| 3976 John " s initial failure to recognize him (1:31) may underline the fact that he is known only by revelation (1:33; Smith, John 70), by the Spirit " s witness (15:26; 16:7–11). 3977 See Malina, World, 78. 3978 The two Greek words for knowledge used here function interchangeably in the Fourth Gospel; see on «Knowledge and Sight» in the introduction, ch. 6, above. 3979 See comment on 13:5. 3980 E.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.2.44; b. B. Bat. 53b (though both sources ridicule treating slaves in such a demeaning manner); Aeschylus Agamemnon 944–945; see Daubés and Urbachs citations below. Other commentators have noted that this is the work of a slave (Westcott, John, 19; Hunter, John, 23). 3981 Exod 24:13; 33:11; Josh 1:1; 1 Kgs 19:21; 2 Kgs 5:20; 6:15; 8:4; Zeno in Diogenes Laertius 7.1.12; Cleanthes in Diogenes Laertius 7.5.170; t. B. Mesfa 2:30; cf. «Abot R. Nat. 27, §56B; p. Sotah 5:5, §4; perhaps more like fatherly counsel in Xenophon Anab. 3.1.5–7. Lachs, Commentary, 45, and Daube, Judaism, 266, cite also b. Ketub. 96a. Cf. Joshua as Moses» disciple and other «disciples of the prophets» (CD 8.20–21; Mek. Pisha 1:150–153; »Abot R. Nat. 11, §28 B). 3982 B. Ketub. 96a, cited by various commentators (many following Billerbeck), cf. Davies, Sermon, 135; Morris, John, 141. 3983 E.g., 2 Kgs 9:7,36; 10:10; 14:25; 17:13,23; 21:10; 24:2; Ezra 9:11; Isa 20:3; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4 ; Dan 3:28; 6:20; 9:6, 10 ; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 37, §95 B; Martin, Slavery, 55–56; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 3; Käsemann, Romans, 5. 3984 E.g., 2Sam 3:18; 7:5,8,19–21,25–29; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24–26,66; 11:13,32,34,36,38; 14:8; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6; 1 Chr 17:4, 7, 17–19, 23–27; 2 Chr 6:15–21, 42; Ps 78:70; 89:3, 20; 132:10; 144:10 ; Isa 37:35; Jer 33:21–22,26 ; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25 ; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B. 3985 E.g., Exod 14:31; Num 12:7–8 ; Deut 34:5 ; Josh 1:1–2, 7,13,15; 8:31,33; 9:24; 11:12,15; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2,4–5; 1 Kgs 8:53,56; 2 Kgs 18:12; 21:8; 1 Chr 6:49; 2 Chr 1:3; 24:6,9; Neh 1:7–8; 9:14; 10:29; Ps 105:26 ; Dan 9:11 ; Mai 4:4; cf. 4Q378 frg. 22, line 2; L.A.B. 30:2, famulum; " Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B. |
| 3721 Kuyper, «Grace,» 14; Pancaro, Law, 541. For a distribution of αλθεια by writer (25 times in John, 20 in Johannine Epistles, 47 in Paul, 1 in Matthew, 3 in Mark, 3 in Luke, etc., and distribution of the adjectival cognate), see Morris, John, 294. 3724 See above. That the Baptist " s voice ends in 1is clear, but Origen Comm. Jo. 6.13 thought it ended in 1(in contrast to Heracleon, who ends it in 1:17). 3725 That John implies temporal precedence (i.e., the Logos " s preexistence) is evident from the context; see Stuart, «Examination,» 318; Hoskyns, Gospel, 151 (contrasting Matt. 3:11); Dodd, Tradition, 272. The logic here resembles the rhetorical form called an νθμημα (enthymeme; see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 44; Vinson, «Enthymemes,» 119). 