| 9992 «Purple» could mean scarlet (e.g., Rev 17:4; 18:16; Appian C.W. 2.21.150; cited in Brown, Death, 866; cf. Dupont, Life, 260), though the Gospel tradition probably preserves it for its symbolic value, both to the soldiers and to Jesus» later followers. Egyptian gentry in nome capitals purchased green, red, and especially blue outer apparel (Lewis, Life, 52–53). 9994 For its association with wealth, see, e.g., Lucretius Nat. 5.1423; Horace Carm. 1.35.12, 2.18.7–8; Cicero Sen. 17.59; Athenaeus Deipn. 4.159d; Diogenes Laertius 8.2.73; 1Macc 10:20, 62, 64, 14:43–44; lQapGen 20.31; Sib. Or. 3.389, 658–659; 8.74; Petronius Sat. 38, 54; Epictetus frg. 11; Martial Epigr. 5.8.5; 8.10; Juvenal Sat. 1.106; 4.31; Apuleius Metam. 10.20; Chariton 3.2.17; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:7, 15:3; T. Ab. 4:2A; Jos. Asen. 2:2/3, 8/14–15; 5:5/6. Some writers complained about its extravagance (Seneca Dia1. 12.11.2; Plutarch T.T. 3.1.2, Mor. 646B; 1 En. 98MSS). 9995 Cf. Brown, John, 2:875. Derrett, «Ruber,» suggests that the red alludes to Isa 1and (somewhat less unlikely) 63:1–2; Lukés white robe in Luke 23characterized Jewish kings as well (Hill, Prophecy, 52). 10003 Flusser, Judaism, 600 (cf. Suggit, «Man»); Flusser argues (Judaism, 602) that on the historical level it is perfectly in character to suppose that Pilate joined in the ridicule of Jesus. Cf. Smith, John, 346. 10006 For the emphasis on Jesus» humanity here, see also Sevenster, «Humanity»; Koester, Symbolism, 187; Smith, John, 346. Schwank, «Ecce Homo,» finds an answer to Pilatés own question in 18:38; but the connection, while possible, is unclear. 10007 John elsewhere juxtaposes announcements of Jesus» humanity with his messianic identity (4:29; cf. 5:27) though more often those who do not recognize Jesus» fuller identity call him «human» (5:12; 7:46, 51; 9:16,24; 10:33; 11:47,50; 18:17,29); he may link his humanity and mortality in 3:14; 6:53; 8:40; 12:23, 34; 13:31. 10010 A familiar accusation; they may allude in part to Jesus» claims to authority to revise the Sabbath law (5:18; cf. Wead, «Law»); but cf. esp. 10:33. Less probably, Barrett, John, 541, thinks the law of blasphemy is particularly in view. |
| 10713 Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.31–32; more relevant for 1Cor 15:45–49 . For Philonic exegesis of Gen. 2:7 , applying it especially to the soul " s immortality, see esp. Pearson, Terminology (he addresses the gnostic exegesis in pp. 51–81); for later rabbinic exegesis with the two impulses, see, e.g., Hirsch, Pentateuch, 1:56–57. 10714 Gen. Rab. 14:8; Grassi, «Ezekiel,» 164. Wojciechowski, «Don,» also notes that God " s breath in the Targumim on Gen 2brings the word, enabling Adam to speak, suggesting relevance for John 20and Acts 2:4; cf. perhaps also 1 En. 84:1. 10715 E.g., Sipre Deut. 306.28.3; p. Seqa1. 3:3; Exod. Rab. 48:4. Rabbis also assumed that the Spirit implied resurrection in some other texts (e.g., p. Sanh. 10:3, §1; Gen. Rab. 26:6; cf. 1 En. 71:11). Philonenko, «Qoumrân,» parallels 4Q385 and the Dura Europos mural of Ezek 37:1–14 . 10716 If the traditions they preserve are early enough (which is uncertain), it may be relevant that Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 2and Tg. Neof. on Gen 2both attribute Adam " s gift of speech to divine insufflation. 10717 See my discussion in Keener, Questions, 46–61; idem, Giver, 157–68. 10718 See Hawthorne, Presence, 236. 10719 Cf. Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 49–50; Ezek 36:27 ; though cf. 1Pet 1:11 ; Gen 41:38 ; Num, 27:38; Dan 4:8–9, 18; 5:11–14 ; corporately, Isa 63:11; Hag 2:5 . 10720 In 4QNab 1.4 an exorcist «forgives» sins; but this may only mean that he pronounced forgiveness, a prerogative Sanders, Judaism, 240, associates with the priesthood in the pre-70 period; the idea of being mediators of God " s forgiveness appears with regard to conversion and disciple making in rabbinic texts (e.g., b. Sanh. 107b; cf. b. Yoma 86b-87a). Here it is associated with the bearers of the divine word. 10721 Quast, Reading, 137. 10722 With, e.g., Cook, «Exegesis,» 7–8. 10723 Cf. Isaacs, «Spirit,» 405. Differently, Tholuck thinks the Spirit provides discernment of who is truly repentant (John, 454–55). 10724 Most commentators acknowledge that all believers are in view from the standpoint of John " s theology (e.g., Beare, «Spirit»; Smith, « John 16 ,» 60; Lenski, John, 1389; Wheldon, Spirit, 283–84). «Disciples» (20:19) certainly includes the Twelve (20:24–25), but its Johannine usage is broader; cf. also Morris, John, 844. |
| 5049 Concerning a double entendre between crucifixion and exaltation by enthronement, see Schwank, «Erhöht.» The Hebrew for «lift» functions both as status elevation and as execution by hanging in Gen 40 (see Hollis, «Pun»). 5051 Thus Glasson, Moses, 36–38, argues that John presents the cross as a sign here; he does concede, however, that the LXX avoids ψω in the clear «ensign» texts. 5053 Cf. Braun, «Vie.» Many argue that all John " s ψω texts include the resurrection-ascension (Holwerda, Spirit, 9–11; Dibelius, Jesus, 141; Grant, Gnosticism, 173). Pesiq. Rab. 37:1, citing a fourth-century Palestinian Amora, depicts God «lifting up» the Messiah to heaven to protect him. 5054 His death is «not … ignominious … but a return to glory» (Nicholson, Death, 163; cf. Hengel, Son, 88). 5055 E.g., Griffiths, «Deutero-Isaiah,» 360; Lindars, Apologetic, 83, 234; Barrett, John, 214; Bauckham, God Crucified, 64–65. 5056 The later Targum applies Isa 52:13–53to the Messiah but its sufferings to Israel (Lourença «Targum»). Chilton, «John xii 34,» thinks Tg. Isa. 52preserves an exegesis similar to John " s; Adna, «Herrens,» thinks Tg. Ps.-J. on Isa 52:13–53follows a traditional Jewish hermeneutic. 5058 Greek literature could also introduce a matter in a somewhat ambiguous manner (e.g.. Agamemnon " s death in Homer Od. 1.29–43; 3.193–194, 234–235) but later clarify with a more detailed description (Homer Od. 3.253–312). 5059 In John 3the aorists for «loved» and «gave» bear their usual, punctilear sense (also Evans, «γαπν,» 68): here the supreme act of love (Brown, John, 1:133). 5061 See comment on 1:14. Some may overemphasize Aqedah allusions here (e.g., Grigsby. «Cross»; Swetnam, Isaac, 84–85). 5063 Cf. also Hanson, Unity, 138. «Hatred» (3:20) was likewise expressed by deliberate repudiation or abandonment of the group (1 John 2:9, 11, 19), not simply a matter of feelings (see Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 87). 5064 In some cases the senses tend not to appear theologically significant to the case. Reflecting Hebrew idiom, God could also «give» (i.e., install or appoint) a king ( 1Sam 12:13; 1 Kgs 1:48; 2 Chr 2:11; 9:8). |
