| That Jesus had many brothers is not surprising; families often had many children with a wide range of ages. 6319 Honoring kinship ties was very important, 6320 and brothers were normally the closest and most trustworthy of allies, 6321 which makes the unbelief of Jesus» brothers (7:5) all the more disconcerting. (Intrafamily strife was considered particularly tragic.) 6322 Although Jesus» younger siblings seem to have achieved prominence in the later church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1Cor 15:7 ; Gal 1:19; 2:9,12 ; Jas 1:1; Jude 1), it is not clear that John is polemicizing against them in that later role here (any more than he polemicizes against Peter, a prototypical disciple). They serve a literary function in the narrative, challenging disciples to have deeper faith and to endure rejection by their families, 6323 a common early Christian situation ( 1Cor 7:15–16 ; 1Pet 3:1 ; Matt 10:21). 6324 The statement that «not even his brothers were believing in him» (7:5) follows immediately after the apostasy of many of his disciples (6:66); likewise, believers experienced both tragic defection from their ranks (1 John 2:19) and familial opposition (cf. Matt 10:21, 35–37). If Jesus» brothers serve any function related to their genetic kinship with Jesus, it might be an apologetic purpose, to counter or guard against the charge of nepotism that would allow Jesus» relatives to assume so much rank in the early church. Josephus defends Moses against such a charge regarding Aaron (Josephus Ant. 4.26–28, 34, 58), and John may wish to show that the charge cannot be laid against Jesus. 6325 Or, if John does qualify popular allegiance to Jesus» physical family, it may be in a manner similar to that in which he challenges thoughtless devotion to Peter, ever reminding believers that Jesus alone is the chief shepherd and lord (cf. 13:24, 38; 21:15–22). (That this Gospel would be sensitive to such questions is not surprising. Early eyewitness tradition indicates that John son of Zebedee, with whose tradition, at least, most scholars associate this Gospel, once shared leadership in the conservative Jerusalem church with both Peter and James; Gal 2:9 .) |
| The most critical element of the setting, however, is the behavior of the crowds in 6:2. That they «follow» him (6:2) suggests the language of discipleship, though the narrative concludes by reinforcing a critical motif in Johannine soteriology: it is not those who begin to follow Jesus, but those who persevere who remain his disciples (6:60–71). Their initial faith is not fully adequate, for it is merely «signs-faith» (cf. comment on 2:23–24), based on his healings of the sick (6:2) similar to the examples John provides in 4:46–53 and 5:1–9. The rest of the narrative indicates that these would-be disciples never move beyond signs-faith, never moving from seeking what Jesus could do for them to what they could do for him (6:14,26, 30). Nevertheless, Jesus «lifting his eyes» and seeing the crowds (6:4) may recall 4:35: Jesus beholds a potential harvest (παρω occurs with «eyes» elsewhere in John only in 17:1). 2. The Human Solutions (6:5–9) As the discourse will point out, the flesh can accomplish nothing; only the Spirit can give life (6:63). Mere human power was inadequate to feed such a crowd. Although John later informs us that Judas held the money bag (12:6; 13:29), Jesus directs his question to Philip (6:5), perhaps testing one of those who has already made a profession of faith in him (1:43–46; 6:6). Jesus» signs in the Gospel test the response of those who witness them, and here Jesus tests the faith of his disciples in advance. 5979 It appears that other teachers also entrusted disciples with the funds to provide for their academy. 5980 More to the point in this instance, people also sometimes tested the genuineness of others» resolve or understanding; 5981 teachers likewise sometimes put questions to their disciples purely to test them. 5982 In the larger context of John " s Christology, an experienced reader of the Gospel might even recall God testing his people in the same way (e.g., Gen 22:1 ; Exod 15:25; 16:4; 20:20; Deut 13:3 ; Judg 2:22–3:1; 7:4; 2 Chr 32:31; Jer 17:10; 20:12 ). Jesus here tests his disciples» faith, to prepare them for larger tests to come (6:67–71). 5983 |
