| 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. |
| 7954 In the Targumim (Westcott, John, 185; Dahl, «History,» 131; Schnackenburg, John, 2:416; McNamara, Targum, 100; Boring et a1., Commentary, 294; Kirchhevel, «Children»). On early Jewish premises concerning God " s glory, this would be a natural inference from Isa 6:3–4. 7957 Isaiah had predicted a new revelation of glory at the new exodus (Isa 40:5; cf. 40:3, cited in John 1:23 ; Isa 24:23; 35:2; 44:23; 46:13; 49:3; 58:8; 59:19; 60:1–2; 66:18–19; 4Q176 frg. 1–2, co1. 1, lines 4–9). 7963 So Bauckham, God Crucified, 49–51, citing the interpretive principle gezerâ shevâ. He also suggests (p. 51) that exaltation to divine glory may have recalled Ps 110 (cf. Acts 2:33; 5:31; combined with Isa 57in Heb 1:3). 7964 See esp. Acts 4:1–2; 5:34–35; 15:5; 21:20; 23:6–8; 26:5. «Rulers» work together with «Pharisees» in 7:26,48; the world «ruler» who may stand behind earthly rulers is evil in 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; but 12:42, like 3:1, allows for more nuancing. For such nuancing with the Pharisees as well, see 9:16. 7965 Cf. Plutarch Themistocles 1.1; Demosthenes 12.1; Eunapius Lives 465. Alexander reportedly craved praise (Arrian Alex. 7.28.1). Some appreciated reputation but warned that it invited trouble (Babrius 4.7). 7966 Dio Chrysostom Or. 66, On Reputation (LCL 5:86–115); Seneca Ep. Luci1. 123.16; cf. also Porphyry Marc. 15.253 (where, however, the term bears the common nuance of «opinion,» as in, e.g., 17.284). Human mortality also relativized the value of glory (Diogenes Laertius 5.40, citing Theophrastus), and reputation invited trouble (Babrius 4.6–8). 7967 E.g., Xenophon Hiero 7.3 (φιλοτιμα); Philostratus Hrk. 23.23; 45.8; see comment on 5for the appropriate seeking of glory in antiquity. 7968 E.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.1.8 (Socrates); Diogenes Ep. 4; Socrates Ep. 6; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 3.9; Marcus Aurelius 7.34; Philo Spec. Laws 1.281. Diogenes the Cynic reportedly attacked all those who were bound by reputation (νδοξολογοντας, Diogenes Laertius 6.2.47). Cf. condemnations (albeit sometimes qualified) of «self-love» in Epictetus Diatr. 1.19.11; Plutarch Flatterer 1, Mor. 49A; Praising 19, Mor. 546F; Sextus Empiricus Pyr. 1.90; Philo Confusion 128; Worse 32; 2Tim 3:2 ; Sent. Sext. 138; more favorable in Aristotle N.E. 9.8.1–5, 1168ab; cf. also discussion in Grant, Paul, 41. |
| 6557 Cf. Scott, «Horizons,» 498–99, citing especially Philo Embassy 281; Isa 1:26; 2LXX. 6558 Jub. 8:12; Sib. Or. 5:249–250 (probably late-first- to early-second-century C.E. Egypt); b. Yoma 54b; cf. Ezek 5:5; 38:12 ; Alexander, «Imago Mundi»; Davies, Land, 7. Let. Arts. 83 (cf. 115, μση for seaports also) places it in the midst of Judea, as does Josephus War 3.52. Curiously, 1 En. 18ignores the opportunity to identify where the cornerstone of the earth is located, but this does not mean the tradition was unknown in that period, against Jubilees; 1 En. 26may place the middle of the earth in Jerusalem (26:2–6). On the new Jerusalem image here, see, e.g., Allison, «Water.» 6559 Some of the references in the preceding note; Jub. 8:19; b. Sanh. 37a; Num. Rab. 1:4; Lam. Rab. 3:64, §9; Pesiq. Rab. 10:2; 12:10; cf. Hayman, «Observations»; Schäfer, «Schöpfung»; Goldenberg, «Axis.» For the site of the temple as the «pupil of God " s eye,» cf. b. Ber. 62b; for its elevation, e.g., b. Qidd. 69a; for its identification with the site of the Aqedath Isaac (Mount Moriah), see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 55:7. 6560 T. Kip. 2:14; Lev. Rab. 20:4; Num. Rab. 12:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:4; cf. Böhl, «Verhältnis.» For a «navel» within a city, see Pindar Dithyramb 4, frg. 75 (possibly on a prominent altar within Athens); cf. Pausanias 10.16.3. 