| 8532 To speak «in God " s name» could, however, simply mean to speak as one loyal to him (Jos. Asen. 9in light of ch. 8; cf. Acts 4:17). 8534 Berg, «Pneumatology,» 152. By contrast, Lee, Thought, 256, suggests that «in the name» represents a Hebraism for prayer addressed to Jesus; but the texts themselves also speak of prayer to the Father in Jesus» name (16:23, 26). 8535 Valerius Maximus 7.2.ext.la; Maximus of Tyre Or. 5 passim (e.g., 5.1, Midas " s prayers); Diogenes Laertius 2.136; 6.2.42; Sent. Sext. 88. 8536 Maximus of Tyre Or. 5.8. For Maximus " s similarity to (though stronger rejection of petition than) the Neoplatonists in 5.9, see Trapp, Maximus, 41. 8538 Contrast Pythagoras in Diogenes Laertius 8.1.9; Iamblichus V.P. 28.145 (though supporting prayer, see VP 28.137; Myst. 1.12,15; 5.26); also Seneca Nat. 4.6.2–3; 4.7.1; asking simply for «good things» generally in Xenophon Mem. 1.3.2; but cf. Rom 8:26 . 8539 E.g., Ovid Metam. 2.44–102; 3.287–298, 308–309; 11.100–105; 14.129–153; Apollodorus 3.4.3; cf. Seneca Ep. Luci1. 95.2, who cites as a familiar saying, «Do not ask for what you will wish you had not gotten.» 8542 E.g., Lev. Rab. 16:9. One guarantee of answered prayer apparently rests on its timing (T. Adam 1:10, probably redacted third century C.E.). 8543 Echoes of such promises abound into second-century tradition, though sometimes offering explanations for delays (e.g., Herrn. Mand. 9, echoing Jas 1:6–8). 8544 Cf. Porphyry Marc. 13.226–227 (cf. 13.227–229) on asking for God himself, and 12.209–218, on asking only for what is eternal and divine. One with secret knowledge assures his guest that he may ask whatever information he wants (Philostratus Hrk. 6.1) concerning the secrets of Protesilaos (5.5–6). The request here could be revelatory, but see John 14:8–9 . 8545 See Lewis, Life, 98. Despite some perceived decline in oracular interest (Plutarch Obso1. passim; Parke, Oracle, 381), they were still widely consulted (see Collins, Oracles, 5; Nilsson, Piety, 166; Aune, Prophecy, 51). |
| 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. |
| 3324 See, e.g., Cicero Nat. d. 2.54–58.133–46; a Pythagorean in Diodorus Siculus 12.20.2; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.7; 1.16.8; Heraclitus Ep. 4; Plutarch Isis 76, Mor. 382A; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.167, 190. 3325 E.g., fifth-century B.C.E. Empedocles frg. 11 (Allen, Philosophy, 50); Lucretius Nat. 1.155, 159–160 (though atoms are invisible, 1.265–328); Moffatt, Hebrews, 162, cites Philo Eternity 2. 3326 Plato and Philo believed that visible matter was formed from visible matter (Lane, Hebrews, 332, citing Philo Migration 105, 179; Creation 16, 45; Agriculture 42; Confusion 172; cf. Plato Tim. 29E), though following the invisible pattern. 3327 Heb 11(cf. Boman, «Thought-Forms,» 13; though contrast Montefiore, Hebrews, 188); cf. Philós creation from the invisible archetypal plan (Cherubim 97; 127); Philo Creation 12; 2 En. 47A; 48A (but contrast recension J in both cases). God authored both visible and invisible worlds (Jos. Asen. 12:1–2/2; 2 En. 65:1; cf. the initially invisible earth in Gen 1LXX, due to the «darkness»). 3328 Against the world " s uncreatedness and eternality, see even most Diaspora writers, e.g., Josephus Ant. 1.70; Philo Creation 7 (in contrast to Philo Eternity); cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:180, 301. 3329 Perhaps attested early in 2Macc 7(God made heavens and earth ξ οκ ντων), although this is disputed in articles cited below; 2 Bar. 21:4; 48:8; Moffatt, Hebrews, 162, cites also Mek. 33b on Exod 14:31; 2 Bar. 14:17; 2 En. 24:2; Philo Dreams 1.13. The earliest Israelite understanding of Genesis may represent creation ex nihilo (Heidel, Genesis, 89–96), though this remains quite disputed; this view also appears among some African peoples, such as the Nuer, Banyarwanda, and Shona (Mbiti, Religions, 51). 