| 5864 Dan 7:22 ; Wis 3:7–8; 1 En. 95:3; 98:12; lQpHab 5.3–4, misinterpreting Hab 1:12–13; 1QM 14.7; 16.1. In Dan 7 , the «saints» must represent God " s people (Di Leila, «Holy Ones»; Poythress, «Holy Ones»; Hasel, «Saints»), not angels (pace Dequeker, «Saints»). 5865 See, e.g., m. " Abot 4(God " s prerogative alone); Deut. Rab. 1:10; 2 Bar. 19:3; Urbach, Sages, 1:123; more broadly, Sib. Or. 4.183–184; 1 En. 9:4; 60:2; 62:2; 47with 46:2; T. Ab. 14:6A. This point is often noted by commentators (e.g., Schnackenburg, John, 2:107; Morris, John, 319). 5866 E.g., 3 En. 31:1; p. Sanh. 1:1, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 10:9. 5867 E.g., with reference to the new year; t. Roš Haš. 1:13; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:4; 23:1. 5868 Cf. Carson, John, 254. 5869 E.g., Philo Sacrifices 9; Num. Rab. 15:13. 5870 Mek. Pisha 1.88ff. Some later rabbis even interpreted Isa 42:8, which reserves God " s glory for himself, to claim that God would not share glory with another besides Israel (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:2). 5871 Vespasian, linking himself with Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius, in CIL 6.930; ILS 244 (Sherk, Empire, 124–25). 5872 Realized and future eschatologies are hardly incompatible and need not suggest later redaction. Qumran " s collection includes various eschatological schemes (cf. Mattila, «Eschatologies,» on 4Q246 and 1QM). 5873 Cf., e.g., Dio Cassius 45.47.5; Lucretius Nat. 3.1046; Macrobius Comm. 1.11.2 (Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 224); Epictetus Diatr. 1.5.4; Heraclitus Ep. 5; Sir 22:11–12 ; Eph 2:1 ; Gen. Rab. 39:7; Exod. Rab. 5:4; Ecc1. Rab. 9:5, §1; Gen 2as understood in Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.106; perhaps 4 Ezra 7:92; cf. spiritual resurrection in Jos. Asen. 8:9/11. 5874 So the Targumim (Abrahams, Studies, 2:44; McNamara, Targum, 123). The twofold death in some MSS of Gen. Rab. 96simply refers to the pain of a Diaspora burial, as the «second death» of Phaedrus 1.21.11 refers to ridicule at death. For more on «life,» see comment on 1:4–5. 5875 E.g., Josephus Ant. 8.220–221; Dio Cassius R.H. 19.61; Diodorus Siculus 4.10.3–4; Moses in Josephus Ant. 3.85–87; 4.329; see further in introduction, pp. 310–17. |
| 6272 Ibid., 46–47, arguing that earlier rabbinic opinion tended against it; cf. unpardonable sins in 1QS 7.15–17, 22–23 (and possibly 1Q22; 4Q163 frg. 6–7, 2.6–7); Jub. 15:34; p. Hag. 2:1, §9. For deliberate acts of rebellion, see, e.g., CD 8.8; 10.3; p. Sebu. 1:6, §5. Greeks also felt that those who were once good but became bad merited stricter punishment (Thucydides 1.86.1); Pythagoreans treated apostates as dead (Burkert, «Craft,» 18). 6275 Diogenes Laertius 6.2.21; 6.2.36; 6.2.75–76; 6.5.87; 7.1.22; Diogenes Ep. 38; Aulus Gellius 19.1.7–10. 6276 Some MSS include «Christ» here, but probably for harmonistic reasons; «Holy One of God» is the most probable reading (Bernard, John, 1:223; Metzger, Commentary, 215). 6278 E.g.,Tob 12:15; 1 En. 1:3; 10:1; 14:1; 25:3; 84:1; 92:2; 97:6; 98:6; 104:9; 3 En. 1and passim. Three of the five uses of γιος in John apply to the Spirit (1:33; 14:26; 20:22), as often in early Judaism. Witherington, Wisdom, 161, applies the title to incarnate Wisdom, but Johns contemporaries did not limit the title thus. 6281 Cf. Collins, Witness, 56–78; idem, «Twelve,» who thinks the Johannine community is more adequate than apostolic Christianity, a dubious distinction. Anderson, Christology, 249, contrasts a higher view of Peter in Matt 16:17–19; but compare Matt 16with John 6:70 . 