| 2909 Cf. Clark, Logos, 18–19, who suspects an anti-pagan polemical use of the Logos (emphasizing the distinctiveness of the incarnation, 28). 2914 Conzelmann, Theology, 335. For a description of the theme in Poimandres and other Hermetica, see Lee, Thought, 84–85, though he contrasts Johns «ethical interest» with the Poimandres» «magical» outlook. 2917 Lyman, «Religion,» 270, suggested a common dependence on the Logos of Heraclitus, John via Philo, the Hermetica via the Stoics. 2926 Read explores the value of the Hellenistic Logos in «Logos.» Many modern attempts to employ John " s Logos in interreligious dialogue, however, rest on a misapprehension of his semantic horizon (cf. Lukito, «Christology»). 2927 Diogenes Laertius 9.1.1. Diogenes Laertius provides ancient sources on Heraclitus in 9.1 (LCL 2:409–425). 2928 Lee, Thought, 79; cf. summaries in Allen, Philosophy, 10; Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 1–2; Barclay, «Themes,» 80. 2929 In Stobaeus Eel 1.1.12 (Grant, Religions, 152–54). One may compare Orphic Hymns 64: nomos is what arranges the stars and the whole cosmos; Pindar frg. 169a (in P.Oxy. 2450). 2930 Long, Philosophy, 131,145. Glasson, «Logos Doctrine,» noting that Heraclitus " s extant sayings on the subject are few (p. 234), wrongly suspects that the Stoics created them; see the critique in Miller, «Updating.» 2931 Bruce, History, 44; compare Heraclitus frg. 20 with Zeno frg. 98 (the latter available in Barrett, Background, 62). 2932 Diogenes Laertius 7.1.88. On divine law meaning living according to nature, see also Epictetus Diatr. 2.16.28; on one law and Logos in the universe, see Marcus Aurelius 7.9. For a full discussion of natural law in Stoicism, see Watson, «Natural Law.» For the connotative difference between logos and physis (nature), see Long, Philosophy, 120, 148–49. 2933 In Plato, e.g., see Diogenes Laertius 3.86; cf. Cicero in Frank, Aspects, 109; Maximus of Tyre Or. 6.5; 11.12 (comparing mind and law; in 27.8 he regards God as pure Mind); even Lucan C.W. 7.1; Sib. Or. 3.757. Cf. in Palestinian Judaism 1 En. 72:2; 73:1; 74:1; 76:14; 78:10; 79:1–2; 1QM 10.12–13. |
| 3004 Dahood, «Ebla,» on «Temple of the Word» (provided this points to an actual temple devoted to the worship of the personified Word; much Ebla material is still debatable). 3005 Words sometimes carried magical efficacy in ancient Near Eastern thought (e.g., Moriarty, «Word»), as in some other non-Western cultures (cf. Prince, «Psychiatry,» 99). 3006 Albright, «Logos,» 143–51, esp. 150. This is not to say that preexilic Mesopotamian ideas could not be transmitted over time (a giant is apparently called «Gilgamesh» in 4Q531 frg. 1, line 12; 4Q530 2.1; cf. also Reeves, «Utnapishtim»), but that the burden of proof remains on one asserting direct connections to demonstrate the media of transmission. 3013 Ibid., 172–93. The Persian prototypes that some have suggested (hypostatic Amesha Spentas in the Gathas, mentioned by Vos, «Range,» 387, as known by the first century) may be of more dubious relevance. 3018 Cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:255, for Greek mythology " s personification of wisdom; many recognize Greek influence on Jewish thought (Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 5; Sanders, John, 69). Non-Jewish personifications of wisdom include Plutarch Fort. Rom. 1, Mor. 316D (probable; it is compared with Fate; Law, νμος, is personified in Pindar frg. 169a in P.Oxy. 2450); likewise, Latin personifications (as a rhetorical device, e.g., Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.53.66; Cicero Nat. d. 2.23.60–62), also include Wisdom (e.g., Cicero Resp. 3.8.12; Acad. 2.9.27; Fin. 4.13.34; similarly, Philosophia in Seneca Ep. Luci1. 