| 1704 T. Šabb. 13:5; " Abot R. Nat. 16 A; b. Git. 45b; Šabb. 116a (purportedly Tannaitic); cf. t. Β. Mes?a 2:33; Herford, Christianity 173–80; Schiffmann, «Crossroads,» 144–46. 1708 Christ " s significance in this way provided a strong deterrent to apostasy both in the Fourth Gospel and in Hebrews (Painter, «Israel,» 112). Matsunaga, ««Theos,»» thinks that faith in Jesus» Deity gave them reason to withstand persecution; Herford, Christianity, 383–84, that their high Christology is what made them minim. Fuller, ««Jews,»» 35–36, also sees Christology as centra1. The view of Fortna, «Christology,» may thus be contested. 1709 A motif in Revelation (Rev 5:8–14; 7:9–10; 22:3; cf. 1 En. 48:5–6 in the Similitudes); also the pagan perception of Christianity: Pliny Ep. 10.96; cf. Lucian Peregr. 11. 1710 Justin claimed that rabbis conceded the Messiah " s deity in some sense (Dia1. 68:9), but this is plainly false (see Higgins, «Belief,» 305); the Fourth Gospel itself criticizes existing Jewish views as inadequate (cf. Jonge, «Expectations,» 266). 1713 Cf. McGrath, Apologetic Christology, who argues that Johannine Christology developed in conflict with the synagogue, but much of the Christology was pre-Johannine. 1716 Note the charge of deicide, e.g., in Melitós Paschal Homily, 96 (in Hawthorne, «Translation,» 172). 1717 M. Sanh. 4:5; Sipre Deut. 329.1.1; b. Sanh. 38ab (mainly third century but with some second-century tradition); Pesiq. Rab. 21:6; 3 En. 16(but cf. 12:5); cf. b. Menah. 110a (purportedly Tannaitic); Justin Dia1. 55, 63; Klausner, Jesus, 34–35. Akibás famous error with the two thrones in Daniel almost certainly addresses this charge (b. Sanh. 38b; Hag. 14a). Exod. Rab. 29accepts the late Christian equation of God and «Son of God» but rejects the possibility of God having a son. Cf. Irsai, ««ny mkzb hw.»» Some evidence in the Palestinian Targumim, however, calls into question whether the «ditheists» were always Christians; gnostic dualists are sometimes possible (cf. Bassler, «Cain»). |
| 1380 Cf. Safrai, «Education,» 960; Scholem, Trends, 42. Contrast the metaphoric use of the chariot in Gen. Rab. 47:6; 69:3; 82(Resh Lakish, early Amoraic). 1382 Abelson, Immanence, 340–56; cf. Scholem, Trends, 11–12, who argues that the mystics were near rabbinic Judaism " s center, not its fringes. 1383 Jewish mystical texts vary in the degree to which they emphasize the mystic " s responsibility to his community; see Chernus, «Individua1.» 1385 Halperin, «Midrash»; Goodenough, Symbols, 1:221, 8:17; cf. 12:198.4QS140 maybe significant here; cf. Patte, Hermeneutic, 290; Gaster, Scriptures, 285–88; Vermes, Scrolls, 210–11; Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 333–34; Alexander, «3 Enoch,» 235. Cf. the chariot in 1.A.E. 25.2–3; 28:4; cf. Apoc. Mos. 22:3; 33:2; similar language is used of Job " s throne in T. Job 33 (cf. 33:9). 1386 Alexander, «3 Enoch,» 232; Scholem, Trends, 8; on the development, cf. Neusner, «Development»; idem, Legend, 5–6. 1388 Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 149–51. Gaster, Studies, l:369ff., more accurately finds gnosticism in the Zohar. 1391 E.g., Conzelmann, Theology, 11; Jonas, Religion, 32–33; Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 187, 245. For a survey of the view " s development, see Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 21–24; Ridderbos, Paul, 27–28. 1394 Compare gnosticism with descriptions of neoplatonists in Dillon, Platonists, 7, 385; cf. Plotinus Enn. 2:9. 1395 Koester, Introduction, 1:194; Jonas, Religion, 38; Bultmann, Christianity, 161; but contrast Hengel, Son, 28. 1397 For gnosticism " s debt to earlier Christianity, see Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 68,256; Yamauchi. Gnosticism, 20; Burkitt, Gnosis, viii; Grant, Gnosticism, 13–14. 1398 See Albright, Stone Age, 282, 306; Munck, «Gnosticism,» 236; Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 16–18; Smalley, John, 51; Wilson, Gnosis and NT, 30, 142; idem, Gnostic Problem, 97; Arrington, Theology, 186; Ladd, Criticism, 204–5. 1401 Robinson, «Trajectory,» 263; Schnackenburg, John, 1:543–57, allows for some assimilation to this myth but places John " s roots instead in Wisdom speculation (556). |