6282 Students often competed in Roman schools, but even a younger student might achieve leadership in the class (e.g., Seneca Controv. 1.pref.24); for whatever reasons, Peter «stood out.» 6284 Cf. the relatively rare plural form of «Satans» in ] En. 40:7; 65(though cf. the singular in 1 En. 54:6); more frequently in incantation texts (Incant. Texts 23.3–4; 58.1; 60.10; 66.5). 6285 E.g., CIJ 1:15, §12; 1:26, §33; 1:84, §121; 1:85, §122; 1:270–71, §345; 1:271, §346; 1:272, §347; 1:272, §348; 1:273, §349; 1:274, §350; 1:274–75, §351; 1:455, §636; 1:472, §657; 1:479, §668; 2:46, §791; 2:133–34, §§923–926; 2:190, §1039; 2:196, §§1070, 1072; 2:197, §§1073, 1075; 2:219, §1171; 2:261, §1255; 2:272, §§1280,1282; 2:273, §1283; 2:389, §1465; 2:441, §1533; CP/2:137, §235; for fuller listing of papyri occurrences for Egyptian Jews, see CP/3:180. |
| 7156 «From the [beginning of] the age» (9:32) might ironically recall Jesus» preexistence by means of his power to heal what no one else could (cf. 1:1–2; 17:24), but the link is at best a possibility. 7158 This response sidesteps the question of demonic involvement in sorcery, which his interrogators presumably would have considered (see pp. 274–75); but John comments little on demons and addressed this charge against Jesus in earlier chapters (7:20; 8:48). 7160 E.g., CIJ 1:365, §500; 2:14, §748; on the frequency of Roman Jewish names alluding to this virtue, see CIJ l:lxvii. 7161 E.g., Abraham in T. Ab. 4:6A; Joseph in Jos. Asen. 4:7/9; Jewish elders from Palestine in Let. Aris. 179. 7162 Citing notably the Aphrodisias inscriptions, Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 51–82; idem, «Aphrodisias»; Tannenbaum, «God-Fearers»; Van der Horst, «Aphrodisias»; Feldman, «Sympathizers»; idem, «God-Fearers.» Citing especially other sources, Lifshitz, «Sympathisants»; Gager, «Synagogues»; Horsley, Documents, 3, §17, p. 54; Finn, «God-Fearers»; Overman, «God-Fearers.» 7163 Kraabel, «Disappearance»; idem, «Jews»; MacLennan and Kraabel, «God-Fearers.» The designation functioned in various ways (Murphy-ÓConnor, «God-Fearers»; cf. Wilcox, «God-Fearers»); for various perspectives on detail, cf., e.g., Cohen, «Respect»; Siegert, «Gottesfürchtige.» 7164 E.g., Ps 66:18 ; Gen. Rab. 60:13; Exod. Rab. 22:3; cf. 1Pet 3:7,12 ; Iamblichus V.P. 11.54; Porphyry Marc. 24.374–375. Many commentators cite this principle here (Dodd, Interpretation, 81; Edersheim, 408). Abrahams, Studies, 2:40, citing 1 Kgs 8:41–43, argues that the rabbis would have to affirm that God heard some pagan prayers; in Studies, 1:61, he points to a sinner whom God heard for one act of piety (p. Taan. 1:2). 7165 His denial that he could do nothing at all is an emphatic double negative and contrasts with that of the opponents who do «nothing» good and know «nothing» (11:49; 12:19). 7166 It may be only coincidental; κβλλω appears with sheep in the NT only in 2:15, which hardly provides a favorable model for 10:4. Still, this is an unusual term to apply to leading forth sheep, appearing nowhere with them in the LXX (Exod 2applies to the shepherds driving away the priest " s daughters). |
| 8437 Thus the artificial similarity of the three questions (14:5,8, 22) need not require pure invention, which might not well explain the citation of the obscure Judas (Brown, John, 2:641). 8438 Those who deny this acceptance (e.g., Bultmann) must employ a standard of consistency not applicable to other ancient sources, then impose their exegesis of some texts on the whole of John " s theology by resorting to excising as interpolations passages for the removal of which there is no evidence. 