| 4948 Plutarch Exile 17, Mor. 607D, also citing Platós claim (Phaedrus 250C) that the soul is «like an oyster in its shell» (Plutarch, LCL 7:568–71). 4953 Socrates in Xenophon Mem. 4.3.14; the principle may also cast light back on Jesus as the incarnation of the invisible God in 1:18. On the divine winds, see, e.g., Virgil Aen. 1.56–59; Keener, Revelation, 233; for Poseidon allegorized as cosmic breath, Maximus of Tyre Or. 4.8; for a naturalistic explanation (air blowing in a specific direction), see Seneca Nat. 5.1.1. 4955 E.g., Matt 8:27; 15:31; 21:20; Mark 5:20 ; Luke 1:63; 2:18; cf. Rev 13:3; 1 En. 26:6; Sib. Or. 1.32 (Evés creation); T. Ab. 3:11–12A; the response to Apollonius in Greek tradition in Robbins, Jesus, 149. See further comment on 2:11. 4956 Some (e.g., Brown, John, 1:131) attribute Jesus» admonition not to marvel to «a characteristic rabbinic usage»; more naturally, it is a common admonition to those who should not have been taken by surprise (e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.16.1, Μ θαυμζετ»). 4957 Commentators here often appeal to the community Nicodemus represented in John " s day (e.g., Brown, John, 1:131; Sanders, John, 125; Rensberger, Faith, 38, 56–57, 148; cf. Carreira das Neves, «Pronome»). 4960 The identity of οδα with γινσκω in 3may represent rhetorical metabole or variatio (cf. Lee, «Translations of OT,» 776–77); the repetition of οδα so frequently in the passage may resemble rhetorical diaphora (cf. Rowe, «Style,» 133–34). 4961 Schwarz, «Wind,» translates «blows» as «inspires,» but his recourse to Aramaic would probably be lost on most of John " s ideal audience. 4962 Like the description of Jesus raising whom he wills (θλει, 5:21), it also implies divine omnipotence (cf. Rev 1:8). 4966 E.g., Sophocles Oed. co1. 214–215; Euripides Helen 86; Virgil Aen. 2.74; Pindar Ryth. 4.97–98. One would also ask the person " s name (Euripides Cyc1. 102; Iph. taur. 499; Parthenius L.R. 26.4; cf. Judg 13:6 ). 4968 Diogenes Laertius 6.2.63. For the idea, cf. Diogenes Laertius 2.99; 6.2.72; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 28.4; Epictetus Diatr. 2.10.3; Philo Creation 142; for citizenship in heaven, cf. Diogenes Laertius 2.7; Philo Contempt. Life 90; Phil 3:20 ; Diogn. 5.5. |
| 9006 Diodorus Siculus 17.31.6; 17.39.2; 17.100.1. For friends of Cassander, see Diodorus Siculus 18.55.1. 9008 Epictetus Diatr. 4.1.45–50; Martial Epigr. 5.19.15–16; Herodian 4.3.5; inscriptions in Deissmann, Light, 378; cf. Friedländer, Life, 1:70–82, 4:58–74. Of Jewish tetrarchs and rulers, only King Agrippa I adopted this title in his coins; see Meyshan, «Coins.» The probably late and fabricated evidence of CPJ2:71–72, § 156a, and 2:76, §156b, nevertheless reflect earlier custom. 9009 1Macc 10:20; 15:28, 32; 2Macc 7:24; Let. Aris. 40–41, 44, 190,208, 225, 228, 318; Josephus Ant. 12.366 (though cf. 12.391); 13.146, 225; Life 131; Cornelius Nepos 9 (Conon), 2.2; 18 (Eumenes), 1.6; Chariton 8.8.10; cf. Sipre Deut. 53.1.3; Gen. Rab. 34:9. Cf. perhaps Sib. Or. 3.756 (probably second-century B.C.E. Alexandria); Deissmann, Studies, 167–68. The Roman title «Friends of the People» reflects an office advocating for the people but of less rank than being a leader in the Senate (Cicero Sest. 49.105; Prov. cons. 16.38). 