95.10; Virtue in Ep. Luci1. 66.27, though Ep. Luci1. 113 mocks a more literalistic personification of the Virtues). 3020 Burney, Origin, 38; J. A. Robinson, Historical Character, 104–5; Hayward, «Name»; Brown-lee, «Whence,» 179; Barclay, «Themes,» 79–80; cf. Westcott, John, xvi. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen. 1does associate the Memra with Wisdom. 3022 Box, «Intermediation» (answering Moore); Stuart, «Examination,» 20–22 (occasionally); cf. Middleton, «Logos,» 129. Middleton, «Logos,» argues that Shekinah (pp. 113–23) and Yekara (128) are also used as circumlocutions. |
| 6388 Most commentators (e.g., Haenchen, John, 2:13; Schnackenburg, John, 2:132; Brown, John, 1:312; Sandmel, Judaism, 142; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 88); cf. esp. Acts 4:13. For γρμματα related to the law, cf. Rom 2:27, 29; 7:6 ; 2Cor 3:6 , though in much of the urban Greek East a γραμματικς would instruct boys from well-to-do homes in grammar at the secondary level, perhaps around ages seven to twelve, in preparation for rhetoric (Heath, Hermogenes, 11–12; Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 534–35; Burridge, «Gospels and Acts,» 510; Kennedy, «Survey of Rhetoric,» 18). Not only teaching but most trades were learned through apprenticeship (Lewis, Life, 135). 6389 Pace Sanders, John, 205; cf. Luke 4:16–19. 6390 Lack of primary education was common in the ancient Mediterranean, however (e.g., Meeks, Moral World, 62), and despite apologetic claims of education for Hellenistic readers (e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.178; Life 9–10) and among the aristocracy (m. " Abot 5:21; t. Hag. 1:2.), Tannaitic mistrust of the Am Háarets (cf. 7:49) may suggest that even in Jewish Palestine elementary education was more available to those with means. Horsley, Galilee, 246–47, thinks the non-elite learned primarily orally. 6391 Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 31–32, at length. 6392 E.g., Isaeus Estate of Aristarchus 1; Cicero Quinct. 1.1–4; 24.77; 26.80–27.85; Isocrates Panath. 3, Or. 12; Quintilian 4.1.8–9, 11; cf. Exod 4:10; 1Cor 2:1 . 6393 Cf. Bury, Logos Doctrine, 45: as Wisdom, the Logos teaches and needs no teacher. 6394 Blomberg, Reliability, 134, argues that though the language in 7:16–19 is thoroughly Johannine, «conceptual parallels to every statement can be found in the Synoptics, suggesting that John is editing tradition» (which fits conclusions for other passages; see pp. 3–8. 6395 T. Hag. 1:2. Trained law teachers probably doubted that the common people, who lacked as much leisure time, practiced this principle as they should (see comment on 7:49). 6396 In 4Q491 MS C, 11 1.16–17, possibly the Messiah (though this remains uncertain) is untaught but teaches. (But for Qumran, the true teachers are Zadokite priests; cf. 1QS 1.19–2.4; 5.9–10; 6.3–8; also 4Q163 frg. 22, on the likeliest reconstruction). |
| 3366 2 Bar. 15:7; 21:24; Sipre Deut. 47.3.1–2; b. Ber. 6b, 61b (R. Hanina ben Dosa); Šabb. 30b; Sanh. 98b (David; Moses; Messiah); Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1(Abraham); Gen. Rab. 1(fifth century); Tg. Neof. on Num 22 (the patriarchs); Tg. 1 Chr. 4(the sages); thus some could say the world was created by the righteous (Ruth Rab. 2:3, late), e.g., the patriarchs (Lev. Rab. 36:4, fourth century). 3367 T. Mos. 1:12–13; 4 Ezra 6:59; 7:11; Sipre Deut. 47.3.1; b. Ber. 32b; Pesiq. Rab. 4:1, 3; 28:2; Targum Sheni to Esth 5:1; cf. b. Ber. 32a; even Torah was created for Israel ( Mark 2:27 ; Sipre Deut. 47.3.2; Ecc1. Rab. 1:4, §4, purportedly Tannaitic tradition); the prophets prophesy only for Israel (Mek. Pisha 1.166). Herrn. Vis. 2.4 transfers this image to the church (cf. James in Gos. Thorn. 