8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

1/131

*

1. 1 C. 3:1 f. , !" #$ % &, '() *+ #-" $is here a figure for the kerygmabrought to Corinth by Paul. Its opposite is '(, which is the .(the #( which he cannot yet gi!e to the" as/ !.

#i"ilarly, yet "ore rhetorically, $b. %:1& ff. says: $ 0 10 2$ % 0 0 ( #+ 2 2, 3##& 0 10 #$, % ." % # 450+ #$ 6 -, #$ ) +5 7 . In this passage #$is a figure for the basic ele"ents of'i!ine teaching, for the ele"entary Christian instruction 'escribe' in :1f . It is for

.

)he .is the -, a *in' of gnosis presente' by the authorin :13ff . )his is for 5.

+or both figures, i.e., the co"parison of "il* with initial instruction suitable for chil'ren, an'of soli' foo' with profoun'er teaching "ore ser!iceable to the "ature, there is a si"ilar usage in

both pictet. an' Philo. 1 .g., pict.-iss. , III, &, /: # 8 9: 3 & ; - ( .&.+ . In pict. ,howe!er, there "ust be weaning fro" the "il*. Philo gi!es a clearer parallel, e.g., in Congr., 1/:0 4 ( 7( & # 3 50 ., 3 ? 3 #@ 7A B'.@C > > D & 3 B E0B F &

. #- 3 G ( +,5 F 3 - $ ( $. Cf. Ign.)r., %,10 ct. 2oh., %. )he i"age is the sa"e, though 'ifferent obects of teaching are 'enote' by "il*or soli' foo'.

)hat the ter"inology of the 4ysteries occurs in 1 C. 3:1 is no reason why we shoul' lin*this i"age with the i'eas of the 4ystery religions. )hese are present only in the thir' & an'!ery 'ifferent passage.

&. 1 Pt. &:& : 5 H % #5 '5. >#> 6 #$ , I ! J K +, K#- = 0> 4 -. gain in the en!iron"ent of the ter"inology of the4ysteries, > L > ##F K % (1:&%b 'enotes here the pure,

pneu"atic ('i!ine "il* by which the new born are nourishe' an' "ay grow to +.$ence > #$is not set in opposition to > '(, but is itself thegnosispro!i'e' forChristians in the 5ospel.

)his co"parison 'eri!es fro" a pneu"atic "o'e of speech which has its ulti"ate basis ina "ystery rite. 6e nee' not 'iscuss in this conte7t the 'ispute' 8uestion whether > #$(often in connection with 5 an' less fre8uently with M owes its sacra"entalsignificance to a "ythological conception (the foo' of the go's, an eschatological (the foo'of Para'ise, or a "agical (the "e'iatri7 of life. ll three ele"ents probably playe' so"e

9 #$. $. sener,Rhein. Mus., %; (1/

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

2/131

part in "a*ing "il* a sacra"ental foo' an' causing a particular sacra"ental power to beascribe' to it. 4any e7a"ples show us that it is in fact a sacra"ental ele"ent.

)he DFF, of course, 'oes not attest this. In it "il* is a characteristic of the holy lan' ( 7. 3:G, 1;etc. an' stan's for blessing in general (2ob &/:. #i"ilarly, it will "ar* the eschatological"arriage (2l. 3:1G0 Is. 4 -, who is "il*e' by the $oly #pirit fro" the breasts of the +ather. ? cup of"il* was han'e' to "e, an' I 'ran* it with the soft sweetness of the Dor' @ Cf. :1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

3/131

, * ( ..

#?to "arry@ an' #$?"arriage,@ ?we''ing,@ fro" the ti"e of $o"er. Co""on intheplur.for ?we''ing festi!ities@ (-itt. #yll.3 , 11

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

4/131

*iba to go to the house of instruction while she re"ains behin' in sha"e an' po!erty. ftertwice 1& years *iba returns as a great rabbi with the confession: ll that we ha!e we owe to her.=ahel has sacrifice' her hair to "a*e stu'y possible for hi". Instea', he brings her a 'ia'e"representing the pinnacles of the holy city which is now so 'rea'fully 'estroye'. G )his is thesy"bol of a "arriage which has le' two persons ceaselessly in ser!ice of their 5o' an' peopleun'er the sign of the 'i!ine calling an' the historical "o"ent./

Pointing in the sa"e 'irection is the i'eal of "arriage which Larathustra wins fro" his

'ualistic an' eschatological un'erstan'ing of life. In the "arriage liturgy co"pose' by the prophetfor the "arriage of his youngest 'aughter (_asna, %3, 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

5/131

D # 2 3 #] 13 6, 0% " 3 D- > 6 #] 6, 0%( 4*. 1antines ha!e #S. )he case is "uch the sa"e in D*. &

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

6/131

#S, 6## ( 4*. 1&:&% an' par. . 4arriage,too, is one of the for"s of life in the present aeon which are to pass away. )he history of"arriage will ter"inate with the en' of this age.

2esus $i"self ne!er "arrie'. ut $e is not a pessi"ist in relation to it li*e the Christ ofthe apocryphal cts. $e 'oes not go into houses to warn against it. $e atten's we''ings. $ehas a 'eep oy in chil'ren. $e *nows the legiti"acy, "eaning an' glory of "arriage, as $e

*nows the glory of the lilies which to"orrow will ha!e fa'e'. Hne 'ay the for" of "arriagewill pass. ut this 'ay has not yet co"e. )oK'ay, an' especially toK'ay, the wor' of institutionfro" the ti"e of creation is still in force ( / on 4*. 1 5 ( 1 C. ;:& , &G f. 0$# # > 0 2 & - ( !. 31 0 cf. 4*. 1&:&% %1 . $encecelibacy is the true 'e"an' of the hour $ D ( $#( 1 C. ;:& , &/ 0cf. D*. 1;:&; %1 . )o be sure, Paul has no use for ascetic e7peri"ents, an' if they lea' totense situations resolute "arriage& is for hi" the lesser e!il. _et it is still an e!il. wi'ow isfree to re"arry0 +5 5 T+ &% ]( 3/f ., cf. G 0 =. ;:& .+inally0 he coul' wish that all # an' #Swere at an en' ( 1 C. ;:1 , ; f. d G c 10 0$ 2( !. ; . $e hi"self has the charis"a ofre"aining un"arrie' for the sa*e of his uni8ue situation an' co""ission (cf. 1 C. /:% , 1& ,1% ff. . & It "ay be seen that this is no acci'ent but a 'e"onstration. Paul is conscious of

being one of the 20 D '( %1 , on 4t. 1/:1& .&;

&1 It is not an occasion for the , which is a prey to corruptibility, but an offence against the bo'y, whichis gi!en a new consecration by the 2an' assure' of a new future by the fact of the resurrection ( 1 C.:1 , 1/ . #in against the bo'y is thus an offence against the co"ing life an' the ongoing wor* of 'i!ine

creation.&& new proble" is whether "arriage with an unbelie!er shoul' be 'issol!e'. Paul`s answer is that theinitiati!e shoul' co"e only fro" the 6( !. 1% 0 cf. 1 Pt. 3 :l f.0 for a 'ifferent !iew cf. 2er. G:& ff. .&3 Hn a si"ilar basis *iba ( b.#an. , ;a a'!ises the "arriage of 'aughters at the right ti"e. Cf. also #ir. ;:&% :1 #50 but cf. 1 C. ;:3 ff. for another aspect.& #Sact. in 1 C. ;:3G (twice an' 4t. &:3G 0 D*. &ant. ha!e#S+in all four instances. )he "eaning of #Sis consistent throughout the E) , i.e., ?to "arry@VV #an' #. It see"s li*ely that in 1 C. ;:3 ff. the reference is to "ere coKhabitation. Hn thelinguistic an' "aterial proble", cf. Dt>"., ad loc.: . 2unc*er,"thik des $aulus, II (1/1/, 1/1 ff.&% Eote the T+. If Paul were a wi'ower, we shoul' e7pect a #@, as in ;:;f . )here, howe!er, the6#are to the fore, so that it is "ost li*ely that he hi"self was an 6#.& Hn the 'ebate' issue whether Paul was a wi'ower, cf. 2oach. 2ere"ias, LE6 , 3< (1/&/, 3&1 ff. Hn the

proble" ? he un' Charis"a bei Paulus ,@ v.6. 4ichaelis, L#)h , % (1/&G, & ff.0 $. Preis*er, ibid.,

(1/&G, /1 f.&; !en the .5of 4t. 1/:1< recurs in Paul in or'er to show the "eaning an' preKe"inence of celibacy:2 > -. 5#+( 1 C. ;:3% . It is a technical ter" for the orientation of ethics to thefinal goal of calling. Cf. 4t. %:&/ f. 0 1 C. :1& 0 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

7/131

In later writings the battle for the in!iolability of "arriage is pro"inent. 1 Cl. warns againstthe 'iscor' which can e!en shatter "arriage: S + # (3 + > dF > > ( V$ O 2 2 J & . &G $b. 13:a'"onishes: 4 #$ % , an' Ign.writes in thesa"e !ein to Polycarp (%, 1. $ence a Christian "arriage shoul' not be contracte' without the

blessing of the Church: 5 F #2 3 #5 #@ 2 & D G+ , b ^ #$ e - 3 D " f#shoul' not be "a'e a law0 it beco"es a curse if it puffs up the ascetic0c - #A 5 K D > 2 , g 0A5+(Ign.Pol., %, &. n' while the thought of "ere coKhabitation beco"es "ore pre!alent (v.$erin!., 1, 1 an' esp.s. , /, 11, 3, the Pastorals con'e"n the shunning of "arriage an' the8uestionable acti!ities of young wi'ows, laying 'own the principle: '- H +5#(1 )". :30 %:11, 1. $ere, too, of course, the principle of the lesser e!il lur*s in the

bac*groun', na"ely, in the "oti!e: .D & ! 5h . )hei'eal is again that the wi'ow shoul' "anage without a secon' "arriage ( %:%ff.. It is 'e"an'e'of the bishop in particular that he shoul' re"ain % #0> (3:&. It is e!i'ent thatthe 'e"an's of Paul are increasingly restricte'0 they are now li"ite' to bishops as theecclesiastical successors of the apostles an' charis"atics.

