| 8755 Both expansion (cf., e.g., Theon Progym. 1.172–175; 2.115–123; 3.224–240) and abridgement (2Macc 2:24–28) were standard practices; see our comments on pp. 18–19, 27–28. Post-Easter embellishment becomes far more common in the apocryphal gospels than in the Synoptics (see Carmignac, «Pré-pascal»); Hill, Prophecy, 169, thus is right to observe that the Johannine discourses «may indeed be homilies composed around sayings of Jesus,» without being from Christian prophets. 8756 Many scholars emphasize the centrality of the Word and the Jesus tradition here; see Bürge, Community, 213; Dietzfelbinger, «Paraklet,» 395–402; for the reason for this emphasis, Dietzfel-binger, «Paraklet,» 402–8. Cf. the importance of authentic memory of the right Teacher in the Scrolls (Stuhlmacher, «Theme,» 13; cf. Roloff, «Lieblingsjünger,» whom he cites). 8762 Berg, «Pneumatology,» 149–50. This is likely however one interprets the phrase. On acting in onés name, see discussion at 14:13. 8764 Franck, Revelation, 44, points out that in Philo it is normally God or his Word or Moses who «teaches.» Wegenast, «Teach,» 760, observes that the term is normally used in the LXX for instruction in how to live the Torah, not for prophetic preaching. 8765 E.g., m. " Abot 3:8; Met Pisha 1:135–136; Sipre Deut. 4.2.1; 48.1.1,4; 306.19.1–3; p. Meg. 4:1, §4; cf. Let. Aris. 154 (Hadas, Aristeas, 161, also compares Philo Spec. Laws 4.106ff). See comments on memory in our introduction; cf. in pre-Christian sapiential testaments, such as Tob 4(perhaps Tob 1:11–12). 8766 Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.16.28; Plutarch Educ. 13, Mor. 9E; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.31; 10.1.12; Theon Progym. 2.5–8; Quintilian 1.3.1; 2.4.15; 11.2.1–51; probably Seneca Dia1. 7.10.3; Culpepper, School, 50, 106, 193; Anderson, Glossary, 126–27; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 98; Gerhardsson, Memory, 124–25. Understanding and remembering profitable sayings were both vital (Isocrates Demon. 18, Or. 1), and reminder was common enough in moral exhortation (Isocrates Demon. 21, Or. 1; Epictetus Diatr. 4.4.29; Phil 3:1 ; 2Pet 1:12 ; cf. Cicero Amic. 22.85; Rom 15:15 ). Note taking was, of course, practiced; cf. Diogenes Laertius 2.48; Epictetus Diatr. 1.pref; Quintilian 1.pref.7–8; introduction to Plutarch Stoic Cont. 13:369–603, in LCL 398–99. |
| 5191 Plato Theaet. 191D; Alexander 14 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 180D; Fort. Alex. 1.11, Mor. 333A. The seals leave an imprint in soft wax (Plutarch Educ. 5, Mor. 3F). 5192 Apuleius Metam. 10.10; cf. Lyall, Slaves, 148–52. Seals could indicate approval on a legal document, which is what Brown, John, 1:158, sees here; cf. 21:24–25. 5193 E.g., Esth 8LXX; cf. the letter in Chariton 4.5.8. The keeper of the royal signet-ring played an important role in royal courts (Tob 1:22). 5194 E.g., over a wide chronological range, P.Eleph. 1.16–18; 2.17–18; P.Lond. 1727.68–72; P.Tebt. 104.34–35; Rev 5:1. Witnesses might be recalled to testify to the validity of their seals (P.Oxy. 494.31–43; 156–165 C.E.). Seals were also used to identify the contents of merchandise (Carmon, Inscriptions, 108–9, 230–33; cf. perhaps Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.8). 5195 Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 340, §112D (επισφραγζεται). A rhetor could also apply this term to his crowning touches of praise (Menander Rhetor 2.3, 380.2). 5196 Jewish tradition acknowledged that even those in error would ultimately acknowledge the truth of God and Moses (e.g., Koran " s family in b. B.Bat. 74a; Num. Rab. 18:20). 5198 B. Sanh. 64a; p. Sanh. 1:1, §4; Gen. Rab. 8:5; Deut. Rab. 1:10; Bonsirven, Judaism, 150. 5200 For Jesus» χερ, «hand,» of authority, see also 10:28; for the Father " s hand, see 10:29; contrast perhaps 7:30,44; 10:39. 