| 7902 Homer Il. 8.31; 22.178; 24.473; Od. 1.45, 81; 5.7; 8.306; 12.377; Aristophanes Wasps 652; even those not descended from him, such as his siblings (Homer I1. 5.757,762; 19.121; Od. 13.128). 7903 Homer Il. 2.371; 7.179, 202, 446; 8.236; 12.164; 13.631; 15.372; 17.19, 645; 19.270; 21.273; 24.461; Od. 12.371; Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus in Stobaeus Ee1. 1.1.12; Sophocles Oed. tyr. 202; Aristophanes Ach. 223–225; Apollonius of Rhodes 4.1673; Plutarch R.Q. 40, Mor. 274B; Longinus Sub1. 9.10. 7905 Jub. 1:25, 28; Wis 11:10; Tob 13:4; later, Jos. Asen. 12MSS; T. Job 33MSS, 9; T. Ab. 16:3; 20:13A; cf. Pr. Jos. 1. 7906 Jeremias, Prayers, 15–16; idem, Message, 14. Chilton, Approaches, 59, cites «Father» as a prayer invocation in T. Job and (probably later) the Targumim. Greeks and Romans may have employed the title less pervasively than Judaism and in contrast to Judaism applied the image to the deity " s power rather than to his intimacy with Israel (cf. Johnson, Prayer, 61). 7907 M. Sotah 9:15; t. Ber. 3:14; B. Qam. 7:6; Hag. 2:1; Péah 4:21; Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13; Behuq.pq. 8.269.2.15; Sipre Deut. 352.1.2; b. Ber. 30a, bar.; p. Sank 10:2, §8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Lev. Rab. 1:3; 7:1; 35:10; SongRab. 7:11, §1. 7908 Marmorstein, Names, 56–60; Moore, Judaism, 2:204–9; McNamara, Targum, 116–18. Jeremias contends that «Father» is rarely attributed to first-century sages (Prayers, 16–17); but this observation omits some evidence (Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 40) and fails to take into account the sparseness of rabbinic attributions in general in the earlier period. 7911 E.g., Sipre Deut. 27.2.1; " AbotR. Nat. 24, §51B; cf. Jub. 25(«Lord of the age»). Satan assumes this role (kosmokratör) only in some later texts (e.g., Hoskyns, Gospel, 426, cites Exod. Rab. on 24:7, following Billerbeck). Some gnostics later argued that the Jewish God was the lord of the world, whom they identified with Satan, inviting apologetic (Marmorstein, Names, 64, 99). 7912 E.g., 3 En. 1:4. Michael regularly appears as αρχιστρτηγος or similar titles ( Dan 10:13,21; 12:1 ; 2 En. 22:6J; 33:10; 3 Bar. 11:4,6–8; T. Ab. 1:13; 2:1A; 14:7B; Jos. Asen. 14:7; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:24; cf. Raphael in Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1:4). |
| 941 So also Bruns, Art, 24–25. Bruce, Documents, 55–56, provides suggestions for harmonizing this with the chronology of the Synoptics. We may leave aside from consideration for the moment Eileen Guilding " s proposed liturgical structure based on readings from the triennial cycle, which takes matters too far. 942 Its unity in this sense is accepted even by those who recognize redactions and displacements, e.g., MacGregor, John, xli. Ellis, Genius, develops a unity based on parallelism rather than narrative, following cues from John Gerhard " s dissertation (ix, 12); although his development of chiastic parallelism in the Fourth Gospel is brilliant, it remains more convincing in some texts than in others, and not convincing overal1. 946 Robinson, «Prologue,» 120; Parker " s citation is from «Two Editions of John,» JBL 75 (1956): 304, which Robinson also cites in Trust, 83. 948 E.g., Dunn, «John,» 299; Smith, John 400. Even an unbroken chain of attributable tradition would be viewed as mostly dependable (e.g., Eunapius Lives 458). 