| 4832 Sipre Deut. 45.1.2; " Abot R. Nat. 16A; b. B. Bat. 16a; Ber. 5a; Qidd. 30b, bar.; Sukkah 52b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2; Lev. Rab. 35:5; Pesiq. Rab. 41:4; cf. 2Macc 2:23; T. Ash. 3:2; Aristotle Po1. 3.11.4, 1287a. 4836 Often noted, e.g., Sylvia Mary, Mysticism, 64; White, Initiation, 70 (though White, p. 252, sees Hellenistic background in John 3:3 ); Watkins, John, 74; Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 82 (citing b. Yebam. 22a; 48b; 62a; 97b; Bek. 47a). Lightfoot, Talmud, 3:265, noted this in regard to John 3in the seventeenth century. 4840 In practice, freed slaves converted to Judaism were forbidden lest they view Judaism as less than holy (Cohen, Law, 148–49). Moreover, the emphasis on embracing proselytes fully (Kern-Ulmer, «Bewertung»; Bamberger, Proselytism, 145–61; McKnight, «Proselytism,» 840–41) may not have always translated into practice (cf., e.g., m. Hor. 3:8; Sipre Deut. 253.2.2; Bamberger, Proselytism, 161–69; McKnight, «Proselytism,» 841–42; Keener, Spirit, 146–47; 4Q279 frg. 1, line 6). 4841 Cf., e.g., Jeremias, Jerusalem, 324. Further on legal status, see Hoenig, «Conversion,» 54–55. 4842 Gaius Inst. 1.59; this remained true even after the adoptive tie was broken. Cf. also blood siblings in Mbiti, Religions, 276. 4843 Gaius Inst. 1.127–128. Cf. the loss of agnatic ties by change of status in 1.161; the invalidation of a will through status change in 2.147. 4846 Sallust Speech of Gaius Cotta 3; cf. Cicero Att. 6.6.4. Accepting citizenship in one place terminated it elsewhere (Cornelius Nepos 25 [Atticus], 3.1). 4849 L.A.B. 20:2; 27:10. For Philo, ascending to the pure realm of spirit as Moses did could produce a «second birth» (QE 2.46). 4850 Jos. Asen. 8:9/8:10–11. Some also think the prayer for the regeneration of catechumens in Apos. Con. 8.6.6 reflects an earlier Jewish prayer, but this is unclear. 4854 n Abraham: Gen. Rab. 44:12; 48:6; Exod. Rab. 38:6; cf. Apoc. Ab. 20:2–5. Abraham " s exaltation appears in earlier sources without reference to this motif (e.g., T. Ab. 9:6–15A; 8:2–12:15B; cf. T. Mos. 10:8–9), which may reflect broader Hellenistic currents about exalted deities (cf. also Eph 1:21–22 ). |
| 3298 Cf. Irenaeus Haer. 1.26.1, on Cerinthus; Hippolytus Haer. 6.28–29, on Valentinians. Although the gnostic view of creation reflected Platonic ideas (e.g., Marcus " s creation after an invisible image, Irenaeus Haer. 1.17), the neoplatonist Plotinus found it severely wanting (Plotinus Enn. 2.9.8) 3299 See Cohn-Sherbok, «Mandaeans,» who cites t. Sanh. 8:7; Gen. Rab. 8:10. This may suggest a proto-Mandaic idea later incorporated into Mandaism; but its evidence may derive from a gnostic source, which may have been influenced by the Christian doctrine of the second Adam as well as rabbinic Adam speculation. Further, the polemic against minim in t. Sanh. 8may not address Adam at all; rabbis did polemicize against dual powers in creation (Gen. Rab. 1:7), but this could oppose Christians or the male-female dyad principle of some pagan (e.g., Varro L.L. 5.10.58; cf. Gen. Rab. 8:9; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2) as well as gnostic (Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1) thought, and a polemic against gnostic or Philonic angelic mediation (cf. Urbach, Sages, 205) need not involve proto-Mandaism in particular. 