5201 That the Father gives the Spirit to Jesus here is frequently maintained and is probably the majority view, e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 133; Carson, John, 213; Bruce, John, 97; Turner, Spirit, 59: Whitacre, John, 99; Smith, John (1999), 107. 5202 Lev. Rab. 15:2, noted also by Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 14; Carson, John, 213; Turner, Spirit, 59; Hofius, «Geist ohne Mass»; and Bürge, Community, 84, who also notes that the specific expression κ μτρου is foreign to Greek literature in genera1. Musonius Rufus 18B, p. 116.12, applies μετρα negatively to excess (unlimited gluttony); cf. T. Ab. 14:9; 17:7A. |
| 4093 Cf. in Isaacs, Spirit, 47, citing Philo Flight 132; Moses 1.175 for Moses being the Spirit " s «recipient par excellence» and Giants 47 for the Spirit abiding with him longer than with others. 4094 Whitacre, Polemic, 98; see the thesis of Keener, «Pneumatology,» passim. 4095 See, e.g., Mattill, Last Things, 4; Robinson, Studies, 161; Dunn, Baptism, 42; cf. Minear, Kingdom, 135. Tannehill, Sword, 145; idem, Luke, 1:251, connects with the context of division. For authenticity, see Hill, Prophecy, 67. 4096 Ps 1:4 ; Hos 13:3 ; Isa 17:13; cf. Exod 15:7; Jer 4:11–13; 13:24; 15:7 ; Isa 29:5; 33:11; 41:15–16; Zeph 2:2. Cf. Matt 9:38; 13:39; 21:34. Cf. the «threshing-floor» in 4 Ezra 4:30–32. 4097 Isa 26:11; 66:15–16,24; cf. 2 Thess 1:6–7 and many other early Christian sources; cf. Ps 97:3 ; Nah 1:6; Zeph 1(which readers could have taken eschatologically, although historic judgments stood in the foreground); or for noneschatological judgment, e.g., Num 11:1 ; Jer 4:4; 15:14; 17:4; 21:12 ; Ezek 21:31; 22:20–21 . The Semitic expression «wrath burned» is common in the Hebrew Bible, and the cognate appears, e.g., in the Moabite Mesha inscription (ANET 320–21). 4098 Chaff did not burn eternally (Ladd, Theology, 37, cites Isa 1:31; 66:24; Jer 7:20 ); that Q " s fire is unquenchable suggests a particular Jewish image of judgment as eternal (the worst sinners in 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanh. 13:5; probably 1 En. 108:5–6; L.A.B. 38:4; Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2; Plutarch D. V. 31, Mor. 567DE). There was no unanimous Jewish view; see the probably first-century dispute in " Abot R. Nat. 41 A; cf. also 36 A. Matthew " s view is more obviously Jewish than Lukés (cf. Milikowsky, «Gehenna»; Goulder, Matthew, 63), though Lukés Hellenistic contextualization does not abandon future eschatology (Acts 17:31–32; 23:6; 24:15; contrast to some extent, e.g., Josephus Ant. 18.14, 18; War 2.163; Philo Sacrifices 5, 8). 4099 In the most common rabbinic view, most sinners endure it temporarily till destruction (cf. 1QS 4.13–14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in t. Sanh. 13:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5) or release (Num. Rab. 18:20; other texts are unclear, e.g., Sir 7:16 ; Sipre Num. 40.1.9; Sipre Deut. 311.3.1; 357.6.7; " Abot R. Nat. 16 A; 32, §69 B; 37, §95 B). Many Jewish storytellers conflated Gehenna with the Greek Tartarus (e.g., Sib. Or. 1.10, 101–103, 119; 4.186; 5.178; 11.138; cf. Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:22; b. Git. 56b-57a; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2; Apoc. Pet. 5–12; on the relationship between Jewish and Greek concepts, cf. also Serrano, «Sheol»). |