3330 Cf. articles from various perspectives, Goldstein, «Origins»; idem, «Creation»; Winston, «Creation»; in the rabbis, e.g., Pearl, Theology, 10–12. 3331 Wis 11:17; see Winston, «Cosmogony»; Schmuttermayr, «Schöpfung.» One Amoraic exegesis of «It is good» was that God had created and destroyed earlier worlds (Gen. Rab. 9:2; cf. the Greek tradition of various races before the current one). Creation ex nihilo was not typical (cf., e.g., «The Repulsing of the Dragon and the Creation,» trans. J. A. Wilson, 6–7, in ANET; Albright, Period, 17; idem, Yahweh, 223; for chaos in Greek and Roman sources, cf. Hesiod Theog.; Ovid Metam. 1.7). |
| 3449 Painter, «Christology,» 51: «In the beginning» vs. «came to be» (though cf. 1:14); «was with God» vs. «sent from God» (though this often depicts Christ, too); «was God» vs. «his name was lohn»; «in the beginning with God» vs. «came for a witness»; «all things came to be through him … in him was life … the light of men» vs. «to witness concerning the light.» These parallels are inexact, but the contrast of 1:8–9 is explicit. 3450 Fritsch, Community, 117, who adds that this «could explain how the Evangelist came to know so much about John the Baptist and the Essene-Covenanter background out of which he came.» Longenecker, Ministry, 70, suggests that the «one baptism» of Eph 4shares this polemical context. Cf. Bultmann, Tradition, 165; Morris, John, 88. 3451 Daniélou, Theology, 62. Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.54 warns that some followers of the Baptist proclaimed him the Christ (cited in Michaels, John, 7; cf. Luke 3:15). 3452 Stanton, Gospels, 167; Kysar, «Contributions of Prologue,» 359 n. 32; cf. still more strongly Smalley, John, 127. Taking an exalted self-understanding back to the Baptist himself (Hengel, Leader, 36) is even harder to argue. 3453 Cf. Kysar, «Contributions,» 359 (suggesting «Jewish opponents… arguing that Jesus was the equal of John the Baptist but no more»). His concessions to Bultmann, but with the warning that Bultmann certainly exaggerated, are in his n. 32. 3454 Cf. Fiorenza, Revelation, 195; cf. also Collins, Oracles, 118, who remarks concerning Egyptian oracles that the purpose of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles «was primarily to establish common ground between the Jewish and gentile worlds.» 3455 «Balaam» suggests an oracular connection (Aune, Prophecy, 218; as the greatest pagan prophet, cf. Josephus Ant. 4.104; Sipre Deut. 343.6.1; 357.18.1–2; Exod. Rab. 32:3; Num. Rab. 14:20; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1; as philosopher or sage, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Gen. Rab. 65:20; 93:10; Lam. Rab. proem 2), but he also epitomized wickedness in Jewish lore (e.g., «the wicked Balaam» in m. " Abot 5:19; b. c Abod. Zar. 4a; Ber. 7a; Sanh. 105b, 106a; cf. Exod. Rab. 30:20; Num. Rab. 20:6), these traditions supplying details missing in Num 22–25 ; Mic 6:5 : leading Israel to immorality, hence judgment (Josephus Ant. 4.157; LA.B. 18:13; Sipre Deut. 252.1.4; p. Sanh. 10:2, §8; cf. Jude 11; Judith 5:20–21; p. Ta c an. 4:5, §10), greed and eschatological shortsightedness ( 2Pet 2:15 ; Pesiq. Rab. 41:3), folly ( 2Pet 2:15 ; Philo Cherubim 32; Worse 71; Unchangeable 181; Confusion 64, 159; Migration 115–cited by LCL l:xxv; Ecc1. Rab. 2:15, §2), and vanity (Philo Confusion 159; m. " Abot 5:19); cf. Caird, Revelation, 39, who cites Philo Moses 1.292–304; Josephus Ant. 4.126–130 in support of the idea that religious syncretism is in view here. |