3301 Confusion 171, 179; Flight 69; cf. also Papias frg. 7 (from Andreas Caesariensis, ca. 500 C.E., in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:155). God created through assistants so that if his creation went astray, the assistants would be blamed (Creation 75). 3302 Despite disagreement on when angels were created, later rabbis agreed that God did not create them on the first day (contrast the earlier claim in Jub. 2:2), lest schismatics claim that angels aided in creation (Gen. Rab. 1:3; Justin Dia1. 62; cf. Gen. Rab. 8:8; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 1:26 ; Williams, Justin, 129; Barnard, «Judaism,» 404; Urbach, Sages, 1:203–4; for other traditions on days of creation, cf. t. Ber. 5:31; houses dispute in p. Hag. 2:1, §17; cf. Gen. Rab. 1:15), although God did consult with them (b. Sanh. 38b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23:1; Gen. Rab. 8:3–4,8; 17:4; Lev. Rab. 29:1; Num. Rab. 19:3; see Urbach, Sages, 1:205–7). This clearly represents polemic against an existing interpretation of the plural in Gen. 1 (contrast Jub. 2:3, second century b.C.E.; the plurals of Gen. 1and 11include angels–Jub. 10:22–23; cf. 14:20); polemicists before the rabbis may have also objected to the Jubilees chronology (cf. L.A.B. 60:3; 2 En. 29A; 29:3–5 J). |
| Taken from Meffreth, Dominica in Coena Domini. II. 1–6 cf Meffreth: «Christus multipliciter est traditus. Primo, a Patre ex feruentissim a dilectione. Iuxta illud Apostoli ad Roman. 8. Proprio filio suo non pepercit Deus, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit ilium.» II. 7–8 cf Meffreth: «Secundo tradidit seraetipsura ex humilitate obedientiae.» II. 9–10 cf Meffreth: «Tertio, tradidit eum ludas ex cupiditate auaritiae suae.» II. 11–12 cf Meffreth: «Quarto, tradiderunt eum ludaei ex iniquitatis inuidia.» II. 13–14 cf Meffreth: «Quinto, tradidit eum Pilatus ex peruersitate iustitiae.» II. 15–22 cf Meffreth: «Sexto, vt dicit Origenes, tradidit eum diabolus ex timoré, timens amittere genus humanum, propter eius doctrinam si amplius viueret: non aduertens, quod magis erat eripiendum genus humanum ab ipso, propter mortem eius, quam propter doctrinam» (Pars hyera., p. 365). Прелесть . Taken from Faber, Dominica 4 Post Pascha, No. 6 «Qua ratione diabolus doceat oranem falsitatera», sect. 5 «Docet rem fucare». II. 1–4 cf Faber: «Didicit hanc artera Cain satis terapestive, qui ut fratrera neci daret, evocavit ad deambulationem quasi am ice cum fratre locuturus.» II. 5–8 cf Faber: «Hue pertinet Ioab qui dura Amasara osculatur et salutat amicum: Salve mi frater, interim pugionera lateri eius infixit, 2. Reg. 20.[ 2Sam. 20.9–10 ].» II. 11–12 cf Faber: «ludas osculo tradens Christum.» The reference to Jael and Sisera (II. 9–10) is Simeon " s own addition. Прелесть 2 . Taken from Faber, ibid., sect. 7 «Docet simulare»: «Sic A bsalon ut populum ad novarum rerum Studium incitaret, et in legitim um suum Dominum concitaret, mane consurgens, stabat iuxta introitum portae, et отпет virum, qui habebat negotium ut veniret ad regis iudicium, vocabat ad se et dicebat: Videntur mihi sermones tui boni et iusti, sed non est qui te audiat constitutus a rege, etc. Sed et cum accederet ad eum homo, ut salutaret ilium, extendebat manum suam, apprehendens osculabatur eum, 2. Reg. 15.[ 2Sam. 15.2–5 ].» Прелесть 3 . |