953 E.g., Homer I1. 2.484–492; 16.112–113; Od. 1.1; Battle of Frogs and Mice 1; Hesiod Op. 1; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.1,22; 4.1–2; Virgil Aen. 1.8; 9.525–529; [Virgil] Cata1. 9.1–2; Ovid Metam. 1.2–3; Callimachus Aetia 1.1.1–38; Musaeus Hero 1; Statius Achilleid 1.9; Pindar Nem. 3.1–5; frg. 150 (in Eustathios Commentary on Iliad 1.1); Valerius Flaccus 1.5–7; 3.15–17; Philostratus Hrk. 43.5–6; for other deities, e.g., Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 19.5D-6D; 20.6D; Philostratus Hrk. 25.18. This may suggest whatever comes to the author in proper meter; see Dimock, «Introduction,» 3; cf. Homer Od. 19.138. Cf. a «divine» (θεος) minstrel (Homer Od. 4.17–19). 955 Callimachus Iambi 3.193 complains that inspiration was not as respected as in earlier days, but this may well function as a plea for greater attention (like a scholar today complaining that no one heeds scholarship). 959 Sanders, Figure, 71, suggests that John wrote his entire Gospel on the premise of divine inspiration. |
| 354 Ibid., 112. To be sure, various written editions are not impossible; the verb tenses in Cornelius Nepos 25 (Atticus), 13–18, may suggest that these chapters are revisions for a second edition. 355 See Feuillet, Studies, 146; Carson, John, 46. Blomberg, Reliability, 45, suggests some «loose weaving together of orally preached material» (following Lindars, Behind; idem, «Discourse and Tradition»; cf. Thatcher, «Riddles in Gospel»). 356 A more reliable indicator would be the different texture of an account, such as perhaps the tragic material about Panthea in Xenophon Cyr. 6.1.31–45; 6.3.11–17; 7.1.29–32; 7.3.3,13–16. 357 More loosely, if one allows for hyperbole and figurative language, one may compare the conflicting claims for Cassandra and Laodice in Homer I1.. 3.124; 13.365–366. Likewise, sleep came on Zeus in Iliad 1.610–611, but 2.2 reports that Zeus could not sleep that night. Cf. perhaps the Muse (Homer Od. 1.1) and Muses (Od. 24.60). 358 Though not completely unheard of. Some ancients also critiqued inconsistencies in Homer; see Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xli-1. 359 Many inconsistencies in Valerius Flaccus " s version of the Argonautica, however, may stem from the work " s unfinished state (Mozley, «Introduction,» viii; the end of book 8 is incomplete). By contrast, Menken, Techniques, 26, 275–77, demands too much precision, as if John counted the number of words or his literary units were always easily discernible; or to a lesser extent, the excessive detection of chiasmus in Ellis, Genius; idem, «Inclusion, Chiasm.» 361 Thus the means of guarding Hector " s body vary between Homer I1. 23.184–191,187 on one hand and 24.18–21 on the other, but they are not beyond harmonization. 362 E.g., Neirynck, «Synoptics»; idem, «Moody Smith»; idem, «Recent Commentaries»; Dowell, «Conflict.» Koester, Introduction 2:178, allows the possibility in the final stage of the Fourth Gospel " s redaction. Cf. Beale, «Daniel,» esp. 144, on evidence for Synoptic as well as pre-Synoptic tradition behind Revelation, the author of which he takes to be John. |