9011 See Sherwin-White, Society, 47; also many commentators (Brown, John, 2:879; Barrett, John, 543; Michaels, John, 309; Stauffer, Jesus, 133). By contrast, Westcott, John, 271, thinks that in 19the phrase is «used in a general and not in a technical sense.» 9012 Cf. Strachan, Fourth Gospel, 179. That a contrast between closeness to Caesar and closeness to God " s agent could be intended is not impossible; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.7. 9015 E.g., Lysias Or. 2.2, §192; Aeschines False Embassy 30, 39; Demosthenes On the Navy-Boards 5; On the Embassy 62; Ep. 3.27; Strabo Geog. 8.5.5; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.109 (but cf. similar interests in 1.111); 2.83; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.3.4 (societates atque amicitias); Maximus of Tyre Or. 35.7–8; Philostratus Hrk. 35.4 (for individuals). 9016 E.g., Xenophon Cyr. 3.2.23; Arrian Alex. 1.28.1; 4.15.2, 5; 4.21.8; 7.15.4; Plutarch Comparison of Lycurgus and Numa 4.6; Plutarch Pelopidas 5.1, 29.4; Epameinondas 17 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 193DE; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 4.7; 5.3; 7.5; 14 (Datames), 8.5; 23 (Hannibal), 10.2; Josephus Life 30, 124. |
| 1734 Josephus lists numerous local decrees which probably functioned as precedents by which Diaspora Jews sought to defend their status; he also reports the desire of Alexandrian Jews to be equal citizens with the Greeks who dominated the city " s cultural elite; see Rabello, «Condition»; Rajak, «Charter.» 1737 Dodd, Tradition, 120, suggests that it must be pre-70, but the decades shortly after 70 would function just as wel1. The period following 135, after the demise of the Bar Kokhba revolt, witnessed a consolidation of rabbinic antipathy toward inadequately substantiated messianic claims. 1739 Egyptian («The Instruction for King Meri-Ka-Re,» ANET 416; cf. also enthronement oracles, e.g., «The Divine Nomination of Thut-Mose III» and «The Divine Nomination of an Ethiopian King,» ANET 446–48; Wilson, «Prophecy,» 3–16, 10); Ugaritic (Craigie, Ugarit, 35); Mari Moran, «Prophecy,» 17; Craghan, «Mari, " 48, and Paul, «Prophets,» 1160, citing ARM.T 13.23,114); Akkadian («Assyrian Oracles,» ANET 449–50); Assyrian («Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,» ANET274–77,281,286,292); classical Greece (Nilsson, Cults, 123–42). Cf. Ross, «Prophecy,» 17; Hayes, «Oracles,» 81–85. 1741 Collins, Oracles, 4–5 for Mithridates; 9–12 for Persia; 12–19 for Egypt. In general, cf. Aune, Prophecy, 73–77. 1742 Collins, Oracles, 117. Not surprisingly, Tiberius banished all Sibylline oracles considered spurious (Dio Cassius 57.18.5). 1743 This was true not only under Domitian; cf. Tacitus Ann. 14.22; Suetonius Nero 36; MacMullen, Enemies, 133; Kee, Origins, 71. Some philosophers also suffered at Domitian " s hands; cf. lones, Dio Chrysostom, 45; Aulus Gellius 15.11.3–5; Philostratus Vit. Apoll, books 7–8. 1744 Suetonius Dom. 12; Williams, «Domitian»; though cf. Ramsay, Church, 268; Reicke, Era, 286; Josephus Life 429 (Josephus found a patron in the Flavians). The disdain was evidently reciprocated; cf. Sib. Or. 5.39–46 (toward Rome in general, among the early sources, cf., e.g., 4 Ezra 6:9; 11–12; m. " Abot 1:10; 2:3; Sipre Deut. 317.4.2; 320.2.3; Mendels, «Empires»). |
