| 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). |
| The kings that Furuli suggests may have ruled as Babylonian kings during the NeoBabylonian period will be discussed one by one. In order to move the reign of Nebuchadnezzar backwards it is important for the Watchtower Society and its Oslo apologist to have the supposed extra kings ruling after Nebuchadnezzar. It would not be of any help for them to place them as Babylonian kings before the reign of Nebuchadnezzar or before the reign of his father Nabopolassar. (1) “Sinšarraiškun”, (2) “Sinšumulišir”, and (3) “Aššuretelilni” The three Assyrian kings Sinšarraiškun, Sinšumulišir, and Aššuretelilni are wellknown to authorities on AssyroBabylonian history. Aššuretelilni and Sinšarraiškun were both sons and successors of Assurbanipal, and Sinšumulišir was a high official at the Assyrian court whom Assurbanipal had appointed as tutor or mentor of Aššuretelilni, Assurbanipal’s heir and immediate successor to the Assyrian throne. This is information given by cuneiform texts from this period. The strange thing is that Furuli does not mention any of these facts! He does state on page 65 that the three kings are “believed to have ruled in Assyria after Sennacherib” (704681 BCE). But he does not explain that they actually ruled after the grandson of Sennacherib, i.e., after Assurbanipal (668627 BCE). Arguing that these three kings in reality may have ruled in Babylonia after the NeoBabylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (604562 BCE), Furuli first claims that they were not Assyrian but Babylonian kings. On page 66 he states that “the dated tablets show that they were kings in Babylon (not Assyria) for 7 years, 4 years, and 1 year respectively.” On page 65 he says: “The data regarding these kings show that they reigned at least 7, 1, and 4 years respectively, but the tablets dated in their reigns show that they were Babyloniankings. This is problematic from the point of view of the traditional chronology, because there is no room for these reigns, even if there was some kind of coregency.” (Furuli, p. 65) |
| 25 3 Kgd 19:9 ff. 26 Probably an echo of both the chariot in which Elijah ascends into heaven in 4 Kgd 2:11, and of the chariot of the soul in Plato’s Phaedrus (246A-C). 27 Cf. 4 Kgd 2:1ff. 28 Probably commenting on 4 Kgd 1:9–12, but alluding also to 4 Kgd 6:15–17. 29 Cf. 1 Kgd 1:9–20. 30 Cf. Lev. 14:33–42 . 31 Cf. 3 Kgd 17:8–24. 32 Cf. Matt. 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8 , Luke 9:28–36. 33 Cf. Isa. 53:2. 34 Cf. Psa. 44:3. 35 Cf. John 1:1 . 36 Apophasis: Maximus introduces here the technical terms of apophatic and cataphatic theology. 37 Cf. John 1:14 . 38 This section develops the theme just introduced in the dual interpretation of the radiant garments of the Transfigured Christ as both Scriptures and creation. 39 The Evagrian triad of ascetic struggle (praktike), natural contemplation (physike), and theology was related by Origen to a very similar classification of the categories of philosophy in the prologue to his Commentary on the Song of Songs: see Louth (1981), 57–8. 40 Cf. Denys the Areopagite, Ep. 9.1 (1105D). 41 Literally: in a Greek way. It is in contrast with the later ‘in a Jewish way’: cf. St Paul’s contrast between Greeks/Gentiles and Jews, especially in Rom. 1–3 . 42 Cf. Phil. 3.19 . 