| Jesus was «troubled» (12:27) to face death, and prayed accordingly. Throughout the Mediterranean world people considered praiseworthy those heroes who faced suffering bravely, often without tears or signs of sorrow, 7868 though stories could also underline the humanity of their heroes by showing them distraught by hostile odds. 7869 In other cases one might face death bravely simply because she knew it was fated, hence inevitable. 7870 Philosophers exhorted people to «pray simply for the Good and leave the decision to the god,» though the vast majority of people continued to pray simply for what they wanted. 7871 The Gospels do not fit such philosophic or sometimes heroic expectations; 7872 Jesus would go to the cross to obey his Father " s will, but not as if death were not a trauma for him. This is true of John as of the Synoptics. Those familiar with the passion tradition would now understand the source of John " s «hour» (e.g., 2:4; 7:30; 8:20) if they had not recognized it previously: in the passion tradition, Jesus had prayed for his «hour» to pass ( Mark 14:35 ). John here likely echoes–and adapts–the same tradition that independently appears in the Synoptic account of Geth-semane. 7873 Whereas the Markan line of tradition, probably dependent on an earlier passion narrative, emphasizes Jesus» trauma at Gethsemane ( Mark 14:32–42 ; Matt 26:36–46; Luke 22:39–46), John brings it forward to 12and turns the prayer into a question («Shall I say, »Save me from this hour? " »). («My soul is troubled» likely reflects Ps 41LXX some argue that the immediate context of that verse may also inform the background of Jesus» Gethsemane prayer in Mark.) 7874 John thereby tones down the intensity of Jesus» agony before the cross yet hardly brings Jesus» character into line with Greco-Roman expectations for heroism. In idiomatic language, 7875 John emphasizes that Jesus» soul is «troubled» in the face of death (which is shortly to follow; «now» signifies the imminence of Jesus» hour, e.g., 13:1, 31); as in 11:33, this statement contradicts philosophers» de-mands. 7876 In contrast to some of his second- and third-century readers, most of John " s initial audience were not philosophers or aristocrats and might resonate better with this portrait of one who shared their humanity (1:14). 7877 |
| Bowman, «Studies» Bowman, John. «Samaritan Studies.» Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 40 (1957–1958): 298–327. Bowman, «Thought-Forms» Bowman, Thorleif. «Hebraic and Greek Thought-Forms in the New Testament.» Pages 1–22 in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper. Edited by William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Box, «Intermediation» Box, G. H. «The Idea of Intermediation in Jewish Theology.» JQR 23 (1932–1933): 103–19. Boyarin, «Binitarianism» Boyarin, Danie1. «The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John.» HTR 94, no. 3 (2001): 243–84. Boyd, «Ascension» Boyd, W. J. Peter. «Ascension according to St John: Chapters 14–17 Not Prepassion but Post-resurrection.» Theology 70 (1967): 207–11. Boyd, Sage Boyd, Gregory A. Cynic Sage or Son of God? Wheaton, 111.: BridgePoint, 1995. Boyer, «Étude» Boyer, C. «Une étude sur le texte de Pépître aux Philippiens 2,6–11.» Doctor Communis!! (1979): 5–14. Boyle, «Discourse» Boyle, John L . «The Last Discourse ( Jn 13,31–16,33 ) and Prayer ( Jn 17 ): Some Observations on Their Unity and Development.» Biblica 56 (1975): 210–22. Boyle, «Lawsuit» Boyle, Marjorie ÓRourke. «The Covenant Lawsuit of the Prophet Amos: III 1-IV 13.» VT21 (1971): 338–62. Braine, «Jewishness» Braine, David D. C. «The Inner Jewishness of St. John " s Gospel as the Clue to the Inner Jewishness of Jesus.» Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 13 (1988): 101–55. Brakke, «Plain Speech» Brakke, David. «Parables and Piain Speech in the Fourth Gospel and the Apocryphon of James» Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1999): 187–218. Brandie, «Vida» Brandie, Francisco. «La fe que se hace vida: La fe en el evangelio du Juan y la experiencîa del mistico.» Revista de Espiritualidad 54/217 (1995): 523–43. Branham, «Humor» Branham, R. Bracht. «Authorizing Humor: Lucian " s Demonax and Cynic Rhetoric.» Semeia 64 (1993): 33–48. Brant, «Husband Hunting» Brant, Jo-Ann A. «Husband Hunting: Characterization and Narrative Art in the Gospel of John.» Biblical Interpretation 4 (1996): 205–23. |