| 451 Asyndeton also characterizes John " s style (Stamps, «Johannine Writings,» 620, lists 1:40,42, 45; 2:17; 4:6, 7; 5:12, 15; 7:32; 8:27; 9:13; 10:21, 22; 11:35, 44; 20:18); on this style, see Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.30.41; Quintilian 9.3.50; Rowe, «Style,» 136 (including Augustine Serm. 191.19.5); Lee, «Translations of OT,» 779–80 (LXX Job 3:17; 5:10 ; Isa 1:23); Anderson, Glossary, 33–34; also in Rhet. Alex. 36.1442a.l 1–14. 452 In a more technical sense, κακοφανα is «ill-sounding word order» (Anderson, Rhetorical Theory 187). 453 E.g., Kreitzer, John, 5. Other Platonists, however, might find «myth» the best vehicle for allegorical truth (see Maximus of Tyre Or. 4.5–6). 459 MacRae, Invitation, 16, says that whether or not John used the Synoptics, no one doubts that John reinterprets the Jesus tradition. 461 Lindars, John,31. Brodie, Quest, 153–55, emphasizes John " s move from his historical sources to interpretation. 467 Appian R.H. 11.7.41 is skeptical of Platós accuracy (but paradoxically takes the Iliad more seriously, R.H. 12.1.1). Cf. also the quite different portrayal of Musonius Rufus in the collections of Lucius and Pollio (Lutz, «Musonius,» 12–13). 469 Deuteronomy was one of the most popular books, perhaps the most popular book, among early Jewish interpreters, if incidence at Qumran supplies a clue (Cross, Library, 43). Westermann, John, 22–23,67, likewise compares the contrast between the interpretive speeches of Deuteronomy and Joshua, on the one hand, with Exodus and Numbers, on the other; Stuhlmacher, «Theme,» 15, compares John " s use of Jesus tradition with Jubilees or 11QT «updating» the Pentateuch. 470 As rewritings of Deuteronomy, Ashton, Understanding, 472, mentions Jub. 1; L.A.B. 19; 1Q22; Testament of Moses. 11QTemple may function as an eschatological Deuteronomy (Wise, «Vision»); at least 1 lQTemple 51.11–66.11 adapts and often paraphrases Deut (Schiffman, «Paraphrase»). 471 For Moses parallels, see, e.g., Teeple, Prophet; Glasson, Moses; Herlong, «Covenant»; Lacomara, «Deuteronomy»; Ashton, Understanding, 472–76. In this Gospel, however, it is Jesus» disciples who are most analogous with Moses, and Jesus as God " s glory (1:14). |
| 4969 E.g., Pesiq. Rab. 23:8. Socrates also reportedly compared the soul with winds that are invisible yet yield clear effects (MacGregor, John, 73, cites Xenophon Mem. 4.3). 4970 One could speak similarly of a quickly disappearing pirate (Chariton 2.4.7: ν οκ οδας οδ» οπθεν λθεν οδ» που πλιν πλθεν); a Tanna spoke of inability to see the womb (where one came from) or the grave (where one was going; " Abot R. Nat. 32, §69B). More analogously, a Tanna commented on Dan 12that the righteous, like the stars, are sometimes visible but sometimes invisible (Sipre Deut. 47.2.8). 4971 Ezek 37 figures prominently in 4Q386; 4Q388; 4Q385 frg.2, lines 7–8; and a Dura Europos mural; perhaps Acts 2:2. See, e.g., Chevallier, Souffle, 23; Robinson, «Baptism,» 17; Bruce, Commentary, 54. Some diverse cultures link «spirit» and «wind» (Kaplan and Johnson, «Meaning,» 205; Egyptian language in Görg, «Wehen») or «wind» with the divine (Mbiti, Religions, 70). 4972 Commentators often recognize «wind» and «Spirit» as a double entendre here (e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 131; Hunter, John, 38; Sanders, John, 125; Brown, John, 1:131; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 9; Shedd, «Meanings,» 255). 4973 Bernard, John, 2:313, contends that in John κοω with the genitive implies «hearing with appreciation and intelligence» as distinct from the accusative usage. This observation may summarize too simplistically, but a pattern does emerge. Genitive nouns follow this verb in 1:40; 3:8, 29; 4:42, 47; 5:24–25, 28; 6:45, 60; 7:32, 40; 8:38, 40, 47; 9:35, 40; 11:4; 12:34, 47; 14:24; 15:15; 18:37; 19:13. Nouns in the genitive or dative follow in 1:37; 3:29, 32; 4:1, 47; 5:24, 30, 37; 7:32; 8:26, 43; 9:31–32,35; 10:3; 11:4,6,20,42; 12:12,18,29,34,47; 14:28; 19:8,13; 21:7, which account for most of the book " s secondhand reports, and appear theologically significant far more rarely (esp. in 3:29,32; 5:24, 30, 37; 8:26, 43; 10:3; very rarely in the remainder of the book). 4974 «Hear» is also used in its regular narrative sense, which is not specifically theological, probably in 1:37,40; 4:1,47; 6:60; 7:32,40, 51; 9:27,31, 32, 25,40; 11:4,6,20,29,41–42; 12:12,18,29, 34; 14:28; 18:21; 19:8, 13; 21:7. |