43 A metaphor for the Incarnation used by Gregory Nazianzen in Sermon 38.2 (PG 36:313B). Maximus devotes a Difficulty to Gregory’s use of the term (suspected of Origenism?): Amb. 33:1285C-1288A, where the Word’s expressing itself in letters and words is one of the interpretations offered of the metaphor. 44 Cf. Gen. 39:11–12 . 45 This is an important section in which Maximus reworks a fundamental Evagrian theme. For Evagrius, the five modes of contemplation are: 1. contemplation of the adorable and holy Trinity, 2. and 3. contemplation of incorporeal and incorporeal beings, 4. and 5. contemplation of judgment and providence (Centuries on Spiritual Knowledge I.27, in Guillaumont 1958 ). Maximus’ understanding is quite different. See Thunberg (1965), 69–75 and Gersh (1978), 226–7. 46 I do not know where Maximus gets these five secret meanings (or hidden logoi) from. They recall Plato’s ‘five greatest kinds’ (being, rest, motion, sameness and difference: see Sophist 254D-255C), but are evidently not the same. |
| 9054 Mitchell, «Friends,» 259, citing Cicero Amic. 6.22. Masters also should avoid confiding in servants (Theophrastus Char. 4.2). 9057 Plutarch Flatterer 24, Mor. 65AB (LCL 1:344–45); cf. Flatterer 17, Mor. 59A; Educ. 17, Mor. 13B. Cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 39. 9063 Aristotle N.E. 9.8.2, 1168b, cited in Stowers, Letter Writing, 58; Witherington, Acts, 205 (on Acts 4:32). Cf. Arius Didymus 11C. 9065 Martial Epigr. 2.43.1–16; Herodian 3.6.1–2; Cornelius Nepos 15 (Epaminondas), 3.4; Iambli-chus V.P. 19.92 (cf. 29.162; 30.167–168; 33.237–240); cf. 1Macc 12and perhaps Ps.-Phoc. 30; Euripides Andr. 585 (but cf. 632–635); Plutarch Bride 19, Mor. 140D; Longus 1.10; Martial Epigr. 8.18.9–10. 9066 E.g., Alciphron Farmers 27 (Ampelion to Euergus), 3.30, par. 3; 29 (Comarchides to Euchaetes), 3.73, par. 2; Fishermen 7 (Thlassus to Pontius), 1.7. 9069 Diogenes Laertius 7.1.125; Plutarch Cicero 25.4. On friendship between good men and the gods, cf., e.g., Seneca Dia1. 1.1.5; on all things belonging to them, Seneca Benef. 7.4.6, cf. Philo Cherubim 84. The maxim is especially cited in works on 1Corinthians (Willis, Meat, 169; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 80; cf. also Fitzgerald, Cracks, 200–201; Grant, Christianity, 102–3). 9070 E.g., people invoked divinities as φλοι, to help them in battle (Aeschylus Sept. 174); cf. a mortal as a «friend» who honors his patron demigod in Philostratus Hrk. 58.1 (the hero is also his friend in 10.2); cf. perhaps Iamblichus V.P. 10.53 (where the friendship is demonstrated by deities» past favors). 9071 This observation (in contrast to some other observations above) may run counter to the suggestion of Judge (Pattern, 38) that w. 13–15 of John 15 «reveal the peculiar combination of intimacy and subordination» characteristic of the patronal relationship. 9073 Maximus of Tyre Or. 19.4; Iamblichus V.P. 33.229. This might involve sharing the divine character (Iamblichus V.P. 33.240). 9074 Crates Ep. 26, to the Athenians (Gyn. Ep. 76–77); cf. likewise Diog. Ep. 10, to Metrocles (Cyn. Ep. 104–5). Cf. Plato Leg. 4.716D (cited in Mayor, James, cxxv); fellowship between mortals and deities in the golden age (Babrius pro1.13). |