| 2855 See, e.g., the pattern in Sanders, Hymns, 24–25; Hunter, Paul, 37–38; Hengel, Jesus and Paul, 78–96; Porter, «Creeds and Hymns.» 2857 Teeple, Origin, 135–36, sees an original non-Christian Jewish poem in 1:1, 3–5, 11; cf. Painter, «Christology,» 52 (who adds that Hellenistic Christians before John added 1:16–18); Martens, «Prologue.» Contrast Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 200. 2858 Harris, «Origin»; idem, «Athena»; idem, Prologue. Despite the tenuousness of his reconstruction («Origin,» 425–26), his detailed parallels are invaluable. 2860 Koester, Introduction, 2:188, also suggesting 1:17. Painter, «Christology,» thinks that the Baptist material constitutes Johannine additions (p. 51) to the earlier prologue (47). 2861 Cf., e.g., the more detailed analysis of Brown, lohn, 1:18–23, which Barrett, lohn and Judaism, 33, critiques as unconvincing because of the irregularity of the strophes and the presentation of 1:17–18 as prose. 2867 Ibid., 227. Cf. Falconer, «Prologue,» 227, who divides the text into 1:1–4 (préexistent Son); 1:5–13 (Messiah); and 1:14–18 (incarnation). 2868 Coloe, «Structure»; unlike some other proposals, this one has an objective background behind it. 2869 Rissi, «Word,» 395. Rissi derives both hymns from Jewish-Christian circles, with John " s comments in 1:6–9,12c, 13, 15, and 18 («Logoslieder»). 2870 Boismard, Prologue, 76–77. The confessions of Jesus» deity framing the Gospel (minus the epilogue) in 1and 20likewise constitute an inclusio (see Cullmann, Christology, 308). 2871 Boismard, Prologue, 80; cf. similarly Culpepper, «Pivot»; Vellanickal, Sonship, 132–33. Talbert, John, 66 is better despite the asymmetry. 2880 For a comparison of various views, see Brown, John, 1:122; Haenchen, John, 1:122. Other structures employ strophes of widely divergent–hence unusually assymetrical–lengths (e.g., Pollard, «Poems,» 109–10). 2882 Miller, Salvation-History, 7. He does, however, think that 1:1–5 contains hymnic material (pp. 7–10). 2885 Michaels, John, 2–3. Cf. Burrows, «Prologue,» 62, 68–69, who finds the whole prologue metrical as reconstructed in Aramaic. |
| 4320 Especially in traditional Jewish idiom, e.g., 1 Kgs 4(cf. 2LXX); 2 Kgs 18:31; Isa 36:16; Mic 4:4 ; Zech 3:10; 1Macc 14:12; cf. Bernard, John, 1:63; Hoskyns, Gospel, 182; Barrett, John, 185; Scott, Parable, 332. Koester, «Exegesis,» ingeniously connects this image with the messianic branch of Zech 3:8–10, but given the breadth of OT allusions possible, this connection is improbable. 4321 Sus 54, 58. That the expression in Susanna became proverbial (Moule, followed by Fenton, John, 45), is, however, improbable (Barrett, John, 185). Others (e.g., Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 31) transform the fig tree into a symbol for Judaism; Michaels, «Nathanael,» suggests a midrashic-style allusion to Hos 9:10 , but this would require that text to read, «I saw Israel under the fig tree» rather than as a fig tree. 4322 See also Barrett, John, 185. 4323 In one later story, someone supernaturally (and convincingly) reveals what happened to her inquirer on his journey when he seeks to test her (Eunapius Lives 468); pagans might think such a revealer divine (470). But see esp. comments on 2:24–25. 4324 This Johannine pattern was noticed at least as early as Chrystostom Hom. Jo. 19 (on 1:41–42). 4325 Cf. also Hoskyns, Gospel ρ 182. 