| 4022 Hooker, Servant, 80–82, also disputes the background of Isa 53 here, but see Jeremias " s case, cited below. Doeve, Hermeneutics, 147–48, demonstrates how rabbinic exegetical methods would naturally connect Isa 53 with Dan 7:13–14 ; but such methods could connect many texts once the connection accorded with tradition. 4023 The most thorough work, despite criticisms on specific points, remains Jeremias, Eucharistic Words; for discussion of the authenticity of the base-form, cf. also Davies, Paul, 244–50; attested in Pauline as well as Synoptic tradition, this appears one of the securest traditions in the Gospels if theological biases against it are set aside. 4024 Pace Jeremias, «μνς,» 339; C. J. Ball (cited in Bernard, John, 1:44–46, who disagrees with him). 4025 Haenchen, John, 1:152–53; also Barrett, John, 176. 4026 E.g., Gilbert, «Notes,» 46; by contrast, Barrett, «Old Testament,» 155–56, suspects that nuances from various texts are blended together here. The LXX uses a different term (cf. Bernard, John, 1:47), but the Fourth Gospel is not bound to the LXX (Freed, Quotations, passim). 4027 Black, «Messiah in Levi,» 321–22, finds an allusion to priestly sacrifice, father offering son, and possibly Isa 53in T. Levi 18 and suggests that if T. Levi 18 is not a Christian work, it may supply the background for John 1:29, 36 . 4028 E.g., Schnackenburg, John, 1:299; Ashby, «Lamb»; Grigsby, «Cross»; Lightfoot, Gospel, 97; Keener, «Lamb,» 641. 4029 E.g., Schnackenburg, John, 1:300; Brown, John, 1:60–63; Carey, «Lamb»; cf. Pancaro, Law, 348–49. 4030 Enz, «Exodus,» 214, sees Exod 29:38–46 as the background. Pagans would also understand the sacrificial use of lambs (Ovid Tristia 1.10.43, though he wanted to give a larger sacrifice, 1.10.44). 4031 Longenecker, Christology, 50. 4032 E.g., Gilbert, «Notes,» 46; Bruce, Time, 48–49. 4033 Morris, John, 145, correctly citing Josephus Ant. 2.312 (which calls the Passover a «sacrifice»), although in an earlier work Morris saw here merely sacrificial terminology in general (Cross, 143; contrast Morris, John, 146). Bokser, «Passover,» thinks political redemption more central in an earlier paschal tradition (m. Pesah. 10) than in later texts. |
| 2586 See Hayman, «Monotheism,» though he probably overstates the case for the pervasiveness of dualistic monotheism. Cf. Fauth, «Metatron»; Abrams, «Boundaries»; Alexander, «3 Enoch,» 235. 2587 With Bauckham, God Crucified, 2–4,27–28, who believes Jesus in early Christian texts functions like Wisdom, being within the unique divine identity (26–42). 2588 Pritz, Jewish Christianity, 110; Flusser, Judaism, 620, 624. Barrett, John and Judaism, 48–49, thinks rabbinic teaching on God " s unity reflects some polemic against Christianity. 2590 For detailed argument, see most fully Bauckham, God Crucified, 2–15,26–42; cf. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 35; Wright, Paul, 63–72. 2591 Moore, Judaism, 1:437. Even later Judaism, however, regarded Gentile (as opposed to Jewish) adherence to Trinitarian views as Shittuf (partnership) rather than idolatry (cf. Falk, Jesus, 33–35; Borowitz, Christologies, 32; Berger and Wyschogrod, Jews, 33; Schoeps, Argument, 16–17). 2593 See comment on 1:1–18; further, e.g., Dunn, «John,» 314–16, who finds it pervasive throughout the Gospe1. 