Hnly in one passage in the early Christian treat"ent 'oes the principle of celibacy fin' aplace, na"ely, in the picture gi!en in =e!elation of those who followe' the Da"b, &/ of the1,

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

8/131

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

9/131

c D 75 F D i( 4t. &%:1< ff. . )his point, cf. D*. 1&:3 ff. , isun'oubte'ly the chief one. ut the rich i"agery is chosen 'eliberately. )his is shown by 4*.&:1/ an' par. , where 2esus 'escribes $i"self as the ri'egroo". 3 $ere (an' in 2n. 3:&/ ,the 'ays of we''ing festi!ity fall in the life of 2esus, whereas in 4t. &%:1 ff. they await $isreturndan ob!ious tension. !en "ore i"portant is another shift in conception. In 2ewisheschatological e7pectation 5o' is the Hne who renews the "arriage bon' with $is people. In

the E) Christ ta*es the place of 5o' as the hea!enly ri'egroo". ccor'ing to 4t. &&:1 ff.$e is the Bing`s #on for who" the '-hol's the great we''ing feast ( #$. gain, the i"age can har'ly be acci'ental. 2esus often spea*s of the 4essianicfeast. )he ' ( (is the great 4essianic ban8uet to which the peopleof 5o' is in!ite'. ut those in!ite' refuse when the #$ G& . )he call2 K : #$goes out to those outsi'e, an' they hear an' strea" in ( 4t. &&:3ff. 0 cf. D*. 1:G ff. .

6ho is the bri'e in the 4essianic feast In 2ewish tra'ition it is the people of the co!enantbrought ho"e to its Dor'. In the #ynoptic parables, howe!er, the co""unity of 'isciples isin!ite' as a guest, an' the bri'e is not "entione'. _et the thought rea'ily suggests itself thatthe new co""unity of the co!enant is the bri'e. )he first traces of this !iew are to be foun'

in Paul, probably in 1 C. :1 ff. , where Paul sees an analogy between pneu"atic union withChrist an' the henosis of 5n. &:& . It e"erges "ore clearly in =. ;: , an' especially in & C.11:& : S( # % 2 Sh, 7$ # % 93 3 5f#D ! !. Paul here thin*s of hi"self as occupying a si"ilar roleto that of the 4oses of the $agga'a ( % . $e is the one who con'ucts the bri'e to thehea!enly ri'egroo", presenting the co""unity to $i" pure an' chaste. )he sa"e i"ageryis foun' in 2n. 3:&/ , where the aptist has the office of frien' an' therefore the co""unity"ust again be the bri'e of the 4essiah. )he i"age of the bri'e is "ost powerfully use' in thefinal !isions of the pocalypse, which brings together all the !arie' i"agery of the 4essianic

ban8uet. % )he bri'e waits with longing: 10 ( &&:1; . ut the 'i!ine alrea'y catchesthe final $alleluah which inti"ates the 'ay of consu""ation: j 4 #$ 2 3 7 #D 2 7 0 an' at the sa"e ti"e a !oice 'eclares:$ Z K > 2 #$ 2 5( 1/:;ff .. It "aythus be seen that the thought of the co""unity as the bri'e inclu'es rather than e7clu'es thefurther thought that the in'i!i'ual "e"bers are in!ite' to the we''ing as guests. )hesustaining thought, howe!er, is that of the co""unity as bri'e. )he wor's which )ritoKIsaiah sets in the "outh of the 'i!ine bri'e 2erusale" as an eschatological hy"n are seen by the'i!ine to be fulfille' after the final cos"ic uphea!als. $e sees the new city of 5o'75 -. 5 ! 3 ( &1:& .;

In contrast to 2n. 3:&/2esus is not the bri'egroo" in the Cana story. )he couple is of onlysubsi'iary interest in this episo'e. G 2esus stan's at the centre. gain, the conunction of thewe''ing an' wine is not "ythologically 'eter"ine' in the sense of the 4ysteries. / It si"ply

3 )he sa"e thought is also foun' in 2n. 3:&/ , an' possibly e!en in 2n. &:; ff. in the original for" of the Canastory0 so $. #ch"i't,Die "r&hlung v. d. /och&eit &u 0ana. "ine rel.1gesch. 2ntersnchung(1/31, &%. v.the par. in D*. 1:1 ff. , an' "uch "ore concretely in 4*. 1:&% an' par.% Hn the harlot abylon as the opp. of the 4essianic bri'e, cf. #ib. , 3, 3% ff.: k 0D 5,$ #$ K+, ( n. %3 : l'@, %1% . In the "isplace' section 1:1hlung !o" $och>eitswun'er >u Bana ,@/arnackehrung(1/&1, 3& ff.

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

10/131

arises out of the situation. )he "arriage as such is not i"portant to the narrator (cf. :, but the which points beyon' itself to the &J of the #on. )he "iracle is a "iracle ofre!elation, li*e that of the brea' (:& an' all the 2ohannine "iracles. It is the first step on theway of the historical "anifestation of the glory of the #on.

)his conception of Christ as the ri'egroo" un'erlies the house table of phesians( %:&&ff .. lrea'y in & C. 11:3 (cf. 1 C. :1 f. the "arriage bon' between Christ an' the

co""unity as $is bri'e ha' been set in analogy to the "arriage bon' between the first hu"ancouple. In ph. %:31 f. the thought is wor*e' out typologically, an' the 5enesis saying % #$,to the analogy between hea!enly an' earthly we''ing which is so i"portant in 5*.thin*ing.

In the later 'e!elop"ent of early Christian i'eas of "arriage an' celibacy there is "uchcontact an' conflict with $ellenistic "otifs. 5nostics speculate on hea!enly sy>ygies, "ysticsre!el in the i"agery of the #ong of #ongs, ascetics 'espise the bo'y an' ecstatic wo"ene7perience the union of the soul with the hea!enly ri'egroo". )wo te7ts stan' out in the welterof literature. )he 2ewish legen' of 2oseph an' senath, %& which 'eals with the "arriage of2oseph to a 'aughter of the gyptian *ing, is ob!iously interprete' an' allegorically e7ploite' in2u'ais" with reference to the "arriage of the 4essiah to the city of 5o' (p. 1%0 10 1;0 1/0 an'

Christians, too, wor* it out in the sa"e way, the !irgin senath being fearfully oppose' to all "enuntil the great stranger co"es (Z> 2, 0 13 who con!erts her to the true 5o' an' i"partsthe #pirit of 5o' to her in a *iss (1/. #he gi!es herself to hi". #he is affiance' to hi" fro"eternity, an' their "arriage bon' will last to eternity (&1. #i"ilar i'eas an' "otifs recurfre8uently in the apocryphal legen's of the apostles, esp.the cts of )ho"as. $ere, too, there isan e!i'ent ascetic ten'ency. 2esus enters the bri'al cha"ber an' wins the newly espouse' for thei'eal of continence. higher "arriage ta*es the place of carnal union: 95h #$h7& 3 ! S-J(ct. )ho". , 1. n' an ecstatic hy"n of

%< )he =o"an Catholic !iew starts with the application of the ter" (sacramentum to the "aritalrelationship establishe' in ph. %:31 VV 5n. &:& , an' thus 'eclares "arriage to be a sacra"ent. +or further'etails, cf. 4einert> 5efbr., ad loc.%1 %< . Cf. 1 C. 1:3 0 1 )h. : 0 Col. 3:1G f. 0 1 Pt. 3:1 , ; . Cf. also 2os.p. , &, & K n" #2 5+, D > T', b 60" > #3 > $ 1+. Christian sensibility coul' not possibly appro!e a cru'e saying li*e that of #ir.3:& : $ 6 5J #, 1 F # #> .%& '. P. atiffol, Studia $atristica, 1 (1GG/.

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

11/131

)ho"as lau's the "ystical we''ing, the 'ance of the se!en "ale an' fe"ale atten'ants an' theeternal oys of the "arriage feast (f..%3 In the story of 2oseph an' senath the reference is stillto the relationship between the 4essiah an' the co""unity, but here it is to the sensual an' supraKsensual e7periences of the in'i!i'ual soul. 4ysticis" has triu"phe'.

Stauffer

*

( K@, 2.