3729 Fulness of a virtue can mean its epitome ( Sir 1:16 ). Gnostics viewed the Pleroma as the sum of the aeons (Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1; 1.5; cf. Prayer of the Apostle Paul in NHL, 28; Gospel of Truth in NHL, 37); but against the gnostic interpretation of Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 228, cf. Harris, «Origin,» 417–18 (Colossians, John, and gnosticism drew the word from wisdom motifs; cf. Sir 2:16; 35:14–15 ); Overfield, «Pleroma.» Few current commentators find gnosticism here (Schnackenburg, John, 1:275; Sandmel, Judaism, 474 n. 5). See comment on «full» in 1:14. 3730 Against ÓNeill, «Prologue,» 44–45, who thinks that the last phrase of v. 16 and the whole of v. 17 «form a long interpolation,» but admits that no textual evidence supports his hypothesis. Michael, «Prologue,» 278, likewise suggests an accidental change from an original χριν ντ νμου without any textual evidence. 3732 See DeSilva, Honor, 104–5, 116 (citing esp. Sophocles Ajax 522; Seneca Benef. 2.35.1), though not on this passage. Ancients would associate «grace» with patronal generosity or benevolence (DeSilva, Honor, 104–5, citing esp. Aristotle Rhet. 2.7.1, 1385al6–20; idem, «Patronage,» 768; following Danker, Benefactor). 3733 MacGregor, John, 20, citing Philo Posterity 145; Stevens, Theology, 96; Edwards, «Grace»; Brown, John, 1:16; Moloney, Belief, 46–47; cf. Westcott, John, 14 (citing the thought of m. " Abot4:5); Stuart, «Examination,» 321; note Jeremias, Message, 85; Haenchen, John, 1:120. |
| 5909 It is so pervasive that scholars often recognize the trial motif in this Gospel as a central one (e.g., Lincoln, Lawsuit Motif; van der Watt and Voges, «Elemente»). 5910 As some commentators observe (e.g., Bernard, John, 1:247), the argument should have made sense in an early Jewish milieu; see Odeberg, Gospel, 232–34, for parallels of phrasing in rabbinic texts for every verse of 5:31–47. 5911 Isocrates Nic. 46-A7, Or. 3.36; Publilius Syrus 597; Plutarch Praising, Mor. 539A-547F (esp. 15, Mor. 544D); Dio Chrysostom Or. 57.3–9; Quintilian 11.1.17–19; Phaedrus 1.11; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.1.1; Prov 27:2 . See further Lyons, Autobiography, 44–45,53–59; Marshall, Enmity, 124–29. 5912 Apocrit. 2.7–12 (probably Porphyry); in the strictest sense, the objection confuses legal testimony with other claims. 5913 " Abot R. Nat. 11A. Cf. Prov 27:2 ; 2Cor 11:12 . 5914 " Abot R. Nat. 1, §1B; cf. Heb 5:4. 5915 E.g., Babrius 114. Revelation applies λαμπδες … καιμεναι to the spirits of God (Rev 4:5; but cf. judgment language in 8:10), whereas λυχνα refers to churches (Rev 1:12–13, 20; 2:1, 5; cf. 11:4). 5916 Moloney, Signs, 21. 5917 So also Brown, John, 1:224, citing also Matt 17:12–13; Mark 9:13 . Moses is presumably the lamp in 2 Bar. 18:1; see further the comments on John 1:4 . Barrett, John, 265, cites also other figures who were lamps, though they are probably less relevant here. 5918 Cf. Ellis, Genius, 96. 5919 Cf. Dio Chrysostom Or. 77/78.37–45, in Malherbe, Exhortation, 51; Stowers, Letter Writing, 140; 1Cor 9:19, 22 . 5920 Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.27.37; Sallust Letter of Gnaeus Pompeius 6; Ovid Metam. 4.276, 284; cf. Virgil Georg. 2.434; Seneca Benef. 3.12.4; Demosthenes Crown 268; Cicero Sest. 26.56; Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 408, §§138D-139D; Phlm 19 . This is specifically applied to quoted testimony in Maximus of Tyre Or. 24.1. See many different sources in Lane, Hebrews, 382–83, on 11:32; rhetorical handbooks in Anderson, Glossary, 88–89; Rowe, «Style,» 149. |