| 3273 See Meeks, Prophet-King, 103–6. It is helpful here to compare the divinization of Plato and other teachers in Hellenistic tradition (e.g., Diogenes Laertius 2.100; 6.2.63; 6.9.104; 8.1.11; 9.7.39; Plutarch Profit by Enemies 8, Mor. 90C; Apol1. 36, Mor. 120D; cf. Cicero Leg. 3.1.1); cf. lawgivers in Musonius Rufus 15, p. 96.24. One may also think of hyperbolic comparisons employed in popular rhetoric; see, e.g., Cicero De or. 1.10.40; 1.38.172; Or. Brut. 19.62. 3274 E.g., Philo Sacrifices 9; cf. Runia, «God.» Cf. explanations of Exod 7in Exod. Rab. 8:1; Num. Rab. 15:13. Cf. Metatron (originally a personification) as a lesser YHWH in 3 En. 12(though he turns out to be Enoch in 3 En. 4:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 4:24 ; cf. further Scholem, Gnosticism, 43–46); the righteous Messiah, and Jerusalem called by the Lord " s name (b. B. Bat. 75b; cf. Jer 23:6 ; Ezek 48:35 ); and Israel as a god (Gen. Rab. 98:3, fourth-century Amoraim). Yet R. Simeon ben Yohai (late second century) taught that associating God " s name with other gods was worse than denying his existence (b. Sanh. 63a). 3276 Contrast Williamson, «Philo»; Chilton, Approaches, 200–201; their comparisons are nevertheless valuable. 3277 Cf. also Bultmann, John, 33 (rejecting especially Hellenistic and gnostic «polytheistic conceptions and emanationist theories» that neglect the text " s monotheistic sense); Stuart, «Examination,» 42. Greek scholars consistently deride the «a god» translation; cf., e.g., Metzger, «Translation,» 125; and esp. Bruce, Booh, 60 n. 4: those who translate «a god» here «prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar.» 3279 E.g., Josephus Ant. 10.180; cf. Stuart, «Examination,» 42; Bultmann, John, 33; Brown, John, 1:5; Harris, Jesus as God, 287. On Josephus " s general sense for τ θεv, cf. Shutt, «Concept.» 3282 Metzger, «Translation,» 125; cf. Clark, Logos, 21; Sanders, John, 70 (citing the predicate nominative of 1:4). It should be noted, of course, that a writer who wished to emphasize that a predicate noun was definite was free to insert the article (Harner, «Nouns,» 87); and the pattern does not always obtain even in the context ( John 1:8–9 ). |
| 2819 Goppelt, Theology, 1:45. 2820 Ovid Metam. 14.136–144; cf. Aulus Gellius 2.16.10. A more helpful Hellenistic notion would be «immortality» (cf. 1Cor 15:53–54 ), though to some Greeks it would connote apotheosis. 2821 See above, pp. 178–79, 292–93. 2822 Dodd, Interpretation, 14,151; cf. true being in Plato Rep. 6.490AB. 2823 Schedl, History, 1:293; cf. Hos 6:2–3 . 2824 Buchanan, Consequences, 131–34; for Qumran, cf. Schütz, «Knowledge,» 397; and life for a thousand generations in 4Q171 1–2 3.1. 2825 Isis 1, Mor. 351E. 2826 Dodd, Interpretation, 144–50. 2827 Pss. So1. 3:12, using the full expression; cf. 13:11. 2828 M. " Abot 2:7, attributed to Hillel; b. Ber. 28b; Lev. Rab. 13:2; CIJ 1:422, §569 (Hebrew funerary inscription from Italy); 1:474, §661 (sixth-century Hebrew inscription from Spain); 2:443, §1536 (Semitic letters, from Egypt); cf. Abrahams, Studies, 1:168–70; Philo Flight 77. The usage in 1 En. 10(cf. 15:6; 25:6) and Jub. 5(cf. 30:20) is more restrictive, perhaps figurative; the Similtudes, however, seem to follow the ordinary usage (37:4; 58:3,6), and the circles from which 1 En. and Jub. derive probably used «long duration» language to represent eternity as well (CD 7.5–6; cf. Sir 18:10 ); for «eternal life» in the DSS, see also 4Q181 (Vermes, Scrolls, 251–52); Coetzee, «Life,» 48–66; Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 414. «Eternal» occurs with other nouns (e.g., Wis 10:14; 1QS 2.3) far more rarely. 2829 Tob 12:9–10; Ladd, Theology, 255, also cites Pss. So1. 14:7; 2Macc 7:9–14; 4 Ezra 7:137; 14:22); see Manson, Paul and John, 112 n. 1. 2830 Sipre Deut. 305.3.2,3. 2831 4 Macc 17:18, using a cognate of βος rather than of ζω. Cf. T. Ab. 20:14A. 2832 Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 159; Bultmann, Theology, 2:159; Ladd, Theology, 255–56. See, e.g., Mark 10:17, 30 ; Matt 25:46; Acts 13:46, 48; Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23 ; Gal 6:8 ; 1Tim 1:16; 6:12 ; Tit 1:2; 3:7 ; Jude 21. 2833 See Filson, «Life,» 114; Simon, «Life.» 2834 Dodd, Studies, 149. 2835 Marcus Aurelius 4.2; Epictetus frg. 3 (LCL 2:442–43; but cf. frg. 4). |