| 8127 Josephus Ant. 3.212. Cf. imperial propaganda, originally intended to preserve a veneer of Romés republic, in which the emperor was merely the princeps, the first among many. 8129 E.g., of Alexander (Arrian Alex. 1.17.12; Valerius Maximus 5.1.extla) or others (Appian R.H. 10.4.24; Cornelius Nepos 1 [Miltiades], 8.4; 8 [Thrasybulus], 2.6; Herodian 1.2.4; Valerius Maximus 5.1, passim). Though Achilles slays many suppliants, the gods require his mercy toward Priam near the Iliad " s end (Homer II. 24.507–508, 665–670; though even here cf. his limits in 24.559–570). 8130 One could praise a «meek» ruler, i.e., a «gentle» one (Babrius 102.3; Valerius Maximus 5.1.ext.la; Menander Rhetor 2.4, 389.8); see further Good, King, 47–49. 8131 " Abot R. Nat. 15A; 29, §§60–62B. Rabbis also praised the humility of Simeon b. Shetah (p. Sanh. 6:6, §2) and others. 8138 " Abot R. Nat. 38A; 41, §11 IB. Whoever exalted himself at the expense of another " s humiliation would not inherit the coming world (an early Amora in Gen. Rab. 1:5). 8150 Cf., e.g., Demosthenes Against Leptines 132; Chariton 1.11.3. Freedpersons often gained wealth (Petronius Sat. 38; cf. Lopez Barja de Quiroga, «Mobility»), but advancement of rank normally occurred only with their children (MacMullen, Relations, 105; Finley, Economy, 72), and freedpersons retained responsibilities to former holders (ILS 7558, 7580; cf. Horsley, Documents, 4, §24, pp. 102–3; Dupont, Life, 65–66). 8153 Homer Od. 19.386–389. Ancients sometimes used warm water to relax weary limbs (Pindar Nem. 4.4). 8155 Jesus probably poured more water from a pitcher over the feet into the basin, as was practiced in traditional Mediterranean handwashing, sometimes by servants (Homer I1. 9.174; Od. 1.136–138, 146; 2.260–261; 3.338; 4.52–54, 216; 12.336; 21.270; Apollodorus 2.7.6; Athenaeus Deipn. 9.408CD; 2 Kgs 3:11). 8156 Pesce and Destro, «Lavanda,» cite slaves washing guests» feet with a linen cloth (λντιον, as in 13:4–5) in Aesop " s Romance. 8157 Some suggest that the image provides a deliberate contrast to the ancient image of a wrestling belt (Levine, «Symbolism»); a servant does not vie for power but relinquishes it. Beasley-Murray, John, 233, following Billerbeck 2:557, cites evidence for this as a slave posture (Abraham tying Hagar " s shawl around her loins in Genesis Rabbah); more evidence, however, is necessary. |
| 7082 E.g., Plato Cratylus 41 ID and passim; Livy 1.43.13; Aulus Gellius 1.25; 2.21; 3.18; 5.7; Apollodorus 1.7.2; 2.5.10; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.15, 31. This continued despite the recognition that words changed in meaning over time (Aulus Gellius 4.9). For plays on peoplés names, see, e.g., Homer Od. 1.62; 5.340, 423; 16.145–147; 19.275, 407–409; Aelian Farmers 7 (Dercyllus to Opora) and 8 (Opora to Dercyllus); Alciphron Fishermen passim; Athenaeus Deipn. 9.380b; Phlm 10–11 . Philós use (sometimes indicating weak knowledge of Hebrew; Hanson, «Etymologies») differed considerably from rabbinic etymologies (Grabbe, Etymology). 7083 E.g., Demosthenes Ep. 3.28; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.55; 6.2.68; for discussion in the rhetorical handbooks, see Anderson, Glossary, 59–60 (cf. also 81–82). Some were intended for amusement (Suetonius Gaius 27). 7086 E.g., lQpHab 12.1–10; see Lim, «Alteration.» Revocalizing the consonants was common (Sipre Deut. 357.5.11; see Jub. 26:30; Brownlee, «Jubilees,» 32); for later rabbis, multiple meanings for single referents were certainly not problematic (b. Ber. 55b; Pesiq. Rab. 14:6; 21:6). 