| 9309 Cf. Schlier, «Begriff,» 269, who says that the Spirit illuminates the work of Jesus in his glory. In Wis 8:3, Wisdom δοξζει, but the object is her own nobility. 9310 John Chrysostom believed that the Spirit would glorify Jesus by performing greater miracles, as in 14(Hom. Jo. 78). 9313 E.g., 1 En. 1:2; 72:1; 74:2; 75:3; Jub. 32:21; 3 Bar. 1:8; 5:1; 6:1; 4 Ezra 4:1; Rev 1:1; b. Ber. 51a; Ned. 20ab; cf. gnostic traditions in Paraphrase of Shem (NHL 308–28) and Hypsiphrone (NHL 453). It also appears in negative polemic ( Gal 1:8 ; Col 2:18), some of which reflects the Prometheus myth (b. Sabb. 88a; Gen. Rab. 50:9; 68:12; 78:2). 9314 T. Mos. 1:14; 3:12; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.15; b. Ned. 38a; Acts 7:38; cf. Isaacs, Spirit, 130. Aelius Aristides claimed that Athena passed on what she received from her Father (37.4–7, in Van der Horst, «Acts,» 57). 9316 Cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.1.11 (Antisthenes); Achilles Tatius 3.10.4; 1Macc 12:23; T. Job 18(OTP 1:847)/18(ed. Kraft, 40). 9317 Diogenes Laertius 6.2.37 (LCL); cf., e.g., Crates Ep. 26–27 (to the Athenians); Anacharsis Ep. 9:12–14 (to Croesus). In early Christian literature, see, e.g., Sent. Sext. 228. See further the comment on 15:15. 9321 In the Q tradition cf. Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22; for Jesus passing to the disciples what he received from the Father, cf., e.g., Luke 22:29. 9322 Cf., e.g., Holwerda, Spirit, 132. Brown (John, 2:728) divides 16:16–33 into a chiasmus: prediction of a test and subsequent consolation (16:16, 31–33); intervening remarks of disciples (16:17–19,29–30); and promise of blessings to be enjoyed by disciples (16:20–23a, 23b-28). But the structure is too general to be clear, and remarks about a test and consolation appear elsewhere in the section (16:20–21). 9324 Pass, Glory, 233 (cf. also Westcott, John, 231–32; Phillips, «Faith,» 89; Derrett, «Seeing»), tentatively suggests a distinction between the two terms here «behold» (for bodily sight) and «see» (for spiritual vision); in view of Johannine usage, however, the terminological distinction cannot hold (see «vision» in our introduction; also Sanchez Navarro, «Acerca»). |
| 2216 Gager, Anti-Semitism, 107–10; Arnold, Ephesians, 31–32; Goodenough, Symbols, 12:58–63; Hengel, Judaism, 1:241; Gaster, Studies, 1:356–60; even Moses came to be associated with magic (Apuleius Apologia in Stern, Authors, 2:201–5; Gager, Moses, 134–61). Jewish magic influenced Greco-Roman magic (cf. Deissmann, Studies, 277–300,321–36; Knox, Gentiles, 208–11; Koester, Introduction, 1:380–81). Among modern Yemenite Jews, cf. Hes, «Mon,» passim. 2217 Cf., e.g., Text 20.11–12 (Isbell, Bowls, 65); 69.6–7 (150); Pr. Jos. 9–12; T. Sol 18:15–16; b. Git. 68a; Num. Rab. 16:24; Isbell, «Story,» 13; Nock, Conversion, 62–63; MacMullen, Enemies, 103; Tiede, Figure, 170. The name of Israel " s God (in various permutations) outnumbers any other deity in the papyri «by more than three to one» (Smith, Magician, 69); cf. also, e.g., CIJ 1:485, §673; 1:490, §679; 1:517, §717; 1:523, §724; 2:62–65, §819; 2:90–91, §849; 2:92, §851; 2:217, §1168. 2218 On name invocation in general (some references including secret names), see Apuleius Metam. 2.28; Theissen, Stories, 64 (citing Lucian Menippus 9; Philops. 12; Plin. Nat. 28.4.6; PGM 4.1609–1611; 8.20–21); Twelftree, «ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,» 376. 2219 M. Sanh. 7:11; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Roš Haš. 3:8, §1; Sanh. 7:13, §2; Urbach, Sages, 1:97–100, 572: Bietenhard, «νομα,» 270. Note also Wis 17:7; Ps.