1. #5(#5,1 #5 & is a 5*.for" of the ra".\OMU WOj(b.rub, 1/a,3 whichfor its part 'eri!es fro" the $eb.\OkMUWOj(2os. 1%:G0 1G:1, an abbre!iation of the original WOj\OkMUmXO (2os. 1%:1G or \OkMU W\jXR WOj& B. &3:1 an' 4anasseh ( & B. 1:30 &1:. )he threats of u'g"entuttere' o!er this sinister !alley in 2er. ;:3& 0 1/: 0 cf. Is. 31:/ 0 :& , are the reason why theAalley of $inno" ca"e to be e8uate' with the hell of the last u'g"ent in apocalyptic literaturefro" the &n' cent. .C.(the ol'est instances are in th. n./

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

12/131

In the E) there is no 'escription of the tor"ents of hell as in apocalyptic literature. If theyare "entione', it is only to rouse consciences to fear of the wrath of the hea!enly 2u'ge ( 4t.1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

13/131

Pr!. 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

14/131

it 5, i.e., co"plaint at the loss of worl'ly goo's, 11 which "ust ulti"ately be wreste'fro" "an`s control ( :Gff ..

2. The Word Group applied to the Deity.

#$+ an' #5+ are particularly i"portant for the 5*s. when brought into connectionwith the go's.1& 4erry laughter is a 'i!ine characteristic (cf. perhaps ., a na"e forphro'ite as early as $o"er, H'., /, 3&, an' is thus inseparable fro" theophany. 13 6e ha!e a

particularly goo' e7a"ple of this in the epiphany hy"n to -e"etrius Polior*etes fro" the year3

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

15/131

correctly, that the content of Q is thought to be out of *eeping with 5o' an' $is worl'.6hy this is so cannot be pursue' in the present conte7t. Possible the basic concern was to"aintain the "aesty of 5o'. It is enough, howe!er, that there is this 'istinction fro" the5ree* !iew of 5o', that laughter is not ascribe' to 5o', an' that this has a bearing on thelinguistic e7pression of the oy which $e gi!es to "an.

In Ps. 1&:&it is sai' with reference to the co"ing ti"e of sal!ation &1

that ?the "outh will befull of laughter ( k QR@.(&& +ro" the conte7t it is ob!ious that this laughter e7presses superiorityo!er pre!ious opponents. In this case, there is here nothing ungo'ly, since 5o' is gratefully

praise' for $is liberating act ( !.&b. It is thus the "ore Instructi!e that in its ren'ering of k QRthe DFF 'oes not use #5+but 0$0 it thus i"ports into the te7t the thought of the righteous

oy which has reference to 5o' alone.&3 6hat the translator has 'one is to set the e7pectation ofsal!ation un'er the thought of 5o'. It is in *eeping that in the 'escriptions of the ti"e of sal!ation

in later 2u'ais" there is constant reference to oy ( M TR QU , )est. 2u'.&% but not to laughter. It isto be note' finally that =abbinic ethics, with its thought of rewar's, reecte' laughter in relation tothe co"ing aeon because this is so"ething for 5o' to gi!e, not for "an to gi!e hi"self0 this is

perhaps in'icate' by the use in this conte7t of Ps. 1&:&with reference to the future worl' ( 4i'r.

Ps. 1&:& p. %11, uberq0 b. er, 31a. & 6e "ay thus say that e!en in the eschatologicalter"inology an' thin*ing of 2u'ais" Q v#%'oes not belie its ungo'ly character.

)his is not without hearing on E) usage, since in the future worl' laughter is the prospectof the 2accor'ing to the 'efinitely eschatological saying at D*. :&1 . 6ecoul' e7plain this easily if we "ight assu"e that $ellenistic i'eas that the ti"e of sal!ation isthe ti"e of #5+ha' ha' so"e influence on the for"ation of the saying. )his is e7clu'e',howe!er, by the 2ewish character of the whole section. Eor can we thin* of a future triu"phof the oppresse' o!er their oppressors in the original sense of Ps. 1&:& . )his lea!es us onlytwo possible ways of e7plaining the #$of D*. :&1 . Hn the one han', it is ust

possible that Du*e hi"self 'eliberately selecte' #% , in ignorance of 2ewish usage, inor'er to "aintain the strongest possible parallelis" with :&% . Hn the other han', it is

possible that the saying in :&1 was pronounce' by 2esus un'er the influence of Ps. 1&:& (cf.

also 4t. %: with Ps. 1&:% , an' that Q or zR [O(cf. {[k)g. Ps. 1&:& was thus a'opte'in conscious allusion, but this was not percei!e' or regar'e' (cf. the 0$of the DFF whenthe saying was put into its present 5ree* for". &% 6hich of the two possibilities is the "oreli*ely an' co"pelling, it is har' to say.

Rengstorf

, , ,

. *In general usage, this "eans a. ?birth,@ ?'escent@: K+#> # , $o".Il. , &3, ;1:

> #%, ?fro" birth,@ Fenoph.Cyrop., I, &, G0 b. ?what is born,@ ?progeny,@ ?'escen'ant@:0 3 # &VV ?to 'eli!er up possessions an' chil'ren,@ Polyb., FF,, 0 c. ?race@ in the sense of those boun' by co""on 'escent: ( #(opp..-+#, $o".Il., , 10 '. |generation`: #3 ( 9& 1 K, $'t.,II, 1&0 3 #$ , Plat.)i". , &3c0 also in the sense of age: 7 +

&1 It "a*es no "aterial 'ifference whether the !erse is ta*en as recollection or e7pectation.&& Cf. #tr.K. , IA, /% f.&3 +or a si"ilar process n. .

& )he tra'ition see"s to be lin*e' with the na"e of =. #hi"on b. 2ochai ( c.1%< .-. , a pupil of *iba.&% Cf. as the closest par. )est 2u'. &%: ( '#1Charles: 3 Z -] 0

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

16/131

#5 #$(in 'istinction fro" the heroic age, $'t., III, 1&&. )he sense of the totality ofthose li!ing as conte"poraries is not foun' in 5*., though it "ust be presuppose' in e7planationof '.

)he DFF uses the ter" "ostly for }[k~O , rarely for or M OQRS TU.}[k~O "eans ?age@ or ?ageof "an,@ or ?generation@ in the sense of conte"poraries01 ra".}~O .

In the E) #$is co""on in the #ynoptics, rare in Paul, absent fro" 2n., inclu'ing=e!. s a purely for"al concept it is always 8ualifie'. It "ostly 'enotes ?generation@ in thesense of conte"poraries.

6e often ha!e the for"ula 7 # T, as at 4*. G:1& ( D*. 11:&/ , 3< 0 13:3< ( 4t.&:3 0 D*. &1:3& 0 4t. 11:1 ( D*. ;:31 0 1&:1 , & ( D*. 11:31 , 3& 0 &3:3 ( D*. 11:%< , %10 D*. 1;:&% 0 $b. 3:1< .& )his generation is to be un'erstoo' te"porally, but there is always a8ualifying criticis". )hus we rea' of an ?a'ulterous@ generation ( 0, 4*. G:3G ,or an ?e!il@ generation ( 4t. 1&:% 0 D*. 11:&/ , or an ?e!il an' a'ulterous@ generation ( 4t.1&:3/ 0 1: , or an ?unbelie!ing an' corrupt@ generation ( 4t. 1;:1; , cf. D*. /:1 0 4*. /:1/, which has only 6 . )here is a co"bination at c. &:< : @ & #% % - . Phil. &:1% : 5 #% % 35, 'eri!es fro" the #ong of 4oses ( -t. 3&:% . #o too, perhaps, 'oes 4t.1;:1; ( -t. 3&:&< : # J5 , Z3 a 1 . )his #ong is relate' to the 4essianic age in #. -t. , 31G on 3&:1% . 3 #$in thiscritical sense is also foun' in 2os.ell. , %, & : D # J K( ##5 #+5. s shown by the usual a''ition of T, the phrase 7 #Tis a ren'ering of the =abbinic M[OM }~OkM .% In the role playe' by #$in the sayingsof 2esus we can see $is co"prehensi!e purposed$e is ai"ing at the whole people an' not atin'i!i'ualsdan' $is !iew of soli'arity in sin. % Z #occurs in the sense of allfuture "en at D*. 1:G , %< .

#$in the sense of ?age@ or ?perio'@ is foun' in 4t. 1:1; 0 c. 13:3 0 1:1 0 1%:&1 0ph. 3:% 0 Col. 1:& . It occurs in the sense of ?"anner@ in D*. 1:G . In c. G:33 there isallusion to Is. %3:G : D # 2 ##is a literal ren'ering of theobscure $ebrew te7t.;

. *

?5enealogical tree.@ tteste' fro" the ti"e of Plat.Crat. , 3/c: D #, 1 : +5+ #& 5# -+ (of the go's.#olon`s atte"pt to recount the origin of the race is 'escribe' in Plat.)i". &&a as 3+ 3 - # 3 : J ( ## . "ongother for"s of historical writing Polybius "entions a ##> &which he hi"self

'oes not follow (IF, 1, . In a for"ula si"ilar to that of Plato he refers to "any who ha!econcerne' the"sel!es with $ 3 ## 3 -(IF, &, 1. )hus thefor"ula 2 3 ##at 1 )". 1:"ay be regar'e' as tra'itional. )he DFF 'oesnot ha!e the wor'.