7090 Homer Od. 6.207–208; 14.57–58. For charity among Gentiles, see, e.g., Publilius Syrus 274; Cornelius Nepos 5 (Cimon), 4.1–2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 12.1.7; cf. Hesiod Op. 354 (give to the generous); giving to beggars in Seneca Controv. 10.4.intro. 7092 Hom. Od. 17.347, 578. Few, however, took this practice as far as the Cynics (see, e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.10; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.46, 56, 59; 10.119; cf. 2.82), often to others» disdain (Diogenes Laertius 10.119); for priests of Isis or Cybele, see, e.g., Babrius 141.1–6; Phaedrus 4.1.4–5; Valerius Maximus 7.3.8 (also often to others» disdain, Syr. Men. 262–277). 7095 Cf. perhaps also the implied disgrace in Musonius Rufus 11, p. 80.19, 21. Merely pretending to be in need leads to judgment in Abot R. Nat. 3 A. 7096 E.g., the same epideictic function in Chariton 5.4.1–2 (emphasizing Callirhoés beauty); Xenophon Eph. 1.2. |
| 10305 E.g., Polybius 6.53; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.96.1; Apuleius Metam. 2.27; Herodian 4.2.2; Philostratus Hrk. 51.13; 1Macc 2:70; Josephus Ant. 9.166; 13.406; Mart. Po1. 17. 10306 Theon Progymn. 9.4–5; cf. Josephus Ant. 4.320; b. Sabb. 153a; Gen. Rab. 100:2; Ecc1. Rab. 7:12, §1; 9:10, §3. 10307 E.g., Homer I1. 23.65–71; Od. 11.71–76; 21.363–364; 22.476; Euripides Herac1. 588–590; Hec. 47–50; Phoen. 1447–1450; Supp1. passim; Diodorus Siculus 15.35.1; Philostratus Hrk. 19.7; it was necessary to enter the netherworld (Homer I1. 23.71; Virgil Aen. 6.365–366; Heliodorus Aeth. 6.15). Many Greek philosophers constituted notable exceptions (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 92.35; Epictetus Diatr. 4.7.31; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.79; Stowers, Letter Writing, 142–43), though even their own disciples often disobeyed their instructions (Socratics Ep. 14; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.78). 10312 Requesting an official for a burial place, because the official controls the land (4 Bar. 7:14), is not an adequate analogy. 10313 E.g., Homer I1. 17.126–127, 255, 272; Sophocles Ant. 21–30, 697; Euripides Phoen. 1627–1630, 1650; Virgil Aen. 9.485; Diodorus Siculus 16.16.4; 18.67.6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 3.21.8; 4.40.5–6; 6.9.4; 20.16.2; Appian R.H. 12.8.52; 12.16.107; C.W. 1.8.73; Lucan C.W. 2.166–168; 7.825–835; Lysias Or. 19.7, §152; Thucydides 1.138.6; Seneca Controv. 1.7.2; 8.4.intr.; Suetonius Aug. 13; Valerius Maximus 1.4.2; Apol1. Κ. Tyre 50; Iamblichus V.P. 35.252; Philostratus Hrk. 21.6; Herodian 1.13.6; 8.8.7; Chariton 1.5.25; 1 En. 98:13; 2Macc 13:7; for executions in Rome, see sources in Rapske, Custody, 14. Sometimes the prohibition of honorable burial by free persons did not exclude burial altogether (carried out by slaves; Cornelius Nepos 19 [Phocion],4.4). 10314 Euripides Phoen. 1631–1634; m. Sanh. 6:6; cf. Josephus Ant. 9.104. Jewish aristocrats apparently felt that even relatives should withhold mourning when those destroyed were wicked (Josephus Ant. 4.53); but it was normally considered heartless to forbid mourning (Cicero Pis. 8.18), and to die unmourned was a cruel fate (Ovid Tristia 3.3.45–46). Contrast public mourning for heroes (e.g., Lysias Or. 2.66, §196; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.1.565) and expenses lavished for an official or person of wealth (Cicero Fam. 4.12.3; Statius Silvae 2.1.157–162; Alex. K. Tyre 26; disapproved in Iamblichus V.P. 27.122–123). |