-Phoc. 149; 1 En. 65(Sim.); Asc. Isa. 2:5; 2 Βαr. 60:2; 66:2; T. Reu. 4:9; cf. Sib. Or. 1.96. The rabbis recognized that not all sorcery was genuine (m. Sanh. 7:11; Sipra Qed. pq. 6.203.2.2; b. Sanh. 67b), although Amoraim stressed the dangers more (e.g., b. Hor. 10a; Sanh. 67b; Šabb. 66b; p. Ketub. 1:1, §2; cf. the amulets and charms in Goodenough. Symbols, 2:153–295), but even when genuine, rabbis stressed its limits (e.g., Gen. Rab. 11:5; Pesiq. Rab. 23:8; 43:6). 2220 See Goldin, «Magic»; Neusner, Sat, 80–81; b. Sanh. 65b; 67b; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 25 A (on R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus); Basser, «Interpretations.» Such syncretism was not intentional; apparently even Jacob employed pagan fertility rituals in Gen. 30:37–42 , though he trusted that God was the one working through them (31:8–9, 12; cf. 28:15). Cf. also some Jewish polemic in b. Git. 56b-57a which may be rooted in earlier magical tradition (Gero, «Polemic»). Many societies believe that magic can be used either for good or for evil (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 258–59). |
| 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. |
| 78 Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius I.270, III.6.62 (Jaeger 1960 , 1. 105, 2.66) and frequently elsewhere in Gregory of Nyssa. 79 Cf. Luke 10:30–7. 80 Cf. Gen. 2:17 . 81 Eriugena distinguishes between speculatio and theoria–translated here ‘contemplation’ and ‘spiritual interpretation’. Theoria could well be translated ‘contemplation’, but it is the regular word in the Antiochene tradition for spiritual interpretation, and is used in that sense here. The eighteen spiritual interpretations seem to consist of ten numbered ones (in 31a), and the seven sections that follow (31b-h) plus the introduction to 31a. 82 Cf. 4 Kgd 2:11. 83 For time as number, see Aristotle, Physics 4.11. 84 Cf. Psa. 94:11; Heb. 3:16–4:1. 85 For this understanding of the relationship of time to eternity (derived from Plato’s metaphor of time as a ‘moving image of eternity’), see Plato, Timaeus 37D; Plotinus, Enneads III.7.2; Denys the Areopagite, Divine Names X.3. 86 Cf. Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals I.5. 87 This introduces the theme of the two modes of theology – apophatic and cataphatic – which continues through to section 31e (cf. above section 17, and also below Amb. 71) 88 Theourgiai: to be taken in the Christian sense, found in Denys the Areopagite, of ‘divine works’, rather than in its pagan meaning of ‘ritual ceremonies’. See Louth (1986). 89 The oneness and threeness of the Godhead: discussed below in section 43, and in Amb. 1. 90 Presumably the account of the Transfiguration. 91 Cf. Luke 9:31. 92 Cf. Luke 16:19–31. 93 This is borrowed, more or less word for word, from Nemesius, On human nature 43 (Morani 1987 , 129, ll. 6–14). 94 Omitting the two sections, 1173B-1176B, which are identical with Amb. 53 and Amb. 63. They are not found in this Difficulty in Eriugena nor are they found in Vat. gr. 1502 and other MSS: they are clearly out of place here. See Sherwood (1955a), 32. Sections 35–40 have many parallels with the early chapters of John Damascene’s Exposition of the Faith (chapters 3–5, 9, 11–13). |