| 3382 As Smith, John (1999), 48, notes, it is appropriate there. But such patterns appear elsewhere, e.g., Demosthenes Against Conon 19; Sipre Deut. 161.1.3; b. c Abod. Zar. 20b; p. Šeqa1. 3:3; Ber. 61a; Rom 5:3–5 ; Jas 1:14–15; 2Pet 1:5–7 (similar to Wis 6:17–20). For similar kinds of repetition, see, e.g., Demetrius 5.268 (for anaphora), 270; Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.25.34–35. 3383 Jonas, Religion, 57–58; Bultmann, Epistles, 16 (stressing gnosticism but also mentioning OT, Judaism, and other Hellenistic sources). Dodd, Interpretation, 36, points out that the divine is both life and light in the Hermetica, especially Poimandres; Lee, Thought, 37, stresses Poimandres as well (Corp. herm. 1.5,6,12,21; 13.7–9,18; also Ginza, R. 5.2,179, 22–27 in Mandean literature). 3384 Minear, Images, 129, contends that the NT image of light draws from all streams of ancient thought (OT, rabbinic, apocalyptic, Essene, hermetic, and gnostic literature), and lists many references in the NT itself (Images, 128; cf. Manson, Paul and John, 118–19). 3385 E.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 48.8 (lumen); Plutarch Lect. 17, Mor. 47C (πολ φως); cf. Philo Creation 53; Porphyry Marc. 13.224; 20.329–330; 26.403,406,415; darkness as ignorance in Valerius Maximus 7.2.ext.la; Maximus of Tyre Or. 29.5; Porphyry Marc. 13.223–225; Acts 17:27; 26:18; Eph 4:18 . 3387 E.g., Maximus of Tyre Or. 34.1; see comment on 20:12. Orators also praised the brilliance of deities (e.g., Menander Rhetor 2.17,438.12–13, 20–24); writers also used light to symbolize the divine nature or care (Iamblichus Myst. 1.9,13). 3388 See on this theme pp. 247–51, above; cf. Platós parable of the shadows in the cave and the necessity of facing the light. 3389 Enz, «Dualism,» thinks the dualism originates ultimately from the good-evil dualism of Israel " s history. 3391 E.g., 1QS 3.3 and passim; 1Q27 1.5–6; 4Q183 2.4–8 (and perhaps 4Q185 1–2 2.6–8); Γ. Job 43:6/4; Sib. Or. frg. 1.26–27 (in Charles, Pseudepigrapha, 2:377); cf. 1 En. 108:12–14. 3393 E.g., 1QS 3.19–22; 1QM 13.5–6, 14–15. The DSS added dualism to the OT images (Brown, John, 1:340; cf. Charlesworth, «Comparison»); these are now often used as Johannine background here (e.g., Ellis, World, 27–28). Treves, «War,» 421, acknowledges OT influence on the Scrolls» «light» imagery, but thinks the imagery is «ultimately of Iranian origin.» Hebrew emphasis on contrasting opposites (like «day» and «night») to represent a whole (cf. Gordon, East, 35 n. 3), and poetic use of metaphoric language, suggest to us that the imagés Jewish roots lay in the OT, though probably accentuated under Persian influence during the exile (cf. similarly Manson, Paul and John, 118–19). |
| 10701 Stibbe, «Return,» employing actantial analysis. 10702 Cf. Kallarangatt, «Mission.» 10703 Some taught that God commissioned Torah teachers to offer Torah freely as he did (b. Bek. 29a; Derek Eres 2.4; Dalman, Jesus-feshua, 226; Lachs, Commentary, 180; cf. m. " Abot 1:3; Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; p. Ned. 4:4); in secular contexts, see, e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 8.3.3 (royal gifts). 10704 Cf. Westcott, John, 294. On the usual punctiliar force of aorist imperatives, see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 172–73, §§335–337. 