1 5es.Kuhl ,s.v.& E xOtz. 6e shoul' rea' -]C ]is an assi"ilation to the DFF.3 Cf. #chl. 4t. on 1;:1; . l.K-ebr. , 3

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

17/131

In the E) it is foun' only at 1 )". 1: 0 )t. 3:/ . )he "eaning is conteste'. )he totalun'erstan'ing of the Past. with the alternati!es of authentic or unauthentic or 5nostic or2ewish opponents, "a*es interpretation 'ifficult. 6e shoul' thus start with the ter" itself inthe conte7t. +ro" 1 )". 1: we learn that ##3cannot be separate' fro" 2.)t. 1:1 "entions 2 . It thus follows that the ## , too, are2ewish in content. )his also correspon's to the fact that in )t. 3:/ they are associate' with the

$0 , "en ( )t. 1:1 , 8uestions their clai" to be teachers of the Daw ( 1 )".1:; an' attac*e' in a 'iscussion of the Daw in !. Gff . 1 )he $are neither2u'aists nor Eo"ists0 they are 2ews. )he issue is not the sa"e as in 5l. & ut they are notntino"ians in the ba' sense. )hey represent a 5nostic 2u'ais" which uses the Daw (of theH) to sprea' ascetic 'e"an's (?$alachot@ an' speculati!e 'octrines (?$agga'ot@. $encethe author e"phasises the nee' for a true *eeping of the Daw ( 1 )". 1:G , calls their teachingthe co""an'"ents of "en ( )t. 1:1 , 8uestions their clai" to be teachers of the Daw ( 1)". 1:; an' 'e"an's that real teachers shoul' be pro!i'e' for the co""unities ( )t. 3:13 .)here is no longer any reason to 8uestion the possibility or probability of a 5nostic 2u'ais".3

6e can only guess as to the nature of the ##. )hey can har'ly ha!e been listsof aeons si"ilar to those foun' in the classical 5nosticis" of the Aalentinians an' force' into

the te7t of the H) by !iolent e7egesis. #uch lists are ne!er calle' ## . 4oreli*ely, they are the genealogies of "en. 5. Bittel has shown % that the =abbis ha' a li!elyinterest in both their own genealogies an' those of others, but especially those ta*en fro" theH) , an' that these playe' a role in the 'ebates between the 2ews an' 2ewish Christians. )heerrorists of the Past. , howe!er, are not ust 2ews but syncretists. gain, 2 3## is a tra'itional 5ree* for"ula. ; $ence it is probable that the e7pression'enotes the biblical history enriche' by interpretations an' a''itions. G If so, the##of )t. 3:/ are the sa"e as the 2 3 ##of 1)". 1: . +orPhilo in his re!iew of the wor* of 4oses ( Ait. 4os. , II, % 'escribes as >##& the total Z&(the historical parts of the Pentateuch in 'istinction

fro" the legal apart fro" the story of creation, i.e., the whole historical narrati!e of thePentateuch./.

Di*e ##, this 'eri!es fro" #, the one who gi!es an account of'escent or 'raws up a genealogy. In the DFF it occurs only at 1 Ch. %:1 (

1 )he i'ea that the 2u'ais" of the false teachers is si"ply reigne' in or'er to "a*e it appear that Paul, the chiefopponent of the 2ews, is the author (cf. -ib. Past. on 1 )". 1:; attributes an unli*ely subtlety to the writer. $ewoul' har'ly "a*e his tas* "ore 'ifficult by substituting 2ewish for paganKChristian 5nosticis" an' by lin*ingit with the H) .& Cf. -ib. Past. on 1 )". 1:; an' 6. D^tgert, ? -ie Irrlehrer 'er Past. ,@ +)h , 13 (1/

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

18/131

##+ , n. % . In the E) it is foun' only at $b. ;: with reference to4elchise'ec: 4 F D ##- J ( , ?who 'oes not 'eri!e his 'escentfro" the" (the sons of De!i.@

.

)his occurs only at $b. ;:3 . It "eans ?without 'escent,@ i.e., without ha!ing a place by'eri!ation in the hu"an series, in this case as a priest. 1 $ow i"portant 'escent was for

priests on 2ewish soil "ay be seen fro" >r. &:1J3 0 Phil.#pec. Deg. , I 11< ff. 0 2os.p. , 1,3". B. . on :1%.

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

19/131

through public preaching, not through a "ystery. ; +urther"ore, he begets wholeco""unities an' not ust in'i!i'ual belie!ers. In 1 C. :1% an' Phl". 1< we si"ply ha!e arhetorical 'e!elop"ent of the usual 2ewish e7pression. It is wholly in line with the e"otionalstrength, forcefulness an' "etaphorical power of the language of Paul. Perhaps so"e of hisconte"poraries use' si"ilar phrases.

*8chsel

B. The !dea o# %e& Birth 'y Con(ersion to the True $eligion in )aterudais".

)he i'ea of ?new birth@ or ?beco"ing new@ by con!ersion to 2u'ais" is co""on in the=abbis.G Instea' of gi!ing se!eral e7a"ples, we shall pro!e the point by a''ucing two whichare particularly clear. In Cant. r. 1 on 1:3 we rea': ?6hen so"eone brings a creature (i.e., a"an un'er the wing of the #he*inah (i.e., wins hi" to 2u'ais" accor'ing to Cant. r. , 1 on1:1, then it is counte' to hi" (i.e., by 5o' as though he ha' create' an' fashione' an'for"e' hi".@ #i"ilarly, we rea' in b. 2eb, &&a etc.: ? proselyte ust con!erte' is li*e a chil'

ust born.@ )he two state"ents gi!e us a gli"pse into the worl' of thought fro" which they

sprang an' which was gi!en its linguistic sta"p by e7pressions connecte' with generation.)he first state"ent co"pares the one who wins a nonK2ew to 2u'ais" 'irectly with 5o'.)his is shown by the e7pressions use' to e7tol his wor*. )hey are the wor's use' in the H) to

'escribe 5o' as the Creator ex nihilo ( }X, 5n. 1:1 , &; , as the Hne who gi!es "an hisfor" ( }W, 5n. &:; 0 Ps. 13/:1 an' as the Hne who hol's $is creati!e han' o!er hi" fro"his "other s wo"b (cf. }, Ps. 13/:1% . )he winning of a proselyte is an achie!e"ent ofunsurpassable greatness, since it can be co"pare' with the creati!e wor* of 5o' ( 1G ._et this is not the essential point in the present conte7t. 4ore i"portant is the fact that the2ew who wins another to his faith satisfies in an i'eal "anner the co""an' to be fruitful an'"ultiply, which, accor'ing to the =abbinic un'erstan'ing, is lai' on all "ale 2ews as a

supre"e co""an'./ It shoul' not be forgotten, of course, that the whole i'ea re"ains in thereal" of co"parison. )his fact pre!ents us fro" fin'ing in the state"ent, for which there are"any parallels,1enstein $ell. 4yst. ,< f. )hat we ha!eparensrather thanpaterin pul.4et. , FI, &% is of no significance. puleius 'isplays a goo''eal of preciosity in his style. In 5*. the ol' an' honoure' often a''ress the young as 5.; )hat baptis" establishes a spiritual relationship is not at all the thought of Paul (as against -ieterich, op. cit.,1%3. It woul' contra'ict the esti"ation of baptis" in 1 C. 1:1; .G Cf. on this pt. =engstorf, 13G f.

Cant. r. !anticum rabba, 4i'rash on #ong of #olo"on (#trac*, "inl., &13./ Cf. 2eb. , , 0 ).2eb. , G, , an' =engstorf, ad loc.1< Cf. =engstorf, loc. cit.11 3& .

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

20/131

con!ersion to 2u'ais" which is here co"pare' with beco"ing new or beco"ing a genuine"an is characterise' in another connection as the entry into a state of holiness, or "oreaccurately of being sanctifie'. 1& 6e "ay thus say that ?new@ an' ?holy@ are relate' to thee7tent that ?new@ "ar*s off the new state of the proselyte as co"pare' with his pre!ious

profane life an' ?holy@ "ar*s hi" off fro" his pre!ious hopeless religious situation. ?$oly@is thus the religious an' "oral counterpart of the "ore forensic ?new.@ t any rate, the two

ter"s are not sche"atically 'isparate, as "ight appear fro" what has been sai'. Hnly in theclosest relationship 'o they 'escribe the situation of the proselyte as it appears in the light ofthe Daw, which is now the pre'o"inant factor in his life.

)he forensic an' rational character of the regeneration of the proselyte is re!eale' by thei"plications of his con!ersion to 2u'ais". )hese "ay be briefly su""arise' in the state"entthat the past has now cease' to e7ist for hi". )his is true of his pre!ious relations. #ince2u'ais" 'enies the e7istence of a soli' se7ual "orality outsi'e the sphere of the Daw ( 3&%, it recognises no 'egree of relationship prior to the co"ing of the Daw. )he proselyte isliterally a new born chil' in his new en!iron"ent. $e has no pre!ious father, "other or

brethren.13 It is literally true of hi" that the ol' has passe' away an' all things are "a'e new,as Paul says in a rather 'ifferent sense in & C. %:1; .

)his is the point of transition to the correspon'ing ter"s an' thought for"s of the E) . )obe sure, the =abbinic "aterial a''uce' 'oes not e7clu'e the possibility of so"e $ellenisticinfluence as well, especially on Paul. _et this "aterial has also to be ta*en into account inrelation to Paul`s state"ents concerning the #of Christians. )his is suggeste' bythe e7istence of an un"ista*eable line of 'e!elop"ent fro" the =abbinic QS [k~ to the E) n#0 the two co"ple7es of thought are ob!iously inseparable. 6e thus 'o well to ta*e intoserious account the later 2ewish i'eas atteste' in our atte"pt to un'erstan' 5l. :1/ 0 1 C. :1%0 Phl". 1< an' in the last resort e!en 1 )h. &:11 . 1 t any rate, these are a safeguar' againsttoo strong an e"phasis on the influence of the 4ysteries. 6e are the less e7pose' to this'anger the "ore we see how strongly in Paul the forensic ele"ent, which controls the

thin*ing of the =abbis, yiel's before the purely religious clai"ing of "an by 5o', which is atonce posite' for Paul by the fact that in his thin*ing Christ ta*es the place of the Daw, so thatall hu"an stri!ings an' achie!e"ents are surpasse' an' set asi'e by Christ`s sanctification of$is people. )his is the real reason why e7istence ?through the 5ospel@ ( 1 C. :1% is for the

E) a new being which is not a bur'enso"e 'uty but a grateful response to the 'i!ine action in2esus.