12); in 2 Bar. 21:7, the world exists for God. For a survey of purposes for creation, see Moore, Judaism, 1:383. 3369 Cicero Nat. d. 2.62.154; Chrysippus in Cicero Fin. 3.20.67; Grant, Gods, 114; on Philós use of Stoic tradition here, see Jobling, «Dominion.» 3372 Also Herrn. Sim. 9.12.2. Stuart, «Examination,» 282, translates «by» him rather than «through» him, contending that δια is not always instrumental before a genitive (e.g., Xenophon Mem. 1.2.14). 3375 Miller, Salvation-History, 14, 76–89 (applying it to the incarnation); Cidrac, «Ponctuation.» Less plausibly, Burney, Origin, 29, suggests an Aramaic reconstruction meaning, " because in him was life.» But it is doubtful that John " s wording represents a mistake or mistranslation even on the unlikely thesis that John used a Semitic original for his prologue (cf. Schlatter, «Problem,» 55). 3378 Van Minnen, «Punctuation,» prefers «nothing came into being without him that exists in him; he was life»; Cohee, «1.3–4,» views ο γγονεν as a gloss. 3379 The importance of light imagery for John is rarely missed; cf., e.g., Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 27; Culpepper, Anatomy, 190–92; more fully, Koester, Symbolism, 123–54. «Darkness» (σκοτα) appears eight times in John, six times in 1 John, and twice elsewhere in the NT (although σκτος occurs often in the NT, it appears only once in John; Tenney, John, 306). Given the theological significance of these themes, the common ancient understanding of light from, rather than to, onés eyes (e.g., 1 En. 106:2; Jos. Asen. 6:6/3; Plutarch T.T. 1.8.4, Mor. 626C; cf. Sir 23:19 ; Allison, «Eye») should never be pressed in John (light was admitted rather than emitted in some texts like Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; cf. Democritus in Diogenes Laertius 9.7.44). |
| 3432 Dyer, «Light,» parallels the verb with «knew,» etc., and reads it, «appreciated.» Medieval Kabbalah also declares that true light cannot be comprehended (Ginsburg, Kabbalah, 127). 3433 Cf. Burney " s unlikely suggestion (Origin, 29–30) that this verb (and possibly its occurrence in 12:35) represents a mistranslation of the Aramaic, confusing the apWel («darken») with the páel ( " receive, take»). 3435 Sanders, John, 73; Barrett, «κατλαβεv,» 297; Lightfoot, Gospel, 89; cf. Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 27. «Darkness» could symbolize ignorance (e.g., Valerius Maximus 7.2.ext.la; Maximus of Tyre Or. 29.5). 3440 Cf. Hooker, «Baptist,» 358. Miller, Salvation-History, 4, 88, thinks 1:6–8 may have been the Gospel " s original beginning; but this misses the connection with «light,» which precedes. The suggestion of Teeple, Origin, 133, that the Baptist insertions in the prologue have a different author from that of John 21 , the epilogue, because the names are anarthrous in the prologue, fails if the insertions connect to the text of 1:19–36, where articular forms prevai1. 3441 Mark also domesticates the Baptist as a witness to Jesus, though not as rigidly as John; cf., e.g., Marxsen, Evangelist, 33; Trocmé, Formation, 55. 3442 Cf. Strachan, Gospel, 70. Burkitt, Gnosis, 97, even contended that the Fourth Gospel " s original readers knew of John but were just learning of Jesus (though they had previously heard of him). 3443 Kraeling, John, 107–8. Reitzenstein " s other primary argument for Mandean doctrinés dependence on the Baptist, the alleged priority of the heavenly-man myth before Daniel, is even more clearly without foundation. 3447 Many scholars contend that Jesus was, or probably was, a disciple of the Baptist (e.