| 9054 Mitchell, «Friends,» 259, citing Cicero Amic. 6.22. Masters also should avoid confiding in servants (Theophrastus Char. 4.2). 9057 Plutarch Flatterer 24, Mor. 65AB (LCL 1:344–45); cf. Flatterer 17, Mor. 59A; Educ. 17, Mor. 13B. Cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 39. 9063 Aristotle N.E. 9.8.2, 1168b, cited in Stowers, Letter Writing, 58; Witherington, Acts, 205 (on Acts 4:32). Cf. Arius Didymus 11C. 9065 Martial Epigr. 2.43.1–16; Herodian 3.6.1–2; Cornelius Nepos 15 (Epaminondas), 3.4; Iambli-chus V.P. 19.92 (cf. 29.162; 30.167–168; 33.237–240); cf. 1Macc 12and perhaps Ps.-Phoc. 30; Euripides Andr. 585 (but cf. 632–635); Plutarch Bride 19, Mor. 140D; Longus 1.10; Martial Epigr. 8.18.9–10. 9066 E.g., Alciphron Farmers 27 (Ampelion to Euergus), 3.30, par. 3; 29 (Comarchides to Euchaetes), 3.73, par. 2; Fishermen 7 (Thlassus to Pontius), 1.7. 9069 Diogenes Laertius 7.1.125; Plutarch Cicero 25.4. On friendship between good men and the gods, cf., e.g., Seneca Dia1. 1.1.5; on all things belonging to them, Seneca Benef. 7.4.6, cf. Philo Cherubim 84. The maxim is especially cited in works on 1Corinthians (Willis, Meat, 169; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 80; cf. also Fitzgerald, Cracks, 200–201; Grant, Christianity, 102–3). 9070 E.g., people invoked divinities as φλοι, to help them in battle (Aeschylus Sept. 174); cf. a mortal as a «friend» who honors his patron demigod in Philostratus Hrk. 58.1 (the hero is also his friend in 10.2); cf. perhaps Iamblichus V.P. 10.53 (where the friendship is demonstrated by deities» past favors). 9071 This observation (in contrast to some other observations above) may run counter to the suggestion of Judge (Pattern, 38) that w. 13–15 of John 15 «reveal the peculiar combination of intimacy and subordination» characteristic of the patronal relationship. 9073 Maximus of Tyre Or. 19.4; Iamblichus V.P. 33.229. This might involve sharing the divine character (Iamblichus V.P. 33.240). 9074 Crates Ep. 26, to the Athenians (Gyn. Ep. 76–77); cf. likewise Diog. Ep. 10, to Metrocles (Cyn. Ep. 104–5). Cf. Plato Leg. 4.716D (cited in Mayor, James, cxxv); fellowship between mortals and deities in the golden age (Babrius pro1.13). |
| 1247 Sambursky, «Gematria»; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 103, citing Cicero Inv. 2.40.116; Hengel, Hellenism, l:80ff.; Lieberman, Hellenism, 47–82. Some may also reflect Babylonian sources (Cavigneaux, «Sources»). 1248 Judith 16:7; Josephus War 1.353; 2.155–158; Ag. Ap. 1.255; 2.263; Pesiq. Rab. 20(cf. Greek Phlegethon; cf. the Elysian plain and Acherusian lake in Sib. Or. 2.337–338, probably Christian redaction; Apoc. Mos. 37:3). 1249 E.g., Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27.3; Sib. Or. 2.15 (Poseidon); 2.19 (Hephaistos); 3.22 (Tethys); 3.110–116, 121–155, 551–554, 588 (euhemeristic; cf. similarly Let. Aris. 136; Sib. Or. 3.723; 8.43–47); 5.334 (personification; cf. also 7.46; 11.104, 147, 187, 205, 219, 278; 12:53, 278; 14.56, 115); T. Job 1.3 (cornucopia); 51:1/2 (perhaps allusion to Nereus, also in Sib. Or. 1.232); cf. (not Greek) Ishtar as an evil spirit in Text 43:6–7, perhaps 53:12, Isbell, 103; cf. art (some of it in Palestinian synagogues) in Goodenough, Symbols, vols. 7–8 (and Dura Europos synagogue, vols. 9–11, and 12:158–183). 1250 The clear examples are few (even Egyptian use may have been more common; cf. «Biblés Psalm»), despite apologetic protestations to the contrary (e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.165; 2.257). 