| 3324 See, e.g., Cicero Nat. d. 2.54–58.133–46; a Pythagorean in Diodorus Siculus 12.20.2; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.7; 1.16.8; Heraclitus Ep. 4; Plutarch Isis 76, Mor. 382A; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.167, 190. 3325 E.g., fifth-century B.C.E. Empedocles frg. 11 (Allen, Philosophy, 50); Lucretius Nat. 1.155, 159–160 (though atoms are invisible, 1.265–328); Moffatt, Hebrews, 162, cites Philo Eternity 2. 3326 Plato and Philo believed that visible matter was formed from visible matter (Lane, Hebrews, 332, citing Philo Migration 105, 179; Creation 16, 45; Agriculture 42; Confusion 172; cf. Plato Tim. 29E), though following the invisible pattern. 3327 Heb 11(cf. Boman, «Thought-Forms,» 13; though contrast Montefiore, Hebrews, 188); cf. Philós creation from the invisible archetypal plan (Cherubim 97; 127); Philo Creation 12; 2 En. 47A; 48A (but contrast recension J in both cases). God authored both visible and invisible worlds (Jos. Asen. 12:1–2/2; 2 En. 65:1; cf. the initially invisible earth in Gen 1LXX, due to the «darkness»). 3328 Against the world " s uncreatedness and eternality, see even most Diaspora writers, e.g., Josephus Ant. 1.70; Philo Creation 7 (in contrast to Philo Eternity); cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:180, 301. 3329 Perhaps attested early in 2Macc 7(God made heavens and earth ξ οκ ντων), although this is disputed in articles cited below; 2 Bar. 21:4; 48:8; Moffatt, Hebrews, 162, cites also Mek. 33b on Exod 14:31; 2 Bar. 14:17; 2 En. 24:2; Philo Dreams 1.13. The earliest Israelite understanding of Genesis may represent creation ex nihilo (Heidel, Genesis, 89–96), though this remains quite disputed; this view also appears among some African peoples, such as the Nuer, Banyarwanda, and Shona (Mbiti, Religions, 51). 3330 Cf. articles from various perspectives, Goldstein, «Origins»; idem, «Creation»; Winston, «Creation»; in the rabbis, e.g., Pearl, Theology, 10–12. 3331 Wis 11:17; see Winston, «Cosmogony»; Schmuttermayr, «Schöpfung.» One Amoraic exegesis of «It is good» was that God had created and destroyed earlier worlds (Gen. Rab. 9:2; cf. the Greek tradition of various races before the current one). Creation ex nihilo was not typical (cf., e.g., «The Repulsing of the Dragon and the Creation,» trans. J. A. Wilson, 6–7, in ANET; Albright, Period, 17; idem, Yahweh, 223; for chaos in Greek and Roman sources, cf. Hesiod Theog.; Ovid Metam. 1.7). |
| 3469 Ibid., 20–47, esp. 35–47 on witness for God in Isa 40–55 (cf. also Cothenet, «Témoignage»). On other Jewish texts, see 48–65 (Philo bridges the gap between the OT and Hellenistic use); in rabbinic literature, see 231–39. John " s usage is probably closest to that of Isaiah LXX (cf. Trites, Witness, 112; Caird, Revelation, 18; Boice, Witness, 16). 3470 Cf. Aune, Environment, 81, citing Herodotus Hist. 2.99; Polybius 12.27.1–6; 20.12.8; Lucian Hist. 47 (on autopsia, eyewitness knowledge). 3472 Casey, «Μρτυς,» 35; Franck, Revelation, 52 (on 15:26, though earlier he acknowledges a forensic context for παρκλητος). 3473 Meeks, Prophet-King, 65 (pointing to the parallel between μαρτυρα and κρσις in 8:14, 16); cf. Caird, Revelation, 18. Perhaps as early as Revelation, μρτυς began to take on a meaning it came to acquire more often in patristic literature: martyr (Morrice, «John,» 44; perhaps Abel who μαρτρησας in T. Ab. 11:2B). 