| 10087 Crosses also became a natural metaphor for sufferings (e.g., Apuleius Metam. 7.16, cruciatibus; 10.9; cf. Seneca Dia1. 7.19.3) or the pain of grief (Apuleius Metam. 9.31) or anxiety (9.23); for other nonliteral usages, cf. Epictetus Diatr. 3.26.22. John employs βαστζω in a fairly common figurative sense in 16:12, albeit more literally in 10:31; 12:6; 20:15. 10088 Drury, Design, 113. The different term may simply represent literary variation, though αρων may better connote complete remova1. 10090 Tomb architecture changed radically after Jerusalem " s fall (Goodenough, Symbols, 1:84–89; Brown, Death, 938–39). 10091 On the latter, see Brown, John, 2:899; idem, Death, 1279–83; cf. Blinzler, Trial, 251–52; Smith, «Tomb»; Ross, «Church»; Riesner, «Golgotha.» 10094 See, e.g., Brown, Death, 1281–82; cf. Blinzler, Trial, 251–52; for archaeological data, see the notes in Cornfeld, Josephus, 338–40, on Josephus War 5.148–155. 10095 Cf. the kind of cup traditionally called a κρανον, or skull, perhaps due to its shape (Athenaeus Deipn. 11.479–480). 10096 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11. We have borrowed much of the material from Keener, Matthew, 678–79. 10098 Hengel, Crucifixion, 25. Thus, e.g., one man is bound to a fig tree and anointed with honey so that the ants devour him, but this, too, is called a cross (cruciatum); Apuleius Metam. 8.22; cf. Prometheus " s fetters (Martial Epigr. 7; Lucian Prometheus 2). Positions varied, but for evidence for one probably common position, see Tzaferis, «Crucifixion,» 52–53. Before the Roman conquest, following Hellenistic (e.g., Josephus Ant. 12.256) and Persian (Esth 9:25; De Vaux, Israel, 159) practice, Jewish executions had also adopted hanging by crucifixion (e.g., Josephus War 1.97; Ant. 13.380; 4QpNah 1.7–8; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; p. Sanh. 6:6, §2; cf. 11QT 64); though read back into earlier times (L.A.B. 55:3), Israelites originally hanged corpses posthumously (cf. Gen 40:19 ) only till nightfall, limiting the shame ( Deut 21:23 ; m. Sanh. 6:4). |
| 2249 Part of the question turns on onés definition of «magic» (cf. Aune, «Magic,» 1557; Blomberg, «Reflections,» 449), but to the extent that «religion» and «magic» are distinguished, the normal criteria readily distinguish Jesus from magic (Kee, Miracle, 214–15; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:537–52; Twelftree, Exorcist, 190–207; Goergen, Mission, 173–75; Vermes, Religion, 6). 2250 Drane, «Background,» 122–23; cf. similarly Theissen, Stories, 296. Borg, Vision, 16, thus defines «charismatic» too broadly to be helpful here. Neusner, in «Foreword,» xxvii and idem, New Testament, 5,173, offers the harshest critique of Smith " s thesis. 2258 Harvey, Jesus, 100; followed also by Blomberg, «Reflections,» 450–51. See, e.g., m. Ta c an. 3:8; " Abot R. Nat. 6; b. Ta c an. 8a; 23ab; 24a-26a; p. Ta c an. 1:4, §1; 3:9, §§6–8; 3:11, §4; cf. Josephus Ant. 8.343–346; 14.22; Empedocles in Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59–60. For the link with corporate piety, see 1 En. 101:2; Pss. So1. 17:18; Gen. Rab. 13:14; Lev. Rab. 34:14; 35:10; Num. Rab. 3:12; cf. b. Ta c an. 19b; on the miraculousness of rain (included in the benediction of the resurrection), cf. b. Ber. 29a; 33a; Ta c an. 2b; 7a; p. Ta c an. 1:1, §2; Gen. Rab. 13:6; Deut. Rab. 7:6. Rainmakers are prominent in many cultures (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 89, 234–37). 