4326 Whitacre, Polemic, 81. 4327 See Herzfeld, «Hospitality,» 80. 4328 Theissen, Stories, 161 (citing among early Christian references Matt 12:23; 14:33; Luke 5:8; 7:16; John 6:14 ; Acts 8:10; 14:11–12; 16:30; 28:6). 4329 Howton, «Son,» 237, suggests that John infuses the term with more meaning than it had previously carried. 4330 Tilborg, Ephesus, 33–38, notes «king» titles in Ephesian inscriptions; an audience in Asia might have contrasted Jesus with the emperor, as in the East the title would connote the king of Persia or Parthia (Aristophanes Ach. 65). 4331 For God as king, see Zech 14:9,16; Jdt 9:12; Tob 13:6; 2Macc 12:15; 1 En. 25:3,5; 91:13; Sib. Or. 1.73; 3.11,56,499,560,704; T.Ab. 15:15A; Philo Good Person 20; 1Tim 1 (pace Oke, «Doxology»); Aristophanes Plutus 1095; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.40; Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (Stobaeus Ecl 1.1.12, in Grant, Religion, 153); references to «King of kings» below. The royal image for the supreme deity was natural; in unrelated societies, see Mbiti, Religions, 58–59. For Roman imperial propaganda concerning the cosmic implications of imperial rule and its applicability to early Christian proclamation of Jesus, cf., e.g., Fears, «Rome.» |
| 8163 Haenchen, John, 2:107. One does expect the vocative address first, so it is its conjunction with «feet» at the end that makes these positions emphatic. 8164 Michaels, John, 231. Also Whitacre, John, 329, who comments (with John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 70.2) that Peter " s response reveals love, yet «defective love...[that] lacks humility.» 8165 Michaels, John, 231. Deities gave humanity a «portion» of themselves (μρος, Epictetus Diatr. 1.12; cf. 1.12.26; Marcus Aurelius 4.14; 7.13). But such potential parallels are too distant from the point of this text for relevance. 8166 Alexander, considered benevolent, was angrier with those who refused his gifts (so dishonoring him) than with those who asked for them (Plutarch Alex. 39.3); but mere benevolence is not humble service, as here. 8170 One might compare the «initial purification» for initiation into a mystery cult (e.g., Mylonas, Eleusis, 238), though this is especially καθαρμς (cf. Zuntz, Persephone, 307, for an early possible use of καθαρς for ritual purification). But the Jewish baptismal image would be nearer at hand (see comment on 1:25–26,31). 8171 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 49; see also Kieffer, «L " arrière-fond juif»; idem, «Fottvagningens.» Bowman, Gospel, 271, less persuasively finds an allusion to priests» morning bathing. 8173 On the former, see m. Yad. 1:1–2:4; b. Bek. 30b, bar.; Ber. 1 lb; 15a; 60b; Sib. Or. 3.591–594; Keener, Matthew, 409; for the feet as well, cf. Exod 40:31–32. Although «except the feet» is missing in X, it remains the more likely reading (Thomas, Footwashing, 19–25). 8174 Thomas, Footwashing, 106; Whitacre, John, 330. On the historical level, a meal in a large upper room might be in the upper city and hence have ritual baths available (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 116; Avigad, Jerusalem, 139, 142). 8175 Cf. also T. Job 3:7. Greeks also spoke of purifying (καθαρων) the land from injustice and lawlessness (Heracles in Epictetus Diatr. 2.16.44). 8176 Plato Sophist 227D (the Eleatic stranger, adapting ritual language, καθαρμς; cf. 230D); Epictetus Diatr. 4.1.112; 4.11.3, 5,8; Ench. 33.6, 8; Marcus Aurelius 3.12. For postmortem purgatory of the soul, cf., e.g., Virgil Aen. 6.735–742. |
