| 3561 Sipre Deut. 43.8.1; b. Šabb. 31a; Yoma 76a; Exod. Rab. 15:30; Lev. Rab. 10:3; Num. Rab. 16:7; Deut. Rab. 2:24; 10:4; Lam. Rab. proem 2; Lam. Rab. 1:17, §52; SongRab. 2:16, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 15(often in parables); cf. Gen. Rab. 86(modeled after Exod 4:22, but the tradition is attested early in Jub. 19:29). 3562 E.g., " Abot R. Nat. 35, §77; 44, §124 B; Sipra Behuq.pq. 2.262.1.9; Sipre Deut. 43.16.1; 45.1.2; 352.7.1; b. Šabb. 31a, 128a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:5; 14:5; Exod. Rab. 46:4–5; Num. Rab. 5:3; 10:2; Deut. Rab. 1:6; 3:15; Lam. Rab. proem 23; Lam. Rab. 3:20, §7. 3563 Sipre Deut. 96.4.1; cf. similarly Sipre Deut. 308.1.2. The discussion continues in later texts: Israel are God " s children when they obey him (Deut. Rab. 7:9); God begot Israel as an only child, but will treat them as slaves if they disobey (Pesiq. Rab. 27:3; cf. John 8:35 ); Bonsirven, Judaism, 48–49, cites some other revelant texts (including Sipre Num. on 15:41). 3564 E.g., b. Ber. 7a (apocryphal bat qol to R. Ishmael), 19a (Honi the Circle-Drawer, but the antiquity of the tradition is difficult to date); cf. Sukkah 45b (R. Simeon ben Yohai). See especially Vermes on charismatic rabbis, discussed on pp. 270–72 (Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 210–11, citing b. Ta c an. 23b; followed by Borg, Vision, 45; tentatively by Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 82). 3565 See on «the Jews» in the introduction, above; cf. similarly Ellis, Genius, 24. Early Jewish readers, both Christian and non-Christian, probably assumed the idea of future inheritance in sonship language; see Hester, Inheritance, 42. 3566 E.g., m. Sotah 9:15; t. B. Qam. 7:6; Hag. 2:1; Péah 4:21; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.15; Sipre Deut. 352.1.2; b. Ber. 30a, bar.; p. Sanh. 10:2, §8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Lev. Rab. 1:3; 7:1; 35:10; see further texts in Marmorstein, Names, 56–58; cf. 3Macc 5:7; 7:6; personal prayer in Jos. Asen. 12:14. Outside 3Macc 6:8, the title appears regularly in prayers, especially in rabbinic texts (Moore, Judaism, 2:202–10; cf. McNamara, Targum, 116ff.), but these probably reflect some early and widespread prayer language (e.g., the Kaddish, adapted no later than Q in the Palestinian Jesus tradition; see Moore, Judaism, 2:213; Smith, Parallels, 136; Jeremias, Theology, 21; Jeremias, Prayers, 98); see esp. Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 40. «My father» may have sounded strange (Jeremias, Message, 17; idem, Prayers, 57; Israel as a whole applies it in Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13), but «our Father» certainly did not. For OT usage, see Jeremias, Prayers, 12; for «intertestamental» literature, see ibid., 15–16; nor is the title unique to Judaism and its religious descendants (Mbiti, Religions, 63, 83). |
| 3351 Sipre Deut. 330.1.1 (trans. Neusner, 2:376); cf. later texts in Gen. Rab. 3:2; 28:2; Deut. Rab. 5:13; p. Ber. 6:1, §6; Deut 33in Targum Onqelos (Memra; cited in Moore, «Intermediaries,» 46); cf. also 1 Clem. 27. Targum Neofiti on the creation narrative emphasizes the creativity of the word of the Lord even more; see Schwarz, «Gen.» 3352 E.g., Mek. Sir. 3.44–45,49–51; 8.88; 10.29–31; Mek. c Am. 3.154–155; Mek. Bah. 11.111–112; Mek. Nez. 18.67–68; t. B. Qam. 7:10; Sipre Num. 78.4.1; 102.4.1; 103.1.1; SipreDeut. 33.1.1; 38.1.3–4; 49.2.2; 343.8.1; " Abot R. Nat. 1, 27, 37 A. In later texts, cf. the translation «by whose word all things exist» in b. Ber. 12a, 36ab, 38b; 40b, bar.; 44b; Sanh. 19a (pre-Tannaitic attribution); p. Pesah 2:5; Gen. Rab. 4:4,6; 32:3; 55(all Tannaitic attributions); Lev. Rab. 3:7; Num. Rab. 15:11; Deut. Rab. 7:6; Ruth Rab. 5:4; Pesiq. Rab. 21:7; Tg. Neof. on Exod 3:14; cf. Urbach, Sages 1:184–213; Marmorstein, Names, 89 (comparing also a Sumerian psalm). 3357 M. «Abot 5:1; »Abot R. Nat. 31 A; 36, §91 B; 43, §119 B; Gen. Rab. 16:1; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 399, §1092, also cite Pesiq. Rab. 108ab; cf. «The Samaritan Ten Words of Creation» in Bowman, Documents, 1–3. 