8439 Segovia, «Structure,» 482–84, followed by Berg, «Pneumatology,» 111, suggest three elements in 14:4–14: (1) an opening christological statement (14:4, 7, 10); (2) the state of the disciples» belief 14:5, 8, 11); and (3) expansion of the opening christological statement (14:6, 9, 12–14), climaxing in 14:12–14. 8442 Recognized, e.g., by Carson, Discourse, 26, though he believes that 14refers to a future coming. 8447 DeConick, Mystics, 69–73 (citing Philo Migration 168–175, plus the later Odes of Solomon and Hermetica); cf. also Porphyry Marc. 6.105; 8.136. She also suggests that the way " s localization in Jesus is meant to counter the Gospel of Thomas (the traditions of which are echoed in Thomas " s ignorance in 14:5). 8452 E.g., Tob 1:3; Jub. 20:2; 23:20–21; 4Q400 frg. 1, co1. 1 line 14; Sib. Or. 3.233. Cf. the use of «way» in Islamic Arabic (Bishop, Apostles, 107–8); and various pedagogic approaches in Iamblichus V.P. 19 (on which see Dillon and Hershbell, «Introduction,» 28). 8454 Philo Confusion 95–96; τπον here invites some comparison with the later rabbinic use of mokom for God " s omnipresence (for Torah as a surrogate for God " s presence, cf. Patte, Hermeneutic, 25). The Logos is God " s house in Philo Migration 5–6. 8457 Cf. also Pryke, «Eschatology,» 49. The Qumran sect " s depiction of themselves as the «way» 1QS 9.17) probably also stems from Isa 40 (1QS 8.14; note also the allusion in 1QS 9.19–20). 8458 Older commentators cited the literal path through which mystery initiates discovered esoteric lore (Ramsay, Teaching, 302). |
| 3255 E.g., Sophocles Searchers 212–215 (Sei. Pap. 3:44–45); Euripides Antiope 69–71; Pirithous 22–24 (Sei. Pap. 3:124–125); Virgil Aen. 1.28; Ovid Metam. 2.714–747; 3.1–2, 260–261; 4.234–244; 5.391–408; 10.155–219; 14.765–771; Achilles Tatius 1.5.5–7; Apuleius Metam. 6.22; Apollodorus 3.8.2. On very rare occasions a mortal escaped, outwitting the deity (Apollonius of Rhodes 2.946–954). 3257 E.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.244–246,275; Athenagoras 20–22; Theophilus 1.9; Ps.-Clem. 15.1–19.3. 3258 E.g., Euripides Bacch. 94–98; Appian R.H 12.15.101; Ovid Metam. 3.261–272, 280–309; 4.416–530. 3259 E.g., Euripides Hipp. 1–28,1400–1403 (because deities desire honor, Hipp. 8); Apollonius of Rhodes 3.64–65. 3263 E.g., Ovid Tristia 1.2.4–5. Even if Homer authored both the Iliad and the Odyssey, it remains noteworthy that the former portrays a much less harmonious pantheon; later Roman sources (e.g., the Aeneid) also portray their deities more favorably than the Iliad. 3264 Odysseus in Euripides Cyc1. 606–607. In prayer, pagans often piled up as many names of the deity they were entreating as possible (e.g., Homer I1. 1.37–38, 451–452; 2.412; PGM 4.2916–2927; Cleanthes» Hymn to Zeus; more restrained, ILS 190) and reminded a deity of favors owed, seeking an answer on contractual grounds, as many ancient texts attest (e.g., Homer Il. 1.39–41; 10.291–294; Od. 1.61–62,66–67; 4.762–764; 17.240–242; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.417–419; Virgil Aen. 12.778). 3265 E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.17; Seneca Dia1. 7.26.6; Nat. 2.44.1–2.45.1; Maximus of Tyre Or. 5.1; 35.1. 3268 Cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 7.1.134, 148; Seneca Nat. 1.pref.13. Pantheism was also more widespread (cf. Virgil Georg. 4.221–222, 225; Aeschylus frg. 34, from Clement of Alexandria Stromata 5.14, p. 718; Aeschylus LCL 2adds Philodemus On Piety 22). 3270 Frequently, e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 2.1.25; cf. the identification also in Ps-Aristotle De mundo (according to Grant, Gods, 78). 3271 E.g., Chariton 3.3.16; Plutarch Isis 1, Mor. 351DE; T. T. 8.2.4, Mor. 720A. Cf. Plato Alcib. 1.124C: Socrates spoke of his guardian (επτροπος) as θες. |
