| 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»). |
| 10685 Hilhorst, «Wounds.» See Virgil Aen. 2.270–279; 6.446,494–499; Silius Italicus 13.825; cf. also Philostratus Hrk. 10.2 (where a spirit appears the same age as when he died). Thus one might amputate a corpsés extremities so its ghost could not exact vengeance (Aeschylus Cho. 439). 10686 Plutarch Caesar 37.3. 10687 Tertullian Against Marcion 4.40, used Jesus promising his body as bread against the docetic view of Jesus» body as a phantom; cf. Luke 24:39. 10688 E.g., Yamauchi, «Crucifixion,» 2. 10689 Yohanan " s skeleton from Givat ha-Mivtar confirms that legs were occasionally nailed in this period, as in early Athens (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 119; Brown, John, 2:1022; Brown, Death, 950–51; cf. Ps 22:16 ); piercing of feet was shameful even for a corpse (Homer I1. 22.396–397). 10690 E.g., Seneca Apoco1. 13, applied to Claudius " s arrival in the realm of Hades because he favored Eastern cults. 10691 Menander Rhetor 2.3,385.7–8 (i.e., the rhetor greeting a city in which he arrives or an official arriving there). 10692 E.g„ 1QM 17.7; Tob 13:10, 13–14; Jub. 23:30; 1 En. 5:7; 25:6; 47:4; 103:3; Pss. So1. 11:3; Sib. Or. 3.619; 2 Bar. 14:13; see comment on John 3:29 . 10693 E.g., b. Yoma 4b; Lev. Rab. 16(purportedly from Ben Azzai); Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3; 51:4; Urbach, Sages, 1:390–92; see comment on John 15:11 . 10694 See Hubbard, Redaction. 10695 On the agreement of diverse sources concerning the sending and mission, cf. Guillet, «Récits.» That John substitutes a Gentile mission for an earlier Jewish one is nowhere implied (see Martyn, «Mission»). 10696 See, e.g., Mek. Pisha 1.150–153; on the Spirit and succession, see more fully the comment on 14:16. 10697 Lenski, John, 1368–69, suggests that they will dispense Christ " s peace. 10698 E.g., Laurin, John, 261; Bengel, Gnomen, 491. 10699 See our introduction, pp. 310–17; cf. also Barrett, John, 569. 10700 Stott, «Commission,» 5, borrows the anachronistic language of «a trinitarian framework» but accurately captures the relationships in their Johannine framework. |
| 2:11: signs lead to disciples» faith 2:23: signs produce faith of untrustworthy people 4:48: Jesus complains about those who require signs for faith 6:30: crowds demand a sign before faith, although they have already received signs 7:31: many members of the crowds believed Jesus because of his signs 11:47–48: people are believing because of Jesus» signs 12:37: the crowds refused to believe despite Jesus» signs (though even some rulers did believe secretly–12:42) One should also factor in texts which link Jesus» «works» with faith: 10:25: they refuse to believe despite Jesus» works 10:37–38: they should at least believe his works 14:10–11: believe on account of the Father " s works done by Jesus 14:12: those who believe will replicate the same kind of works 2411 Various texts are clear that God provided Jesus» signs or works to produce faith (10:37–38; 11:15, 42; 13:19; 14:10–11, 29; cf. 6:40); texts that indicate the obduracy of those disbelieving despite signs (10:25; 12:37) or despite encountering Jesus himself (6:36,64; 8:46) also fall into this category. Faith as a result of signs is not bad (1:50; 2:11, 22; 10:41–42; 11:45; 12:11; 16:30; 17:21; 20:8), but it must proceed to discipleship (8:30–31; 9:35–38), and is by itself inadequate (2:23–24; 3:2–3; 4:48; 9:18). Demands for signs usually presuppose unbelief (6:30; 7:4–5) or inadequate faith (20:25); often faith must precede signs (4:48,50; 11:40). (The inadequacy of «signs-faith» also appears in the Synoptic tradition: Mark 8:11–12; 15:32 ; Matt 12:38–39; 16:1–4; Luke 11:16, 29.) The ultimate basis of faith is the Spirit-inspired witness to the truth (1:7; 4:39, 41–42; 5:38, 46–47; 15:26–27; 19:35). Saving faith (e.g., 1:12; 3:15–16, 18, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 40, 47; 7:38–39; 8:24; 11:25–27; 12:36, 46; 16:27) normally goes beyond this. It is persevering faith (6:67–69; 8:30–31, 45; 16:30–33), and suggests integrity of heart–and perhaps an initial stage of faith–as a prerequisite (1:47; 3:19–21; 5:38, 44; 10:26; 12:38–43). One passage explicitly distinguishes two levels of faith (4:50, 53) even though the second only