2594 Paul modifies Hellenistic (see Nock, Christianity, 34; Koester, Introduction, 1:162; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 145)–both Stoic (Moffatt, Corinthians, 106; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 130; Meeks, Christians, 91) and Platonic (cf. Grant, Gods, 48; Horsley, «Formula»)–and Hellenistic Jewish (Lohse, Colossians, 50; cf. Sib. Or. 3.277–278; Grant, Gods, 84–85) language here; his wording probably represents esp. an adaptation of the Shema (Goppelt, Theology, 2:83; Hering, 1Corinthians, 69; Bruce, Corinthians, 80), pervasive use of which is attested early, e.g., the Nash Papyrus (second century B.C.E.); m. Ber. 2:5. 2595 Some have seen elements of an Adam Christology (e.g., Martin, Carmen Christi, 116–18; idem, " Morphë»; Hunter, Predecessors, 43; Johnston, Ephesians, 41; Beare, Philippians, 80; Ridderbos, Paul, 74; Furness, «Hymn»); others have denied it (Glasson, «Notes,» 137–39; Wanamaker, «Philippians»; Bornkamm, Experience, 114) or held that Paul revised an earlier Adam Christology (Barrett, Adam, 71). Regardless of possible allusions to Adam as God " s image (e.g., Philo Creation 69; 4 Ezra 8:44; 9:13; L.A.E. 37:3; 39:3; Apoc. Mos. 10:3; 12:2; 33:5; m. Sanh. 4:5; h. Sanh. 38a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 8:10; Ecc1. Rab. 6:10, §1), Wisdom was God " s image in the ultimate sense (Wis 7:26; Philo Planting 18; Confusion 97; 147; Heir 230; Flight 101; Dreams 1.239; 2.45; Spec. Laws 1.81), which this text distinguishes from the human sense ( Phil 2:7–8 ), especially in presenting Jesus» divinity (cf. Phil 2:10–11 with Isa 45:23). Paul here assumes Christ " s préexistence (Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 156–68; against Talbert, «Problem»); on other christological hymns stressing Christ " s préexistence, see Martin, Carmen Christi, 19. |
| The soteriology of both reflects that of early Christianity in general, but they have special nuances in common, some overlapping more with those found in other early Christian sources than others do. Jesus loves his own (Rev 1:5,3:9; John 13:1,34,15:9–10 ), holds believers» fate in his hands (Rev 1and passim; John 10:28–29 ), and declares who are genuinely his people (Rev 3:7–8; John 10 ). Jesus» death and resurrection have cosmic significance (Rev 1:18; 2:8; cf. 3:1; John 12:31; 16:11; 17:4–5 ). Jesus» blood frees his followers (Rev 1:5; 5:9; 12:11), and cleanses them (Rev 7:14, cf. 22:14; 1 John 1:7 ), and is related to a river of life ( John 19:34 ; cf. Rev 22:1). Both have references to piercing dependent on the same Zechariah testimonium (Rev 1:7; John 19:37 ). Both include the vision of God through Jesus (Rev 22:4; John 1:18; 1 John 3:6 ), although Revelation retains the apocalyptic orientation of divine vision from Judaism. The apparent elect may apostatize ( John 6:70 ; Dan in Rev 7:4–8), 1093 wrath is emphasized (Rev 6:16–17; 11:18; 14:10, 15–16; 19:15; John 3:36 ), 1094 and «death» has a spiritual orientation (Rev 2:11, 20:14; 1 John 3:14, 5:16–17 ). 1095 Both apparently transform Jesus» cross into a throne (Rev 5, 22:1; John 12:32–33; 19:2–3,15,19 ). Both works emphasize that salvation (and damnation) are available to all nations (Rev 5:9–10; 7vs. 13:7; 14:6; κσμος in John, esp. 4:42). «Repentance» (Rev 2:5; etc.) is not found in John, but appears in early Christian literature most commonly in conjunction with future eschatology (e.g., Matt 3:2; 4:17), 1096 and John implies it by other terms (his faith and decision dualisms). 1097 They also exhibit parallels in Christology. 