2259 Cf. Herford, Christianity, 50–51, 54–56, 211–15; Bagatti, Church, 95–96, 106–7; Manns, «Jacob.» P. Šabb. 14:4, §3, may provide another example, but is uncertain. 2260 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 65; cf. Cangh, «Miracles»; Harvey, Jesus, 100 n. 10, following Smith, Parallels, 81–84 against R Fiebig. But this may have been less frequent than is often supposed; cf. Bourgeois, «Spittle,» 32–33. 2261 Harvey, Jesus, 115; in pagan accounts, see Blackburn, «ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,» 192. Contrast Isa 35:5–6, treated below. 2262 Concurring with Taylor, Formation, 128; against Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 101–3; Jeremias, Theology, 88–92. Jeremiase use of parallels to dismiss the authenticity of these miracles or to attribute them to psychosomatic activity (88–92) simply rests on his presupposition that modernity rejects the miraculous (89). |
| 2934 Diogenes Laertius 7.1.134. Anaxagoras (500–428 B.C.E.) reportedly made «Mind» (νους) the moving principle of matter (Diogenes Laertius 2.8; Hippolytus Haer. 1.7). 2935 Cicero Nat. d. 2.6–8.18–20; cf. further 2.8.21–13.32; Iamblichus Myst. 1.15; cf. Long, Philosophy, 108; Murray, Stages, 167 (citing Chrysippus frg. 913 in Arnim); Bultmann, Christianity, 142. Seneca Nat. 1.pref.14 contends that the human soul is divine, but God is entirely soul and «reason.» 2937 Plutarch Isis 75, Mor. 381B (LCL 5:172–175). Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 189, notes the identification of Osiris with the Logos in a source of Plutarch but wrongly locates a source of the Logos doctrine in the Mysteries (p. 229). For cosmic imagery applied to deities in Greek thought in the second century C.E. and later, see Grant, Gods, 114–23; Col 1:15–20 may anticipate such popular yearnings. 2938 Plutarch Uned. R. 3, Mor. 780C; cf. Stoic Cont. I, Mor. 1033B, where «Philosophy " s Logos,» or doctrine, is a law by which people will choose to live. 2939 Dillon, Platonists, 80–83, citing Antiochus of Ascalon; cf. Dodd, «Background,» 337, on Plotinus and for the suggestion that the process of assimilation may have begun as early as Posidonius. Gamble, «Philosophy,» 50–59, esp. 56–58, found the background of the Gospel especially in Platonism. 2941 Gaius Inst. 1.1 (tr., 19–20). In the Hellenistic period, Rhet. Alex. pref. 1420a.26–28 defined law as reason (λγος) specified by common agreement, a sort of social contract. 2943 Cf. Cicero Nat. d. 2.7.19–20 (cf. 2.8.21–14.39). Epicureans ridiculed this position (see Cicero Nat. d. 1.10.24; cf. 1.13.34) 2945 Shedd, «Meanings,» 253. The incarnation also provides a ground for distinction (Smalley, John, 44), but this does not fit any view contemporary with John. 2946 Manson, Paul and John, 139; cf. also Miller, «Updating,» 176. Manson " s other major objection, that Stoics employed Logos as just another name for God, bears less force because of the prominence of the Logos in Stoicism and the lack of its prominence in the Fourth Gospel beyond the prologue. |