implies discipleship. Likewise, though unbelief in general is the essence of sin (16:9), narratives seem to imply that some levels of unbelief may produce greater measures of hostility than others, when such hostility becomes the only way to maintain the unbelief of others (12:9–11 ). The connection between faith and signs is a theme that climaxes, appropriately, in the climax of the Gospel: blessed are those who believe without seeing (20:29), such as the audience which believes on the basis of the apostolic witness (20:31). God ultimately demands a commitment tht runs deeper than mere acceptance of what should be obvious. (See more detailed discussion of «faith» in ch. 7 of the introduction.) 5D. Signs-Faith as a Biblical Allusion |
| Георгий (Тертышников), архим . Душепопечительная и литературная деятельность святителя Феофана (Говорова) в период затвора в Вышенской пустыни//Богословские труды, 1992, no 31. М.: Московская Патриархия. С. 41. Как в дореволюционную эпоху, так и в постсоветский период изданием трудов святителя Феофана в первую очередь занимались афонские иноки. См.: Ср. Феофан (Говоров), еп . «Разрешение недоумений при чтении притчи о неправедном приставнике (Лк 16:1-13) и обетования тем, кои все оставят ради царствия Христова (Мк 10:29-30)». М.: Изд. Афонского Русского Пантелеимонова Монастыря, 2006. Феофан Затворник, свт . Разрешение недоумений при чтении притчи о неправедном приставнике (Лк. 16:1-13) и обетования тем, кои все оставят ради царствия Христова (Мк 10: 29–30)//Малые произведения. М.: Правило веры, 2008. С. 311. Феофан Затворник, свт . Разрешение недоумений при чтении притчи о неправедном приставнике (Лк. 16:1-13)… С. 362. См. Богословскии Михаил, протопр. Священная история Нового Завета. М.: Типо-литография Д.А. Бонч-Бруевича, 1895. С. 80-81; Матвеевский Павел, прот . Евангельская история о Боге-Слове Сыне Божием, Господе нашем Иисусе Христе, воплотившемся и вочеловечившимся нашего ради спасения, изложенная в последовательном порядке и изъясненная толкованиями Святых Отцов и учителей Православной Церкви. М.: Синодальная типография, 1912. С. 535-537. См. Евангельскии синопсис. М.: ПСТБИ, 2003. С. 86. Феофан Затворник, свт. Евангельская история о Боге Сыне, воплотившемся нашего ради спасения, в последовательном порядке изложенная словами святых евангелистов. М.: Правило веры, 2009. С. 250-252. Феофан Затворник, свт . Разрешение недоумений при чтении притчи о неправедном приставнике (Лк. 16:1-13)… С. 311. Там же . С. 315. Там же . С. 312. Там же . С. 320. Там же . С. 321-322. Bock D. L. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Luke: 9:51–24:53, vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996. Р. 1333. Феофан Затворник, свт . Разрешение недоумений при чтении притчи о неправедном приставнике (Лк. 16:1-13)… С. 324. |
| 8790 Epictetus Diatr. 3.13.9–11; probably Let. Arts. 273; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 2.2.3; Seneca Dia1. 7.8.6. 8792 Tob 13:14; 1 En. 1:6–8; 5:7–10; 71:17; 105(contrast 98:11, 15; 99:13; 101:3; 103for the wicked); Jub. 1:15; 23:29–30; 31:20; 1QM 1.9; 12.3 (after the battle); Sib. Or. 2.29; 3.367–380,751–755, 780–782; 5.384–385; T. Jud. 22:2; Lev. Rab. 9:9, bar.; Christian material in Γ. Dan 5:11. Ford, «Shalom,» compares the quietistic pacifism/Divine Warrior picture of Revelation with the Gospel " s picture of Jesus submitting to suffering, in defining Johannine «peace» (cf. 16:33; 20:19,21,26). 8793 This wing of Pharisaism was probably a minority in the first century; see, e.g., Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 86, 324. 8794 Cf. the standard rabbinic «Great is peace, for ...» (Sipre Num. 42.2.3; Sipre Deut. 199.3.1; Gen. Rab. 38(Tannaitic attribution); 48:18; 100:8 (Tannaitic attribution); cf. Sipra Behuq. pq. 1.261.1.14). It is associated with keeping the commandments (Sipra VDDen. pq. 16.28.1.1,3) and is a fruit of righteousness (m. Abot 2:7, attributed to Hillel). Cf. AbotR. Nat. 48, §134B; Num. Rab. 21:1. 8796 This joy likewise characterizes the harvest of new believers (4:36; cf. Luke 15:6–7, 9–10, 23–24); cf. the realized eschatology in Abraham " s foretaste of Jesus» day (8:56). In context, 15includes love toward one another. 8799 Many philosophers regarded perfection as superlative (e.