10705 See Hawthorne, Presence, 236. 10706 See Keener, Spirit, 8–13. 10707 Haenchen, John, 2:211; Sanders, John, 433; Dunn, «Spirit,» 703; Ellis, Genius, 293; Wojciechowski, «Don» (though reading too much from the Targumim, which is then used to connect John 20 with Pentecost); ÓDay, «John,» 846; du Rand, «Ellips.» 10708 Cook, «Exegesis,» 8; Meier, « John 20:19–23 .» On the Spirit and creation, some suggest also Wis 1:7; 12:1. Stauffer, «εμφυσω,» 536–37, notes the association of the Spirit and creation in Ps 104 10709 Turner, Spirit, 90–92, who also notes (p. 92) that Wis 15and Philo on Gen 2show God breathing his own Spirit at the creative event of Gen 2:7 , suggesting new creation here (3:3, 5). 10710 Also Philo Creation 139. The Spirit of God creates or builds creatures in Jdt 16:14; cf. God " s gift of truth by God " s breath (Odes So1. 18:15), etc. Witherington, Wisdom, 343, helpfully compares Jesus with Wisdom here (Wis 7:22–23). 10711 Derrett, «Blow,» suggests an allusion to the Asian custom of catching the dying person " s last breath (attested at times in India and farther east). One might add Roman examples (see Quintilian pref.12; Virgil Aen. 4.684–685; Ovid Metam. 7.861; comment on 19:30), but Jesus is clearly not dying here and the biblical allusion would be far more obvious, especially in view of the rest of the Gospel (cf. 3:8). 10712 Perhaps the writer wanted to avoid the impression that Joseph could have kissed her for less sacred reasons at this point? The breath of life in magical papyri (PGM 12.237, in Grant, Religions, 46) may be influenced by Jewish sources or common ancient Near Eastern roots; cf. Orphic Hymns 30.8. Greek deities could breathe strength into wounded heroes (Homer I1. 15.60–μπνεσησι; 19.159–πνεση). |
| 2216 Gager, Anti-Semitism, 107–10; Arnold, Ephesians, 31–32; Goodenough, Symbols, 12:58–63; Hengel, Judaism, 1:241; Gaster, Studies, 1:356–60; even Moses came to be associated with magic (Apuleius Apologia in Stern, Authors, 2:201–5; Gager, Moses, 134–61). Jewish magic influenced Greco-Roman magic (cf. Deissmann, Studies, 277–300,321–36; Knox, Gentiles, 208–11; Koester, Introduction, 1:380–81). Among modern Yemenite Jews, cf. Hes, «Mon,» passim. 2217 Cf., e.g., Text 20.11–12 (Isbell, Bowls, 65); 69.6–7 (150); Pr. Jos. 9–12; T. Sol 18:15–16; b. Git. 68a; Num. Rab. 16:24; Isbell, «Story,» 13; Nock, Conversion, 62–63; MacMullen, Enemies, 103; Tiede, Figure, 170. The name of Israel " s God (in various permutations) outnumbers any other deity in the papyri «by more than three to one» (Smith, Magician, 69); cf. also, e.g., CIJ 1:485, §673; 1:490, §679; 1:517, §717; 1:523, §724; 2:62–65, §819; 2:90–91, §849; 2:92, §851; 2:217, §1168. 2218 On name invocation in general (some references including secret names), see Apuleius Metam. 2.28; Theissen, Stories, 64 (citing Lucian Menippus 9; Philops. 12; Plin. Nat. 28.4.6; PGM 4.1609–1611; 8.20–21); Twelftree, «ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,» 376. 2219 M. Sanh. 7:11; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Roš Haš. 3:8, §1; Sanh. 7:13, §2; Urbach, Sages, 1:97–100, 572: Bietenhard, «νομα,» 270. Note also Wis 17:7; Ps.-Phoc. 149; 1 En. 65(Sim.); Asc. Isa. 2:5; 2 Βαr. 60:2; 66:2; T. Reu. 4:9; cf. Sib. Or. 1.96. The rabbis recognized that not all sorcery was genuine (m. Sanh. 7:11; Sipra Qed. pq. 6.203.2.2; b. Sanh. 67b), although Amoraim stressed the dangers more (e.g., b. Hor. 10a; Sanh. 67b; Šabb. 66b; p. Ketub. 