3359 M. «Abot 3:l4; Sipre Deut. 48.7.1; »Abot R. Nat. 44, §124 B; Exod. Rab. 47:4; Pirqe R. E1. 11 (in Versteeg, Adam, 48); Tanhuma Beresit §l, f.6b (in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 170–71, §454; Harvey, «Torah,» 1236); cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:196–201,287. Some later rabbis went so far as to attribute the world " s creation even to specific letters (e.g., p. Hag. 2:1, §16). 3360 Philo Planting 8–10; Heir 206. God is the bonder of creation in 2 En. 48:6; Marcus Aurelius 10.1; cf. Wis 11:25. For the connection between creating and sustaining, cf. John 5:17 . Lightfoot, Colossians, 156, helpfully cites Philo Flight 112 (word); PlantingS (divine law); Heir 188 (word). 3361 Col 1(sustain; hold together) and commentaries (e.g., Lightfoot, Colossians, 156; Kennedy, Theology, 155; Lohse, Colossians, 52; Johnston, Ephesians, 59; Hanson, Unity, 112; Beasley-Murray, «Colossians,» 174); cf. Cicero Nat. d. 2.11.29 (a Stoic on reason); Wis 7(Wisdom " s movement does not contrast with Platós unchanging forms; Plato and others envisioned rapid motion in the pure heavens–see Winston, Wisdom, 182). Cf. 1 Clem. 27A; Sir 43.26 ; cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:325. |
| 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). |
| 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). |
| 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. |
| 5504 T. c Abod. Zar. 3(the tradition probably stems from ca. 200 C.E.); b. c Abod. Zar. 27a, bar.; p. Yebam. 8:1, §10. One rabbi dissents from the ruling, but not from the view that Samaritans circumcize in this name. 5506 E.g., 4Q372 frg. 1, line 12 (with 4Q371 frg. 1, 8, 11, in Wise, Scrolls, 333. It was the major known issue of rift between the groups (see Spencer, Philip, 73–75). 5507 Gen. Rab. 32:10; 81(trans. Midrash Rabbah, 1:255, 748). The story was popular, and later tradition settled on R. Jonathan (Deut. Rab. 3:6; Song Rab. 4:4, §5). Probably in response to the Samaritan tradition in this passage denying that the flood covered Gerizim, R. Levi (third-century C.E. Palestine) denied that it covered Eretz Israel (Gen. Rab. 33:6; cf. Sipre Deut. 37.3.5). On the normally low status of donkey-drivers (νηλται), cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.5.92. 5510 E.g., m. Kelim 1:6; cf. Esth. Rab. 1:17, although it also notes excessive hypocrisy in Jerusalem; Hester, Inheritance, 76. In some traditions, it is more precious to God than anything else (Num. Rab. 23:7). 5511 Though Shem owned Palestine (Jub. 9:1–13) and those who violated this division were cursed (9:14–15), Canaan specifically warranted the curse by taking Shem " s possession (9:27–34). 5512 Probably to avoid revolutionary-type implications in the minds of his Gentile readers (cf. Amaru, «Theology»). 5513 E.g., Sipre Deut. 37.1.4–6; 37.2–3.7. For the emphasis on the land in early Judaism, see, e.g., Allison, «Land,» 643. 5514 Sipre Deut. 37.3.5–6. Praising cities was a standard part of ancient rhetoric ( Ps 48 ; Aelius Aristides Oration to Rome; Isocrates Panegyricus; Panathenaicus; 5Q15; Quintilian 3.7.26; Rev 21:10–23; cf. Balch, «Encomia»). 5517 B. Móed Qat. 25a. Some Babylonian Amoraim, however, did view emigration to Eretz Israel unfavorably (b. Ber. 24b). Palestinian Amoraim often called Babylonian rabbis «rabbis of that other place» (e.g., p. Yebam. 10:1, §1) or «from over there» (e.g., p. Yebam. 10:3, §1) and urged their emigration (p. c Abod. Zar. 2:1, §1); tension over the authority of their respective rulings sometimes existed between them (p. c Abod. Zar. 2:8, §5; Ned. 6:8, §3; Sanh. 1:2, §10; cf. Stemberger, «Bedeutung»). |
| 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). |