1098 Jesus is Lord of history but subordinate to the Father. He is the beginning and the end (Rev 1:17; 2:8; 3:14; 22:13; cf. 1:8; 4vs. 17:8; John 1:1–18 ); this identifies him as deity (Isa 44:6; Rev 1:8; 21:6). He may be the Son of Man of Dan 7 (Rev 1:13, but cf. 14:14), as often in John (esp. 5:27). As in John, Revelation " s Jesus is the divine Son of God (Rev 2:18, although this may strike especially at the imperial cult). 1099 His name is significant (e.g., Rev 2:3, 3:8, 12). Jesus has a supernatural knowledge of the human heart (Rev 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:3, 8, 15, especially with ργα; John 2:24–25; 6:15, 64 ), searching the minds and hearts (Rev 2:23; John 2:25 ). Jesus is explicitly called creator only in the Gospel, but there acts as the agent of the Father (1:3), which does not conflict with Revelation (4:11; cf. 3:14). |
| 4013 Zimmerli and Jeremias, Servant, 57ff.; Schoeps, Paul, 134–35, 139. Some think Qumran " s Teacher of Righteousness is described in terms of Isaiah " s Servant Songs (Brownlee, «Motifs, I,» 18–20; Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 361–63); but Sir l:6 " s rhiza and apekalyphthë probably derive from Prov 8:1 , etc., rather than Isa 53:1–2; Pesiq. Rab. 31and the Kabbalah (Ginsburg, Kabbalah, 141–42) are too late to be of value. 4014 Goppelt, Jesus, Paul, and Judaism, 83; cf. R. Simlai (third century C.E.) in Davies, Land, 60, who takes the servant as Moses. (Hooker " s exclusion of it even from Isaiah [Servant, 47, essentially on the grounds that the prophet would not have introduced new ideas] is more questionable.) For this reason many scholars are skeptical of the Isa 53reference here (Morris, John, 145). 4015 On the Targum, see Bruce, Acts: Greek, 193; Yamauchi, «Concord,» 165–66, and Zimmerli and Jeremias, Servant, 57ff. 4016 Justin Dial 13, 43 attests Christian rather than Jewish usage (so also 1 Apo1. 50). Acts 8may not explicitly emphasize vicarious suffering (cf., e.g., Decock, «Understanding»), but the quotation of part of a text implied the rest (e.g., p. Qidd. 4:1, §2) and though atonement is not Lukés emphasis, it is not incongruent with his thought (Luke 22:19–20). 4017 Bultmann, Word, 214, sees it as «a Hellenistic variation» of the older form in Luke 22:27; for evidence that the Markan form is more Semitic, cf. Jeremias, Message, 46. 4018 On Mark 10:45 " s authenticity, see Page, «Authenticity»; Morris, Cross, 29–33; Cullmann, Christology, 65. 4019 So, e.g., Stanton, Jesus, 36. 4020 E.g., Anderson, Mark, 257; Hooker, Servant, 74–79; idem, Message, 93; though Kümmel, Promise, 73, recognizes the allusion, he is reticent to explain it. 4021 Cf. Taylor, Atonement, 14; Jeremias, Theology, 292–93; Cullmann, Christology, 64–65; Higgins, Son of Man, 43–44; Moulder, «Background,» 127; Bruce, Time, 29–30; Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 31; Gundry, Matthew, 404; Argyle, Matthew, 154; Albright and Mann, Matthew, 243. For why Jesus could teach his atoning death yet emphasize the kingdom theme more, see Hengel, Atonement, 34. |
| 3986 Cf. Gen 26:24 ; Exod 32:13; Deut 9:27 ; Ps 105:6 ; 2Macc 1:2; Jub. 31:25; 45:3; T. Ab. 9:4A; 2 Bar. 4:4; " Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B. 3987 Lev 25:42, 55 ; Deut 32:43 ; Isa 41:8–9; 42:1,19; 43:10; 44:1–2,21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; Jer 30:10; 46:27–28 ; Ezek 28:25; 37:25; 2 Bar. 44:4; t. B. Qam. 7:5; " Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B; Gen. Rab. 96 NV; p. Qidd. 1:2, §24; cf. Tob 4MSS. 3988 Inscription in Grant, Religion, 122; Martin, Slavery, xiv-xvi (citing Sophocles Oed. tyr. 410; Plato Phaedo 85B; Apuleius Metam. 