| John appears to believe that his people would have been more open to considering Jesus» claims but were hindered by a small but vocal portion of the Judean elite. John " s hostility is not toward Judaism as a whole. Yet in this light some of his uses of the term «Jews " –sometimes contrasted with the Jewish crowds (7:12–13)–appears all the more abrupt. (John sometimes does employ abruptness to draw attention to his language, e.g., 3:2–3.) John " s portrayal of «the Jews» is usually hostile, as the following tabulation shows: Negative: 1:19; 2:18, 20; 3:25; 5:10, 15, 16, 18; 6:41,52; 7:1, 11, 12, 15, 35; 8:22, 48, 52, 57; 9:18, 22; 10:19,24,31,33; 11:8, (46), 54,55; (18:12,14: rulers); 18:31,36,38; 19:7,12,14,21,38; 20:19 Positive: 4(for readers), 22; 11:45; 12:9,11 (cf. 12:19–20) Feasts: 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 11:55 King: 18:33, 39; 19:3, 19 Other customs: 1834 2:6; 18:20; 19:31,40, 42 The problem is not the unqualified use of the title «Jews»; John " s fellow Jews could employ this title with neutral significance, 1835 could call themselves «Israel» but when dealing with foreigners call themselves «Jews» («Judeans»), 1836 or could apply it to Jewish opponents without in any way detracting from their own Jewishness. 1837 (The term had various uses; some inscriptions employ it geographically, as some have suggested for this Gospel; more employ it ethnically or religiously, sometimes including Gentile adherents.) 1838 The problem is that John employs the negative use of the term so frequently. It is clear that the negative use of the term «Jews» predominates in the Fourth Gospel, with second place going to «neutral» uses. More ambiguous cases not listed above do not improve this general picture. Although «ruler of the Jews» may not appear negative in 3:1, it becomes associated with a less than positive character in the following context (19:39, which treats him positively, drops the epithet), as do the «Jews» of 8whose faith in Jesus proves quite transitory. The essentially positive uses in 11:19, 31, 33 and 36 remain theologically neutral; the possibly neutral 13alludes back to the negative context of 7:34; and 19is basically negative. |
| John 14:1–17 John 14:18–26 John 14:27–31 1 Be not troubled 18 Not as orphans 27b Be not troubled 3 I will come 181 will come 28 I will come 10 I am in the Father 20 I am in the Father 28 The Father is greater 12 Go to the Father 28 I go to the Father Believes in me 21 Keeps my commands 15 If you love me, keep commands 21 One who loves me keeps commands 31 I love the Father, let us so 16 The Paraclete 26 The Paraclete 30 Prince of the world Although he must omit material to make the pattern fit (and some items do not fit), he at least demonstrates the repetition of ideas, some following clear patterns. It is also possible that most of the unified Farewell Discourse as a whole yields a chiastic structure as follows: A Jesus» departure, glory, love in community (13:31–38 or-14:1) Β Jesus» coming and abiding presence (14or 14:2–15:17) C The World (15:18–16:12) a The world " s hatred (15:18–25) b The Spirit " s testimony to the world (15:26–27) á The world " s hatred (16:1–4) b» The Spirit " s testimony to the world (16:5–12) B» Jesus» Coming and Abiding Presence (16:13–33) Á Jesus» departure, glory, and unity of community (17:1–26) If this basic structure is correct, unity (17:21–23) and love (13:34–35) are essentially synonymous images; secession from the community, as in 1 John, would thus prove equivalent to hatred and death. The discourse provides an interpretive crux, corresponding to the narrator " s perspective, though the narrator has often remained silent in this Gospe1. 8020 Even before current literary-critical emphases, however, commentators could recognize that the discourse in John 13–17 clarifies the significance of the passion events of John 18–20 . 8021 A Testament of Jesus? Scholars have offered various proposals concerning the specific genre or generic associations of this discourse. Given the pervasiveness of the Last Supper tradition in early Christianity ( 1Cor 11:23 ), a meal setting for the discourse (mentioned in passing in John 13:2,4 ) may be presupposed even if John is conspicuous by his lack of emphasis on it; 8022 in this case, ancient Mediterranean readers might view the discourse as taking place in a symposium setting. 