shekinah continuing with Israel even when they sin, see Abelson, Immanence, 135–42. |
| 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. 2646 For the connection among Matt 1:23; 18:20; and 28:20, see Kingsbury, Structure, 69; Ellis, Matthew, 28; Gundry, Matthew, 597. 2647 Matthew " s formula echoes the Jewish formula in later recorded in m. «Abot 3:2,6; Mek. Bah. 11.48–51 (Lauterbach 2:287); other texts also emphasized God " s presence among his people (e.g., Mek. Pisha 14.87,100–101, Lauterbach 1:113–14). God was commonly called «the Omnipresent» (t. Sotah 3–4 has it roughly twenty-four times; cf. also m. »Abot 2:9,13; 3:14; t. Péah 1:4; 3:8; Šabb. 7:22, 25; 13:5; Roš Haš. 1:18; Ta c an. 2:13; B. Qam. 7:7; Sanh. 1:2; 13:1,6; 14:3,10; Sipra VDDen.pq. 2.2.4.2; pq. 4.6.4.1; Sav M.D. par. 98.7.7; Sh. M.D. 99.1.4, 5, 7; 99.2.2, 3; 99.3.9, 11; 99.5.13; Qed. Par. 1.195.2.3; pq. 7.204.1.4; Emor pq. 9.227.2.5; Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.1; 8.269.1.3; Sipre Num. 11.2.3; 11.3.1; 42.1.2; 42.2.3; 76.2.2; 78.1.1; 78.5.1; 80.1.1; 82.3.1; 84.1.1; 84.5.1; 85.3.1; 85.4.1; 85.5.1; and other references listed in Keener, Marries, 150 n. 27). See, e.g., Smith, Parallels, 152. 2648 For Matthean Christology, see esp. Kingsbury, Structure. 2649 See further Benoit, Jesus, 1:47–70, who argues at length for Jesus» deity in the Synoptics. 2650 See Gospel of the Ebionites frg. 6 (Epiphanius Haer. 30.16.4–5 in NT Apocrypha, ed. Hennecke, 1:158); Daniélou, Theology, 67 (the Elkasites), 117 (the image discontinued in the fourth century because of Arian use). Philo regarded God " s angel as the Logos (Names 87; Dreams 1.239). 2651 The parallelism is ascending rather than synonymous; for this comparative figurative use of angels, see 1Sam 29:9 ; 2Sam 14:17, 20; 19:27 ; Zech 12:8; perhaps Gal 1 (contrast Longenecker, Christology, 26–31). |
| 9517 See 4 Macc 6:27–30; 9:7, 24; 17:21–22; cf. 1Macc 2:50; 2Macc 7:9, 37; 1QS 8.3–4; T. Mos. 9; Mek Pisha 1.105–113; b. Ber. 62b; Gen. Rab. 44:5; Lev. Rab. 20:12; Song Rab. 1:15, §2; 4:1, §2. On vicarious atonement through other humans» judgment, e.g., Sipre Deut. 333.5.2; without human bloodshed, cf., e.g., Lev 1:4; 4:20, 26, 31, 35 , and passim; Mek. Bah. 7.18–22; Sipre Deut. 1.10.2; p. Hor. 2:7, §1; 3:2, §10; Sebu. 1:6, §6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:17; Ecc1. Rab. 9:7, §1; without mention of any bloodshed, e.g., Prov 16:6 ; Sir 3:14–15 ; Pss. So1. 3:8–10; 1QS 9.4; b. Ber. 17a; Num. Rab. 14:10; Deut. Rab. 3:5. 9518 E.g., Homer 27. 3.69–70, 86–94, 253–255; 7.66–91, 244–273; Apollonius of Rhodes 2.20–21; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 3.12.3–4; Virgil Aen. 10.439–509; 11.115–118,217–221; 12.723–952; Livy 1.24.1–1.25.14; 7.9.8–7.10.14; Aulus Gellius 9.13.10; also in the Hebrew Bible ( 1Sam 17 ; 2Sam 2:14–16 ; cf. Gordon, Civilizations, 262). 9519 Cf., e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 292–93; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:95–97; other references in Keener, Matthew, 487, on 20:28. 9523 Burridge, Gospels, 146–47, 179–80. The rest of the Gospels foreshadow this climax, and this is also the case in some contemporary biographies (p. 199). 