| 1073 Cf., e.g., ] Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, passim; in Greek oracles, see Aune, Prophecy, 51–52. Some philosophers also strove to make their teachings enigmatic to outsiders (Culpepper, School, 50, cf. 92). 1074 See Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 239; Haenchen, Acts, 559 n. 2; Yamauchi, Archaeology, 99–100; cf. Ramsay, Cities, 229–30. On public lectures in philosophical schools, cf., e.g., Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 1.26 (Stowers, «Diatribe,» 74); Malherbe, «Life» 35; Latourette, Expansion, 1:16. Early Christian congregations naturally appeared to many outsiders as philosophical schools or associations (Wilken, «Collegia,» 277; idem, «Christians,» 107–10; cf. idem, «Social Interpretation,» 444–48), and Paul may have been fulfilling this function even if the hall he was renting from Tyrannus was a guild hall (Malherbe, Aspects, 89–90). Some have seen even in Romans evidence of the teaching style he employed with students (Stowers, Diatribe, 183). 1075 Even in rhetorical schools, different disciples of a single teacher might exhibit widely diverging styles (Cicero Brutus 56.204). 1076 That authors adapted style to genre is commonly noted; e.g., Stowers, Diatribe, 69; cf. Cicero Yam. 9.21.1. 1077 Compare, e.g., Diogenes Laertius 3.8; Ps-Melissa Ep. (Letter to Kleareta in Malherbe, Exhortation, 82). 1078 This is an argument by analogy, not implying that later Christian perspectives should be read back into the NT documents (though this happens, as Brown, Community, 163, for instance notes, when the inclusion of John [Kysar " s «maverick gospel " ] in the same canon with the Synoptics provides interpretive boundaries for both). But the DSS indicate major variations of genre and perspective within the same community and perhaps from the same ultimate author (e.g., the community " s rules and hymns), which were not viewed as in conflict with one another (cf. Keck, «Ethos,» 448–49; cf. also the compatibility of rabbinic and apocalyptic piety in Sanders, Judaism, 8). 1081 Cf. also καθστημι in Acts 7:10; 17:15; perhaps λαμπρν in Luke 23:11; Acts 10:30. Similarly, ομοθυμαδν is common (ten times) in Acts, but never appears in Luke (and only once elsewhere in the NT). |
| Quod fieri potest multis modis et vero etiam debet.» 11. 5–6 cf Faber: «Primo, si prae omnibus caelestia bona desideremus, ad quae et nati sumus.» 11. 7–8 cf Faber: «Secundo, si ad scopum ilium ultimum nobis praefixum collimemus in omnibus nostris actibus.» 11. 9–10 cf Faber: «Tertio, si quando concurrunt negotia spiritualia cum corporalibus, corporalia potius omittamus quam spiritualia, nisi grave damnum obstet.» 11. 11–12 are loosely based on Faber: «Quarto ... si potissima nostra cura sit, ut ne perdamus caelestia, sed placeamus Deo, et regno eius digni inveniamur.» 11. 13–14 cf Faber: «Quinto, si primum nostrum negotium ordinario sit, quaerere ea primo, quae ad salutem spectant, uti orare cum mane surgimus, vel cibum sumere volumus, templum intrare, cum intramus aliquam civitatem, cum iter longum suscipimus.» 11. 15–16 cf Faber: «Sexto, si ita in extemis saeculi huius negotiis verseris, ut cor illis non immergas, sed ad supema erecta géras, ipsaque intentione et desiderio ad caelestia evoles.» 11. 17–18 cf Faber: «Septimo, si animae negotium praemittamus corporis negotiis.» Искание царствия 2. Taken from Faber, ibid., sect. 4 «Quaerenda iustitia regni Dei». 11. 