| And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth (Gen. 7:6). And Noah lived after the (beginning of the) flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died (Gen. 9:28-29). The correctness of the inserted words is confirmed by the sum 600 + 350=950. By analogy, Shem was an hundred years old (as the flood came upon the earth) , and begat Arphaxad two years after the (beginning of the) flood (Gen. 11:10); that is, at the age of 102. Further (cf. Gen. 11:12-25), Arphaxad live 135 years and begat Cainan. After 130 years Cainan begat Salah; in 130 year Salah begat Eber; in 134 years Eber begat Peleg: in 130 years Peleg begat Reu; in 132 year Reu begat Serug; in 130 year Serug begat Nahor; in 79 years Nahor begat Terah. It follows that Terah was born in year 2162 + 102 + 135 + 130 + 130 + 134 + 130 + 132 + 130 + 79=3394 from the creation of man. And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran ; the eldest of them was Haran (cf. Gen 11:26-29). Inasmuch as Terah died in Haran at the age of 205, when Abram was 75 (cf. Gen. 11:31-32; 12:4-5), then Terah begat Abram at the age of 205 – 75=130. Abram-Abraham begat Isaac at age 100 (cf. Gen. 17:1-6; 21:5). Isaac begat Jacob at age 60 (cf. Gen. 25:25-26; 35:28); that is, in the year 3394 + 130 + 100 + 60=3554 from the creation of man. Jacob begat Joseph (cf. Gen. 30:22-24). At age 17 Joseph was sold by his brothers into Egyptian slavery (cf. Gen. 37:2-28): Prof. A. P. Lopukhin designates that at age 30, Joseph had been a slave for 13 years. At age 30, Joseph was presented to Pharoah (cf. Gen. 41:14-16, 46); after seven years of plenty and two years of hunger (cf. Gen. 41:25-30; 45:4-11) Joseph sent his brothers to bring his father, giving them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and … provision for the way (Gen. 45:21). Jacob, arriving in Egypt with his family, was presented to Pharoah at age 130 (cf. Gen. 47:7-9). It follows that Jacob-Israel (cf. Gen. 32:28) begat Joseph at age 130 – (30 + 7 + 2)=91. And inasmuch as his brothers who came to Egypt at Joseph’s request called themselves Pharoah’s slaves (cf. Gen. 46:33-34; 47:3-4), then the beginning of captivity of the future people of Israel should be considered the year 3554 + 91 + 17=3662 from the creation of man. |
| The same Prophet Hosea, proclaiming the name of God and addressing the chosen people, says: “for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee” (Hosea 11:9). God defines Himself as such, which means that holiness is one of the most important definitions of God (Cf., Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:3, 7, 26; 21:8; 22:2, 32. Jesus of Navi [Joshua] 24:15, 19. 1 Kings Samuel] 2:2, 10; 6:20; 2 Kings Samuel] 22:7; 4 Kings Kings] 19:22. 1 Paralipomena Chronicles] 16:10, 27, 35; 29:16. 2 Paralipomena Chronicles] 6:2; 30. 27. Tobit 3:11; 8:5, 15; 12:12, 15. Judith 9:13; Job 6:10; Psalms 2:6; 3:5; 5:8; 10 14 15 17 19 21 23 26 27 32 42 45 46 47 50 64 67 70 76 77 54; 78 88 97 98 5, 9; 101 102 104 42; 105 110 137 144 21; Proverbs 9:10; Wisdom of Solomon 1:5; 9:8, 10, 17; 10:20. Wisdom of Sirach 4:15; 17:8; 23:9–10; 43:11; 47:9, 12; 48:23. Esaias [Isaiah] 1:4; 5:16, 19, 24; 6:3; 8:13; 10:17, 20; 11:9; 12:6; 17:7; 29:19, 23; 30:11–12, 15; 31:1; 37:23; 40:25; 41:14, 16, 20; 43:3, 14–15; 45:11; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7; 52:19; 54:5; 55:5; 56:7; 57:13, 15; 58:13; 60:9, 14; 63:10–11; 65:11, 25; 66:20. Jeremias [Jeremiah] 23:9; 31:23; 50:29; 51:5. Baruch 2:16; 4:22, 37; 5:5; 20:39–40; 28: 14; 36:20–22; 39:7, 25. Ezekiel 43:7–8; Daniel 