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 66.8–12) and hence would have to regard Jesus» character, if true deity, as nonsubordinate; but perfection of identity can be easily confused with identity of all that is perfect. For some historic interpretations of 14:28, see, e.g., Whitacre, John, 366–68. For more ontological rankings among pagan philosophers, cf., e.g., Porphyry Marc. 16.269–270 (only God is greater than virtue) 8802 Pagans also regarded fulfilments as confirmations, though they were sometimes deceptive (e.g., Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.9, depending on magic). 8803 This princés «coming» (14:30) may also contrast with his own «coming» back to them after the resurrection (14:3, 28); the antichrist figure of Revelation often parodies God " s Messiah (Rev 13:3–4, 18; 17:8). |
| Others have argued in greater detail that authentic sayings of Jesus stand behind the Farewell Discourse(s). 8009 John " s last discourse, dominated more by realized than by future eschatology, replaces the Synoptic eschatological discourse, but Synoptic tradition also indicates that Jesus provided more general directions for the future (Luke 22:21–38). 8010 The vision of form and source criticism naturally gave way to redaction criticism, however, so that one could acknowledge historical tradition in the discourse(s) yet prove more interested in how it (they) fit the community John is addressing. 8011 Today scholarship, more shaped by contemporary narrative criticism, would emphasize still more how the discourse fits together and fits the perspective of the Gospel as a whole. As Gail R. ÓDay notes, the claim for two Farewell Discourses (14:1–31; 16:4–33) based on parallels between them «tends to discount the role of repetition as a literary technique throughout the Fourth Gospe1.» 8012 Fernando Segovia, who authored one of the leading redaction-critical studies of the Farewell Discourse(s), now affirms much more unity and coherence in the text. 8013 He notes that different stages of composition remain feasible, 8014 but that repetition was standard in ancient literature 8015 and that the farewell speech functions «as a self-contained artistic whole that is highly unified and carefully developed from beginning to end.» 8016 Repetition may indicate recycling of a source, but this is unclear. Whatever its origins, the discoursés final form, presumably the form in which it first appeared in the finished Gospel, is the form the final author presented as a finished product, and is available to our analysis without speculation. In keeping with this trend to understand the finished Gospel as a whole, we speak of «discourse» in the singular. We are not fully persuaded by repetition or «seams» that two discourses stand behind the present one, but even if they do, they provide one unified discourse in the context of the finished Gospe1. 8017 Thus one can point to interpretive clues that bind together the beginning and end of the section, for example, the coming of Jesus» hour (13:1; 16:32), his coming from God (13:3; 16:30), and his leaving the world to go to the Father (13:1; 16:28). 8018 Frederic Manns elucidates the structure of 14:1–31 as a threefold parallelism: 8019 |
| But Jewish piety recognized that God might help those who were otherwise alone, 9370 and in this Gospel, Jesus has affirmed that he is not alone (8:16) because the Father is with him (8:29; 16:32). 9371 This affirmation might reflect the consistent portrayal of Jesus as triumphant in John " s Passion Narrative, as opposed to the tradition in the Synoptics, or might even answer theological questions raised by Mark. Whereas, in Mark, Jesus» cries in anguish can be interpreted as a sign of the Father " s temporary abandonment ( Mark 15:34 ), here Jesus affirms that the Father is with him without interruption ( John 16:32 ; cf. Luke 23:46). Finally, Jesus encourages his followers with a summary: great hardship awaits them, but in going to the Father through his death and consequent resurrection, Jesus has overcome the world (16:33). 