1–10 cf Faber: «Quaerenda deinde iustitia eius. ... Porro ea iustitia duplex est. Una interior, quae est gratia Dei, animam inhabitans et Deo gratum faciens. Acquiritur autem per baptismum, et amissa reparatur per poenitentiam, augetur vero per sacramenta reliqua, estque necessaria ad regnum Dei consequendum, quia est semen gloriae. Quare sicuti non metes, nisi seminaveris: ita ad gloriam non pervenies, nisi gratiam possideas.» 11. 11–12 cf Faber: «Altera exterior, quae consistit in bonis operibus, et observatione mandatorum.» Искание душ. Taken from Faber, Dominica 3 Post Pentecosten, No. 9 «Documenta ex Evangelio [on the Gospel for the day, viz. Luke 15.1–10]», sect. 4 «Fuge detractionem»: «Disce fugere detractionis vitium. Quis enim non aversatur clancularios illos insidiatores Pharisaeos et Scribas, qui dum Christus salutem peccatorum quaerit, quaerunt ipsi quomodo eius famam dénigrent.» 11. |
| 2608 Cf. the parallel construction in 1:25; see Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 233–38; Fahy, «Note»; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Cranfield, Romans, 2:467–68; Longenecker, Christology, 138; Ladd, Theology, 421. Those who dissent, noting that this is not Paul " s usual terminology, nevertheless concur that a doxology to Christ as «God» remains the most likely interpretation of the grammar (Hunter, Romans, 90; idem, Paul, 62–63). 2609 See Lightfoot, Notes, 106; Longenecker, Christology, 138–39; Bultmann, Theology, 1:129; but cf. Bruce, Thessalonians, 156–57. 2610 On Tit 2:13 , see Lock, Epistles, 144–45; Harris, «Deity,» 271; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Longenecker, Christology, 138; Bultmann, Theology, 1:129; cf. also 2Pet 1:1 . Greek-speaking Judaism typically extolled the «great» God (see Tob 13:15; 2Macc 3:36; 3Macc 7:2,23; cf. 1 En. 1:3; Epictetus Diatr. 1.16.16–17), esp. in Sib. Or. (1.165,268,282,316,323; 2.27,219; 3.56,71,91,97,162,194,246, 284, 297, 306, 556–557, 565, 575, 584,656–657,665, 671, 687,698, 702, 717, 735, 740, 773, 781, 784, 818; 4.6,25, 163; 5.176, 405). For the «Granville Sharp Rule» applicable here, see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 144–45, §276, 228, §442; Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 147. 2611 Nock, Christianity, 32–33; Hengel, Son, 77; Ladd, Theology, 416; Longenecker, Christology, 132; idem, Ministry, 97; Bruce, Acts (English), 74; although this title becomes more prominent in Diaspora usage (cf. Schweizer, Jesus, 72; Bultmann, Theology 1:124; Conzelmann, Theology, 82–83), there is no extant stratum of earliest Christianity that completely excludes it. The supposed connection with the Mysteries (cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 128) is weak (Hengel, Son, 77–78; Sheldon, Mysteries, 87–90). 2612 Hengel, Acts, 105; Longenecker, Christology, 121–24; Fee, Corinthians, 839; Ladd, Criticism, 210. Some regard the original meaning of the term as ambiguous (Simon, Stephen, 66; cf. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 114–20), but a use in early Christian liturgy (eschatological, eucharistie, or both, e.g., Robinson, Studies, 154–57; idem, Coming, 26–27; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 300–301; Cullmann, Christology, 201–2; Hunter, Paul, 65; cf. Did. 10) would constitute a divine invocation (Fee, Corinthians, 838–39; Ladd, Theology, 341, 416–17; for divine usage elsewhere, cf. Marmorstein, Names, 62–63; Betz, Jesus, 108; Bruce, Paul, 117). |