9524 Ibid., 198, has 26 percent for Philostratus; Mons Graupius consumes 26 percent of Tacitus Agricola, and the Persian campaign 37 percent of Plutarch Agesilaus (p. 199). 9526 Mack, Myth, 249; for his arguments, see 249–68. For a critique of Crossan " s approach to the Passion Narrative (depending on the late Gospel of Peter), see Evans, «Passion,» especially analogies with Justin 1 Apo1. 16.9–13 and Mark 16:9–20 (pp. 163–65). 9527 Mack cites Jeremias (a «conservative» scholar, Myth, 254) only three times, and never Blinzler, Hengel, or other more conservative Continental scholars. 9528 Perry, Sources, published as early as 1920; cf. Lietzmann " s skepticism on some points in 1931 («Prozess»). 9529 Dibelius, Tradition, 178–217, thinks that «the Passion story is the only piece of Gospel tradition which in early times gave events in their larger connection.» |
| 1590 Feldman, «Antiquities,» also suggests that some of L.A.R " s traditions sound closer to those later preserved in the rabbis than to Josephus. 1591 Martin Abegg in Wise, Scrolls, 355, on 4Q389 frg. 3 (though the text is fragmentary, making the parallel less clear). 1592 Cf. also, e.g., the story told by Judah ha-Nasi in b. Sank 9lab (cf. Mek. Sir. 2), which appears in more elaborate form in Apocr. Ezek. 1–2, a document which may have been in circulation by the late first century c.E. (assuming that the Clement quote represents this document; cf. comparisons in OTP 1:492,494). 1593 Jub. 4:30; Gen. Rab. 19:8; Pesiq. Rab. 40:2. These were the results of an unpublished study in Essene and Pharisaic haggadic (with some halakic) trajectories from common Judaism. 1596 Jub. 7:20–25; Finkelstein, Making, 223–27; Schultz, «Patriarchs,» 44–45, 48–49, 55–56; Mek. Bah. 5; b. c Abod. Zar. 64b; Sanh. 56a; 59a; 74b; Yebam. 48b; Gen. Rab. 26:1; 34:14; Exod. Rab. 30:9; Deut. Rab. 1:21. 1598 Jub. 4:17–23; 10:17; Gen. Apoc. 2.19; 1–3 Enoch; T. Ab. 11:3–10B; contrast Gen. Rab. 25:1; on Jubilees special Enoch traditions, cf. VanderKam, «Traditions,» 245. Cf. perhaps also Noah haggadah (Jub. 10:17; Gen. Rab. 26:6; 28:8; 29:1, 3; 36:3; more positive in b. Sanh. 108a), especially his birth (Gen. Apoc. co1. 2; extraordinary birth narratives apply especially to Moses in b. Sanh. 101a; Sotah 12a; Exod. Rab. 1:20,23,26: Lev. Rab. 20:1; Pesiq. Rab. 43:4; also in Philo Moses 1.3, §9; Josephus Ant. 2.217–37, but not in Jub. 47:1–8). 1599 Jub. 4:22; 5:1; 7:21; 2 Bar. 56:10–15; T. Reu. 5:5–6; CD 2.16–18: Philo Unchangeable 1; rare in rabbis except perhaps Gen. Rab. 31:13. 1601 Jubilees» and Qumran " s continuance of the old solar calendar (see Morgenstern, «Calendar»; Marcus, «Scrolls,» 12), possibly influential in the second century B.c.E. (Wirgin, Jubilees, 12–17, 42–43; for a consequent pre-Hasmonean dating, see Zeitlin, ««Jubilees,»» 224), naturally created a rift with the lunar-based temple service and Pharisaism (Noack, «Pentecost,» 88–89; Brownlee, «Jubilees,» 32; Baumgarten, «Beginning»; cf. Jub. 2:9–10; 6:17, 32–38). Rivkin, «Jubilees,» even argues that Jubilees was written against the Pharisee-scribes because they had created their own calendar. This may also indicate why the sun is extolled (Jub. 2:12; 4:21; cf. 1QS 10.1–5; CD 10.15–16; cf. Smith, «Staircase,» who may go too far, given synagogue zodiacs and Josephus " s astrological interpretations of temple imagery). |
|
|