11.15; inscriptions), 46,49 (against, e.g., Beare, Philippians, 50); cf. Rom 1 (cf. Minear, Images, 156). Slaves of rulers exercised high status (e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.19.19; 4.7.23; inscriptions in Sherk, Empire, 89–90; Deissmann, Light, 325ff., passim; P.Oxy. 3312.99–100 in Horsley, Documents, 3:7–9; Suetonius Gramm. 21 [in Dixon, Mother, 19]; cf. Chariton 5.2.2). 3989 E.g., Anderson, Mark, 72–73; Taylor, Mark, 157. 3990 Kraeling, John, 53–54 points to «the thong of whose sandals I am not fit to loose» as the most primitive form (enumerating variations therefrom on p. 198 n. 13). Matthew " s form probably reflects his penchant for abridgement (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 106; Manson, Sayings, 40, instead suggests «a single Aramaic verb» behind both). 3991 Daube, Judaism, 266, citing Mek. on Exod 21:2; Sipre Num 15:41; b. Qidd. 22b; see also Urbach, Sages, 1(citing Sipre Šelah §115 and comparing Sipre Zuta 190). 3992 On Mark " s editorial subordination of the Baptist, see Trocmé, Formation, 55 (although Mark " s condensation of Q material attested in Matt 3 and Luke 3 probably reflects standard abridgement for an introduction). 3993 Against Kraeling, John, 130 (cf. 159), who doubts Matt 11:2–6 par. (to which we would respond, if this material were anti-Baptist polemic, why would Q include Matt 11:7–15 par.?). Conversely, Mason, Josephus and NT, 159, thinks Matt 11:2–6/Luke 7:18–23, «read by itself… implies the beginning of Johns interest» rather than doubting a previous position; but any datum read «by itself» may contradict other data in an account. Both accounts reflect Q material, and the Baptist " s christological testimony may be multiply attested. |
| 3622 B. Šabb. 33a; Gen. Rab. 97 (NV); Exod. Rab. 2:2; for similar association of glory with the temple, see Pesiq. Rab. 1:2; 32:1. For the Spirit dwelling in God " s temple, see Isaacs, Spirit, 25 (citing Josephus Ant. 8.114 as a Spirit-parallel to rabbinic Judaism " s Shekinah). Sievers, «Shekhinah,» thinks that the Shekinah may have been more universalized after the templés destruction in 70. Naturally God " s glory was also portrayed as dwelling in heaven (1QS 10.3). 3624 Exod 13:21; 40:36–38; Neh 9:12; Ps 78:14 ; Mek. Šir. 3.67 ff.; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:1; cf. Ps 80:1 ; Isa 63:14; Urbach, Sages, 1(citing Sipre Num. 80, 84). Glory, of course, had always been associated with that event (e.g., 2Macc 2:7–8; Pss. So1. 11:2–6). From at least the second century, however, rabbinic tradition indicated that the Shekinah also participated in Israel " s captivity in Egypt and Babylonia (Mek. Pisha 14.87ff.; Mek. Bes. 3.82–83; Sipra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.6; Sipre Num. 84.4.1; p. Ta c an. 1:1, §10, citing a Tanna; Exod. Rab. 15:16; Num. Rab. 7:10; Lam. Rab. 1:5, §32; cf. Cohen, «Shekhinta»; as late as the Zohar, cited in Siegal, «Israel,» 106). 3625 Abelson, Immanence, 380–82, notes that although kabod («glory») sometimes is identified with Shekinah, they are not always the same; but he feels that δξα in the NT covers the semantic range of both terms (380). Burney, Origin, 36, imports the Aramaic yekara («glory») alongside Shekinah (presence) here. 3627 See Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 11, and passim. Coloe also points to other Johannine passages pregnant with temple symbolism. 