| 6654 Cf. Pilch, «Lying,» 128. 6655 E.g., Thucydides 3.61.1. Circumstances, however, varied, so that sometimes one should open a speech with self-praise, sometimes with accusing opponents, and sometimes with praise of the jury (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 17). 6656 Normally the prosecutor would speak first, so the accused would be able to respond to the charges specifically (e.g., Cicero Quinct. 2.9; 9.33; Terence Eunuch 10–13; Chariton 5.4.9; Apuleius Metam. 10.7; t. Sanh. 6:3; Acts 24:2–8; cf. a legal exception in t. Sanh. 7:2). But the prosecutor offered entire speeches, not the trading of charges and countercharges found here (though even court transcripts were at best summaries, e.g., P.Oxy. 37; 237.7.19–29; P.Ry1. 75.1–12; P.Strassb. 22.10–24; P.Thead. 15; P. Bour. 20). 6657 Deut 17:6; 19:15 ; 11QT 61.6–7; 64.8; CD 9.3–4,17–23; Josephus Ant. 4.219; T.Ab. 13:8A; see Daube, «Witnesses»; and further citations under the introductory comment to John 5:31–47 . Cf. Rabinovitch, «Parallels,» though he may minimize too much the difference between Qumran and rabbinic approaches. 6658 E.g., Josephus Ant. 4.219; Life 256. 6659 Secondary «even if» claims (here, «Even if I testify concerning myself») appear elsewhere in ancient rhetoric (e.g., Hermogenes Issues 48.19–23). 6660 Cf. also the philosophical condemnation of evaluating by physical standards (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 14.1; 94.13); some philosophers even appeared to condemn sensory knowledge (Plato Phaedo 83A), but most did not (Aristotle Soul 3.1,424b; Seneca Dia1. 5.36.1 ; 7.8.4; Diogenes Laertius 7.1.52, 110; Let. Aris. 156; Philo Spec. Laws 4.92; Confusion 19; Heb 5:14; Murray, Philosophy, 26; Long, Philosophy, 21), and John certainly does not move in a philosophic framework that would condemn the senses. Many writers shared an emphasis on moral discernment (Cicero Off. 3.17.71; Leg. 1.23.60; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 45.6; Epictetus Diatr. 1.4.1; 1.7.8; 2.3.1; Marcus Aurelius 2.1, 13; 4.41; 9.1.2; Diogenes Laertius 7.1.122). |
| 6346 Cf. Michaels, John, 114, denying a double entendre. 6347 Hunter, John, 79; Brown, John, lxxxxv. Given the significance of Galilee in the Gospel, his «remaining» in 7could also then be a double entrendre (cf. 1:38–39; 2:12; 4:40; 10:40; 11:6, 54). 6348 This might be especially the case if the first «yet» (οπω) in 7is a scribal addition (missing in and the easier reading); arguments for this variant " s originality, however, are stronger than often noticed (see Caragounis, «Journey to Feast»). 6349 Essenes vowed not to conceal any secrets from one another (Josephus War 2.141), behavior Josephus regarded as ideal (Ag. Ap. 2.207). 6350 E.g.,Tob 7:10–11; 1Macc 7:18; 1QS 10.22; Let. Aris. 206,252; Josephus Ag.Ap. 2.79; Ps.-Phoc. 7; Sib. Or. 3.38,498–503; Γ. Dan 3:6; 5:1–2; Eph 4:25 . 6351 E.g., Plutarch Educ. 14, Mor. 11C; frg. 87 (in LCL 15:190–191); Diogenes Laertius 1.60; Phaedrus 4.13; Cornelius Nepos 25 (Atticus), 15.1. 6352 E.g., Quintilian 2.17.27; 12.1.38–39; T. Jos. 11:2; 13:7–9; 15:3; 17:1; for war or the service of the state in Xenophon Mem. 4.2.14–15; Seneca Controv. 10.6.2. In the epic period, deception for useful purposes could indicate cleverness (Homer Od. 19.164–203, esp. 19.203; Gen 27:19, 24; 30:31–43 ), though Odysseus " s cleverness (e.g., Sophocles Phi1. 54–55, 107–109, called «wisdom» in 119,431) appears unscrupulous to some (Sophocles Phi1. 1228). 6353 E.g., Exod 1:19; 1Sam 16:2–3; 21:2,5,8,13 ; 2Sam 12:1–7; 17:14; 1 Kgs 20:39–41; 22:22; 2 Kgs 8:10; 2 Chr 18:22; 1er 38:27; probably 2 Kgs 10:19; probably not acceptable in 1 Kgs 13:18. 