6561 Besides clearer data above, cf. 3 En. 22B:7 (from God " s throne); Odes So1. 6:7–13 (to the temple). Let. Aris. 88–91 speaks of an underground water system beneath the temple, no doubt part of its Utopian idealization of the temple; cf. the possible allusion to the source of universal waters in Josephus Ant. 1.38–39 (perhaps even in Gen 2:10–14 ; cf. Diodorus Siculus 1.12.6; Pausanias 2.5.3). 6562 Gaston, Stone, 211; Hooke, «Spirit,» 377–78; cf. Freed, Quotations, 30; Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 132–33. Some naturally see baptismal associations here (Blenkinsopp, «Quenching,» 48; Cullmann, Worship, 82). 6563 Some commentators also note that κοιλα sometimes functions as the equivalent to καρδα in the LXX; elsewhere in John the term applies to the womb (3:4), which is also abdomina1. |
| 3469 Ibid., 20–47, esp. 35–47 on witness for God in Isa 40–55 (cf. also Cothenet, «Témoignage»). On other Jewish texts, see 48–65 (Philo bridges the gap between the OT and Hellenistic use); in rabbinic literature, see 231–39. John " s usage is probably closest to that of Isaiah LXX (cf. Trites, Witness, 112; Caird, Revelation, 18; Boice, Witness, 16). 3470 Cf. Aune, Environment, 81, citing Herodotus Hist. 2.99; Polybius 12.27.1–6; 20.12.8; Lucian Hist. 47 (on autopsia, eyewitness knowledge). 3472 Casey, «Μρτυς,» 35; Franck, Revelation, 52 (on 15:26, though earlier he acknowledges a forensic context for παρκλητος). 3473 Meeks, Prophet-King, 65 (pointing to the parallel between μαρτυρα and κρσις in 8:14, 16); cf. Caird, Revelation, 18. Perhaps as early as Revelation, μρτυς began to take on a meaning it came to acquire more often in patristic literature: martyr (Morrice, «John,» 44; perhaps Abel who μαρτρησας in T. Ab. 11:2B). 3474 E.g., Trites, Witness, 78–127 (79–90 address John " s juridical character; 90–113 address the lawsuit of Jesus» ministry; 113–22 address the postresurrection lawsuit of John 13–17 ; on the Johannine Epistles, see 124–27; Trites " s conclusions are sound). Cf. Burge, Community, 204–5; Harvey, Tria1. John contrasts witness with faithless betrayal (cf. 5:15; 11:46,57; 12:4); the purpose of witness is to reveal the content of the testimony (2:25). 3477 See esp. 2Macc 3:36 (εξεμαρτρει… πσιν); Chariton 4.7.5 (πασιν ανθρπους; though cf. 7:6, where whole cities did come to meet her). 3478 The sense " from God» fits the genitive (cf. παρ θεν in Musonius Rufus 3, p. 38.27; παρ του θεο in Menander Rhetor 2.1–2,370.21–26=εκ θεν in 370.29–371.2) as well as the sending. 3482 See on 1:4–5, above. T. Levi 14declares that God gave the law to «enlighten every person»; the parallel is close, but could depend on John, given the heavy Christian redaction of T. Levi (Bernard, John, 1:13; Brown, John, 1:523; Longenecker, Christology, 12,146). 3485 The «genuine» light of 1contrasts them explicitly; cf. the application of «genuine» to God in the apologetic of Hellenistic Judaism (Best, Thessalonians, 82, cites LXX Exod 34:6; 2 Chr 15:3; Ps 86:15 ; Isa 65and mentions other sources). |
| 9406 For parallels, see, e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 300; Schnackenburg, John, 3:167; Brown, John, 2:740. 9407 E.g., Holwerda, Spirit, 15–16; Käsemann, Testament, 19; comment on 12:23; 13:31–32. Both the emphasis on the cross and and that on préexistent glory refute Smith " s comparison with a magical text (PGM 7.504; Magician, 132). 9408 E.g., Diodorus Siculus 34/35.12.1; Epictetus Diatr. 3.26.22; sources in Brown, Death, 946–47; Davies, Paul, 284. 9409 Morris, John, 721. 9410 Käsemann, Testament, 50. 9411 Writers could employ prayers in response to oracles, like oracles themselves, to foreshadow a narrativés direction (e.g., Xenophon Eph. 5.1). 