| 101 Евхаристиа 3. Taken from Faber, Dominica 2 Post Pentecosten, No. 1 «S. Eucharistia coena magna», sect. 3 «Ex epulis selectissimis». 11. 1–6 cf Faber: «Deinde cibus Eucharisticus mira arte confectus est. Nam primo per consecrationem uno verbo et in momento mutatur panis in Corpus Christi.» 11. 7–8 cf Faber: «Secundo, accidentia panis remanent sine subiecto.» 11. 9–14 cf Faber: «Tertio, Christus cum tota sua naturali quantitate est in parva hostia et in quavis eius parte, si frangatur.» Евхаристиа 4. Taken from Faber, ibid., sect. 6 «Ex maximo periculo». 11. 1–6 cf Faber: «Hinc canit Ecclesia: Mors est malis, vita bonis, vide paris sum ptionis quam sit dispar exitus.» 11. 7–14 cf Faber: «Sic mel nocet cholericis, prodest phlegmaticis. Sic eadem columna illuminavit Hebraeos, excoecavit Aegyptios. Exod. 14. ut habetur ex Chaldaeo. Sic ex eodem fonte Hebraei hauriebant aquam claram, Aegyptii vero sanguinem, ut scribit Iosephus. Sic ex eodem flore apis sugit mel, aranea venenum.» 11. 15–16 are not taken from Faber. Евхаристиа 5. Taken from Meffreth, In Festo Corporis Christi, No. 2. 11.1–10 cf Meffreth: «Multa mirabilia sunt in hoc Sacramento, vt dicit Thom: de Argen: in Compend: Theolog: verita: li. 6. Primum est quod ibi est corpus Christi in tanta quantitate, sicut fuit in cruce, & sicut iam est in coelo, nec tarnen excedit terminos illius formae.» 11. 11–14 cf Meffreth: «Secundum quod ibi sunt accidentia sine subiecto.» 11. 15–16 cf Meffreth: «Tertium quod conuertitur ibi panis in corpus Christi, nec etiam annihilatur.» 11. 17–22 cf Meffreth: «Quartum quod corpus non augetur ex multarum hostiarum consecratione, nec minuitur ex multarum hostiarum sumptione.» 11. 23–28 cf Meffreth: «Quintum quod idem corpus in numéro est in locis pluribus sub omnibus hostijs consecratis.» 11. 29–32 cf Meffreth: «Sextum quod quando diuiditur hostia non diuiditur corpus Christi, sed sub qualibet parte totus est Christus.» 11. 33–40 cf Meffreth: «Septimum quando tenetur hostia in manibus, & videtur oculis corpus Christi, nec tangitur nec videtur, sed haec tantum modo circa species sunt.» 11. |
| 1247 Sambursky, «Gematria»; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 103, citing Cicero Inv. 2.40.116; Hengel, Hellenism, l:80ff.; Lieberman, Hellenism, 47–82. Some may also reflect Babylonian sources (Cavigneaux, «Sources»). 1248 Judith 16:7; Josephus War 1.353; 2.155–158; Ag. Ap. 1.255; 2.263; Pesiq. Rab. 20(cf. Greek Phlegethon; cf. the Elysian plain and Acherusian lake in Sib. Or. 2.337–338, probably Christian redaction; Apoc. Mos. 37:3). 1249 E.g., Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27.3; Sib. Or. 2.15 (Poseidon); 2.19 (Hephaistos); 3.22 (Tethys); 3.110–116, 121–155, 551–554, 588 (euhemeristic; cf. similarly Let. Aris. 136; Sib. Or. 3.723; 8.43–47); 5.334 (personification; cf. also 7.46; 11.104, 147, 187, 205, 219, 278; 12:53, 278; 14.56, 115); T. Job 1.3 (cornucopia); 51:1/2 (perhaps allusion to Nereus, also in Sib. Or. 1.232); cf. (not Greek) Ishtar as an evil spirit in Text 43:6–7, perhaps 53:12, Isbell, 103; cf. art (some of it in Palestinian synagogues) in Goodenough, Symbols, vols. 7–8 (and Dura Europos synagogue, vols. 9–11, and 12:158–183). 1250 The clear examples are few (even Egyptian use may have been more common; cf. «Biblés Psalm»), despite apologetic protestations to the contrary (e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.165; 2.257). 1252 E.g., Martin, Colossians, 18–19; Knox, Gentiles, 149; Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 259. Although an Egyptian provenance for the Testament of Solomon is possible, I would favor an Asian provenance, given its date (cf. also Artemis in 8:11, etc.), and stress the magical-mystical nature of some of Judaism in Asia. 1253 So Kennedy, Epistles, 14, 22; Robinson, Redating, 294. Palestine had its Pharisees and Essenes, but had even more Am Háarets. 