| 3219 E.g., b. Ned. 39b, bar.; Pesah. 54a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 1:4; Lev. Rab. 14(his spirit); Pesiq. Rab. 33:6; Midr. Pss. 72:17; cf. similarly Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 138; Schoeps, Paul, 150; Urbach, Sages, 1:684. Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 586, suggest that the preexistent-messiah tradition may appropriate Christian theology. In Mek. Pisha 1.54–56, all Israel was «fit for the kingship» until David was chosen, which would argue against a préexistent messiah in this stream of Tannaitic tradition (i.e., it may have fallen only to Akibás heirs). 3220 E.g., " Abot R. Nat. 37, §95 B; Gen. Rab. 1:4. Moses appears as preexistent or premeditated in T. Mos. 1and in very late Samaritan tradition (MacDonald, Samaritans, 162–79; cf. 423–24 on the date); cf. Moses» divinity in Philo Sacrifices 9; Exod. Rab. 8:1; Num. Rab. 15:13; based on Exod 7:1. Cf. 2 Clem. 14.1 for the preexistence of the church (2 Clement reflects many Jewish motifs). 3221 We are assuming here that the Similitudes might not be pre-Christian; see 1 En. 48:3,6 (OTP 1cites 1 En. 46:1–2; 48:3; 62:7; 4 Ezra 12:32; 13:26, on 2 Bar. 30:1; the last reference may not imply a préexistent messiah). 3223 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:24; Gen. Rab. 8:2; Lev. Rab. 19(«before the Beginning»); Pesiq. Rab. 46:1; Midr. Pss. 90:3; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen. 3:24 . Ibn Ezra (twelfth century C.E.) concurred with this opinion but did not regard it as literal, observing that one could not calculate years without days nor days before creation (Jacobs, Exegesis, 14–15). 3224 " Abot R. Nat. 31 A (R. Eliezer b. R. Yose the Galilean); b. Šabb. 88b (R. Joshua bar Levi, third century). 3226 Cf. Loewe in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 171: «The pre-existence of the Torah is very often merely tantamount to an expression that God Himself is bound by His own Laws.» Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.154–156 uses the law " s antiquity (albeit not its metaphysical préexistence) apologetically (cf. Ag. Ap. 1.1–29, 196, 215–218, 227; 2.1, 144, 279, 288). 3229 Jub. 2:30; 3:8,10; 6:2,18–19; 7:3; 14:24; 16:21; 22:1–9; 44:4. See Schultz, «Patriarchs,» passim, who contrasts Genesis " s Noahides with Jubilees» (and some later Jewish sources») law keepers; cf. Endres, Interpretation, 3–4 (though Sinai apparently began a new era in Israel " s history; cf. Wintermute in OTP 2:39, following Testuz [if the latter is correct]). |
| 3131 «Abot R. Nat. 15 A (reportedly of Shammai and Hillel); »Abot R. Nat. 29, §§61–62 B; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.14 (citing also Akiba); Sipre Deut. 306.25.1; 351.1.2, 3 (the latter citing R. Gamaliel II); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:7; 10:5; 15:5; Num. Rab. 13:15–16; Song Rab. 1:2, §5; 1:3, §2; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 3 A; Sipra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.1; Sipre Deut. 115.1.1–2; 161.1.3; Pesiq. Rab. 3:1; probably also Sipre Deut. 335.1.1 (the «threads» probably represent what is actually written, and the «mountains» the meanings drawn from them by the sages); Boring et a1., Commentary, 102 cites Seder Eliahu Zuta 2. Thus not only later Scripture (e.g., Esther in p. Meg. 1:5, §3) was revealed on Sinai, but also the correct rabbinic interpretations implicit in Torah (b. Ber. 5a; Meg. 19b; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:304). On oral Torah, cf., e.g., Ehrlich, «Tora.» 3132 P. Ber. 1:3; Péah 2:6, §3; Sanh. 11:4, §1; c Abod. Zar. 2:7, §3; Hor. 3:5, §3; b. c Abod. Zar. 35a; c Erub. 21b; Num. Rab. 14:4; Song Rab. 1:2, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 3:2; cf. b. Menah. 