9412 Cf. Beasley-Murray, John, 294. 9413 Isa 5:16; 29:23; Ezek 38:23; 39:7, 27 ; 1QM 11.15; 4Q176 frg. 12–13, co1. 1, line 15 (Wise, Scrolls, 234); see also the Kaddish. 9414 Jub. 25:11. 9415 E.g., 2 Bar. 5:2. 9416 See Carson, Discourse, 178–79. 9417 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:7 (R. Judah bar R. Simon). For God «glorifying» Israel, cf. also Tg. Isa. 1:2; he both «sanctified» and «glorified» them in Tg. Isa. 5(cf. John 17:17, 19 ). 9418 E.g., Gen 6:3, 12–13 ; Num 16:22 ; Ps 78:39; 145:21 ; Isa 40:5–6; 49:26; Jer 25:31; 45:5 ; Ezek 20:48; 21:4–5 ; Rom 3:20 ; Jub. 25:22; 1QS 11.9; CD 1.2; 2.20; 1QH 13.13,16; 1QM 12.12; 4Q511 frg. 35, line 1 (probably); Sir 28:5 ; T. Jud. 19:4; T. Zeb. 9:7; T. Ab. 7:16B; Γ. Job 27:2/3. It also can include animals (e.g., Gen 9:16 ; Num 18:15 ; Ps 136:25 ; Jub. 5:2). Smith suggests an Isaian allusion, such as to Isa 40(John 310), though «all flesh» is also common in Gen 6–9 and somewhat in Ezekie1. 9419 E.g., Bel and the Dragon 5. 9420 The Father also delegates some authority to others (see 19:11), but no such statement is comparable to the kinds of authority the Gospel attributes to Jesus. Reigning under God ( Gen 1:26 ; Dan 7:14 ) is qualitatively different from the reign depicted for Jesus here; on the early Christian portrait of Jesus sharing God " s sovereignty in a way granted to not even the highest angels, see Bauckham, God Crucified, 28–29. |
| 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 |
| 9228 Jub. 48:15–16. For other accusing angels, see 3 En. 28:8–9; t. c Abod. Zar. 1:18; Sabb. 17:3; Gen. Rab. 55:4; angels of nations in 3 En. 26:12; Lev. Rab. 21:4; Song Rab. 2:1, §3; 8:8, §1; cf. accusations from good angels in p. Sanh. 10:2, §7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11. 9230 E.g., Lam. Rab. proem 24 (the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, used in the law). Cf. also God " s angel «Conviction» (λεγχος), the priest (Philo Unchangeable 135,182–183). 9231 Schnackenburg, John, 3:143. Cf. also Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 144. For this lawsuit as merely the culmination of the Johannine trial motif, see Dahl, «History,» 139. Such reversal provided irony (cf. Aeschines Timarchus 117–118; Xenophon Mem. 4.8.9–10; Seneca Controv. 6.5; also Keener, Background Commentary, 342–43, on Acts 7:54–56, 58, 60). 9237 As Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 124, does. Aune, Prophecy, 97, recognizes the Israelite judicial speech. 9238 See, e.g., Blenkinsopp, «Reproach»; Boyle, «Lawsuit»; Gemser, «Controversy-Pattern»; Wein-feld, «Patterns,» 187–88 (comparing ancient Near Eastern legal practice and treaty language); Ramsey, «Speech-Forms» (probable on secular use, although I do not believe he has established the cultic use). 9239 Cross, Myth, 188–89; cf. Rabe, «Prophecy,» 127. Derrett, «Advocacy,» finds a background in Daniel " s defense of Susanna and in Isa 11:4–5; a Jewish audience might have recalled such passages as part of the larger forensic background (cf. Isa 11:1–2). 9240 CD 1.1–2 (). In Pauline thought, see Barth, Justification, 15–21,26, who sees the OT covenant lawsuit language as part of the background for Pauline justification. 9241 Shea, «Form,» correctly observes parallels to Israelite and ancient Near Eastern covenant formulas (cf. Aune, Environment, 159, 242, for the thesis, probably also correct, of parallels with «ancient royal and imperial edicts»); but although most of these letters include praise as well as blame (Stowers, Letter Writing, 80–81, noting that this was standard; cf. p. 173), the judgment oracles in this covenant context may well be reminiscent of the rib controversy speech of earlier prophets. The listings of cities and nations in oracles of judgment had been standard since biblical times and continues in many of the (Diaspora Jewish) Sibylline Oracles. |