1258 Cf. CD 5.6–8; lQpHab 9.6–7. Others also believed that profaning the temple could bring judgment, although not applying it to this time (Pss. So1. 1:8; 2:1–10; Josephus War 5.17–18; cf. the ambiguous evaluation of Tannaitic sources in Goldenberg, «Explanations»). 1263 Grant, Gods, 51; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 121–22; Conzelmann, «Areopagus,» 224; van de Bunt-van den Hoek, «Aristobulos»; cf. Renehan, «Quotations.» Jewish and early Christian texts often followed the Greek practice (instilled in school memorization exercises) of citing or alluding to Homer (e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 195–197; Syr. Men. 78–93; Josephus Ant. 1.222; Sib. Or. 3.401–432, passim; 3.814; 5.9; 2 Bar. 10:8; Tatian 8; cf. Rahmani, «Cameo») or other poets (Acts 17:28; 1Cor 15:33 ; Tit 1:12 ; Justin 1 Apo1. 39; Theophilus 2.37; Athenagoras 5–6; cf. Manns, «Source»), or proverbs originally based on them. |
| By claiming that these kings were Balylonian and not Assyrian kings Furuli creates a problem that does not exist: If they were Babylonian kings, they cannot have ruled in Babylonia at the same time as Nabopolassar, but must have reigned in Babylonia before this king. The problem created by this conclusion is that there is “no room” for their reigns of 7+4+1 years between Kandalanu and Nabopolassar. (Furuli, p. 66) This paves the way for Furuli’s idea that they may have ruled after Nebuchadnezzar: “On the basis of the problems of finding room for these kings before Nabopolassar, we may ask whether one or more of these kings ruled Babylon during the years where we completely lack historical data, namely, after Nebuchadnezzar and before Nabunaid. In other words, can any of these kings fill a part of the possible gap of twenty years in the NeoBabylonian Empire?” (Furuli, p. 67) The statement that we “completely lack historical data” from the period between the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus is false. Chronology belongs to the “historical data” as it is the very “backbone of history,” and the chronology of this period is completely known. There are also other historical data from this period. A Babylonian Chronicle, BM 25124 (=Chronicle 6 in A. K. Grayson’s Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Eisenbrauns 2000 reprint of the 1975 edition) gives information about a campaign by Neriglissar in his third year. Some of Nabonidus’ inscriptions also give information about his predecessors. (PaulAlain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556559 B.C., New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989, pp. 21, 8497, 106, 110111, 123125) Further, Berossus, who is known to have used sources from the NeoBabylonian period, gives both chronological and historical information about the four kings who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar: AmelMarduk, Neriglissar, LabashiMarduk, and Nabonidus. See Stanley Mayer Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1978), p. 28. |