1:1, §2; cf. the amulets and charms in Goodenough. Symbols, 2:153–295), but even when genuine, rabbis stressed its limits (e.g., Gen. Rab. 11:5; Pesiq. Rab. 23:8; 43:6). 2220 See Goldin, «Magic»; Neusner, Sat, 80–81; b. Sanh. 65b; 67b; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 25 A (on R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus); Basser, «Interpretations.» Such syncretism was not intentional; apparently even Jacob employed pagan fertility rituals in Gen. 30:37–42 , though he trusted that God was the one working through them (31:8–9, 12; cf. 28:15). Cf. also some Jewish polemic in b. Git. 56b-57a which may be rooted in earlier magical tradition (Gero, «Polemic»). Many societies believe that magic can be used either for good or for evil (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 258–59). |
| 2855 See, e.g., the pattern in Sanders, Hymns, 24–25; Hunter, Paul, 37–38; Hengel, Jesus and Paul, 78–96; Porter, «Creeds and Hymns.» 2857 Teeple, Origin, 135–36, sees an original non-Christian Jewish poem in 1:1, 3–5, 11; cf. Painter, «Christology,» 52 (who adds that Hellenistic Christians before John added 1:16–18); Martens, «Prologue.» Contrast Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 200. 2858 Harris, «Origin»; idem, «Athena»; idem, Prologue. Despite the tenuousness of his reconstruction («Origin,» 425–26), his detailed parallels are invaluable. 2860 Koester, Introduction, 2:188, also suggesting 1:17. Painter, «Christology,» thinks that the Baptist material constitutes Johannine additions (p. 51) to the earlier prologue (47). 2861 Cf., e.g., the more detailed analysis of Brown, lohn, 1:18–23, which Barrett, lohn and Judaism, 33, critiques as unconvincing because of the irregularity of the strophes and the presentation of 1:17–18 as prose. 2867 Ibid., 227. Cf. Falconer, «Prologue,» 227, who divides the text into 1:1–4 (préexistent Son); 1:5–13 (Messiah); and 1:14–18 (incarnation). 2868 Coloe, «Structure»; unlike some other proposals, this one has an objective background behind it. 2869 Rissi, «Word,» 395. Rissi derives both hymns from Jewish-Christian circles, with John " s comments in 1:6–9,12c, 13, 15, and 18 («Logoslieder»). 2870 Boismard, Prologue, 76–77. The confessions of Jesus» deity framing the Gospel (minus the epilogue) in 1and 20likewise constitute an inclusio (see Cullmann, Christology, 308). 2871 Boismard, Prologue, 80; cf. similarly Culpepper, «Pivot»; Vellanickal, Sonship, 132–33. Talbert, John, 66 is better despite the asymmetry. 2880 For a comparison of various views, see Brown, John, 1:122; Haenchen, John, 1:122. Other structures employ strophes of widely divergent–hence unusually assymetrical–lengths (e.g., Pollard, «Poems,» 109–10). 2882 Miller, Salvation-History, 7. He does, however, think that 1:1–5 contains hymnic material (pp. 7–10). 2885 Michaels, John, 2–3. Cf. Burrows, «Prologue,» 62, 68–69, who finds the whole prologue metrical as reconstructed in Aramaic. |