| Similarly, the Gospel naturally stresses signs of grace whereas the Apocalypse stresses signs of judgment; but it may be more than coincidence that the first of John " s seven signs, turning water to wine (2:9), reflects the first of Moses» signs in Exodus, turning water to blood (Exod 7:20; cf. Jub. 48:5), 1071 a prominent source of judgment imagery in two of Revelation " s three sets of seven plagues (8:8–11,16:3–4). John does not mention the marriage supper (Rev 19), but this concept provides part of the eschatological backdrop for John 6 and perhaps also chs. 2 and 21. The new Jerusalem naturally occurs only in Revelation (3:12, ch. 21), but the idea complements well the Fourth Gospel " s emphasis on the genuine Jewishness of the true people of God, as well as his negative portrayal of the earthly Jerusalem. The new Jerusalem " s dimensions probably simply represent the presence of God (a cube, like the holy of holies, 21:16); 1072 its gates (Rev 21:12–13) are part of the imagery of the renewed city (Isa 60:18; Ezek 48:30–34 ), and are thus not incompatible with (though neither are they identical to) the sheepfold image of Jesus as the way and door ( John 10:7, 9; 14:6 ). John " s «dwelling» motif, expressed by his characteristic menö, is replaced by katoicheö and the motif of the heavenly temple (e.g., Rev 21:3); but this fits the contrasting eschatological perspectives of the two books. Revelation " s temple imagery (e.g., 3:12, 4:6, 5:8, 8:3, 15:2) is apocalyptic, but fits well theologically with John " s portrayal of Jesus» replacement of the temple (2:21, 8:35,14:2); they function in a roughly equivalent manner on the theological level (Rev 21:22; cf. the tabernacle in 7:15,13:6,15:5; John 1:14 ). Only Revelation includes the common Jewish image of the book of life (Rev 3:5, 20:12), but an apocalyptic image is hardly mandatory for a gospel; John, unlike the Synoptics, does stress eternal life as a possession in the present. White robes (Rev 3:4–5; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; but cf. John 19:40; 20:12 ), the «new name» (Rev 2:17; 3:12; 7:3; 14:1; 22:4; cf. 17:5; 19:16; cf. John 1:42; 10:3 ), the crown imagery (Rev 2:11; 4:4; 12:1; 14:14; 19:12), angels (Rev passim; cf. John 20:12 ), the morning star (Rev 2:28; 22:16), the «nations» (Rev 2:26; 11:18; 12:5; 15:4; 19:15; 21:24; 22:2; but cf. John " s kosmos), thunder (Rev 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16[Exod 19:16; Ezek 1:4,13 ]; cf. John 12:29 ), a cry for vengeance (Rev 6[reflecting the OT; cf. 4 Ezra 4:33–37]), darkness (Rev 6:12–14; John omits the Synoptic tradition " s darkness at the cross), trumpets (1:10; 4:1; 8:2), locusts (9:3–11 [ Joel 2:4–5 ]), and antichrist imagery (Rev 13; though cf. 1 John 2and possibly John 5:43; 10:1 ), are examples of apocalyptic motifs that play little or no part in the Fourth Gospe1. But this should simply be expected on the basis of different genres. |
| 4256 Cf. also the use of a person " s name when praising that person in an encomium, even by wordplays (Theon Progymn. 9.49–55). Contrast Stock, «Peter.» 4257 «Building» represents people-of-God language in the Hebrew Bible (Ruth 4:11; Ps 51:18; 69:35; 147:2 ; Jer 1:10; 24:6; 31:4, 28 ); cf. esp. Jeremias, Theology, 168; also Ladd, Theology, 109–10). Some connect the saying with the Abraham saying of Isa 51:1–2 (although the rare rabbinic parallels they cite, such as Yalqut Shim " oni 1.766; Exod. Rab. 15:7, are late; cf. Gen. Rab. 44:21); cf. Cullmann, «Πτρος, Κηφς,» 106; Bruce, Time, 60; Ford, «Abraham»; Manns, «Halakah»; Chevallier, «Pierre»; Siegel, «Israel,» 108; contrast Arnéra, «Rocher.» Jesus and his teachings, of course, represent the ultimate foundation in the gospel tradition (Matt 7:24–27; Luke 6:47–49), but his witnesses provide the next layer of the structure ( Eph 2:20 ). 