3:52–53; 4:5–6, 10, 14–15, 20; 5:11; 9:16, 20, 24. Joel 2:1; 3:17; Amos 2:7. Abidias 1:16. Jonas 2:5, 8; Michaias [Micah] 1:2; Abbacum [Habbakuk] 1:12; 2:20; 3:3; Sophonias [Zephaniah] 3: 11–12; Zacharias [Zechariah] 2:13; 2 Maccabees 8:15; 14:36; 15:32; 3 Maccabees 2:2, 11, 16; 5:8; 6:1–2, 4, 17, 26; 7:8; 2 Esdras 14:22; Matthew 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:32; 28:19. Mark 1:8, 24, 29; 12:36; 13:11; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 49, 67, 72; 2:25–26; 3:16, 22; 4: 1, 34; 11:13; 12:10, 12. John 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 17:11; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33, 38; 3:14; 4:8, 25, 27, 30–31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17–19, 39; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44–45, 47; 11:15–16, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 35, 52; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25. 1 Peter 1:12, 15–16; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 John 2:20; 5:7. Jude 1:20; Romans 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 3:17; 6:19; 12:3; 2 Corinthians 6:6; 13:13. Ephesians 3:5; 4: 30; 1 Thessalonians 1:5–6; 4:8; 2 Timothy 1:14; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 3:7; 6: 4; 9:8, 14; 10: 15; Revelation 3:7; 4:8; 6:10; 15:3–4; 16:5). |
| That John calls Nicodemus νθρωπος, a «man» or «person» of the Pharisees (3:1), may be inconsequential (the term appears more than fifty times in the Gospel), but «a Pharisee» would have been simpler; this term appears nowhere else in the Gospel linked with Pharisees in the genitive. John probably employs the term here to make explicit the connection with the «people» (νθρωπου … νθρπω) whose hearts Jesus knew in 2:25. The «ruler of the Jews» title connects him with the elite who oppose Jesus (7:48)–showing that in Johns narrative world, even some of the prime representatives of «the world» can ultimately become Jesus» followers (19:39). The rulers are not a Johannine invention (Luke 14:1; 18:18; 23:13, 35; 24:20), but John uses them to timely effect in contrasting the Judean elite with Jesus» Galilean followers. The few references to them might all imply the inclusion of Nicodemus (cf. 7:26,48), and they therefore appear less uniformly hostile than «the Pharisees» (12:42), although Nicodemus is also one of the Pharisees, and they, too, appear divided at points (9:16). Because Nicodemus appears to be a prominent figure, some have suggested that John appeals to the prominent Nakdimon ben Gorion, who might have been a very young man in the time of Jesus, forty years before Jerusalem " s destruction. 4759 That Nakdimon was one of the wealthiest and most powerful aristocrats by the time of the Judean-Roman war 4760 might fit John " s portrait, but Nakdimon ben Gorion was also considered very pious by rabbinic standards, 4761 which would suggest that no one in that line of tradition noticed any faith in Jesus on his part. Nicodemus was not, however, an unusual name among Greek-speaking Jews; a prominent one from Rome is a case in point. 4762 Thus most commentators doubt an identification between John " s Nicodemus and the son of Gorion. 4763 What may be significant is that Nicodemus is named at al1. Certainly many other figures in the Gospel, such as the woman in 4:7–42 or the men in 5:5–15 and 9:1–38, remain anonymous. They may remain anonymous unlike Nicodemus because John " s tradition would be more apt to preserve the events of their encounter with Jesus than their names, whereas Nicodemus was of such a stratum of Jewish society that the tradition would preserve his name as wel1. Yet it is also the case that Nicodemus must be named for literary reasons; it would be more difficult for any but the most diligent reader to recognize his recurrence in 7and 19if he remained anonymous, even if he were described by some other traits. |