| 7:37) an appropriate time to water the sheep ( Gen 29:7 ), and John might possibly allude to the good shepherd ( John 10:11 ) watering his sheep here. 5301 E.g., Josephus Ant. 15.292–296; Strabo Geog. 16.2.34; for its temple to Caesar, Josephus War 1.403; Ant. 15.298. 5305 Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.199; 1 En. 8:1–2; Jub. 20:4; 33:20; T. Ab. 10:8A; Ascen. Isa. 2:5; t. Sanh. 13:8; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; see further Keener, «Adultery,» 10–11. It is equivalent to prostitution (Sipra Qed. pq. 7.204.1.1–2; either may be condemned in CD 4.17–18; 7.1; 8.5; 1QS 4.10). 5306 E.g., Wis 14:24; L.A.B. 2:8; Syr. Men. 45–46, 240–251; T. Levi 17:11; Treat. Shem 7:15; 9:9; 10:16; at greater length, see Keener, «Adultery,» 7–10. 5309 E.g, P.Eleph. 1.3–4; Dio Cassius 54.16.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 11.28.4; Livy 4.4.9–11; Gaius Inst. 1.66–92; Ulpian Rules 5.8–9; cf. Arrian Ind. 12.8. In Judaism, cf., e.g., Josephus Ant. 4144–245; t. Sanh. 4:7; p. Git. 1:4,.4, Ketub. V.5, Qidd. 1:1, 3:12,Yebam. 6:1–9:8. On the relation between Jewish and Roman codes here, see Cohen, Law, 133–36; further documentation appears in Keener, Marries, 58–60, 169–70. 5311 Sir 41:22 ; Syr. Men. 347–353; Christian influence may exist in the public disapproval of Justinian Codex 9.25. The prohibitions, however, suggested that the temptation existed (m. " Abot 2:7; t. Hor. 2:11; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 20:6). 5312 E.g., Homer Od. 1.428–433; Martial Epigr. 3.33; Artemidorus Onir. 1.78; Achilles Tatius 6.20; Apuleius Metam. 3; see further Keener, «Adultery,» 12. It could deter adultery (Columella Rust. 1.8.5) 5314 Epictetus Ench. 33.8. Others apparently found nothing wrong with limited male promiscuity (cf. Apollonius of Rhodes 1.842–909). 5315 E.g., Mantitheus against Boeotus 2.8–10 (in Demosthenes, LCL 4:486–87); Plutarch Educ. 2, Mor. 1AB. 5316 Gardner, Women, 130; Justinian Codex 9.22. Cf. honored prostitutes of higher status (e.g., Athenaeus Deipn. 13.596b; Aulus Gellius 7.7.5–7; Sipre Num. 115.5.7); many, however, entered the profession through economic necessity (Terence Lady of Andros 73–79), and most because they were slaves (Apuleius Metam. |
| 9129 For Gentile anti-Judaism, see, e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2; Philo Flaccus 1, 47, 85; CPJ 1:24–25; 2:36–55, §153; 3:119–21, §520; Sib. Or. 3.271–272; Horace Sat. 1.5.100–101; Juvenal Sat. 14.96–106; Quintilian 3.7.21; Tacitus Hist. 5.1–5. 9130 See esp. Marshall, Enmity, 35–69 (for invective and shaming enemies, see 46–69). Even Pythagoras reportedly permitted repudiating friendships in the case of a serious vice (Iamblichus V.P. 22.102; 33.232). 9131 Segovia, Farewell, 179. As Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 87, note, «hatred» was not primarily an internal feeling, as it is understood in modern Western thought. 9135 Sometimes a person could, on the condition of securing immunity, denounce others and let them be executed–whether or not the confession was true (Thucydides 6.60.2–5; Plutarch Alc 21.2–4; without immunity, cf. Josephus War 1.498). 9136 E.g., Appian C.W. 4.4.26; Valerius Maximus 3.3.ext.7; cf. also claims about the Iberians (Strabo Geog. 3.4.18; Valerius Maximus 2.6.11). For other instances of slaves» loyalty, e.g., Appian R.H. 7.1.2; 8.3.17; slaves who defended their master " s life deserved freedom and great reward (Cicero Mi1. 22.58). DeSilva, Honor, 115,144, compares the honorable behavior of sharing a patron-friend " s suffering (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 81.27; Benef. 4.20.2; 4.24.2). 