| 3666 Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus RA. 3.1.3 (μονογενς). Bernard, John, 1:23, Hoskyns, Gospel 149, and Roberts, «Only Begotten, " » 8, cite, e.g., Judg 11:34 ; Ps 35:17 ; Jer 6:26 ; Amos 8(cf. similarly Tob 3:15; 6:10, 14; 8:17; Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; cf. Plato Tim. 31); technical exceptions include Heb 11:17; Josephus Ant. 20.19–22. They also cite non-Jewish examples in Plautus Captives 1.147,150; Aegeon Comedy of Errors 5.1.329; cf. similarly Du Plessis, ««Only Begotten,»» 30 n. 5 (on Plautus). 3667 Bernard, John, 1:23–24, and Roberts, «Only Begotten, " » 8, cite examples in Psalms (22:21; 25:16; 35:17). 3669 Sir 36:12 (πρωτγονος); Pss. So1. 18:4; 4 Ezra 6(also «only begotten,» OTP 1:536); cf. Jub. 19:29. Israel was beloved to God like an only child (Simeon ben Yohai in Exod. Rab. 52:5; Lev. Rab. 2:5; later rabbis, Song Rab. 5:16, §3; Israel as an only daughter, Song Rab. 2:14, §2; 3:11, §2). «Son» usually represents Israel in rabbinic parables (Johnston, Parables, 587). 3670 Bar 3:36–37 (γαπημνω); Pss. So1. 9(λας, öv γπησας); Jub. 31:15, 20; 4 Ezra 5:27; Rom 11:28 ; " Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B; Sipre Deut. 344.1.1; 344.3.1; 344.5.1; Song Rab. 2:1, §1; 2:1, §3; Tg. Isa. 1:4. Sipre Deut. 97.2 interprets Deut 14as declaring that «every individual Israelite is more beloved before [God] than all the nations of the world» (trans. Neusner, 1:255). Different rabbis applied the title «most beloved [of all things]» variously to Torah, the sanctuary, or Israel (Sipre Deut. 37.1.3); for some rabbis, God " s love for Israel was the heart of Torah (Goshen Gottstein, «Love»). 3671 E.g., R. Ishmael (3 En. 1:8); Esdram (Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1[ed. Wahl, 25] ); articular if the article for «holy prophet» includes this, the κα being epexegetical); Sedrach (Apoc. Sedr. 3[ed. Wahl, 39]). Early Christian texts naturally transfer the title to Jesus ( Mark 1:11; 9:7 ; Matt 3:17: 17:5; Luke 3:22; Eph 1:6 ; Acts Paul 3:11Paul and Thecla 1; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4[ed. Wahl, 30]). Ancients regarded being the «beloved of the gods» (θεοφιλς) a special privilege (Plutarch Lycurgus 5.3, LCL 1:216–17). |
| 3146 P. Meg. 1:5, §4; cf. b. Šabb. 104a: prophets reinstituted Moses» forgotten laws (cf. 4 Ezra 14:44–46), but even a prophet could make no innovations after Moses. Cf. Sipre Deut. 11:17, cited in Bonsirven, Judaism, 219: the law would not be altered. 3151 See 4Q176, frg. 1, 4, 14, 24, 31 and line 14, as assembled in Wise, Scrolls, 237 (it is unlikely that the «second» law book is Exod or Deut here). 3153 Sipre Deut. 345.2.2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:9; Exod. Rab. 29:4; Song Rab. 8:11, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2. For Torah as God " s daughter cf. also b. Sanh. 101a; Exod. Rab. 33:1; Num. Rab. 12:4; Song Rab. 3:10, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1. Hengel regards this personification of Torah as God " s daughter as equivalent to Philós identification of Logos as God " s son (Judaism, 1:171). Although this is the usual image in rabbinic sources, Jewish people used imagery flexibly; in a much rarer variant, Torah is the bride and the ark is the bridegroom (p. Ta c an. 2:1, §6), or (more often) Israel is God " s daughter rather than his son (e.g., b. Pesah. 56a; Song Rab. 8:9, §2); one may also compare the personification of repentance as God " s daughter in Jos. Asen. 15:7. 3155 Song Rab. 8:14, §1, attributing the parable to R. Levi, early-third-century Palestine. For Torah as intercessor, cf. also Exod. Rab. 29:4. 3157 Exod. Rab. 30:3; on the Holy Spirit " s analogous exclamations, cf., e.g., Exod. Rab. 27:9. 3161 Martens, «Prologue,» 179, finds no pre-Christian data for «an independent Torah theology» with personalization or hypostatization. 3164 Kümmel, Theology, 280, unfortunately uses the lack of «personification» of Torah in Palestinian Judaism to indicate that Torah is inadequate background for the prologue. Dodd and Bultmann (especially the latter) both show lack of firsthand familiarity with rabbinic sources relevant to the prologue; see Kysar, «Background,» 254. 3166 Cf., e.g., Epp, «Wisdom»; Schoneveld, «Thora»; idem, «Torah»; Casselli, «Torah»; Keener, «Pneumatology,» 240–54; idem, «Knowledge,» 44–71. |
| 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). |
|
|