RengstorfC. Generation 'y the Deity.1. 5eneration fro" 5o' in the H) an' 2u'ais".

#%is use' !ery rarely of 5o' in the H) , but it occurs in significant passages. )husthe *ing a''resse' in Ps. & is begotten of 5o', as also the *ing in E tz : #>> 9+.& J5#$ . +inally, wis'o" is begotten of 5o' in Pr!. G:&% . In Ps.&:; the generation is no "ore than institution to the position of son an' heir0 ?I ha!e begottenthee@ is probably no "ore than a stereotype' for"ula. 1% )o be sure, Ps. #ol. 1;:&3ff. ta*es itrather 'ifferently, but it 'oes not infer the begetting of the 4essiah by 5o'. )he )argu"

paraphrases: ?)hou art as 'ear to "e as a son to his father, an' innocent as though I ha' this'ay create' thee.@ In the 4i'rash on Ps. & ] / (1b =abbi $una eluci'ates the thought ofgeneration by that of a new creation out of pre!ious troubles. 1 In E tzO theJ#5$ was probably in the original, but owing to corruption of the $ebrew te7t,

1& Cf. 2eb. , 11, &0 ).2eb. , 1&, & an' =engstorf, ad loc.

13 )his has serious conse8uences in the sphere of fa"ily rights an' rights of inheritance, though we cannotpursue these in the present conte7t.1 Cf. on this pt. =engstorf, &&.1% Cf. $. 5un*el,$salmen(1/&, f.

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

21/131

not perhaps unintentional, these wor's ha' no influence in 2u'ais". 1; Pr!. G:&& is clearlya'opte' an' e7poun'e' in #ir. & . It is noteworthy that the #< of Pr!. G:&% istranslate' 15 in #ir. &: ( 1< . ut the thought of the generation of wis'o" fro"5o' 'i' not 'isappear in 2u'ais". 6hat Pr!. G:&& says of wis'o" is referre' to the Daw in#ir. &:&3 . 2os.nt. , , 31/ also says of the Daw: & > # 71+, though it is to be note' that 2osephus 'oes not use #%elsewhere of 5o'.1G

)hus, e!en though the 2ews 'o not say that any "an is begotten of 5o', 1/

the thought of ageneration fro" 5o' has not co"pletely perishe'.Philo "a*es e7tensi!e an' !arie' use of #%in relation to 5o'. $e can call all 5o'`s

creating ( a ?begetting@ ( #% in Deg. ll. , III, &1/ . !erything is begotten of5o', the ( Conf. Ding. , 3 , but also ani"als an' plants ( 4ut. Eo". , 3 . )he'i!ine sonship of the Israelites, howe!er, 'oes not rest on a #% of 5o'. In theallegorising of Philo the i'ea of a "arriage of 5o' with wis'o" or *nowle'ge plays ani"portant role. $e also spea*s of a of 5o' in "an in 4igr. br. , 3% etc. ehin' allthis stan's the wis'o" of the 4ysteries.&enstein $ell. 4yst. , &% ff.0

+. Cu"ont,Die orient. Rel. im r3m. /eidentum3(1/310 4. -ibelius, ? -ie Isisweihe ,@ #$ , 1/1;.&3 # ( (in Ps.KPlat.7. , 3;1' is not one who is concei!e' of the go's but a fellow of thego's. #is an thenian technical ter" for the citi>ens who together "a*e up a #5. Cf. . =oh'e,

$syche%, (1/1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

22/131

action (Cl. l.Prot. , II, &1, &: - v+ + O , 1> (, 1' , #$ 5 K $ 3 $ K , 'i' not represent a phallos &; but the wo"b of the go''ess. ut this'oes not "ean that birth rather than a'option is the "eaning of the rite. +or the 5ree*s ha' a for"of a'option which i"itate' birth, yet was not 'esigne' to "e'iate physical sonship, but only thecorrespon'ing legal position, cf. -io'. #., IA, 3/: $era a'opte' $eracles ( Z bygetting on a be', ta*ing $eracles to her bo'y an' letting hi" 'own to the earth through hergar"ents 5 D D #5 . )hus, although $eracles see"s to procee'fro" her bo'y, he is the a'opte', not the physical, son of $era. In the sa"e way the touching ofthe wo"b of the earth "other nee' not signify "ore than a'option in the leusinian 4ysteries.'option is by a process which i"itates birth. )he wellK*nown > & 10 'of the Hrphic tablets pro!es that a'option was practise' in the 4ysteries inthe way atteste' by -io'orus. . =oh'e &G ca"e near to the correct rea'ing. ut instea' hesubstitute' a feeble "o'ernisation (?I see* protection in her "otherly boso" or lapq@. $eo!erloo*e' the fact that in -io'. $eracles was a'opte' by the 'i!ine "other after his 'eath inor'er to be assure' of her fa!our0 he also faile' to note that a'option can be the goal of the initiatein the hereafter e!en though he 'oes not possess it in !irtue of the rite. )he > & 1can only be a "ysterious for"ulation in the first person of that which -io'. recounts as $era`s

action in respect of $eracles. )hat a for"ula li*e > 2 & J is not chosensee"s to "a*e it 8uite e!i'ent to "e that the thought was that of a'option an' not of physicalbirth. )he leusinian rite is analogous. Brte see"s to ha!e been e7tre"ely rash in his e7positionof Z> 1 & 2 lN l&.&/ !en if the 2were the initiate,this woul' not pre!ent the action fro" being a'option, since this was an i"itation of birth an' ha'an e8ui!alent result. )he passages a''uce' by H. Bern a'' nothing of "aterial significance.3

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

23/131

e!aluate' can we correctly un'erstan' the 'i!ine sonship an' generation of 2esus an'therefore the significance of Ps. &:; in the E) . ut then we can also un'erstan' how

belie!ers who were sure of the resurrection, an' ha' the ple'ge of it in the"sel!es in the#pirit, coul' also belie!e the"sel!es to be begotten of 5o'.33

. #in 2ohn.

In 2ohn #is always use' with a reference to the point of origin, "ostly 2 2or J 2( 1 2n. &:&/ 0 3:/ 0 :; 0 %:1 , , 1G 0 2n. 1:13 0 -( 2n.3:% , , G 0 J T( 3:% 0 &( 3: 0 ( 1:13 0 6+( 3:3 , ; . )he see' "entione' in 1 2n. 3:/ is the #pirit of 2n. 3:% rather than the6or' of 1 2n. &:1 . )his birth is thus e!erything which it is in !irtue of its origin. s a birthfro" 5o', it is a reality but also a "ystery ( 3:G . !en as a birth of water an' the #pirit it is a"ystery, because these are what they are through 5o'. +or 2n. the authenticity of hisstate"ents concerning birth fro" 5o' cannot rest on e7periences an' the li*e, for what hesays about birth fro" 5o' contra'icts all e7perience ( 1 2n. 3:/ 0 cf. 1 2n. 1:GJ1< . $isstate"ents are state"ents of faith. )hey are true in !irtue of the fellowship with 5o' enoye'

by the belie!er ( 1 2n. 1:3 , ff. . 2n. e"phasises particularly the ethical or religious an'ethical conse8uences of the birth. )hese e"erge in the 'oing of righteousness ( 1 2n. &:&/ , innot sinning ( 3:;ff ., in lo!e ( :; , in the o!erco"ing of the worl' ( %: , in faith in 2esus asthe Christ ( %:1 . )hey cannot be un'erstoo' as in!estiture with a power or positionappropriate' by "an. -i!ine sonship is all that it is as the fellowship with 5o' which 'epen'son the will of 5o'. )here is a parallel in the 'e!ilish sonship of the 2ews referre' to in 2n.G:3GJ; . )his, too, is essentially ethical0 it fin's e7pression in lying an' "ur'er. It, too, is a

personal relationship of fellowship or 'epen'ence.6e can only guess at the origin of the 2ohannine !iew. 3 2ohn attributes this 'i!ine

generation both to 2esus ( 1 2n. %:1G 0 2n. 1:13 an' to belie!ers. )he for"er is ob!iouslypri"ary. )he 'escription of 2esus as #3 2 2correspon's to belief in $is

'i!ine sonship on the one si'e an' to 4essianic prophecy, which always inclu'es Ps. &:; , onthe other ( G . It is not 'ifficult to transfer the thought fro" 2esus to belie!ers. +orbelie!ers are "e"bers of the KN 5+in which the pro"ises of #cripture are fulfille'.)hey participate in the 'i!ine #pirit. )hey share in the eternal 'i!ine life. )hey ha!e passe'fro" 'eath to life ( 1 2n. 3:1 0 2n. %:& . )hrough the #pirit they are in so"e senseessentially unite' to 2esus. )hat the #% , applie' to 5o'`s relationship to 2esus an'

belie!ers, has originally an eschatological sense "ay be seen in 2ohn only to the 'egree thatthe *ing'o" of 5o', the seeing of which 'epen's on the birth ( 3:3 0 cf. 3:% , is aneschatological "agnitu'e. )he ter"s $an' S+D K@, which 2n. uses in the

present tense, ha!e also an original eschatological "eaning.3%It is unli*ely that the i'ea of the 'i!ine #%in 2n. 'eri!es fro" the 4ysteries. )here

can be no 'oubt that the application of the i'ea to 2esus in c. 13:33 is co"pletelyin'epen'ent of the 4ysteries. n' the 2ohannine # 2 2has little inco""on with what is calle' # , renasci , # , in the4ysteries.3 )here is a co"pletely 'ifferent !iew of both the attitu'e an' possession of piety.!en the lin* with baptis" in 2n. 3:%JG is no argu"ent for 'epen'ence on the 4ysteries.3;