1252 E.g., Martin, Colossians, 18–19; Knox, Gentiles, 149; Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 259. Although an Egyptian provenance for the Testament of Solomon is possible, I would favor an Asian provenance, given its date (cf. also Artemis in 8:11, etc.), and stress the magical-mystical nature of some of Judaism in Asia. 1253 So Kennedy, Epistles, 14, 22; Robinson, Redating, 294. Palestine had its Pharisees and Essenes, but had even more Am Háarets. 1258 Cf. CD 5.6–8; lQpHab 9.6–7. Others also believed that profaning the temple could bring judgment, although not applying it to this time (Pss. So1. 1:8; 2:1–10; Josephus War 5.17–18; cf. the ambiguous evaluation of Tannaitic sources in Goldenberg, «Explanations»). 1263 Grant, Gods, 51; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 121–22; Conzelmann, «Areopagus,» 224; van de Bunt-van den Hoek, «Aristobulos»; cf. Renehan, «Quotations.» Jewish and early Christian texts often followed the Greek practice (instilled in school memorization exercises) of citing or alluding to Homer (e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 195–197; Syr. Men. 78–93; Josephus Ant. 1.222; Sib. Or. 3.401–432, passim; 3.814; 5.9; 2 Bar. 10:8; Tatian 8; cf. Rahmani, «Cameo») or other poets (Acts 17:28; 1Cor 15:33 ; Tit 1:12 ; Justin 1 Apo1. 39; Theophilus 2.37; Athenagoras 5–6; cf. Manns, «Source»), or proverbs originally based on them. |
| 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. |
| 10426 Wagner, Baptism, 219,229; for the typical story, see Vermaseren, Cybele, 91. 10427 Cf. Otto, Dionysus, 79–80,103–19. 10428 E.g., Homer I1. 5.339–342, 382–404, 855–859, 870; on the death of Pan in Plutarch Mor. 419.17, see Borgeaud, «Death.» 10429 Fragments of dithyrambic poetry (ca. 1 B.C.E.) in Sei. Pap. 3:390–93. 10430 E.g., Apollodorus 1.5.3; cf. Guthrie, Orpheus, 31. 10431 See documentation in Gasparro, Soteriology, 30 n. 16. 10432 E.g., Conzelmann, Theology, 11; cf. Case, Origins, 111; Bultmann, Christianity, 158–59; Ridderbos, Paul, 22–29. 10433 Burkert, Cults, 100. 10434 E.g., Apuleius, whom Dunand, «Mystères,» 58, interprets thus. 10435 In Grant, Religions, 146. 10436 E.g., Davies, Paul, 91. 10437 Wagner, Baptism, 87. Thus Heracles sought initiation so he could capture Cerberus in Hades (Apollodorus 2.5.12). 10438 Gasparro, Soteriology, 82. 10439 Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 57. 10440 For the vegetative association see, e.g., Ovid Metam. 5.564–571; Gasparro, Soteriology, 29, 43–49; Ruck, «Mystery,» 44–45; Guthrie, Orpheus, 55–56. 10441 Cf. Metzger, «Consideration,» 19–20; Ring, «Resurrection,» 228. 10442 Boussefs Hellenistic parallels (Kyrios Christos, 58) are unconvincing (cf. Nock, Christianity, 105–6; Jeremias, Theology, 304; Fuller, Formation, 25). Many think that the LXX is a more likely source ( Hos 6:2 ; Jonah 1:17; cf. 1Cor 15:4 ; Nock, Christianity, 108), though it is unlikely that the early Christians would have noticed elements favoring it had the «third day» not been their initial experience. (Rabbis associated Hos 6with the resurrection of the dead; see p. Sanh. 11:6, §1; cf. McArthur, «Day,» 83–84.) 10443 Cf. Thucydides 2.34.2 for honoring Athenian war dead. 10444 Some later traditions suggest the retention of the soul for three days after death (until the soul sees the body begin to decompose; Gen. Rab. 100:7; Lev. Rab. 18:1; though cf. Dola, «Interpretacja») or required three days of purgatory before preparation to appear before God (3 En. 28:10; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 4:7) or that one confirm the actuality of the person " s death within three days (Safrai, «Home,» 784–85). This might possibly fit a broader idea expressed in three days of mourning (Apollonius of Rhodes 2.837). |
|
|