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 91). While this may be true (see comment on 3:23–24), arguing that it is the case on the basis of the Gospels and Acts striving so hard to subordinate the Baptist (ibid.) may be like claiming that because the evidence so strongly favors position A, position A must be a falsification; Sanders " s arguments on p. 92 are better. (Some of his contrasts between Jesus and John, however, are less reasonable, apart from John " s asceticism and Jesus» eating and drinking; in the temptation narrative, Jesus fasted like John " s disciples; John " s mission included sinners by repentance; the separation of wheat from chaff resembles judgment language common to both.) |
| 4796 Reitzenstein, Religions, 333–37; Angus, Religions, 95–98; Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 34; Bultmann, Christianity, 159; Lightfoot, Gospel, 131; Schoeps, Paul, 112; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Epistles, 148–50; Lohse, Environment, 234. 4801 Willoughby, Initiation, 65; later, in Hippolytus Haer. 5.8.40–41 (but see the reservation in Boring et a1., Commentary, 252). Whatever «rebirth» took place in the Eleusinian Mysteries was also apparently dissociated from the initial bathing rite that accompanied many cults (Nock, Christianity, 61). 4805 E.g., CIL 6.510 (Aug. 13, 376, in Grant, Religions, 147); Reitznestein, Religions, 44–45; Gasparro, Soteriology, 118. 4806 Wagner, Baptism, 250,254; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 136–37. The earlier, temporary rebirth does not clearly predate the second century. 4807 Willoughby, Initiation, 108, a significant concession (see 90–113 for his case for regeneration in Orphism). 4808 Guthrie, Orpheus, 269. Sallustius does apply rebirth language to the Orphic quest for immortality (ibid., 209). 4809 E.g., Diogenes Laertius 4.16; 6.2.56; Valerius Maximus 6.9.ext.1. See more fully Wilken, «Collegia,» 272; Meeks, Moral World, 44, 54–55; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 45–46, 144; Stowers, Letter Writing, 37, 112–13; Lutz, «Musonius,» 27–28; esp. Nock, Conversion, 164–86; cf. MacMullen, «Conversion.» Some schools allowed for instant transformation, whereas others emphasized the process (Stowers, «Resemble Philosophy?» 91–92). In various societies diverse rituals are connected with behavioral transformations (e.g., Eliade, Rites, 88; Mbiti, Religions, 170), including an initiatory symbolism of returning to the womb (Eliade, Rites, 51–53; cf. embryo symbolism, pp. 57–64) and other new birth symbolism (ibid., 53–57). 4812 The broader, nontechnical meaning of such terms appears in Philo and Josephus (Selwyn, Peter, 122–23). 4816 Reitzenstein, Religions, 47–48, 55,62; Willoughby, Initiation, 196–224; Dodd, Interpretation, 45–46; Lee, Thought, 45. For «birth anew,» commentators cite, e.g., Corp. herm. 4.4; 13.1. |
| 9459 This could echo the close of the Lord " s Prayer (e.g., Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 69) but need not do so. On similar Jewish prayers for deliverance in testing, see Jeremias, Prayers, 105. 9460 Jub. 50:5; Matt 13:19, 38; Eph 6:16; 2 Thess 3:3; for rhetorical use of antonomasia, see comment on 17:12. The other Johannine texts (1 John 2:13–14; 3:12; 5:18–19) are particularly relevant. 9461 E.g., 1QM 14.10 (»). 9462 Diogn. 6 echoes John 17but interprets it in a platonizing direction. 9463 It appears symbolic even in Rev 12:6, where it alludes to the exodus. 9464 E.g., 2 Bar. 44:14; cf. 1 En. 99:2. 9465 E.g., Jub. 22:29; 30:8; 1QS 8.21; 9.6; 1QM 14.12; Wis 18:9; 3Macc 6:3; Exod. Rah 15:24; cf. 1QM 9.8–10; 1Cor 1:2 ; 1 Clem. 1.1. 9466 E.g., Jub. 2:19, 21; 15:27. Among later texts, see, e.g., b. Ber. 33b. 9467 E.g., t. Ber. 5:22; 6:9, 10,13,14; b. Ber. 51a, bar.; 60b; Pesah. 