| 3533 1 En. 6(if Semyaza means «he sees the Name»); cf. Bonsirven, Judaism, 7 (citing 1 Chr 13LXX; m. Ber. 4:4; Yoma 3:8); Bowman, Gospel, 69–98, esp. 69–77. «The Name» appears as a title for Christ in Jewish Christian theology (Daniélou, Theology, 147–63; on 150 he finds this even as early as the NT: John 12with 17:5; Jas 2:7; 5:14). 3535 Isa 29:23; Ezek 39:7 ; 1 En. 9:4; Sipra Emor par. 11.234.2.3; b. Pesah. 53b; Šabb. 89b; p. Sanh. 3:5, §2; Num. Rab. 15:12; prayer on Samaritan bill of divorce (Bowman, Documents, 328); cf. Moore, Judaism, 2:101–5; the «sacred letters» in Let. Aris. 98; cf. b. Šabb. 115b, bar.; Pesiq. Rab. 22:7; engraved on Israel " s weapons, Song Rab. 5:7, §1; 8:5, §1. One may also compare Matt. 6and its sources in the Kaddish and the third benediction of the Amidah (the latter is called «the sanctification of the name,» m. Roš Haš. 4:5); eschatological sanctification of the Name in Ezek 28:22; 36:23; 38:23; 39:7 ; and see comment on John 17:6, 17, 19 , below. 3536 E.g., Sir 23:9 ; Josephus Ant. 2.276; Sib. Or. 3.17–19 (probably pre-Christian); 1QS 6.27–7.1; m. Sanh. 7:5; t. Ber. 6:23; Ecc1. Rab. 3:11, §3; cf. Lev. 24:11,16 ; b. Sanh. 60a, bar.; Bietenhard, «νομα,» 268–69 (for alleged exceptions in the temple service, see m. Sotah 7:6; Sipre Num. 39.5.1–2; Marmorstein, Names, 39; Urbach, Sages, 1:127; cf. Lemaire, «Scepter»); among the Samaritans, see Jeremias, Theology, 10 n. 1. The Qumran sectarians often wrote the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew letters (probably to show it special honor, but cf. Siegal, «Characters,» comparing the rabbinic teaching), as did early Greek OT manuscripts (see Howard, «Tetragram»). 3538 E.g., Pr. Jos. 9–12; Lad. Jac. 2:18; Incant. Text 20.11–12 (Isbell, Bowls, 65); 69:6–7 (Isbell, Bowls, 150); CIJ 1:485, §673; 1:486, §674; 1:490, §679; 1:517, §717; 1:523, §724; 2:62–65, §819; 2:90–91, §849; 2:92, §851; 2:217, §1168; T. So1. 18:15–16 (the Solomonic tradition recurs in b. Git. 68a; Num. Rab. 11:3); Smith, Magician, 69; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 6:7; Apoc. Ab. 17:8, 13; examples in Deissmann, Studies, 321–36; Nock, Conversion, 62–63; MacMullen, Enemies, 103; Knox, Gentiles, 41–42. Cf. the namés power in Pesiq. Rab. 21:7; Urbach, Sages, 1:124–34; Bietenhard, «νομα,» 269; in Jewish mystical experience, see Scholem, Gnosticism, 32–33. Name invocation was common practice (e.g., Apuleius Metam. 2.28; 3.29; Twelftree, «ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,» 376; Koester, Introduction, 1:380). |
| 12:48; Rev 19:11). Some of John s imagery stands in creative tension that forces the hearer to qualify its sense: Jesus did not come for the purpose of condemning (3:17), but he is authorized to judge (5:22). 5868 Because some believed that God had shared some of his honor with Moses (following Exod 3), 5869 Jesus» claim that the Father shared honor with the Son (5:23) could be interpreted less offensively (cf. Isa 44:23; 46:13; 49:3; 60:1–2). Some Tannaim argued that God wanted his prophets to honor both the Father and the son (Israel). 5870 But because Jesus claims that people should honor the Son even as (καθς) they honor the Father, he utters a claim to divine rank (cf. Isa 48); one cannot have the Father without the Son or vice-versa (cf. 1 John 2:23 ). Even Roman emperors could affirm their authority by using a phrase equivalent to «just as» to assert a direct linkage with earlier, deified emperors. 5871 That «all» should honor him (5:23) emphasizes the universality of Christ " s sovereign authority (1:7; 5:28–29). Further, Jesus both answers the basic charge and returns it, a common rhetorical technique (see our introduction to 8:37–51). In contrast with their charge of blasphemy, Jesus honors his Father. But because he is the Father " s representative (see discussion of the «sent one» under Christology in the introduction, ch. 7) whom the Father honors (5:23), by dishonoring Jesus they are dishonoring the Father (cf. the same idea more explicitly in 8:49). Jesus thus effectively returns the charge against them: it is they, not he, who dishonor the Father. 1D. Jesus as Life-Giver in the Present and the Future (5:24–30) Jesus returns to the claim that the Father has authorized him to give life (5:21) with the image of realized eschatology implied by «passed from death to life» (5:24); one already abides in death until believing in the one who sent Jesus, hence in Jesus» delegated mission (cf. also 3:18). 