9139 This text does not exonerate those who did not see or hear him, as if negating the Gospel " s earlier statements that the world stands condemned before his coming (3:17–18) or that Jesus is the only way to the Father (14:6); πρφασις simply means «pretext» (Whitacre, John, 382–83, note). 9142 Lacomara, «Deuteronomy,» 68–70, compares God " s signs in ancient Israel; in view of their absence in this Gospel, Richardson " s finding the sacraments in 15(Theology, 378) is improbable. 9143 M. c Abod. Zar. 3:4; see further the comment on 10:34. Torah was one of two or three divisions of Scripture (e.g., 4 Macc 18:10; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:13; see more fully the comment on John 1:45 ) but in the general sense included the whole (e.g., 3 En. 48D:4; Sipre Deut. 32.5.12) and even extrapolations (e.g., t. Ber. 6:19). |
| 3913 E.g., b. Ta c an. 16a; Pesiq. Rab. 44:1. Judaism despised false proselytes (e.g., Jdt 11:23; T. Jos. 4:4–6; Sipre Deut. 356.5.7; b. c Abod. Zar. 3b; Šabb. 33b; Pesiq. Rab. 22:5), later texts explicitly demanding fear of God as the proper motive for authentic conversion (b. Qidd. 62a; Yebam. 24b, 47a; p. Git. 1:4, §2; Qidd. 4:1, §§2–3; Num. Rab. 8:4, 9; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:387–88 on b. B. Mesïa 72a), though some allowed that proselytes from impure motives might still have some status before God (cf. p. Sanh. 6:7, §2). Some second-century rabbis rejected proselytes who balked at so much as a single obligation of Torah (t. Demai 2:50; cf. Num. Rab. 5:3). Neusner, «Conversion,» 66, argues that political factors may have partially motivated the conversions of Helene and Izates, though their conversions were sincere. 3914 1QS 3.4–9; 4.21; 5.13–14; Bonsirven, Judaism, 116, also cites t. Ta c an. 1:8. See Sanders, Judaism, 230, citing Let. Aris. 305–306; Philo Unchangeable 7–8. Early Christians retained the Jewish and the Baptist " s prerequisite of repentance for valid baptism (against Flusser, Judaism, 53, who thinks Christians weakened it). 3915 Michaels, John, 16, points to the particularly Johannine construction of the language here. 3916 Spell 20, part T-l, in the Egyptian Book of the Dead (trans. Allen, 36); Mover, «Purity,» 130; Blackman, «Purification,» 476; cf. Philo Moses 1.14. 3917 Moyer, «Purity,» 130. 3918 Ibid., 132; cf. the importance of ritual purity in «Instructions for Palace Personnel to Insure the King " s Purity,» trans. Goetze, ANET 207; «Instructions for Temple officials,» 14, trans. Goetze, ANET 209. 3919 The principle also appears in genetically unrelated or distant societies, e.g., postpartum purificatory water rituals among Eskimos, in Fiji, and Uganda (Fallaize, «Purification»); postpartum or postmenstruation rituals among the Nandi and the Ndebele (Mbiti, Religions, 169, 172); prénuptial washings in Batoro (Mbiti, Religions, 182–83), Jewish (Safrai, «Home,» 758) and Greco-Roman (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 54–55; Batey, Imagery, 28) cultures; Hindu water purifications before approaching a deity (Fry et a1., Religions, 61, and, to a lesser extent, in Shinto tradition in Japan [ibid., 154]); possibly related Islamic purifications (Guillaume, Islam, 88); Mandaeans (Drower, Mandaeans, 100–23; cf. |
| 4448 B. Ta c an. 24a, a later story concerning a contemporary of R. Judah ha-Nasi. It was understood that cultural rules on how to drink wine varied regionally (Esth. Rab. 2:13). 4449 As the prototype of all who were from above, Jesus is perhaps the first «born from above,» i.e., from God (see comment on 3:3); but John in no way tones down the reality of Jesus» physical incarnation (1:14) through a human mother (also 2:12; 19:26). (Zumstein, «Croix,» in fact, thinks the mention of Jesus» mother emphasizes Jesus» incarnation; Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 8.6.2–8.9.4 argued this against the Manichaeans.) 