6354 E.g., t. Ta c an. 3:7–8. 6355 " Abot R. Nat 45, §§125–126 B. 6356 E.g., Phaedrus 4.pro1.8–9; 2Cor 1:17–18 ; on fickleness, Virgil Aen. 4.569–570 (applied to women); Cicero Fam. 5.2.10; Marshall, Enmity, 318–19. 6357 Carson, John, 309, citing Porphyry C. Chr. in Jerome Pelag. 2.17. 6358 E.g., P.Ry1. 174.6–7; P.Lond. 334.6; P.Oxy. 494.31. 6359 Stanton, Jesus, 124; Aune, Environment, 32; e.g., Plutarch Marcus Cato 1.3; Sulla 2.1; Philostratus Hrk. 10.1–5; 34.5; 48.1 (cf. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xlix). For handsomeness listed as a virtue in biographies, see, e.g., Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 1.2. |
| That the beloved disciple outruns Peter may be significant; 10523 it is one of several comparisons of the two figures in the Gospel (13:22–25; 21:7, 20). Argument by comparison was a standard rhetorical technique, 10524 and rhetorical principles suggested that narrative employ comparison of characters in ways useful to the point. A narrative extolling a person could include a statement of his physical prowess (e.g., Josephus outswimming others, Life 15) as part of the praise. 10525 The beloved disciple becomes the first, hence a paradigmatic, believer (20:8), for he believes before a resurrection appearance, merely on the less substantial basis of the empty tomb (cf. 20:29–31). 10526 Yet if the γρ of 20retains its customary force, this verse may be claiming that although the beloved disciplés faith is a paradigm, it is still signs-faith, faith based on seeing (20:8), not the ultimate level of faith (cf. 2:23; 6:30). Better would have been faith in advance that Jesus must rise, based on understanding the word in Scripture (20:9; cf. 2:22). Scripture remains the necessary means for interpreting the event or witness, just as Nathanael understood Jesus» identity both in light of Jesus» revelation and Philip " s earlier appeal to scriptural categories (cf. 1:45,48). 10527 The Scripture to which John refers is unclear here; none of the other explicit references to «Scripture» in this Gospel (7:42; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36–37) speak of a resurrection, though some may be taken to imply it and could be recalled after his resurrection (2:22; 7:38). 10528 Granted, many Pharisaic exegetical defenses of the resurrection, ingenious though they are, were hardly obvious by themselves, 10529 but at least they usually provided their texts. Instead of first appealing primarily to texts supporting the general resurrection, early Christian apologists made significant use of what their contemporaries would accept as specifically Davidic material in Ps 2 (Acts 13:33), Ps 16 (Acts 2:25–28; 13:35), Ps 110 (Acts 2:34–35), and, by means of gezerah sheva (linking together texts on the basis of common key terms), 10530 probably material about the Davidic covenant, as in Isa 55(Acts 13:34). But they seem to have often drawn from a broader base of texts than these alone (e.g., Luke 24:44–47). |
| 9571 For bibliography on the Sanhedrin, see Saffai, «Self-Government,» 418 (the section on the Sanhédrin is pp. 379–400). Josephus generally prefers the term συνδριον, «sanhedrin,» «assembly,» in the Jewish Antiquities, and βουλ, «council,» in the Jewish War. The rabbis believed that God supported the decrees of the rabbinic Beth din hagadol, great assembly (Exod. Rab. 15:20), on which Israel rightly depended (Song Rab. 7:3, §1; Lam. Rab. 2:4, §8). 9573 E.g., b. Ber. 3b; Gen. Rab. 74:15; Exod. Rab. 1:13; Pesiq. Rab. 11:3. Some of the «scribes» may have been Pharisees, but Pharisees were not dominant in the Sanhedrin (Brown, Death, 350–52), despite Josephus " s possible favoritism toward them (Josephus Ant. 18.15, 17; cf. Life 1, 12 and Ant. passim; Brown, Death, 353–56). 