7b; Sabb. 137b; p. Sukkah 3:4, §3; Pesiq. Rah. 3:2; also noted by many commentators (e.g., Hoskyns, Gospel, 502). Some think «sanctify» here is a verbal link with the Lord " s Prayer (e.g., Fenton, John, 176), but it seems to have been a frequent motif in early Jewish prayers. 9468 The sanctification is «worked out in their doing of the truth» (Morris, John, 730). 9469 As Smith, John (1999), 315, notes, the prologue sets the stage for the rest of the Gospel, in-eluding 17:17. Suggit, «LOGOS,» finds a title for Jesus here, citing in support also various early Christian texts. 9470 A later blessing recited before reading Torah praised God for sanctifying Torah (R. Eleazar reports earlier tradition in Pesiq. Rah Kah. Sup. 1:2; cf. Deut. Rab. 11:6); or one praised God again for sanctifying his people by his commandments (b. Ber. lib). God sanctifies the law and delights in those who obey it. 9471 Brown, John, 2:762, parallels Jesus» holiness with the Father (17:11). 9472 Thus Brown, John, 2:761, finds an echo in 17of «holy» Father in 17:11. 9473 As Ridderbos, John, 557, suggests, John " s primary dualism is a moral dualism created by the world " s alienation from God; yet even then it remains the object of God " s saving love. |
| 5854 Cf, e.g., Gen 2:7; 2 Kgs 5:7; Neh 9:6; Ps 71:20 ; Jos. Asen. 12:1/2; Philo Creation 135; for national revival, cf. Ezra 9:8–9. 5855 E.g., 2Macc 7:9; 14:46; t. Ber. 6:6; b. Ber. 58b; Ta c an. 2a; Pesiq. Rab. 42:7; Tg. Ps.-J. to Deut 28:12 ; cf. also 4Q521 frg. 2,4, co1. 2.12 (the Messiah may appear in line 1, but the nearer context of lines 4–11 points to God); 4Q521 frg. 7,5, co1. 2.5–6,8 (as reconstructed in Wise, Scrolls, 421). Often God raised the dead in this world through prophets, however, as a foretaste of the future resurrection (Ecc1. Rab. 3:15, §1); he could also raise the dead on account of a righteous person " s merit (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:20) or in some sense through the agency of Elijah (perhaps by his coming as forerunner; m. Sotah 9:15). 5856 Cf. the title of Helios in PGM 7.528–530 and Apollo in PGM 2.98. God is «giver of life» in Deut 32:39 ; 1Sam 2:6; 2 Kgs 5:7; and in early Judaism (Morris, John, 314). 5857 Brown, Community, 47. The tradition that the righteous would resurrect the dead (b. Pesah. 68a) is late and isolated. 5858 Haenchen, John, 1:251; cf. Strachan, Gospel, 116. Jesus elsewhere connects healing with saving life ( Mark 3:4 ). 5859 If the festival were Sukkoth or Rosh Hashanah, the theme of judgment would be particularly relevant (Bonsirven, Judaism, 20, citing t. Roš Haš. 1:13); but see comment on 5:1. 5860 Also acknowledged in Sipre Deut. 9.2.1. 5861 Abel with Enoch " s help in T. Ab. 12:5–13:4A; 11:2–10B; Enoch in 3 En. 16:1. In T. Ab. 13God delegates judgment to Abel because humans must judge human deeds; in m. c Ed. 8:7, Elijah distinguishes clean from unclean at the judgment, though this role nevertheless appears to leave God himself as judge. 5862 Homer Od. 11.568–571; Euripides Cyc1. 273; Virgil Aen. 6.431–433,566–569; Lucian Downward Journey. 5863 Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 39, thinks John reflects the Daniel-Enoch tradition here, citing also Acts 17:31; Holwerda, Spirit, 12, emphasizes the parallel with Dan 7:14 ; see further below on 5:27. Meeks, «Agent,» 55, cites other examples of God temporarily delegating his unique works to human agents. |