| Jesus revealed to the disciples God " s «name» (17:6), partly meaning his honor 9437 but very probably also implying his character and identity (14:9; 17:26). 9438 Acting by God " s name could represent dependence on God (e.g., 1QM 11.3). When God acted in history, he often did so for the sanctifying of his name, 9439 as he would do also at the final day. 9440 God expected his people to sanctify his name (kiddush haShem was central to Jewish ethics), especially by righteous deeds. 9441 Some rabbis opined that God " s name was hidden in the present age but would be revealed in the coming age; 9442 Jesus» revelation of the Father " s name is thus consonant with John " s emphasis on realized eschatology. Moses sought to know God " s «name» to reveal God to the people (Exod 3:13; cf. 33:18; 34:6–7); here Jesus provides his disciples, who are like Moses, with the same privilege. 9443 This experience would continue more fully after Jesus» glorification (14:21). That Jesus» disciples kept the word he gave them (17:6; cf. 8:51; 14:23; 15:20), as Jesus kept the Father " s (8:55), may recall the obedience of Moses but probably reflects more generally the obedience of Israel or a faithful remnant within Israel ( Deut 33:3, 9 ) . 9444 Yet in giving them the Father " s word (17:6, 8), Jesus is again greater than Moses, who gave the word to Israel; in John " s language, the law was given «through» Moses, but the actual giver of the law was God himself (1:17; cf. 6:32); thus the passage again portrays Jesus in a divine role. At the same time, Jesus remains subordinate to the Father, emphasizing that whatever he gave the disciples was from the Father (17:7). Perhaps, in the language of Exodus, Jesus is the «angel of YHWH» (Exod 3:2), but in the language of John (1:1–18) and of the early Jewish context he reflects, Jesus is divine Wisdom, which imparts God " s teachings to Moses and all those who will hear (e.g., Wis 7:27; 10:16; 11:1). The disciples realized that all that the Father had given Jesus was genuinely from the Father (17:7), in this case referring especially to Jesus» message (17:8; cf. 12:47–50; 16:15). That the Father had «given» disciples to Jesus (17:9; also 17:24) reiterates a striking image in the Fourth Gospe1. Early Judaism taught that Israel as a whole was predestined (see comment on 6:43–44), but like some other early Jewish Christian writers (e.g., Rom 9:6–32 ; Eph 1:4–5 ), John emphasizes the predestination of individuals in Christ through their faith in Christ. Jesus prays on behalf of the disciples (17:9) in a way that provides a model for how disciples will soon be authorized to pray for themselves in his name (16:26–27). |
| In the Prophet Hosea, we find this definition of God: “I am God, and not man.” If God, Who has reason and will, as is clearly reflected in the Bible (3 Kings Kings] 3:28; Job 12:13, 16; Proverbs 3:19-20; Sirach 1:1, 5; 15:18, 42:21; Esaias [Isaiah] 11:2; 28:29; Luke 11:49; Romans 11:33; 14:26; 1 Corinthians 1: 21, 24; 2:7. Will of God: Psalm 106 11; Wisdom 6:4; Mark 3:35; Luke 7:30; Acts 20:27; 1 Peter 2:15; 3:17; 4:2, 19; 1 John 2:17; Romans 1:10; 8:27; 12:2; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 8:5; Ephesians 5:17; 6:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 5:18; Hebrews 10:36; Revelation 17:17), is not man, this means that He is a being of another order, located by His nature beyond our world. He, as philosophers and theologians say, is transcendent with respect to the world. This transcendence – that is, God’s natural distinction from the physical world – is described in the Bible by the word “Spirit.” “God is a spirit” (John 4:24. Cf., Genesis 1:2; 6:3; 41:38; Exodus 15:10; 31:3. Numbers 11:29; 23:6; 24:2; Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Kings Samuel] 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13; 19:20, 23; 2 Kings Samuel] 23:2; 3 Kings Kings] 18:12; 1 Paralipomena Chronicles] 15:1; 2 Paralipomena Chronicles] 15:1; 20: 14; 