9372 In the context of John " s Gospel and early Christian eschatology, this note of triumph is not merely the Stoic notion of being unconquered no matter what the suffering 9373 but a promise that evil and suffering do not ultimately prevail for Christ " s followers. Jesus had spoken to them the words of this final discourse (cf. «spoken these things» in 14:25; 15:11; 16:1,4,6; 17:1) to bring them encouragement. Even so, the «peace» he promises here (16:33; cf. 14:27) would become more fully theirs only at Jesus» resurrection appearances; this «peace» (16:33) would come through Jesus» defeat in the eyes of the world, through which God brings victory in the resurrection (20:19, 21, 26). 9374 The summons to be of good courage, θαρσετε, was a general exhortation and comfort, 9375 appropriate, for instance, to wish-prayers, 9376 exhortations before battle, 9377 promises of God " s faithfulness to his people, 9378 and burial epitaphs. 9379 The disciples would face tribulation in Jesus» death (16:21) and in sharing his sufferings afterwards (Rev 1:9), but this did not mean defeat. In the theology of the canonical Johannine corpus, believers overcome the evil one and the world by faithful obedience (1 John 2:13–14; 4:4), trusting in the accomplished victory of Christ (1 John 5:4–5). Such overcoming also demands persevering (Rev 2:7,11, 17, 26; 3:5,12, 21; 21:7), especially achieved through martyrdom (Rev 5:5; 12:11; 15:2). 9380 Ironically–quite in contrast with the world " s view of victory 9381 –it is accomplished even when the forces of the world «overcome» the saints in a worldly sense (Rev 11:7; 13:7), in view of Christ " s future defeat of the world " s forces (Rev 17:14). |
| had greater reason to emphasize Pharisaic participation in the aristocratic coalition (historically dominated by Sadducees) most directly involved in Jesus» condemnation. 6465 Just as Jesus» accusers did not really know where he was from, they could not understand where he was going (7:33–36), a principle John " s audience could also apply to their own origin and mission, inscrutable to the world (cf. 3:8). 6466 Jesus would «go to» the Father (7:33; cf. 8:14; 13:1, 33; 14:2–4, 12, 28; 16:7, 10, 28) byway of his death (cf. 8:21–22; 11:8, 11). 6467 Jesus» knowledge of his own destiny (8:14) characterized people from above (3:8) and those in the light (12:35). The «little while» Jesus remained among them (7:33; 12:35; cf. 13:33) was therefore the brief time before the cross (cf. 14:19; 16:16). 6468 Jesus» warning that they would «seek» him too late to find him (7:34) may echo the biblical prophets; 6469 the warning was permanent for his enemies (8:21) but his followers would experience the separation only temporarily (13:33, 36). His accusers try to understand his meaning: surely to escape them Jesus will not go among the «Greeks,» will he (7:35)? If one reads the genitive construction as the «Diaspora among the Greeks,» they suppose that he will teach Gentiles; 6470 if one reads it as the «Diaspora of the Greeks,» by «Greeks» he means Greek-speaking Jews. 6471 This is, however, unusual language, since Greeks regularly contrasted themselves especially with «barbarians,» that is, all non-Greeks, hence summarizing humanity as «Greeks and barbarians,» 6472 and hellenized Jewish writers often followed this literary custom. 6473 Although Johannine usage is more determinative than that of other early Christian writers, the two Johannine uses of «Ελληνες (7:35; 12:20) are the ones under dispute, making a comparison with other early Christian usage important. Among other NT writers, only Luke and Paul use the term. Both use it frequently, and both apply it always to Gentiles, not Jews. Further, all LXX uses also clearly refer to Gentiles (e.g., Joel 4:6 /mt 3:6; Dan 10:20 ; 1Macc 6:2; 8:18; 2Macc 4:36; 11:2). If John intended his audience to understand «Diaspora Jews» when they heard the term «Greeks,» he appears to have been utterly insensitive to his audiencés linguistic background. |