| 2819 Goppelt, Theology, 1:45. 2820 Ovid Metam. 14.136–144; cf. Aulus Gellius 2.16.10. A more helpful Hellenistic notion would be «immortality» (cf. 1Cor 15:53–54 ), though to some Greeks it would connote apotheosis. 2821 See above, pp. 178–79, 292–93. 2822 Dodd, Interpretation, 14,151; cf. true being in Plato Rep. 6.490AB. 2823 Schedl, History, 1:293; cf. Hos 6:2–3 . 2824 Buchanan, Consequences, 131–34; for Qumran, cf. Schütz, «Knowledge,» 397; and life for a thousand generations in 4Q171 1–2 3.1. 2825 Isis 1, Mor. 351E. 2826 Dodd, Interpretation, 144–50. 2827 Pss. So1. 3:12, using the full expression; cf. 13:11. 2828 M. " Abot 2:7, attributed to Hillel; b. Ber. 28b; Lev. Rab. 13:2; CIJ 1:422, §569 (Hebrew funerary inscription from Italy); 1:474, §661 (sixth-century Hebrew inscription from Spain); 2:443, §1536 (Semitic letters, from Egypt); cf. Abrahams, Studies, 1:168–70; Philo Flight 77. The usage in 1 En. 10(cf. 15:6; 25:6) and Jub. 5(cf. 30:20) is more restrictive, perhaps figurative; the Similtudes, however, seem to follow the ordinary usage (37:4; 58:3,6), and the circles from which 1 En. and Jub. derive probably used «long duration» language to represent eternity as well (CD 7.5–6; cf. Sir 18:10 ); for «eternal life» in the DSS, see also 4Q181 (Vermes, Scrolls, 251–52); Coetzee, «Life,» 48–66; Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 414. «Eternal» occurs with other nouns (e.g., Wis 10:14; 1QS 2.3) far more rarely. 2829 Tob 12:9–10; Ladd, Theology, 255, also cites Pss. So1. 14:7; 2Macc 7:9–14; 4 Ezra 7:137; 14:22); see Manson, Paul and John, 112 n. 1. 2830 Sipre Deut. 305.3.2,3. 2831 4 Macc 17:18, using a cognate of βος rather than of ζω. Cf. T. Ab. 20:14A. 2832 Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 159; Bultmann, Theology, 2:159; Ladd, Theology, 255–56. See, e.g., Mark 10:17, 30 ; Matt 25:46; Acts 13:46, 48; Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23 ; Gal 6:8 ; 1Tim 1:16; 6:12 ; Tit 1:2; 3:7 ; Jude 21. 2833 See Filson, «Life,» 114; Simon, «Life.» 2834 Dodd, Studies, 149. 2835 Marcus Aurelius 4.2; Epictetus frg. 3 (LCL 2:442–43; but cf. frg. 4). |
| 3273 See Meeks, Prophet-King, 103–6. It is helpful here to compare the divinization of Plato and other teachers in Hellenistic tradition (e.g., Diogenes Laertius 2.100; 6.2.63; 6.9.104; 8.1.11; 9.7.39; Plutarch Profit by Enemies 8, Mor. 90C; Apol1. 36, Mor. 120D; cf. Cicero Leg. 3.1.1); cf. lawgivers in Musonius Rufus 15, p. 96.24. One may also think of hyperbolic comparisons employed in popular rhetoric; see, e.g., Cicero De or. 1.10.40; 1.38.172; Or. Brut. 19.62. 3274 E.g., Philo Sacrifices 9; cf. Runia, «God.» Cf. explanations of Exod 7in Exod. Rab. 8:1; Num. Rab. 15:13. Cf. Metatron (originally a personification) as a lesser YHWH in 3 En. 12(though he turns out to be Enoch in 3 En. 4:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 4:24 ; cf. further Scholem, Gnosticism, 43–46); the righteous Messiah, and Jerusalem called by the Lord " s name (b. B. Bat. 75b; cf. Jer 23:6 ; Ezek 48:35 ); and Israel as a god (Gen. Rab. 98:3, fourth-century Amoraim). Yet R. Simeon ben Yohai (late second century) taught that associating God " s name with other gods was worse than denying his existence (b. Sanh. 63a). 3276 Contrast Williamson, «Philo»; Chilton, Approaches, 200–201; their comparisons are nevertheless valuable. 3277 Cf. also Bultmann, John, 33 (rejecting especially Hellenistic and gnostic «polytheistic conceptions and emanationist theories» that neglect the text " s monotheistic sense); Stuart, «Examination,» 42. Greek scholars consistently deride the «a god» translation; cf., e.g., Metzger, «Translation,» 125; and esp. Bruce, Booh, 60 n. 4: those who translate «a god» here «prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar.» 3279 E.g., Josephus Ant. 10.180; cf. Stuart, «Examination,» 42; Bultmann, John, 33; Brown, John, 1:5; Harris, Jesus as God, 287. On Josephus " s general sense for τ θεv, cf. Shutt, «Concept.» 