4258 As in Mark 11:9 ; Matt 21:9; Luke 19:38; the Hallel was sung during Passover season (m. Pesah. 5:7; 9:3; 10:5–7; especially mentioned in connection with Sukkoth, e.g., m. Sukkah 3:10; 4:8; t. Sukkah 3:2; Gen. Rab. 41:1); cf., e.g., Stendahl, Matthew, 65; Michaels, John, 207; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 255–56. 4259 Cullmann, Peter, 18, and especially primary references in n. 11; cf. n. 12. Cullmann holds that «Petros» was also an Aramaic name (e.g., Gen. Rab. 92:2; Exod. Rab. 52:3; contrast Meier, Matthew, 181; Williams, «Personal Names,» 104), but Paul " s letters indicate that «Kephas» was the earlier name (Cullmann, Peter, 19 n. 14; contrast Edersheim, Life, 360). The pun indicates identity between Petros and Petra (Cullmann, «Πτρα,» 98; idem, «Πτρος, Κηφας,» 106; Brown, «Rock,» 386; Richardson, Theology, 309; contrast Lampe, «Petrusnamen). 4260 This passage is also a unity; cf. Schreiber, «Jüngerberufungsszene.» 4261 Smith, Magician, 147, doubts that all Jesus» disciples were Jewish, contending that «Galileans with pure Greek names like Philip are dubious.» 4262 Palestinian inscriptions in CIJ; cf. also, e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.255; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:252; Freyne, Galilee, 172–73; Goodman, State, 88, 175; Meyers, «Judaism and Christianity,» 77–78; Davies, «Aboth,» 138–51. For some nuancing in the other direction, cf. also Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 26; Sandmel, «Theory»; Feldman, «Hellenism.» |
| 4100 Although God " s «Spirit» means more than «purifying wind» here, perhaps John " s baptism partly symbolized cleansing by the spirit of judgment and burning (Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2 ) that would deliver from eschatological fire (so Dunn, «Spirit,» 695); Barnard, «Matt. Ill,» 107, suggests the Jewish and Iranian image of a fiery stream. 4101 Keener, «Pneumatology,» 65–69. 4102 See Kraeling, John, 58–59, against detractors citing the obscure ignorance of Baptist disciples in Acts 19:2. That they were unaware of any Holy Spirit is unlikely, given the prevalence of teachings about the Holy Spirit in early Judaism (with or without the Baptist). 4103 Flowers, «Pneumati»; Manson, Sayings, 41 (citing Acts 19:1–6 against Spirit); cf. Kraeling, John, 61–63; Bruce, «Matthew,» 84; for the wind in winnowing, e.g., Ps 1:4 ; Isa 17:13; 29:5; 41:15–16; Hos 13:3 ; Lev. Rab. 28:2; Ecc1. Rab. 5:15, §1. 4104 See Bruce, «Spirit,» 50. 4105 Aune, Prophecy, 132, citing 1QS 4:20–21; for further documentation, see Keener, «Pneumatology,» 65–69. 4106 Cf. Robinson, Problem, 74. For the essential identity between John " s and Christian baptism, cf. Bultmann, Theology 1:39. 4107 On the difference, e.g., Meier, Matthew, 25; Parratt, «Spirit»; on their similarity (Christian baptism and Spirit baptism; John " s may function paradigmatically, but this is not in view here) cf. Beasley-Murray, «Spirit»; idem, Baptism, 275–78; Richardson, Theology, 357. 4108 See Dunn, Baptism, 33–34. 4109 Robinson, Problem, 76–77. 4110 The aorist here might contrast with Jesus» eschatological baptism; cf. Botha, " Ebaptisa,» who describes it as a «timeless aorist.» 4111 Dunn, Baptism, 24; cf. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 290; White, Initiation, 87; Robinson, Problem, 9; Hooker, Message, 11; Robinson, Studies, 169. 4112 See more fully Keener, «Pneumatology,» 77–84; less eschatological segments of early Judaism stressed this less, but biblical traditions were clear (e.g., Isa 44:3; 59:21; Ezek 36:27; 37:14; 39:29 ; Joel 2:28–29 ). |
|
|