8023 This was in fact a common literary setting for important discourses and dialogues. 8024 Most traditional Jews would have continued to discuss Passover among themselves for a few hours after the meal, 8025 providing an opportunity for a discourse such as this one after the Last Supper. Some even understand the passage as Jesus» commentary on his Passover meal with his disciples–albeit before John redacted the Passover to the cross (19:36). 8026 Because little dialogue occurs, however, the observation of a general symposium setting exercises little influence on interpretation. |
| 4938 Plato Crat. 400BC. Even when the specific language is absent, the concept is frequent: Plato Phaedo 80DE; Epictetus Diatr. 1.1; 1.8–9; 1.9.11–12,16; 3.13.17; 4.7.15; Arrian Alex. 7.2.4; Plutarch Isis 5, Mor. 353A; Marcus Aurelius 3.7; 4.5,41; 6.28; 9.3; Plotinus Enn. 1.5.3; cf. 4 Ezra 7.96; Diogn. 6.7–8. 4939 Let. Aris. 236; L.A.B. 3:10; T. Ash. 2:6; T. Naph. 2:2–3; T. Job 20:3; Apocr. Ezek. 1–2. Often «soul and body» together signified the whole (e.g., 2Macc 7:37; 14:38; Let. Aris. 139; T. Sim. 2:5; 4:8). 4940 E.g., 1 En. 102:5; t. Sanh. 13:2; b. Ber. 10a; 60b; Yoma 20b, bar.; Lev. Rab. 4:8; 34:3; Deut. Rab. 2:37; Pesiq. Rab. 31:2. See especially the Hellenistic dualistic language in Sipre Deut. 306.28.3; later, Gen. Rab. 14:3; Ecc1. Rab. 6:6–7, §1. 4941 E.g., Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.1; Abraham 258; Josephus Ant. 17.354; 18.14,18; War 1.84; 2.154, 163; 7.341–348; T. Ab. 1:24–25A; 4:9; 9:10B; Jos. Asen. 27:10/8; Apoc. Mos. 13:6; 32:4; 33.2. 4942 E.g., 1 En. 22:7; 4 Ezra 7:78; Gen. Rab. 14:9. Some traditions allowed the destruction of both soul and body for the wicked at the final judgment (t. Sanh. 13:4; cf. 1Macc 2:63); Sadducees reportedly denied immortality (Josephus Ant. 18.16). 4944 Snodgrass, «ΠΝΕΥΜΑ,» 195; see also Talbert, John, 77, 98; Maximus of Tyre Or. 10.4; esp. (though later) Porphyry Marc. 19.314–316; 33.516–517. For John, «nature is determined by its origin» (Vellanickal, Sonship, 197–98, citing John " s frequent εναι εκ); cf. 1 En. 15:9–10: celestial spirits (angels) reside in heaven, whereas terrestrial ones (in this case giants born to the evil Watchers) reside on earth. 1QS 3.15–4.26 attributes all actions to either the spirit of truth or the spirit of leading astray. 4945 Philosophers might read this as divinization (Seneca Dia1. 1.1.5; Ep. Luci1. 48.11; Epictetus Diatr. 1.3.3; 2.19.26–27; Plutarch Pompey 27.3; Sent. Sext. 7ab; Marcus Aurelius 4.16; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 3.18,29; 8.5; Plotinus Virt. 1.2.7), or the soul as the divine part (Plato Rep. 10.61 IDE; Cicero Leg. 1.22.58–59; Tusc. 1.22.52; 1.25.56–1.26.65; Div. 1.37.80; Parad. 14; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 32.11; Epictetus Diatr. 1.1; 1.12; 1.14.6; Marcus Aurelius 2.13,17; 3.5–6,12,18; 5.10.2; 5.27; 12.26; Josephus War 3.372), but in view of God " s Spirit and his peoplés spirit in Ezek 36:25–27 , the issue in John 3is not sameness of spirit (just as flesh begets related but not the same flesh) but likeness and image. |
| 2724 Cf. Becker, «Auferstehung,» emphasizing the latter. Mercer, «Apostle,» correctly argues that John " s sending motif is incarnational, not docetic. 2726 Wis 9:10. Cf. the late parabolic comparison of Torah and prophets to a king " s agent in Song Rab. 1:2, §2; cf. also the heavenly agent (in Philo, esp. Israel) in Borgen, «Agent,» 144–47; cf. Borgen, «Hellenism,» 101–2. A «sending» Christology fits a sapiential emphasis well; see Manns, «Evangelio.» 2728 Thus Coppens, «Logia,» roots the motif in Christian tradition notably expressed in the Synoptics. 2729 For an example of subordinate status, cf. P.Ry1. 