29b. Transgression of sages» teachings was «a mortal offense» CAbot R. Nat. 2 A, tr., 26; cf. b. c Erub. 21b), and a person could be fined for transgressing the words of a Tanna, e.g., R. Akiba ( " Abot R. Nat. 3 A). The words of the scribes were nearly always on a lower level than the words of Torah in the earliest rabbinic sources, however (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 115–25; Sipre Deut. 154.2.1 ). 3133 Later amplification was understood to have been implicit in the Sinai Torah from the very beginning (Sipre Deut. 313.2.4); cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:305, 376. 3134 See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 97–130; on the varying value of tradition among early Tannaim, cf. Landman, «Traditions,» 111–28. Chernick, «Responses,» 393–406, suggests that this emphasis reflects a polemical response to Jewish Christians and gnosticism (cf. similarly Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 159). This observation contrasts with the assumptions of much earlier scholarship, e.g., Sandmel, Judaism, 183; Köhler, Theology, 355; Simon, Sects, 34; Bonsirven, Judaism, 85 (although the last notes that the term is rare in the early period, «traditions» being preferred). |
| Обрезание духовное . Taken from Faber, In Festo Circum cisionis, No. 4 «De spirituali totius hominis circumcisione». The poem summarises the whole sermon, as follows: 11. 1–12 cf Thema: «Causa inter alias una erat, cur instituta a Deo circum cisio fuerit, ut videlicet intelligeremus hominibus adeo depravatis necessarian) esse circum cisionem spiritualem... Id enim praecepit Apostolus ad Col. dicens: Mortificate membra vestra, quaesunt super terram.» 11. 19–34 cf sect. 2 «Oculi». All the exmaples in this part of the poem are Simeon " s own, except the reference to Job (11. 31–2): «Proinde lob sciens oculorum vagorum pericula, eos circum cidit, cum ait: Pepigi foedus cum oculis meis, ut ne cogitarem quidem de virgine [ Job 31.1 ].» 11. 35–44 cf sect. 3 «Nares»: «Nares oblongiores sunt suspiciones et iudicia temeraria, quae omnia subodorantur, rimaniur et diiudicare non verentur etiam longe dissita et occulta.» 11. 45–50 cf sect. 4 «Os»: «Os oblongius habent adinstar equorum et boum, qui nulla temperantiae lege utuntur, nec certis et usitatis diei horis prandent et coenant.» 11. 51–6 cf sect. 5 «Lingua seu loquacitas»: «Labia et linguam incircum cisam habent. Loquarculi, qui earn non custodiunt, sed undique liberam dimittunt ad suam et aliorum perniciem, instar mordacis alicuius canis, qui catena non alligatur sed vagari sinitur.» 11. 57–62 cf sect. 6 «Aures seu curiositas»: «Aures incircumcisas habent et longas nimis curiosuli illi, qui inutilia, noxia et nova semper, et aliorum gesta satagunt audire.» 11. 63–70 cf sect. 7 «Collum seu bibacitas»: «Collum nimis longum aut crassum quinam alii habent nisi peccatores, qui magnis delectantur haustibus?» 11. 71–4 cf sect. 8 «Digiti seu rapacitas»: «Digitos longiores, et incircum cisos habent non fures tantum, ut dicere solemus, sed etiam, qui festinant ditari.» 11. 75–80 cf sect. 10 «Cor seu cogitationes malae»: «Corde incircum ciso sunt, qui malas cogitationes ab eo non extirpant.» 11. 81–6 cf sect. 11 «Venter seu gula»: «Ventrem incircum cisum an non illi habent, qui nihil illi detrahere volunt quantumvis angusto tempore, et rerum penuria instante?» 