| Bréhier. Vie et Mort. Bréhier L. Vie et mort de Byzance. Le Monde Byzantin, I. Paris, 1947. (L’évolution de l " humanité; 32). Bréhier-Aigrain . Bréhier L., Aigrain R. Grégoire le Grand, les États barbares et la conquête arabe. Paris, 1938. (Histoire de l " Église depuis les origines jusqúà nos jours, publ. par A. Fliehe et V Martin; T. 5). Byzantinoslavica. Praha, 1933-. Bury . Admin. System. Bury J.B. The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century, with a Revised Text of the Kletorologion of Philotheos. London, 1911; repr. New York, (1958). Bury . Constitution Bury J.B. The Constitution of the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge, 1909. Bury . Eastern Rom. Empire. Bury J.B. A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basile I (802–867). London, 1912. Bury. Later Rom. Empire (1) Bury J.B. A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (395–800). 2 vol. London, 1889. Bury . Later Rom. Empire (2) Bury J.B. A History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian (395–565), 2 vol. London, 1923. Byzantion. Bruxelles, 1924-. Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Leipzig; München, 1892-. The Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge, 1923–1939.12 vols. Chalandon . Alexis I. Chalandon F. Essai sur le regne d " Alexis I Comnene (1081–1118). Paris, 1900. Chalandon . Domination normande. Chalandon F. Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicilie. 2 vol. Paris, 1907. Chalandon . Les Comnènes II. Chalandon F. Les Comnènes IÏ Jean Comnène (1118–1143) et Manuel Comnène (1143–1180). Paris, 1912. Chapman . Michel Paleologue. Chapman С . Michel Paléologue, Restaurateur de l’Empire byzantin. Paris, 1936. Charanis . Monastic Properties. Charanis P. The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire//DOP 4 (1948). P. 51–119. Charanis . Palaeologi and Ottoman Turks. Charanis P. The Strife among the Palaeologi and the Ottoman Turks, 1370–1402//Byz 16 (1942/43). P. 286–315. Charanis . Short Chronicle. |
| I was by God’s side, a master craftswoman, delighting God day by day, ever at play at God’s side, at play everywhere in God’s domain.” The status of the Logos in creation was made unclear in this proclamation, for Prov. 8.22 was remarked to have stated: “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old,” which was taken by a range of Arian theologians to denote the ontological subordination of the Logos/Son to the Father, and his creaturely status. Anti-Arian theologians such as Athanasius were able to raise up a host of alternative biblical proof texts such as the preface of the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.” In so far as the Arian controversy was precisely concerned with the question of the Logos’ origins (was the Logos created or eternally existent?), the Orthodox answer to this question, as eventually articulated in the Nicene Creed, affirmed that the Logos was “eternally begotten of the Father,” “true God from True God,” and consubstantial with him. According to one of the greatest Logos theologians, Origen of Alexandria, the Logos was the governing principle of creation and was God precisely because the Logos essentially existed towards God (Commentary on John, 2.10), that is in terms of his relationship with the Father, as manifesting Son of that incomprehensible Father. In this manner the Logos is omnipresent as architect and accessible as Lord within the world. Beyond the world the Logos exists as one of the three hypostases within the trinitarian Godhead. Humanity intuits the Logos as revealed in the world (the economy of the Son, made apprehensible by the sanctifying power of the Spirit), but the inner, essential, relations within the Trinity remain absolutely beyond the power of human theological speculation (a point brilliantly sustained in Gregory of Nazianzen’s Orations 27 and 28). In Orthodox theology, therefore, the Logos specifically denotes the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Lord who was incarnated on earth as the Christ, and it is the language of Logos theology that thus made the articulation of trinitarian theology possible. |
|
|