233.14,16 (2d cent.C.E.), where an agent addresses his master as κριε. 2733 Mercer, «ΑΠΟΣΤΕΛΛΕΙΝ.» Seynaeve, «Verbes,» may be right about general patterms, but admits that each is used elastically. Rengstorf, «πστολος,» 404, acknowledges the general interchangeability but draws a distinction which in some cases we would regard as coincidental or probably habitual rather than semantically significant (26 of 33 πμπω passages refer to God as sending Jesus). 2738 This was good rhetorical technique; a good orator should emphasize the same point in as many varied ways as possible (Cicero Or. Brut. 40.137; Fam. 13.27.1). 2741 Ibid., 258. Bauckham, God Crucified, 55, catalogues seven divine uses of ani hu in the OT, fitting John " s seven absolute «I am» statements. But would John really have counted the occurrences in the OT (in any case, outside Deutero-Isaiah, who uses it six times)? On a secondary level «I am» might respond to the psalmists» «you are» confessions (e.g., Ps 16:2; 22:3; 25:5; 31:3,4,14 ). 2743 John " s distinctive use of key terms relexicalizes them in a dualistic way to reinforce his community " s «anti-language» and consequent «anti-society»; see the sociolinguistic observations of Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 5–7. 2745 Cf. the «burden» of the word of the Lord ( Jer 23:33–38 ; Nah 1:1; Hab 1:1; Zech 9:1; 12:1). Early Judaism shared the Hellenistic and occasional OT images of divine possession or frenzy in prophecy, but this was usually limited to moments of inspiration and displacement of the mind rather than an intertwined intimacy that produced character and behavior. |
| 4789 In Philo, the human is composed of both earthly and heavenly components, by virtue of creation (Philo Creation 82; Heir 64); for John the heavenly element is created through rebirth from the Spirit (3:5–8). Γεννω can imply the feminine role of giving birth (e.g., 1 Chr 2:17; 1 Esd 3:15) or the masculine role of begetting (e.g., Gen 5:3 ; Ruth 4:18–22; 2 Chr 2LXX). Both images may depict God together in Deut 32 (note especially the masculine active participle τρεφοντος). 4790 It means born «again» in Artemidorus Onir. 1.13, which refers figuratively to a son in his father " s likeness. Many (e.g., Braun, «Vie»; Hunter, John, 38; Brown, John, lxxxxv; Cadman, Heaven, 64; Shedd, «Meanings,» 255; Culpepper, Anatomy, 155) suggest a typical Johannine double entendre here. 4791 Culpepper, Anatomy, 135. For the value of foils in extolling onés protagonist, see fairly explicitly Dionysius of Halicarnassus Demosth. 33. 4792 Various cultures have rites of passage that constitute symbolic rebirths (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 151, 158–59, 184–85, 231), but more than most of them, John " s emphatic language (1:12–13) and images (e.g., 20:22; cf. Gen 2:7 ) suggest an ontological transformation. 4793 Kümmel, Theology, 309. White, Initiation, 66, 70, cites Jewish parallels but (p. 252) thinks Hellenism helped shape John " s language here. 4794 Plato Meno 81BC; cf. Phaedrus 248AB; 248E-249B; Virgil Aen. 6.747–751. Cf. reincarnation as souls» «second birth» (δευτεραν γενεσιν) in Plutarch D.V. 32, Mor. 567EF. See more fully Hoheisel, «Seelenwanderung.» 4795 E.g., Athenaeus Deipn. 15.679A; Pythagoras in Diodorus Siculus 10.6.1; Iamblichus V.P. 18.85; Maximus of Tyre Or. 10.2; Croy, «Neo-Pythagoreanism,» 739; Pythagorean-Orphic ideas in Thom, «Akousmata,» 105; Epimenides and Pythagoras in Blackburn, «ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,» 191; in Roman literature, Virgil Aen. 6.747–751; Silius Italicus 13.558–559; for the evil only, Valerius Flaccus 3.383–396; cf. later Kabbalah (Ginsburg, Kabbalah, 126–27). Reiztenstein, Religions, 39, concedes that in Hellenistic literature παλιγγενεσα refers primarily to the migration of souls. The idea was, of course, more widepread in India; partial reincarnation also appears in some other cultures (Mbiti, Religions, 110, 215). |
|
|