33 In Paul 2esus is the +irstKborn of "any brethren who will be fashione' accor'ing to $is i"age an' will be coKheirs with $i" ( =. G:1; , &/ . In =e!. &:&%J&G power o!er the heathen is transferre' in $i" to belie!ers on the

basis of Ps. &:G ff. (cf. 1/:1% . an' in =e!. 3:&1 session on the throne of 5o' is also transferre' to the" on thebasis of Ps. 11

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

24/131

. * 1

?6hat is born,@ ?fruit.@ Co""on, an' often use' in Philo an' the DFF. In the E)only in thephrase # 0( , 4t. 3:;(D*. 3:;0 4t. 1&:3 0 &3:33. )hepar.`.in 4t.&3:33gi!es us the sense. )here are no e7a"ples in the =abbis. Eor is this construction foun' in2oseph. & or the DFF. In the postKapost. fathers it occurs only in -i'. , 13, 3: 0D#$+ 2 3 n+, '( 3 '$+.

. *

Hften in Philo etc. In theE)only in the phrase #3 #(, 4t. 11:11(D*. ;:&G. )he for"ula 'eri!es fro" the H)MQOS U ~[OYWR (2ob 1:1 0 1%:1 0 &%: . co""on 2ewishe7pression,1 this 'enotes "en as 'istinct fro" angels an' 5o', i.e., as earthly creatures. It 'oesnot occur in 2osephus or Philo.& Par. are foun' in the H): # #((#ir. 1, ? -. 4ysterienr. u. '. Proble" '. 1 Pt. ,@ =AA , 11, 3 (1/11, 1 ff.0 6. orne"ann, ? -. 1 Pt.eine )aufre'e 'es #il!anus ,@ LE6 , 1/ (1/1/v&

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

25/131

#+5+. #ince renatican be shown to be use' of the tauroboliati 1 an' in theIsis 4ysteries ( pul.4et. , FI, &1, the ##+5+of #allust. "ay rest on a preKChristian tra'ition.

In the prologue to #irach (#wete, line 1;, the !l.# 9 is an error. In 2os.nt., , 13we shoul' not rea' #@ $but \ #& $. In the soKcalle'regeneration 4ystery in Corp. $er"., FIA #%is not in the tra'itional te7t but is onlyconecture' by =eit>enstein an' #cott. )he te7t has # , so also Parthey. )o conecture#(=eit>enstein or # 6(#cott woul' be legiti"ate only if thesewor's occurre' at least once in so"e other passage. ut we ha!e only #%(=eit>ensteinPoi"., 3

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

26/131

therefore the antithesis between 5o' an' "an, is not re"o!e' for the regenerate0 it issharpene'. )hey hope for an inheritance an' li!e in fear of 5o' ( 1:1; . )hey stan' un'er5o'`s u'g"ent ( :1; . )here is no 8uestion of regeneration being effecte' in a cultic act orthrough a "agically operati!e sacra"ent. aptis" in 1 Pt. is si"ply an act of faith in which"an is cleanse' by the fact that he prays 5o' for a goo' conscience an' recei!es this on the

basis of the resurrection of 2esus Christ ( 3:&1 . =egeneration consists basically in the fact

that one "ay hope because of the resurrection of 2esus. 6e 'o not un'erstan' the thought ofnew birth in 1 Pt. if we fail to see its eschatological character. Eot the e7perience ofChristians, but the resurrection of 2esus Christ, i.e., $is penetration to a new stage of being,enables us to spea* of regeneration as it is proclai"e' an' belie!e' an' as it is thus thefoun'ation of a hope which e"braces an' refashions the whole life of belie!ers. )here is a

profoun' gulf between the religion of the 4ysteries, in which "an is 'eifie' by "agical rites,an' this religion of faith ( &: , ; 0 1:% , / , &1 0 %:/ , of hope ( 1:3 0 3:1% an' of the fear of5o' ( 1:1; 0 &:1G 0 3:& , 1% .;

s the H) an' 2ewish ele"ents are !ery "uch ali!e in this religion, so the origin of thethought of regeneration is to be sought in 2u'ais". It is true that the 2ews 'i' not 'escribethe"sel!es or others as regenerate. _et they hope' for a new life for the worl' an'

the"sel!es, an' they 'i' not spea* of this "erely as resurrection or new creation,G but alsothought in ter"s of ## an' $ #5when spea*ing 5ree*. / )hethought of regeneration was a'opte' as an e7pression of their hope, though not, of course, oftheir e7perience. 1er`s 'eri!ation of "ysticis" fro" eschatology (Mystik des Apostels $aulus1/3

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

27/131

* 1

1. #trictly ?to taste,@ e.g., Plat.=esp., AIII, %%/'0 2ob 1&:110 3:3(for Z , as throughoutthe DFF0 2os.nt., 3, &0 Ign.)r., 11, 10 P. H7y., 1%;, f.: 2 c0 Ia"bl.Ait. Pyth., &G(1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

28/131

> #-(cf. !. 1& until the fulfil"ent of their proect0 this is part of a strict!ow ( ;% 0 $, 3%% . )he rules of purity of the syncretistic teachers allu'e' to

by Paul in Col. &:&1 : D nE] F #-] F #] , are taboos lin*e' with theworship of the 0 . )hese inclu'e so"e rules about foo', an' accor'ing to theapostle they are beneath the 'ignity of Christians, who are free' by Christ fro" angelic

powers an' are thus no longer un'er obligation to cos"ic or'inances ( !. &< .G

&. It is use' figur. at 1 Pt. &:3 : K #- = 0> 4 -(VV E xOd 3 c . )he 8uotation, with the i"age of tasting the sweetness of the Dor', isoccasione' by the figures use' in !. & (new born babes an' "il* #$. s in the latterthe author has in !iew the 6or' of 5o' as the "eans of further growth ( 1:&3ff ., so there isreference here to personal e7perience of the goo'ness of Christ which Christians ha!e enoye'

by regeneration through the 6or' ( 1:&3 0 cf. $b. :% . Hn the other han', there is norecollection of enoying the Dor' in the Dor'`s #upper. / $b. : f. : : nJ #5 +% 3 > #52 L $ 5 K(, 'escribes !i!i'ly the reality of personale7periences of sal!ation enoye' by Christians at con!ersion (baptis". )hey ha!e ha' a tasteof the hea!enly gift ( +$, $ of the forgi!eness of sins acco"plishe'for the" by the hea!enly $ighKpriest Christ ( %:1ff .0 /:&ff ., of the goo' 6or' of 5o' ( & , L , the 5ospel, an' of the won'erful powers of the future aeon ( -, K@ alrea'y operati!e in the present ( &: . 1 $ 2 $.1&

*ehm

,

. * 11. )he arth, Dan' as a -wellingKplace of 4an.

a. ?Dan'@ (in the geographical sense. 'efinite lan' which is not na"e': = 7 # , ?the whole 'istrict,@ 4t. /:&, 310 & . =(4t.: % D #, ?'ar*ness o!er the whole lan',@ 4*. 1%:33an'par., cf. D*. :&%0 # , ?fro" thine ownlan',@ c. ;:30 K D # -, ?into this lan'@ (Palestine, c. ;:0 #B A, ?in a foreign lan',@ c. ;:. lan' which is na"e': # -, ?the lan' of 2u'ah,@ 4t. &:,

; )he acc. with #-here is perhaps influence' by the construction of Z . Cf. #. Eu. G on 11: :

[kN[k [OTZ . ?they ha!e taste' it.@G -ib. 5efbr.&, &< f., &; f.0 Doh. Bol. , 1&G./ 6ith Bn. Pt. , GG0 Cle"en, 1/

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

29/131

following the $eb. st. c. si"ilarly Israel in 4t. &:&< f. 0 Labulon an' Eaphthali in 4t. :1% 04i'ian in c. ;:&/0 Canaan in c. 13:1/0 # c#or #-, ?the lan' of gypt@ in8uotations fro" the DFF in c. ;:3,

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

30/131

which is thought of as a single unit surroun'e' by an' resting on the sea ( c. :& 0 1:1% 0=e!. 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

31/131

co"parison with hea!en, is regar'e' as the place of the i"perfect ( 4*. /:3 0 $b. G: , of thetransitory ( 4t. :1/ , of sin ( 4*. &:1< 0 =e!. 1;:% an' of 'eath ( 1 C. 1%:; #. )he 'ifference can be stresse' to such a 'egree that #an' &( 6+an' $+ are al"ost un'erstoo' 'ualistically as two 'ifferent worl's, particularly in thePauline pistles an' 2ohn.