| Some models of treachery (cf. Homer I1. 10.383,446–459) may have been understood favorably (though Odysseus offered no oath). Even betrayal of friendship occurred in the hostile world of Roman partisan politics (e.g., in Stowers, Letter Writing, 63). 8205 E.g., Lysias Or. 6.23, §105; 8.5–6, §112; Chariton 5.6.2 (φλος); Cornelius Nepos 14 (Datâmes), 6.3; 11.5; Sir 22:21–22 ; T. Jud. 23:3; cf. Derrett, Audience, 69. This remained true even if onés life were at stake (Babrius 138.7–8); refusing to betray a friend or husband was honorable (Athenaeus Deipn. 15.965F, item 25; Seneca Controv. 2.5.intro.). Treachery and betrayal warranted death (Valerius Maximus 9.6). 8208 Cf., e.g., disgust for traitors against their peoples in Xenophon Hel1. 1.7.22; Cicero Fin. 3.9.32; Virgil Aen. 6.621; Livy 1.11.6–7; 5.27.6–10 (though cf. Livy 4.61.8–10); Valerius Maximus 1.1.13; Seneca Controv. 7.7.intro.; such behavior invited the hatred of even onés family (Livy 2.5.7–8; Cornelius Nepos 4 [Pausanias], 5.3). Loyalty to country might take precedence even over hospitality friendship (Xenophon Hel1. 4.1.34; Cornelius Nepos 13 [Timotheus], 4.4), but disloyalty to friends remained despicable (e.g., Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442.13–14). 8212 E.g., Lysias Or. 12.14, §121; 18.10, §150; Plutarch Cor. 10.3; Cicero Fam. 13.19.1; 13.25.1; 13.36.1; Cornelius Nepos 5 (Cimon), 3.3; Exod. Rab. 28:1. This was true even over several generations (Homer I1. 6.212–231; Cicero Fam. 13.34.1) and could require the guest-friend to avenge his host (Philostratus Hrk. 46.2–3). Still, though it could be inherited, it could shift along with political interests (Marshall, Enmity, 18–21, 39–42). 8214 E.g., Homer I1. 21.76; Od. 4.534–535; 11.414–420; 14.404–495; Hesiod Op. 327; Euripides Cyc1. 126–128; Hec. 25–26,710–720,850–856; Apollonius of Rhodes 3.377–380; Ovid Metam. 1.144; 10.225–228; Livy 25.16.6. This principle included providing protection from other enemies (Ovid Metam. 5.44–45; Cornelius Nepos 2 [Themistocles], 8.3). |
| 4472 So nicknamed for his refusal to step outside a circle until God sent rain; such circle-drawing implied forceful demands (e.g., Livy 45.12.5). 4473 Young, Theologian, 171–80, associates rabbinic chutzpah with the Gospel tradition in further detai1. Independently, I thought «chutzpah» the most apt description of this boldness (Keener, «Pneumatology,» 138–39; idem, Background Commentary, 154). 4476 Dixon, Mother, 179; Simon, «Women» (on Valerius Maximus 8.3); cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 8.44.1–8.54.1; Tacitus Ann. 16.10; Plutarch Cor. 34.1–2; Alex. 12.3; 21.1–3. Cf. also appeals to prefects with special concern for women " s powerlesness (e.g., P.Sakaon 36 in Horsley, Documents, 4:132–33; Lysias Or. 32.11–18, §§506–511). 4477 Plutarch Alex. 39.7. For ancient expectations of honoring and obeying parents and for stereotypical images of parents, see Keener, «Family,» 354–58. 4478 Diogenes Laertius 9.7.42 (the differentiation from κρη does not make it any less standard for general usage); Achilles Tatius 4.15.2; Jdt 11(Holofernes to Judith); cf. 4 Macc 15:17; 16:14; p. Nid. 1:4, §2. 