24:20; Neemias [Nehemiah] 9:20; Judith 16:14; Job 4:9; 26: 13; 33:4; Psalms 32 50 103 138 142 Wisdom of Solomon 1:7; 9:17; 12:1; Esaias [Isaiah] 11:2; 32:15; 34:16; 42:1; 44:3; 48:16; 61:1; 63:10–14. Ezekiel 11:1, 5; Aggeus [Haggai] 2:5; Zacharias 4:6; 7:12; 2 Esdras 6:37; Matthew 1:20; 3:16; 4:1; 10:20; 12:31–32; 28:19. Mark 1:10, 12; 3:29; 13:11; Luke 1:35, 67; 2:26; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 11:13; 12:10, 12; John 1:32–33; 3:5–6, 8, 34; 6:63; 7:39; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 17–18, 33, 38; 5:3, 9; 7:51; 8:29; 9:31; 10:19; 11:12, 28; 13:2, 4; 15:28; 16:6–7; 19:6; 20:22–23, 28; 21:11; 28:25. 1 Peter 1:2, 11–12, 22; 5:5; 8:9, 11, 14–16, 23, 26–27; 11:8; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19, 30; 1 Corinthians 2:10–14; 3:16; 6:11, 19; 12: 3–4, 8–11, 13; 15:45; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 3:3, 17–18; 5:5; Galatians 3:5, 14; 4: 6; Ephesians 1:13, 17; 2:18. 22; 3:5, 16; 4:30; 5:9; Philippians 1:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:5–6; 4:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:8, 13; 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1; 2 Timomhy 1:14; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 3:7; 6:4; 9:8, 14; 10:15, 29; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 14:13; 22:17). |
| 5899 E.g., 2 Bar. 51:1–2; cf. t. Ber. 6:6. For distinction after death, see 1 En. 22:9–11; cf. sources in Keener, Matthew, 129, on Gehinnom, and 710–11, on the resurrection of the dead. 5900 It appears in most streams of NT tradition and is denied in none: Acts 24:15; 2Cor 5:10 ; Rev 20:4–6; Matt 25:46; cf. Matt 5:29–30; 10:28; Luke 11:32; Bernard, John, 1:245. 5901 1QS 4.13–14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in t. Sanh. 13:3,4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5; cf. 2Macc 12:43–45. By contrast, the souls of the wicked will remain in hell on the day of judgment in 1 En. 22:13; 61:5; 108:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanh. 13:5; probably L.A.B. 38:4; Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; t. Ber. 5:31. 5902 Ps 62:12 ; Prov 24:12 ; Sir 16:12,14 ; Matt 16:27; Rom 2:6 ; 2Cor 11:15 ; Rev 22:12; Pesiq. Rab. 8:2; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.2.3. 5903 It continued in widespread use (Josephus Life 256; Ant. 4.219; b. Sanh. 37b, bar.; p. Git. 4:1, §2; cf. m. Roš Haš. 1:7; 2:6); see further the comment under 8:13. Early Christians also employed this rule; see 2Cor 13:1 ; 1Tim 5:19 ; Matt 18:16. 5904 Boring et al, Commentary, 270–71, cites Cicero Rose. Amer. 36.103. Witnesses confirmed a matter (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 26), and a claim offered without them might be scathingly contested (Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111). 5905 E.g., Lysias Or. 4.5–6, §101; 7.12–18, §§109–110; 12.27–28, §122; 19.24, §154; 29.7, §182; Cicero Quinct. 24.76. Establishing a credible motive was standard procedure for the prosecution (Cicero Rose. Amer. 22.61–62). 5906 E.g., Isaeus Estate of Cleonymus 31–32, §37; Estate of Hagnias 6; Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111; 7.43, §112. Cf. the preference for multiple and diverse testimonies, e.g., in Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 61, §19D; for challenging the credibility of opposing witnesses, see, e.g., Hermogenes Issues 45.5–10. 5907 Cicero Quinct. 23.75. 5908 The witness of one person was inadequate in many kinds of cases (Boice, Witness, 47, cites m. Ketub. 2:9; Roè Haï. 3:1); self-accusation, by contrast, could invite condemnation (Achilles Tatius 7.11.1; though in early Judaism cf. Cohn, Trial, 98). In some matters, however, onés self-testimony was held reliable (e.g., m. Ketub. 2:10), even against two witnesses (m. Tehar. 5:9). |
| 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 |
| 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]). |
|
|