| 3. True Freedom (8:31–36) The tone of the dialogue quickly becomes harsh. Some suggest that John borrows here the nature of «informal satire,» which, like this passage, exploited irony in such a way as to portray the illogic of its victims. 6706 The rhetoric of the passage may be related to such satire, but John is more serious, less intent on drawing laughter than satirists like Horace, Petronius, Martial, or Juvena1. More likely, the hostile language represents the standard sort of rhetoric found in intra-Jewish polemic, 6707 as in Matt 23. 6708 Jesus» promise of spiritual freedom was altogether appropriate on a festival commemorating Israel " s sojourn in the wilderness after being freed from slavery. 6709 Jesus demands perseverence for true discipleship (8:31). 6710 Many who listened to him believed (8:30) but would not persevere to the end of the discourse (8:59); this is not the saving faith (3:15–16) of which the Fourth Gospel speaks (15:6; 1 John 2:19). Elsewhere Judas becomes the Gospel " s leading example of apostasy (6:64, 70–71; 13:10–11): «Thus the members of the church are constantly on trial, whether they really are of the truth or not.» 6711 Jewish people condemned apostasy; 6712 Greek philosophers also expected their converts to persevere in the philosophical life. 6713 They were less than impressed with casual followers; 6714 both the prophets ( Ezek 33:30–32 ; Mark 6:20 ) and the Johannine Jesus had already shared the same experience (6:26). The reference here to being disciples «truly» (8:31; cf. 1:47; 1 John 2:5 ) 6715 suggests a way to confirm onés discipleship in contrast to false disciples who would eventually fai1. Early Christianity continued to distinguish between true and false believers (e.g., 1 John 2:19; Justin 1 Apol 26). The basis for persevering, as with any teacher, is to continue (μενητε; cf. 6:56; 15:4–6; 2 John 9 ) in Jesus» «word» or teaching (8:31); 6716 those who continue in it will have eternal life (8:51; cf. 5:24), but those in whom it has no place (8:43; cf. 5:38) seek even his death (8:37). Jesus» word is authoritative because it is the Father " s word (8:55; cf. 14:24); the informed reader also recalls that Jesus himself embodies the Father " s word (1:1–18). Such a call to discipleship is also relevant to John " s generation, who hears Jesus» «word» through the Fourth Gospel (17:20). Rabbis also spoke of those who were disciples of Abraham 6717 or Moses (see comment on 9:28) by walking in their ways. 6718 |
| 4044 In Greek the term is pleonastic (emphatic but superfluous; see Anderson, Glossary, 102) despite its value for John " s vision motif. 4045 Tg. Onq. on Exod 12:43; Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 12:43; the Targum translations also cite Mek. 15 on Exod 12:43; and Mek. de R. Simeon b. Yohai on Exod 12:43. 4046 Thus Bernard, John, 1:44–46, suggests that the author expressed the Baptist " s messianic confession in his own words. 4047 The scapegoat, however, would be a more obvious allusion than the intercessor of 2 En. 64(in Boring et a1., Commentary, 247); but αρω is not used in LXX of Lev 16 , though it is a common term (twenty-three times in John alone). 4048 Nock, «Vocabulary,» 137. 4049 Various clues, such as the potentially theological use of «follow» in 1:40, could shift the case, but even their cumulative weight seems inadequate for certainty. «Walking» might possibly allow for peripatetic instruction (see comment on 1:37–39), which was common (hence the name of Aristotlés school; see Aune, Environment, 186; Robbins, Jesus, 171,178). 4050 See Dodd, Tradition, 274; Stauffer, Jesus, 65; Lane, Mark, 52; Kraeling, John, 55, summarizing Lohmeyer, «Überlieferung,» and K. Grobel, «After Me.» On the Baptist " s direct influence on Jesus, see further Michaels, Servant, 1–24. 