5872 Numerous ancient texts employ «death» figuratively or spiritually; 5873 some Jewish texts employ «death» eschatologically, as in Rev 2:11; 20:6, though sometimes (in likely contrast to Revelation " s use) for annihilation. 5874 «Life» and «death» figure prominently in the Fourth Gospel, often spiritually (6:50; 8:51; cf. 8:21, 24). Even when literal (e.g., 4:47; 6:49, 58; 8:52; 11:13, 14, 16, 21, 25, 32, 37, 44, 51; 21:23), they sometimes illustrate spiritual realities (11:26). «Passing» from death to life, like being «born from above» (3:3), implies a line of demarcation between those who have returned to God " s side and those who remain arrayed against him (cf. 1 John 3:14 ; Wis 7:27; Col 1:13). Response to Jesus» «word» decided onés destiny (5:24; 12:48; cf. 5:38), for how one treats envoys indicates how one would treat their sender. 5875 |
| 2703 P. Git. 1:1, §1. For discussion of how a sender could nullify an agent " s task, see p. Git. 4:1, §1; the stricter rule required speaking to the agent (see m. Git. 4:1). 2704 E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.88.2; Diodorus Siculus 40.1.1; Josephus Life 65, 72–73, 196–198; 2Macc 1:20. Cf. Zenós dispatch of two fellow scholars in his place in Diogenes Laertius 7.1.9. 2705 Diodorus Siculus 4.10.3–4; Josephus Ant. 8.220–221. 2706 Cf. Euripides Herac1. 272; Xenophon Anab. 5.7.18–19, 34; Apollodorus Epitome 3.28–29: Polybius 15.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 8.43.4; Diodorus Siculus 36.15.1–2; Dio Cassius 19.61; Appian R.H. 3.6.1–2; 3.7.2–3; 4.11; 8.8.53; Valerius Maximus 6.6.3–4. This was important, since receivers of news sometimes responded positively or negatively to messengers depending on the news they received (e.g., Homer Il. 17.694–696; 18.15–21; Euripides Medea 1125–1129; Appian R.H. 12.12.84; Arrian Ind. 34.4; 35.1; 2Sam 1:15; 18:20, 22 ; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.35, 37). 2707 Homer Il. 1.334; 7.274–282; 8.517; Aeschines Timarchus 21; Cicero Phi1. 13.21.47; Herodian 6.4.6. Ambassadors who risked their lives merited special honor ( Phil 2:25–30 ; Cicero Phi1. 9.1.2). 2708 M. Demai 4:5; t. Demai 2:20; cf. also Aeschines Timarchus 21. 2709 B. B. Qam. 102ab. 2710 Wenham, Bible, 114–15. In the broader Mediterranean culture, cf., e.g., Demosthenes Or the Embassy 4–5. 2711 E.g., Appian R.H. 9.9.3 (196 B.C.E.). 2712 E.g., the ideal herald Aethalides in Apollonius of Rhodes 1.640–648. 2713 Cf. Euripides Herac1. 292–293. 2714 The sense of a cognate noun and verb need not agree, but given the noun " s absence in the LXX and the verb s prominence there in a manner analogous to early Christian usage, it seems likelv that the noun here reflects a Christian usage coined to match the cognate LXX verb (albeit in less technical use in secular vocabulary). 2715 Joshua by Moses (Josh 14:7; cf. Josh 11:15); Barak by Deborah ( Judg 4:6 ); Saul " s messenger? ( 1Sam 19:20 ); David (allegedly) by Saul ( 1Sam 21:2 ); angels from God (e.g., Judg 13:8 ; Tob 12cf. Gen 24:7 ); cf. messengers in 1 Kgs 18:10; 19:2;2Kgs 1:2,6,9,11,13; etc. A disciple may be " sent» as his master " s representative (the false but believable claim in 2 Kgs 5:22; cf. 2 Kgs 9:1–4). |
| 675 In both, the Isaiah text indicates that Jesus» word hardens the stubborn. On the text in Mark, cf. Evans, «Note.» 676 For esoteric teachings, cf., e.g., 4 Ezra 14:45–47; t. Hag. 2:1; b. Hag. 13a-14b; Pesah. 119a; Šabb. 80b; p. Hag. 2:1, §§3–4; for other private teachings or those understood only within wisdom circles, cf., e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 89–90; various Qumran texts (lQpHab 7.4–5; 1QH 2.13–14; 9.23–24; 11.9–10, 16–17; 12.11–13; 13.13–14; 1QS 8.12; 9.17–19; cf. 1QS 8.1–2; 11.5; 1QM 17.9); Gen. Rab. 8:9; Num. Rab. 9:48; 19(purportedly from ben Zakkai); Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3; 22:2; perhaps Wis 2:21–22; 7:21; 2 Bar. 48:3; b. Sukkah 49b. In Pythagoreanism, cf. Diogenes Laertius 8.1.15; perhaps Plato in Diogenes Laertius 3.63; others in Eunapius Lives 456. Cf. also the passing on of esoteric books from Moses to Joshua in Γ. Mos. 1(possibly early first century C.E.). 