3474 E.g., Trites, Witness, 78–127 (79–90 address John " s juridical character; 90–113 address the lawsuit of Jesus» ministry; 113–22 address the postresurrection lawsuit of John 13–17 ; on the Johannine Epistles, see 124–27; Trites " s conclusions are sound). Cf. Burge, Community, 204–5; Harvey, Tria1. John contrasts witness with faithless betrayal (cf. 5:15; 11:46,57; 12:4); the purpose of witness is to reveal the content of the testimony (2:25). 3477 See esp. 2Macc 3:36 (εξεμαρτρει… πσιν); Chariton 4.7.5 (πασιν ανθρπους; though cf. 7:6, where whole cities did come to meet her). 3478 The sense " from God» fits the genitive (cf. παρ θεν in Musonius Rufus 3, p. 38.27; παρ του θεο in Menander Rhetor 2.1–2,370.21–26=εκ θεν in 370.29–371.2) as well as the sending. 3482 See on 1:4–5, above. T. Levi 14declares that God gave the law to «enlighten every person»; the parallel is close, but could depend on John, given the heavy Christian redaction of T. Levi (Bernard, John, 1:13; Brown, John, 1:523; Longenecker, Christology, 12,146). 3485 The «genuine» light of 1contrasts them explicitly; cf. the application of «genuine» to God in the apologetic of Hellenistic Judaism (Best, Thessalonians, 82, cites LXX Exod 34:6; 2 Chr 15:3; Ps 86:15 ; Isa 65and mentions other sources). |
| 4379 Koester, Symbolism, 81. On the prominence of Dionysus in Ephesus, see Tilborg, Ephesus, 95–98. 4380 B. Ber. 5b; cf. Haenchen, John, 1:174, who rightly rejects Billerbeck " s parallel from Num. Rab. 16 (merchants showing poorer goods first). Bowman, Gospel, 208, connects this miracle with the Jewish prayers for fertility leading up to the feast. In some Jewish stories God still miraculously created food to help his servants (e.g., b. Ta c an. 24b-25a in Boring et a1., Commentary, 98). 4381 Cf. b. Šabb. 53b, where an Amora argues that while miracles often happen, the miracle of creation of food is rare. 4382 See Glasson, Moses, 26; Smith, «Typology,» 334–35; cf. Exod 7:19; Jub. 48:5; Rev 8:8; Job " s festal wine turned to blood in Tg. Job 2:11; a Stoic mentions a similar portent in Cicero Div. 1.43.98; cf. Virgil Aen. 4.453–463; Valerius Maximus 1.6.ext.l; Liv. Pro. 4.20 (ed.Schermann, §27); cf. esp. the contrast in Josephus Ant. 3.17, 38. John " s transformation of Exodus " s blood into wine need not imply a sacramental reading, but it may provide a clue that John at least could accept the interchange of blood and wine on a symbolic leve1. 4383 If the relatively isolated Philonic connection between ecstatic inspiration and intoxication (cf. Keener, Spirit, 24–25; Philo Creation 69–71; Drunkenness 146) may be read in here (cf. Acts 2:13; Eph 5:18 ), the Spirit of prophecy may also lie in the background; but there is no explicit indication that such is in view in our text. 4385 See Brown, John, 1:98; Derrett, Law, 235 n. 2; Mackowski, «Qanah,» 282–83; Riesner, «Fragen.» 4387 Mackowski, «Qanah,» 282. Although Roman and Byzantine pottery also appear at Kefar-Kenna, these do not seem to include remains from the first Roman period (Loffreda, «Scavi»). 4390 Weddings were normally seven days; cf. Tob 11:19; Jos. Asen. 21(OTP 2:236)/21(Greek); Sipra Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.7; b. Ketub. 8b; p. Meg. 4:4, §3; Ketub. 1:1, §6 (one pericope attributing the tradition to Moses!); probably Judg 14:17 ; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 28(a seven-day feast for the king " s son, to parallel Sukkoth); Lam. Rab. 1:7, §34. The fourteen days of Tob 8:19–20 was apparendy exceptional, a celebration due to Sarás deliverance. Cf. analogously seven days of mourning for the dead ( Sir 22:12 ). |
|
|