4479 E.g., Haenchen, John, 1:173; Beck, Paradigm, 55. In earlier custom, it could apply affectionately to onés wife (Homer Od. 4.266; 8.424; 23.350; cf. perhaps Homer Od. 19.555, though Odysseus here acts as a beggar) but could also be curt (Sophocles Ajax 293). Colwell and Titus, Spirit, 113, wrongly suppose that she is no longer Jesus» mother because of his adoption by God in ch. 1, but this makes little sense of our passagés preference for her relational title over her name. 4480 Maccini, Testimony, 101 notes that Jesus never uses this of a woman he knows except his mother; but the data pool is small, since the only remaining use in this Gospel is the Samaritan. 4481 E.g., Sei. Pap. 1:318–19, lines 2, 21. For onés sister (probably wife), see P.Oxy. 528.2; P.S.I. 209.1. 4486 Feuillet, Studies, 35; Brodie, Gospel, 174–75. Culpepper, Anatomy, 134, regards this as possible but uncertain. Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 32, thinks the woman is an allegorical symbol for sensation, as in Philo (Creation 59; Alleg. Interp. 2.12)! |
| 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). |
| 3255 E.g., Sophocles Searchers 212–215 (Sei. Pap. 3:44–45); Euripides Antiope 69–71; Pirithous 22–24 (Sei. Pap. 3:124–125); Virgil Aen. 1.28; Ovid Metam. 2.714–747; 3.1–2, 260–261; 4.234–244; 5.391–408; 10.155–219; 14.765–771; Achilles Tatius 1.5.5–7; Apuleius Metam. 6.22; Apollodorus 3.8.2. On very rare occasions a mortal escaped, outwitting the deity (Apollonius of Rhodes 2.946–954). 3257 E.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.244–246,275; Athenagoras 20–22; Theophilus 1.9; Ps.-Clem. 15.1–19.3. 3258 E.g., Euripides Bacch. 94–98; Appian R.H 12.15.101; Ovid Metam. 3.261–272, 280–309; 4.416–530. 3259 E.g., Euripides Hipp. 1–28,1400–1403 (because deities desire honor, Hipp. 8); Apollonius of Rhodes 3.64–65. 3263 E.g., Ovid Tristia 1.2.4–5. Even if Homer authored both the Iliad and the Odyssey, it remains noteworthy that the former portrays a much less harmonious pantheon; later Roman sources (e.g., the Aeneid) also portray their deities more favorably than the Iliad. 3264 Odysseus in Euripides Cyc1. 606–607. In prayer, pagans often piled up as many names of the deity they were entreating as possible (e.g., Homer I1. 1.37–38, 451–452; 2.412; PGM 4.2916–2927; Cleanthes» Hymn to Zeus; more restrained, ILS 190) and reminded a deity of favors owed, seeking an answer on contractual grounds, as many ancient texts attest (e.g., Homer Il. 1.39–41; 10.291–294; Od. 1.61–62,66–67; 4.762–764; 17.240–242; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.417–419; Virgil Aen. 12.778). 3265 E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.17; Seneca Dia1. 7.26.6; Nat. 2.44.1–2.45.1; Maximus of Tyre Or. 5.1; 35.1. 3268 Cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 7.1.134, 148; Seneca Nat. 1.pref.13. Pantheism was also more widespread (cf. Virgil Georg. 4.221–222, 225; Aeschylus frg. 34, from Clement of Alexandria Stromata 5.14, p. 718; Aeschylus LCL 2adds Philodemus On Piety 22). 3270 Frequently, e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 2.1.25; cf. the identification also in Ps-Aristotle De mundo (according to Grant, Gods, 78). 3271 E.g., Chariton 3.3.16; Plutarch Isis 1, Mor. 351DE; T. T. 8.2.4, Mor. 720A. Cf. Plato Alcib. 1.124C: Socrates spoke of his guardian (επτροπος) as θες. |
|
|