677 Bruce, Documents, 57. Cf. Stein, Method, 27–32. By itself this would not demand authenticity. Goulder, Midrash, 89–92, thinks that Jesus gave some teaching in poetry but Matthew created it in many additional sayings. 678 «Amen» normally confirmed prayers, oaths, curses, or blessings. The Gospel usage in confirming Jesus» words as he speaks them is rare (against Jeremias, Theology, 35,79, it is not unique; see Aune, Prophecy, 165; Hill, Prophecy, 64–66); it is almost certainly authentic (with Aune; Hill; Burkitt, Sources, 18). (Boring, Sayings, 132–33, thinks it continued in early Christian prophetic usage, but even Rev 2–3 avoids it). Cf. Gen 18:13 . 679 Bruce, Documents, 57–58. The introductory «amen» appears about 30 times in Matthew, 13 in Mark, 6 in Luke, and 50 in John (Smith, Parallels, 6). The double form appears rarely, e.g., in the current text of L.A.B. 22:6 (the answer of the people to Joshuás words); 26(response to Kenaz " s curse invocation); PGM 22b.21, 25 (closing an invocation); and as an oath formula in p. Qidd. 1:5, §8. Culpepper, «Sayings,» argues that the double amen sayings in John frequently (though not always) reflect historical material, often «core sayings that generate the dialogue or discourse material that follows» (100). |
| 9228 Jub. 48:15–16. For other accusing angels, see 3 En. 28:8–9; t. c Abod. Zar. 1:18; Sabb. 17:3; Gen. Rab. 55:4; angels of nations in 3 En. 26:12; Lev. Rab. 21:4; Song Rab. 2:1, §3; 8:8, §1; cf. accusations from good angels in p. Sanh. 10:2, §7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11. 9230 E.g., Lam. Rab. proem 24 (the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, used in the law). Cf. also God " s angel «Conviction» (λεγχος), the priest (Philo Unchangeable 135,182–183). 9231 Schnackenburg, John, 3:143. Cf. also Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 144. For this lawsuit as merely the culmination of the Johannine trial motif, see Dahl, «History,» 139. Such reversal provided irony (cf. Aeschines Timarchus 117–118; Xenophon Mem. 4.8.9–10; Seneca Controv. 6.5; also Keener, Background Commentary, 342–43, on Acts 7:54–56, 58, 60). 9237 As Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 124, does. Aune, Prophecy, 97, recognizes the Israelite judicial speech. 9238 See, e.g., Blenkinsopp, «Reproach»; Boyle, «Lawsuit»; Gemser, «Controversy-Pattern»; Wein-feld, «Patterns,» 187–88 (comparing ancient Near Eastern legal practice and treaty language); Ramsey, «Speech-Forms» (probable on secular use, although I do not believe he has established the cultic use). 9239 Cross, Myth, 188–89; cf. Rabe, «Prophecy,» 127. Derrett, «Advocacy,» finds a background in Daniel " s defense of Susanna and in Isa 11:4–5; a Jewish audience might have recalled such passages as part of the larger forensic background (cf. Isa 11:1–2). 9240 CD 1.1–2 (). In Pauline thought, see Barth, Justification, 15–21,26, who sees the OT covenant lawsuit language as part of the background for Pauline justification. 9241 Shea, «Form,» correctly observes parallels to Israelite and ancient Near Eastern covenant formulas (cf. Aune, Environment, 159, 242, for the thesis, probably also correct, of parallels with «ancient royal and imperial edicts»); but although most of these letters include praise as well as blame (Stowers, Letter Writing, 80–81, noting that this was standard; cf. p. 173), the judgment oracles in this covenant context may well be reminiscent of the rib controversy speech of earlier prophets. The listings of cities and nations in oracles of judgment had been standard since biblical times and continues in many of the (Diaspora Jewish) Sibylline Oracles. |
|
|