| Revelation " s syntax reflects more traditional Semitic rhythms 1057 because it imitates the style of Ezekiel, 1058 revelatory parts of Daniel, and other prophetic syntax. 1059 Punctuated with such common phrases as «I looked, and behold, I saw,» it is visionary language, 1060 and hence utterly different from the style of a gospel (though John also emphasizes seeing and hearing the eschatological revelation of Jesus in the present). 1061 But the nature of this book so permeates its language that, once this is taken into account, differences in language between the two books are hardly decisive. As Caird point out, «because a man writes in Hebraic Greek, it does not inevitably follow that this is the only Greek he is capable of writing.» He may deliberately adopt such a style, as Luke apparently did with Septuagintal idiom in his infancy narrative. 1062 There is evidence that the writer of Revelation was also capable of writing more sophisticated and less Semitic Greek. 1063 Common Language in Both. Revelation and the other Johannine documents exhibit many common features of vocabulary and sometimes, despite the distinct syntactical characteristics of the respective genres, style as wel1. 1064 «Witness» is prominent in both (Rev 1:2, 5,9, 3:14,6:9,11:3, 7,12:11,15:5,19:10, 20:4); 1065 it is often associated with faithfulness, sometimes to the death (Rev 1:5, 2:10,13, 3:14,12:11, 17:14,19:20; cf. the Semitic sense of «true» in the Fourth Gospel, e.g., 1:14). The «word,» as in the rest of the NT, is normally the prophetic witness of the gospel (cf. Rev 3:10, 6:9, 17:17, 20:4). God or Jesus is true (Rev 3:14,19:11; John 3:33 ), righteous (Rev 16:5; John 17:25 ), and holy (Rev 4:6; John 17:11 ), and his works are «manifested» (Rev 15:4; John 1:21, 3:21, 5 [δεικνω, cf. 2:11, 10:32], 7:3, 9:3, 14:21, 17:6, 21:1). «Works» play a major role in both, referring to human deeds but also to divine acts (Rev 2:2, 5–6, 19, 22–23, 26, 3:1–2, 8, 15, 15:3, 16:11, 18:6, 20:12–13, 22:12; John passim). «Glory» in Revelation is often praise ascribed to God (4:9, 11,5:12,11:13,14:7,15:4,19:7,21:24,26; vs. 16:9,18:7), but is also equivalent to the Jewish idea of the divine yekara or shekinah (15:8,21:11,23). Its semantic range is thus similar to that of «glory» in the Fourth Gospel, although the revelatory Christological sense is lacking in Revelation. |
| 5899 E.g., 2 Bar. 51:1–2; cf. t. Ber. 6:6. For distinction after death, see 1 En. 22:9–11; cf. sources in Keener, Matthew, 129, on Gehinnom, and 710–11, on the resurrection of the dead. 5900 It appears in most streams of NT tradition and is denied in none: Acts 24:15; 2Cor 5:10 ; Rev 20:4–6; Matt 25:46; cf. Matt 5:29–30; 10:28; Luke 11:32; Bernard, John, 1:245. 5901 1QS 4.13–14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in t. Sanh. 13:3,4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5; cf. 2Macc 12:43–45. By contrast, the souls of the wicked will remain in hell on the day of judgment in 1 En. 22:13; 61:5; 108:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanh. 13:5; probably L.A.B. 38:4; Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; t. Ber. 5:31. 5902 Ps 62:12 ; Prov 24:12 ; Sir 16:12,14 ; Matt 16:27; Rom 2:6 ; 2Cor 11:15 ; Rev 22:12; Pesiq. Rab. 8:2; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.2.3. 5903 It continued in widespread use (Josephus Life 256; Ant. 4.219; b. Sanh. 37b, bar.; p. Git. 4:1, §2; cf. m. Roš Haš. 1:7; 2:6); see further the comment under 8:13. Early Christians also employed this rule; see 2Cor 13:1 ; 1Tim 5:19 ; Matt 18:16. 5904 Boring et al, Commentary, 270–71, cites Cicero Rose. Amer. 36.103. Witnesses confirmed a matter (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 26), and a claim offered without them might be scathingly contested (Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111). 5905 E.g., Lysias Or. 4.5–6, §101; 7.12–18, §§109–110; 12.27–28, §122; 19.24, §154; 29.7, §182; Cicero Quinct. 24.76. Establishing a credible motive was standard procedure for the prosecution (Cicero Rose. Amer. 22.61–62). 5906 E.g., Isaeus Estate of Cleonymus 31–32, §37; Estate of Hagnias 6; Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111; 7.43, §112. Cf. the preference for multiple and diverse testimonies, e.g., in Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 61, §19D; for challenging the credibility of opposing witnesses, see, e.g., Hermogenes Issues 45.5–10. 5907 Cicero Quinct. 23.75. 5908 The witness of one person was inadequate in many kinds of cases (Boice, Witness, 47, cites m. Ketub. 2:9; Roè Haï. 3:1); self-accusation, by contrast, could invite condemnation (Achilles Tatius 7.11.1; though in early Judaism cf. Cohn, Trial, 98). In some matters, however, onés self-testimony was held reliable (e.g., m. Ketub. 2:10), even against two witnesses (m. Tehar. 5:9). |
|
|