4051 Kraeling, John, 55. 4052 Blomberg, Reliability, 79, following Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:116–20. 4053 Cf.Ibid. 4054 Ibid., 56–57, although we doubt his contention that this Son of Man was viewed as an ange1. 4055 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:34–35, doubts that John saw this announcement in divine terms. 4056 Luke 14:7–11; 1QS 2.19–23; lQSa 2.11–17; t. Sank 7:8; b. Hor. 13b, bar.; p. Ketub. 12:3, §6; Sanh. 1:2, §13; Ta c an. 4:2, §§8–9; Ter. 8:7; Plutarch T.T. 1.2.3, Mor. 616E; T.T. 1.2.4, Mor. 617B; Apuleius Metam. 10.7; cf. 1QS 6.10–13 (with 6.26–27; Josephus War 2.132; and comments of Marcus, «Mebaqqer,» 302; cf. p. Roš Haš. 2:6, §9). In current Middle Eastern custom, see Eickelman, Middle East, 23–24. 4057 Philo Contemp1. Life. 66ff.; Ps.-Phoc. 220–222; t. Meg. 3:24; Sanh. 8:1; p. Ta c an. 4:2, §12; Lycurgus 14 in Plutarch S.S., Mor. 227F; on respecting elders in general, cf. Sir 8:6 ; Wis 4:8–9; 1Tim 5:1–2 ; 4 Bar. 5:20; Syr. Men. 11–14, 76–93 (though cf. 170–172); t. c Abod. Zar. 1:19; Pythagoras in Diogenes Laertius 8.1.22–23. |
| 9738 For somewhat evasive answers, cf. also Luke 22:67–68. Jesus talks more in John than in Mark, but cf. the variant Socratic tradition in which Socrates remained silent instead of answering his accusers (Maximus of Tyre Or. 3.4, 7; cf. Xenophon Mem. 4.8.4). 9739 Diogenes Laertius 3.63; 8.1.15; Aulus Gellius 13.5.5–12; even some rhetorical teachings were inappropriate for the general public or novices (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lit. Comp. 25). Unwritten teachings provided «insiders» a superior status (see Botha, «Voice»). 9740 E.g., lQpHab 7.4–5, 13–14; 1QH 2.13–14; 9:23–24; 11:9–10, 16–17; 12:11–13; 1QS 8.1–2, 12; 9:13,17–19; cf. 1QS 5.11–12; 11.3–5; 1QM 3:9; 17.9; 4 Ezra 14:45–47. 9741 E.g., b. Pesah. 119a; Pesiq. Rab. 22:2; especially regarding the throne-chariot (t. Hag. 2:1; b. Hag. 13a, bar; 14b, bar; Sabb. 80b; p. Hag. 2:1, §§3–4; cf. 4Qsl40) and creation mysticism (m. Hag. 2:1; t. Hag. 2:1, 7; Nat. 39A; b. Hag. 15a, bar.; p. Hag. 2:1, §15; Gen. Rab. 1:5, 10; 2:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; 2 En. 24:3). 9742 Sandmel, Judaism, 476 n. 48, suggests a polemic against Gnosticism here, but this is improbable; see our introduction, pp. 168–69. More persuasive would be the possibility of apologetic against the charges of political subversion, as in Acts 26(see Malherbe, «Corner,» 203). 9743 See our introduction; in other periods Romans also expressed concern over associations (e.g., Livy 39.15.11; Dig. 47.22.1; Judge, Pattern, 47–48), and even some earlier Greeks mistrusted the morality of some cult associations (Foucart, Associations religieuses, 153–77). Stauffer, Jesus, 122, reads distrust of secret associations into the high priest " s interrogation. 9746 Cf. the alleged danger of contamination from even excess exposure to minuth a few decades after John (see, e.g., Herford, Christianity, 137–45,388; Moore, Judaism, 2:250; Dalman, Jesus, 36–37). 9747 «Hour» and «darkness» in Luke 22would have fit John " s usage but perhaps not his Christology (with Jesus controlling the passion). In some cases, «Why did you not take me then?» could suggest a rhetorical appeal to a statute of limitations (Hermogenes Issues 44.10–12) but here refers simply to their secretive behavior. |
|
|