3282 Metzger, «Translation,» 125; cf. Clark, Logos, 21; Sanders, John, 70 (citing the predicate nominative of 1:4). It should be noted, of course, that a writer who wished to emphasize that a predicate noun was definite was free to insert the article (Harner, «Nouns,» 87); and the pattern does not always obtain even in the context ( John 1:8–9 ). |
| 3449 Painter, «Christology,» 51: «In the beginning» vs. «came to be» (though cf. 1:14); «was with God» vs. «sent from God» (though this often depicts Christ, too); «was God» vs. «his name was lohn»; «in the beginning with God» vs. «came for a witness»; «all things came to be through him … in him was life … the light of men» vs. «to witness concerning the light.» These parallels are inexact, but the contrast of 1:8–9 is explicit. 3450 Fritsch, Community, 117, who adds that this «could explain how the Evangelist came to know so much about John the Baptist and the Essene-Covenanter background out of which he came.» Longenecker, Ministry, 70, suggests that the «one baptism» of Eph 4shares this polemical context. Cf. Bultmann, Tradition, 165; Morris, John, 88. 3451 Daniélou, Theology, 62. Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.54 warns that some followers of the Baptist proclaimed him the Christ (cited in Michaels, John, 7; cf. Luke 3:15). 3452 Stanton, Gospels, 167; Kysar, «Contributions of Prologue,» 359 n. 32; cf. still more strongly Smalley, John, 127. Taking an exalted self-understanding back to the Baptist himself (Hengel, Leader, 36) is even harder to argue. 3453 Cf. Kysar, «Contributions,» 359 (suggesting «Jewish opponents… arguing that Jesus was the equal of John the Baptist but no more»). His concessions to Bultmann, but with the warning that Bultmann certainly exaggerated, are in his n. 32. 3454 Cf. Fiorenza, Revelation, 195; cf. also Collins, Oracles, 118, who remarks concerning Egyptian oracles that the purpose of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles «was primarily to establish common ground between the Jewish and gentile worlds.» 3455 «Balaam» suggests an oracular connection (Aune, Prophecy, 218; as the greatest pagan prophet, cf. Josephus Ant. 4.104; Sipre Deut. 343.6.1; 357.18.1–2; Exod. Rab. 32:3; Num. Rab. 14:20; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1; as philosopher or sage, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Gen. Rab. 65:20; 93:10; Lam. Rab. proem 2), but he also epitomized wickedness in Jewish lore (e.g., «the wicked Balaam» in m. " Abot 5:19; b. c Abod. Zar. 4a; Ber. 7a; Sanh. 105b, 106a; cf. Exod. Rab. 30:20; Num. Rab. 20:6), these traditions supplying details missing in Num 22–25 ; Mic 6:5 : leading Israel to immorality, hence judgment (Josephus Ant. 4.157; LA.B. 18:13; Sipre Deut. 252.1.4; p. Sanh. 10:2, §8; cf. Jude 11; Judith 5:20–21; p. Ta c an. 4:5, §10), greed and eschatological shortsightedness ( 2Pet 2:15 ; Pesiq. Rab. 41:3), folly ( 2Pet 2:15 ; Philo Cherubim 32; Worse 71; Unchangeable 181; Confusion 64, 159; Migration 115–cited by LCL l:xxv; Ecc1. Rab. 2:15, §2), and vanity (Philo Confusion 159; m. " Abot 5:19); cf. Caird, Revelation, 39, who cites Philo Moses 1.292–304; Josephus Ant. 4.126–130 in support of the idea that religious syncretism is in view here. |
|
|