3628 E.g., Num. Rab. 20:10; see Kadushin, Mind, 223–26 (against medieval philosophers); cf. Abelson, Immanence, 98–134, followed also by Isaacs, Spirit, 25–26. In one late personification, the departing Shekinah kissed the walls of the temple (Lam. Rab. proem 25). 3629 Kadushin, Mind, 226–29; cf. Abelson, Immanence, on the Shekinah as the «immanent God» (pp. 117–34). 3632 E.g., " Abot R. Nat. 38 A; Sipra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.1; par. 4.206.2.6; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; 320.2.1; b. Ber. 5b; Roš Haš. 31a; Šabb. 33a, 139a; Yebam. 64a, bar.; Yoma 21b;p. Sanh. 8:8, §1; Deut. Rab. 5:10; 6:14; Ruth Rab. 1:2; cf. Sipre Num. 1.10.3; Urbach, Sages, 1:286–87 (citing Mek. Pisha 5); pagan deities in Ovid Fasti 1.247–250; Plutarch Them. 10.1; so with Wisdom (Wis 1:4; 6:12–25, esp. 6:23; cf. Wis 7:25–26; Babrius 126). The Shekinah was progressively banished from, and then reinvited to, earth CAbotR. Nat. 34 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; Gen. Rab. 19:7; Song Rab. 5:1, §1); because of sin, his tabernacle or temple was necessary to bring his presence (Pesiq. Rab 7:4). For the Shekinah continuing with Israel even when they sin, see Abelson, Immanence, 135–42. |
| 10505 The term κεται was common for lying in a tomb; to merely sample some Roman Jewish inscriptions, see, e.g., CIJ 1:8, §4; 1:12, §§6–7; 1:14, §§10–11; 1:15, §§12–13; 1:16, §§14–15; 1:17, §17; 1:19, §20; 1:21, §23; 1:23, §28; 1:24, §30; 1:26, §35; 1:30, §42; 1:31, §45; 1:32, §§46–47; 1:35, §§51–52; 1:36, §53; 1:37, §§55–56; 1:38, §58; 1:39, §§62–63; 1:49, §78; 1:52, §79; 1:56, §81; 1:60, §86; 1:62, §88; 1:66, §93; 1:69, §97; 1:70, §§99–100; 1:74, §105. 10506 Winandy, «Vestiges,» suggests this connection helps explain the beloved disciplés faith (20:8). 10507 Marsh, John, 634; Beasley-Murray, John, 372; cf. Osborne, «Napkin,» who suggests that Lazarus was still subject to death (cf. the «veil» of Isa 25in light of 25and later rabbinic tradition) but Jesus was not. 10508 Hunter, John, 184, arguing (undoubtedly correctly–cf. 20:19–but for the wrong reason) that Jesus» transformed body passed through his grave clothes (cf. also Salvoni, «Proof»). 10509 Hunter, John, 184. Sanders, John, 420, argues that the point is that they are «laid out in an orderly manner,» not that Jesus» body passed directly through the clothes. 10510 E.g., Gen. Rah. 100(though R. Judah disagrees). Cf. 1Cor 15:35–38, 53–54 . 10511 Schneiders, «Veil,» 96. Robert, «Suaire,» makes a similar argument from the Aramaic Targumim; but such an argument could at most address John " s traditions, not his present Greek text. 10512 Σουδριον is not specifically technical, appearing among «toilet articles» listed in a dowry (Deissmann, Studies, 223), but appears nowhere in the LXX. 10513 Whitacre, John, 473. For a description of the tomb in the early Middle Ages by a pilgrim reported in Bede Homilies on the Gospels 2.10, see comment on 19:38–42. 10514 Sloyan, John, 222. 10515 Cf. Koester, Symbolism, 36; Ellis, Genius, 8. 10516 The plural in her claim in 20may reflect a plural in John " s source (Kysar, John, 296, comparing Mark 16:1 ). 10517 Beasley-Murray, John, 372. 10518 Bruce, John, 385. 10519 Historians often reconstructed what was most probable on the basis of information they did have, including a person " s characteristic behavior. But it is noteworthy that the later apocryphal gospels usually fit the Synoptic tradition less wel1. |
|
|