11. 87–92: this section has no equivalent in Faber. 11. 93–100 cf sect. 12 «Pedes seu superbia»: «Pedes incircum cisos habent superbi, qui pedibus suis composite gradu ambulant, ut dicitur Isai. 11. 107–16 cf sect. 1 «Circumcidendi capilli, hoc est, opes»: «Capilli incircum cisi et longiores sunt opes et divitiae superfluae, cum tenacius retinentur et amaniur... Quemadmodum Ioseph non prius adductus est in conspectum regis Pharaonis, quant longi et horridi eius capilli detonsi essent, Genes. 41.[I4]... Quemadmodum capillis Absalon, quia eos longiores aluit, ad extremum in quercu illaqueatus est et suspensus, 2 Reg. 22.[ 2Sam. 18.9 ].» 11. 117–22 cf sect. 9 «Ungues seu iracundia»: «Ungues longiores, et incircum cisos, habent passionati et iracundi, qui levi verbo irritantur et ungues exserunt in proximos suos.» |
| Христос 4 . Taken from Faber, ibid.. No. 5 «Quomodo perfectiones divinae in Christi Incarnatione elucescant», sect. 7 «Providentia». 11. 1–10 cf Faber: «Per Christum ergo nobis in maxima egestate de omnibus rebus necessariis ad vitam aeternam providit.» 11. 11–14 cf Faber: «Egebamus Doctore, in maximis ignorantiae tenebris: Christus suis doctrinis nos illuminavit.» 11. 15–22 cf Faber: «Egebamus Ductore, qui nostram infirmiiatem corroboraret et exemplo suo praeiret in virtutibus: Christus id strenue praestitit.» 11. 23–8 cf Faber: «Egebamus medico, qui vulnera animarum nostrarum curaret; et hocfecit Christus Sacramentorum medicina.» 11. 29–36 cf Faber: «Egebamus liberatore, qui pro nobis solveret débita ilia, quibus solvendis non sufficiebamus: et ecce accepimus liberatorem.» 11. 37–44 cf Faber: «Egebamus excitatore, qui corda nostra caelesti amore accenderet. Et hoc fecit Christus, innumeris beneficiis ad amorem Dei corda nostra inflammavit.» 11. 45–50 cf Faber: «Egebamus perpetuo in caelo advocato, qui causam nostram ageret: et ipse est, qui semper in conspectu Patris stat et vulnera sua ei repraesentat.» Христос 5 . Taken from Faber, ibid.. No. 7 «Cur tarn humilia sym bola, Intantiam, pannos, praesepe elegerit sibi Christus», sect. 4 «Ob redimendum hominem». 11. 1–8 cf Faber: «Christus in ipsa sua infantia specimen exhibere voluit victoriosi illius certam inis, quod adultus aliquando subiugaturus et spoliaturus erat daemones, ut sic initio statim m undus cerneret qualis puer hic futurus esset. Nam in stabulo iacet infans quasi fari nesciat, cum tamen aeterna Dei sit sapientia: Sic passionis tempore, quasi stultus et loqui nescius ab Herode est derisus.» 11. 9–16 cf Faber: «Nascitur nudus in maxima paupertate, quia non erat ei locus in diversorio: sic nudus quoque in crucem actus est, пес habuit ubi caput reclinaret, et mortuus, alieno sepulchre illatus est.» 11. 17–18 cf Faber: «In lucem editus, fasciis a matre vincitur et colligatur: et sic postea in passione funibus constrictus, raptus est ad mortem.» 11. 19–24 cf Faber: «Infans in praesepio reclinatur inter bovem et asinum, loco horrido et foetido: sic in monte Calvariae horrido etiam ac foetido deiectus est in crucem, et in ea velut lecto angusto et immitissimo positus inter duos latrones.» 11. 25–6 cf Faber: «Vagiit in praesepio more omnium infantium: sic etiam in cruce cum clamore valido et lachrymis preces obtulit, teste Apostolo ad Hebr. 5 11. 27–8 cf Faber: «Videmus igitur, quid haec Christi nascentis sym bola sibi velint?» |
|
|