Christ is the =e'ee"er because $e is not #but 6+, 2 2

( 2n. 3:31 , not #but J 2( 1 C. 1%:; . $e is 4 '$who has co"e'own fro" hea!en K @ 5 #( ph. :/ f. an' who has thusascen'e' far abo!e all hea!ens, lifte' up #( 2n. 1&:3& . t this point the E)conception an' ter"inology are influence' by an oriental "yth, base' on Persian 'ualis", ofthe re'ee"er who 'escen's fro" the upper worl' of light to the 'epths of the worl' of'ar*ness. / ut the a"biguity of @ 5 #( ph. :/ , which can"ean either ?the lowest parts of the earth,@ i.e., ?the un'erworl',@ or ( #as gen. epe7eget.?the spheres of the 'eep, na"ely, the earth,@ "eans that '( %&& "ight refereither to the 'escent into $a'es or to the incarnation in the sense of Phil. &:; . 6e thus see the'ifficulty of applying the ter"inology of this 'ualistic re'ee"er "yth to the biblical Christianfaith. +or the E) , too, there is a "etaphysical 'istinction between hea!en an' earth. ut for

all the sharpness of e"phasis on this 'istinction, the unity of the 'i!ine creation is "aintaine',as is also the i'entity of the 5o' of creation an' the 5o' of re'e"ption an' theinterconnection of creation an' re'e"ption. )he contrast between hea!en an' earth is finallyin ter"s of sin. It is because the earth is the setting of a fallen creation, the theatre of sin, 1 Bath. r., 1.1 Cf. # $, S!$ H .$,PhiloHp. 4un'. , 113 0 si"ilarly 2os.nt. , G, .#er. Eu". Pun.De iis qui sero a numine puniuntur.

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

32/131

In ter"s of the three 'i!isions of the worl', hea!en an' earth an' what is un'er the earth( # , Phil. &:1< 'escribes the totality of beings which will bow before the r-& as hea!enly, earthly an' un'er the earth: % #& + 3#+ 3 0+.& In the E) , too, #'oes not refer only to "en (cf.1 C. G:% . In the first instance the earthly are si"ply beings which e7ist on earth. Hnly intrains of thought in which there is strong e"phasis on the 'istinction of earth fro" hea!en

'oes #co"es to "ean what is earthly in the sense of what is co"pletely oppose' tothe hea!enly. )hus in & C. %:1 7 # 7( K 2 is 'istinguishe'fro" the KD 2, fro" an K K@ . 33 )hecontrast between the earthly an' hea!enly bo'y ( ( here un'er 'iscussion is'e!elope' further in 1 C. 1%:< ff. : 3 @ $, 3 @ #) 95 F 7 ( + &J, 95 F 7 ( #+ . )o thecontrasting ter"s v#{$ there correspon' the ter"s.${., {&J, 5{-, E0&{&,0& (of earthly "aterial {J 2. )o the 'egree that earth is the place of sin,#ac8uires a subsi'iary "oral sense, as in Phil. 3:1/ (cf. Col. 3:& : #.2 , ?earthly "in'e'.@ In 2". 3:1% earthly wis'o" is 'istinguishe' fro" thewis'o" which is fro" abo!e: 1 T 7 . 6+ 05(cf. 76+ ., !. 1; , #, E0, @. 6ith this we "ayco"pare the i'ea of the 2 #of false prophets in $er".". , 11, , 11J1/, an'cf. also ibid. , /, 11: 6+5 2 7 F E0# 2$ 2 '&, an' -g., ;,1: T #. )hee8uation of the earthly with the 'e"onic 'oes not e7clu'e the fact that 'e"onic powers "ayalso be thought of as hea!enly ( $ , cf. % & #+ 3 #+, Ign.ph. , 13, &. )he "eaning of #in the state"entin 2n. 3:1& : K # M 3 -, ( c+ $ -0 cannot be 'eter"ine' "erely fro" the conte7t. 6e are probably

to thin* of the contrast between spea*ing in earthly parables an' 'irect instruction onhea!enly things, as in 1:&% an' 4t. :11 ff.Sasse

, , , , ,

.

In the E) we ha!e this Ionic an' $ellenistic for" rather than ## . 1 sually theter" has no particular religious or theological interest in the E) . Hnly at 2n. G:%G is there any

special 'istinction between #an' M( M, 4 , though there is also ane"phasis on that between 'eath an' eternal life, or between perishing an' abi'ing. )hefor"ulation of faith an' of the *nowle'ge of 5o' is not abstract an' speculati!e0 e!en $b.11:3 spea*s of '&rather than #&.

& Cf. Ign.)r. , /, 1: ( + 3 #+ 3 0+0 =e!. %:3 0 or again the neut. for": $# $ $ 3 #, Pol. &, 10 cf. -g. , ;, &. )here is reference to 'e"ons inthe 'ifferent regions of the worl' on the "agic pap. , e.g., Preis. Laub. , IA (Paris, 3

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

33/131

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

34/131

gain, such a hea'ing is clearly nee'e', since otherwise no one woul' *now what thereference was in !. & .

3. 4 0> #5+as the 6heel of Dife in 2". 3: .)his e7pression, which is surprising in the conte7t, has now been shown by the stu'y of

religious history to be a technical ter" in Hrphic teaching. & #i"plicius (th cent. .-. gi!esus the phrase ! Z5 3 #5+ 0!. $e allu'es to Hrpheus

in this connection,3

an' we fin' si"ilar e7pressions a"ong the Hrphic writers, e.g., - #5+, - 0&, -, 4 0& .. Philo too,un'er Hrphic influence, spea*s of the - 3 0> $# ( #o". , II, . ut there is a significant 'ifference between the Hrphic 0&an' that of2". 3: . )he latter is set alight0 the for"er rolls, but has nothing to 'o with fire. % It isin'isputable that the wheel i'ea is not use' in 2". as a"ong the Hrphics. If it 'eri!es fro"Hrphis", it is certainly not ta*en fro" it 'irectly.

"ong the 5ree*s the co"parison of life with the wheel which in its turning brings thebotto" to the top an' vice versais often foun' in pro!erbial sayings.; )he best *nown is asfollows: $ $+, 4 ' 0&, 6 `' . G ehin' this i'eaof the wheel stan's the popular insight into the uncertainty of hu"an circu"stances rather

than the Hrphic theory of finitu'e as a recurrence of birth an' 'eath an' what is enclose' bythe two. / It is occasionally sai' of this wheel that it turns irregularly.1 #5+of 2". 3: f ro"this, since it is not original in 2u'ais" (inclu'ing the H) , 13 but itself 'eri!es fro" 5ree*

pro!erbs. +or in the 2ewish state"ent the wheel "eans e7actly the sa"e as in the 5ree*sayings, na"ely, the uncertainty of hu"an fortune. 1 Perhaps the best solution is to 'eri!e2". 3: f ro" the 2ewish saying. ut this "eans that we "ust still fin' its ulti"ate origin inthe 5ree* pro!erbs which lie behin' the 2ewish saying, an' perhaps in the Hrphic !iew withwhich the pro!erbs ha!e interfuse'. It is less li*ely that 2". 3: 'eri!es 'irectly fro" the

& 6n'. an' -ib., ad loc.0 Bittel is uncon!ince' (Proble"e, 11 ff.. #o, too, is $c*., ad loc.3 #i"plicius Co"". on ristot.Cael. , 1Gb, & ff.0 cf. Hrph. +r. (Bern , Eo. &&/ an' &3

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

35/131

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

36/131

#5 ?fruit of the earth@ (lit. what has beco"e, fro" # ( # 0 cf. # , "ust be 'istinguishe' fro" #5?offspring of "an or beast (plant ,@ fro"#%,3 though the spelling is uncertain an' #5is so"eti"es written with one in the

pap. It is 'ebatable whether #5"ay be correctly use' of the pro'ucts of plants. % Philoso"eti"es spea*s of #%in relation to plants as well as ani"als0 Hp. 4un'., 113: S($ H 3 . : #(. 2osephus has #% .J(pal"s, nt., /, ;. -i'. , 13, 3 refers to the # 2 3 n+ . It is "islea'ing that $atchK=e'path co"bine #5 an' #5, +#5 an' +#5 , in theirconcor'ance to the #eptuagint.

In the E) & C. /:1< : # -(here in the special sense of?wellK'oing@ (, follows $os. 1#5 ( 5 , 11&3, / 1st cent. .-. . )he e7pression of the !angelists is particularly

close, therefore, to that of conte"porary 2u'ais".G

. *

rare e7pression, not in the DFF, though foun' in thepap. 1

In the E) it occurs only at 1 Pt. &:& . #ince #&is here contraste' withS+, it "eans ?'ea'.@

#i"ilarly )eles, p. %, 1, $ense: : #5 ( S@+ ^#+0 4ithr. Diturg. , 1, 31: $ #& # 0 -ion. $al.nt. =o". , IA, 1% (p.;%, 1 f.: > ( #+5+ 3 #5+.

1 Pt. &:& refers to the goal of the 'eath of 2esus, an' thus to the 'i!ine purpose re!eale'an' fulfille' in the 'eath of 2esus. )he wor's can har'ly be ta*en to in'icate an innere7perience un'erlying the Christian, for there is no e7perience of the full separation fro" sin,

both as guilt an' habit, which is e7presse' in 'eath. Eor is the reference to sacra"entale7perience. Htherwise baptis" woul' be "entione'. 1 Pt. is here e7pressing faith inre'e"ption ( #$+, ;3 ff. .