4450 See Martin, «Epithet.» Beck, Paradigm, 17–26, argues that Greco-Roman literature rarely leaves important characters anonymous; but in Hebrew texts, see the women of 1 Kgs 17:9–24; 2 Kgs 4. 4451 See Beck, Paradigm, 132–36, though we would not accept all examples (e.g., the man in John 5 ; further, we accept some named characters, such as John the Baptist, as positive models). Beck, Paradigm, 53, sees the two most important characters in 2:1–4as women. 4452 Cf., e.g., Luke 14:12; Martial Epigr. 3.27; 3.37; 5.47; Chariton 2.7.4; probably Ps.-Phoc. 152 (see note i in OTP 2:579); dining invitations indicated status (e.g., Martial Epigr. 5.47; Ecc1. Rab. 1:3, §1), and social obligations could easily become overly demanding (e.g., Seneca Dia1. 10.14.3). Cf. Judge, Rank, 26; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 63–64; esp. Derrett, Audience, 43. 4454 Cf. Derrett, Law, 237–38. On the importance of wedding gifts, see, e.g., Pindar Pyth. 3.94–95; Theophrastus Char. 30.18–19. 4457 The wedding in Tob 9:19–20 was thrown by the bridés father because Tobias was far from home; but their marital dwelling then became patriloca1. The groom " s family was normally responsible (Safrai, «Home,» 760, citing m. Ker. 3:7; Sipre Deut. 107). 4458 At any rate, Seneca regards as self-evident that social tact includes giving someone a gift when that person needs it (Benef. 1.12.3), and some others may have shared his view. |
| 6741 T. Mos. 3:14. 6742 E.g., Sipre Deut. 305.2.1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2(Tannaitic tradition); 12:25; 15:5. Cf. traditions on the four kingdoms ( Dan 2; 2 Bar. 39:7; 5/7?. Or. 8.6–11; Midr. Pss. 40, §4; cf. Lucas, «Origin»). 6743 Philo Rewards 137; Good Person 36. One enslaved might be said to have lost half onés worth (Homer Od. 17.322–323), and the impoverished free, as much as aristocrats, resented treatment as slaves (Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 19.9.4; Livy 4.3.7; Dio Cassius 8.36.3; Chariton 1.11.3). Although high-status slaves existed (e.g., Herodian 1.12.3; see our comment on 1:27), a slavés position was otherwise socially low (e.g., Cicero Acad. 2.47.144; Num. Rab. 6:1). 6744 Homer Od. 17.320–321; Sir 33:24–30 ; b. Qidd. 49b. 6745 Lucian [Asin.] 5. 6746 Terence Self-Tormentor 668–678; Lady of Andros 495; Chariton 2.10.7; Apuleius Metam. 10.7,10; cf. MacMullen, Relations, 116. 6747 Plato Ale. 1.135C; Achilles Tatius 7.10.5; Chariton 6.5.5; Josephus Ant. 4.219; m. Sotah 1:6; b. Menah. 43b-44a, bar.; Syr. Men. 154–67. 6748 Homer Od. 24.252–253; Chariton 1.10.7; 2.1.5; T. Jos. 11:2–3. 6749 Homer Od. 4.63–64; Arrian Alex. 5.19.1; Apuleius Metam. 4.23. 6750 E.g., Aeschines Timarchus 42. For manual labor, see, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 9.25.2; further Finley, Economy, 40–41; Luwel, «Begrip.» Manual laborers themselves were probably more pleased with their status (Martin, Slavery, 44–46,123–24; Lenski, «Crystallization»). 6751 E.g., Demosthenes Against Leptines 132; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.30; 1.9.20; 1.12.24; 1.13.3; 1.24.17; 1.29.16; 2.7.13; 2.13.18; 3.24.74; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.33; 6.2.43; probably Plutarch Virt. 2, Mor. 100E. Also Jeremias, Jerusalem, 351, citing a baratta in b. Qidd. 28a. To call one a «son of a slave» was to imply one s illegitimate birth (Josephus Ant. 13.292)–a charge one polemical document, probably from the early first century, levels against the Jerusalem priesthood (T. Mos. 5:5). 6752 M. B. Qam. 8:6; see further development of this idea in texts in Bonsirven, Judaism, 61. Some suggest that even Roman Jewish freedmen omitted mention of their manumission because Judaism acknowledged only God as master (cf. Fuks, «Freedmen»), but this probably assumes too monolithic a view of Roman Judaism. |
|
|