9575 Cf. Sanders, Figure, 484–87; Josephus War 2.331,336; Ant. 17.160,164; 20.216–217; probably the municipal aristocracy in Ant. 14.91, 163, 167, 180; Life 62. 9580 Brown, Death, 342–43. Levine, Hellenism, 88–90, argues that the Jerusalem Sanhedrin was probably simply an ad hoc group in some texts. 9581 Yamauchi, Stones, 106. Stauffer, Jesus, 118, overestimates their sense of threat at this point when he proposes that the disciples may have gone by different roads to prevent notice (Luke 22:39). 9583 Brown, John, 2:806. Many rivers and wadis in the East fill or overflow during the rainy winter or (sometimes) when winter snows melt in spring (Homer 17. 5.87–88; 13.137; Od. 19.205–207; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.9; Appian R.H. 12.11.76; Livy 44.8.6–7; Herodian 3.3.7; 8.4.2–3; Arrian Alex. 7.21.2). 9588 Lane, Mark, 515. If the press originally belonged to an individual estate rather than a local village, the estate must have been sizeable (cf. Lewis, Life, 127). On the question of the Gethsemane tradition " s historicity, see Green, «Gethsemane,» 268. 9589 Cohn, Trial, 83, though citing a rabbinic tradition that «high priests were wont to engage in undercover activity.» 9592 Passover was a night «watch» (; προφυλακ) for the Lord (Exod 12:42); cf. t. Ketub. 5:5; Lane, Mark, 509; Keener, Matthew, 637. |
| 7082 E.g., Plato Cratylus 41 ID and passim; Livy 1.43.13; Aulus Gellius 1.25; 2.21; 3.18; 5.7; Apollodorus 1.7.2; 2.5.10; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.15, 31. This continued despite the recognition that words changed in meaning over time (Aulus Gellius 4.9). For plays on peoplés names, see, e.g., Homer Od. 1.62; 5.340, 423; 16.145–147; 19.275, 407–409; Aelian Farmers 7 (Dercyllus to Opora) and 8 (Opora to Dercyllus); Alciphron Fishermen passim; Athenaeus Deipn. 9.380b; Phlm 10–11 . Philós use (sometimes indicating weak knowledge of Hebrew; Hanson, «Etymologies») differed considerably from rabbinic etymologies (Grabbe, Etymology). 7083 E.g., Demosthenes Ep. 3.28; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.55; 6.2.68; for discussion in the rhetorical handbooks, see Anderson, Glossary, 59–60 (cf. also 81–82). Some were intended for amusement (Suetonius Gaius 27). 7086 E.g., lQpHab 12.1–10; see Lim, «Alteration.» Revocalizing the consonants was common (Sipre Deut. 357.5.11; see Jub. 26:30; Brownlee, «Jubilees,» 32); for later rabbis, multiple meanings for single referents were certainly not problematic (b. Ber. 55b; Pesiq. Rab. 14:6; 21:6). 7090 Homer Od. 6.207–208; 14.57–58. For charity among Gentiles, see, e.g., Publilius Syrus 274; Cornelius Nepos 5 (Cimon), 4.1–2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 12.1.7; cf. Hesiod Op. 354 (give to the generous); giving to beggars in Seneca Controv. 10.4.intro. 7092 Hom. Od. 17.347, 578. Few, however, took this practice as far as the Cynics (see, e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.10; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.46, 56, 59; 10.119; cf. 2.82), often to others» disdain (Diogenes Laertius 10.119); for priests of Isis or Cybele, see, e.g., Babrius 141.1–6; Phaedrus 4.1.4–5; Valerius Maximus 7.3.8 (also often to others» disdain, Syr. Men. 262–277). 7095 Cf. perhaps also the implied disgrace in Musonius Rufus 11, p. 80.19, 21. Merely pretending to be in need leads to judgment in Abot R. Nat. 3 A. 7096 E.g., the same epideictic function in Chariton 5.4.1–2 (emphasizing Callirhoés beauty); Xenophon Eph. 1.2. |
|
|