#ince the #&plainly correspon's to the ##5of 1:&3 , theroot of both i'eas is naturally the sa"e, na"ely, the Christian interpretation of the 'eath an'resurrection of 2esus in ter"s of the 2ewish belief in the 'estruction an' renewal of the worl'.!en though the ter" #"ay occur in the 4ithras Diturgy, the origin of theconcept 'oes not ha!e its locus here, since the ter" was in general use. &

. *

3 Cf. =a'er"acher, /. -eiss"ann E , 1&.% Cf. l.K-ebr. ] 11, &. Cf. 5. -al"an,#esus1#eschua(1/&&, 13;, 1.

; #5 5correspon's "ore e7actly, of course, to mOM mTU j [kWOM ( #. Eu. &3 on :3 0 cf. B.5. Buhn, #. Eu. 1/33q, ;/, n. 3 #$ with etc.9 #. Bn., 6bg., 6n'., 1 Pt. on &:&.1 Cf. Preisig*e 6rt. ,s.v.& Cf. the occurrence in the pap.

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

37/131

)his wor' 'eri!es fro" $an' #5 1 an' thus "eans ?new genesis@& either inthe sense of a. ?return to e7istence,@ ?co"ing bac* fro" 'eath to life,@ or of b. ?renewal to ahigher e7istence,@ ?regeneration@ in the usual sense.3

A. The ,sage outside the %T.

)he wor' first see"s to ha!e ac8uire' significance in #toicis" an' its 'octrine of therenewal of the worl' following the -+. It probably recei!e' its 'istincti!e i"pressfro" the #toics. It is not atteste' in the Hrphic or Pythagorean writings,% though one woul'e7pect it in !iew of the i"portance for the" of reincarnation . In the e7position of the #toic!iew of the worl' in Philo et. 4un'. , G/ ff. we often fin' ##. Its opposite is-+(; an' ;. ##is "ore often lin*e' with . pictetus'oes not ha!e it. 4arc. urel. says of the soul: D D ## (=+ '$( 4. nt. , FI, 1. Plutarch uses the wor' in his account of the"yths of -ionysus an' Hsiris ( i. -elph. , / II, 3G/aq: '@ 3## ( Is. et Hsir. , 3% II, 3 f.q: #5 3 '@ 3 ##( Carn. s. , I, ; II, //cq.

$e spea*s of the ##of souls in Carn. s. , II, (II, //Gc0 cf. -ef. Hr. , %1 (II,3G': 0 ' 3 ##. Ducian states the Platonic 'octrineof souls as follows: 2 3 ## B 3' 6 J 0 #(nc. 4us., ;. In a frag"ent of )erentius Aarro (inug.Ci!. -. , &&, &G ##is use' for the new birth of in'i!i'uals in a new perio'of the worl', an' this is accepte' as the general 5*. usage. ; )hus the wor' has an in'i!i'ualas well as the original cos"ic sense.

9 ##. Ln., Bl., #chl. 4t. on 1/:&G0 6bg., -ib. Past. on )t. 3:% 0 Pr.Kauer , s.v.Cf. also #$+, G .

1 cc. to the rule establishe' by . +raen*el,+tschr. f. vergleichende Sprachforschung, % (1/13, 1< ff., thefe". replaces the si"ple in co"poun's, as 5beco"es , , Zan' $ . )he koineoften has #, -ebr. 5riech. 6ortb. , 1&%, n.& )he original notion was not that of hu"an birth, nor esp. of birth on the basis of se7ual conception0 whetheran' how far this later penetrate' into it calls for in!estigation.3 =elate' wor's are ##, ?regenerate@ (first atteste' in Eonnus -ionys. , II, %< c.hac scripserunt confici in annis numero quadringentis quadraginta, ut idem corpus et eadem anima, quae

fuerint coniuncta in homine aliquando, eadem rursus redeant in coniunctionem. 6. 6eber,Der $rophet undsein )ott(1/&%, /1 f. regar's these nati!ity fi7ers as ulti"ately of abylonian origin, though without e7plainingtheir particular 'octrine.

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

38/131

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

39/131

&. )t. 3:% : 2 ## 3 @+ -f# . $ere ##is the result of baptis" an' parallel to + . It'oes not "ean only attain"ent to a new life with the en' of the ol' life, nor 'oes it "ean only"oral renewal0 it e"braces both.1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

40/131

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

41/131

)he "ain 8uestion, howe!er, is which "o'e of *nowle'ge pri"arily 'eter"ines the 5ree*concept of *nowle'ge. #ince #@'enotes *nowle'ge of what really is, it co"es toha!e the sense of ?to !erify@0 an' since for the 5ree*s the eye is a "ore reliable witness thanthe ear ( $eracl. +r. , 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

42/131

of seeing ( +, an' 5beco"e ter"s for en8uiry an' seeing thecharacter of grasping or co"prehen'ing in the original sense. In this light we can alsoun'erstan' the i"portance of "athe"atics for *nowle'ge (cf. Plat.5org. , %el, +ahl u.. )estalt bei$laton u. Aristoteles?(1/3&. #i"ilarly the ato"s of -e"ocritus, which are 'ifferent in their 0or c( ristot.Phys. , I, &, p. 1Gb, &1, ser!e to e7plain 'ifferences of 8uality as 'ifferences of for", or'er an'situation0 in'ee', he see"s to ha!e calle' the ato"s K5as well ( -iels , II, &, 3%.4en.Ad Menoeceum.11 Cf. on this pt. +. oll, ?Aita conte"plati!a@ ( #$ , 1/&

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

43/131

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

44/131

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

45/131

originally co"es fro" S+an' .(will return thither (Corp. $er"., I, &1. )hus although this#(inclu'es cos"ological speculation, it is not a theoretically 'og"atic faith. Bnowle'ge ofself i"plies a 'efinite life 'ecision (Corp. $er"., IA, an' is followe' by a 'istincti!e attitu'eto life. Bnowle'ge of the &, howe!er, 'oes not ser!e the shaping of the worl' as in Plato,

but rather a!ersion fro" it0 the #+ 9&is contraste' with the # $ 1+ > (" #(is a 'efinite 5',&% an' 6# P#+Qisnot "erely ignorance but also E0.&

c. If #@as the in!estigation of truth brings the 5ree* into pro7i"ity to 'eity,because in intellectual consi'eration of true reality he fin's his own true being, #(in!ests the 5nostic with the 'i!ine nature, an' therefore in the first instance with i""ortality.y his !ision he is transfor"e' fro" a "an into 5o'. &; In'ee', the !ery #(whichlea's to this is regar'e' as a 'i!ine -which flows into "an an', along with other

powers, 'ri!es 'eath out of hi". +or Plato, too, #( or was a -( =esp. , A, ;;' ff.0 but here -has the sense of a possibility nati!e to "an, of acapacity. In 5nosticis" it "eans "agical power. &G Di*e the 2, it is a "ysterious'i!ine flui' ( mana, an' can be lin*e' an' e!en e8uate' with S+ an' .( . &/ )hus#(gi!es the 5nostic Jan' grants hi" free'o" fro" Z5 . 3 K 3 4&(cf. also A, 1, 10 Porphyr.bst. , III, &; (p. &&, 1% ff., Eauc*: (the wic*e'"an c ! ! .-+ 2, G+ > `+ 9> #@. )here isa "oralistic turn in Cl. l.Pae'. , III, 1, 1, 10 #tro". , III, , .&% Corp. $er". , I, &&0 &;0 IF, /0 F, &10 $er"et. +r. in Dact.Inst. , II, 1%, (I, %3, Eo. 1. 5in>a , %G, 3 f. Cf. Broll, op.cit., 3%3 f.0 6. 2aeger, 55 (1/13, %G an' %G;.& 6#.&; Corp. $er". , I, &;J&/0 IA, f. ( = F H 2 -# R50 #(+ = F > 2 2 +% 50, R $ 3 (K, 11 ( 10 #$ c 7 5) : .$ $ 50 3 5 $.3 7 # > 0 AII, 1J30 F, J0 FIII (the #5 &is'escribe' as ##0 1 : ( #( :G+. Cf. B. 4^ller, E55 (1/&enstein$ell4yst0, 3

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

46/131

asceticis". It is so as a "ysterious 8uality of the soul which is regar'e' as a substance, not as*nowle'ge which in the act of co"prehension controls the content of what is co"prehen'e'.

C. The /T ,sage.

1. further presupposition of E) usage, howe!er, is the DFF use of #@ an'

K5, or the H) concept of *nowle'ge. )his co"es out "ost clearly in the use of Z~W,for which #@ an' K5are the nor"al ren'erings in the DFF. )hat these arepossible ren'erings shows that in Z~Wthe ele"ent of perception is to be "aintaine'. In'ee',the 5ree* an' $ebrew wor's "ay be e8uate' to the 'egree that both #@an' Z~W'enote pri"arily the original pheno"enon of e7istence, i.e., the act in which "an

co"prehen's the obects an' circu"stances of his worl'. Di*e #@ , Z~W is notoriginally lin*e' with any specific organ, but "eans ?co"ing to *now@ in the process of

things, i.e., in e7perience. 31 #i"ilarly Z~W, li*e K5, can also "ean un'erstan'ing inthe sense of ability.3& gain, it can signify *nowle'ge of what ought to be 'one.33 _et theH) usage is "uch broa'er than the 5ree*, an' the ele"ent of obecti!e !erification is less

pro"inent than that of 'etecting or feeling or learning by e7perience. 3 $ence Z~W cango!ern obects which are sel'o" if e!er foun' with the 5ree* wor', such as blows ( 1 #.1:1& , chil'lessness ( Is. ;:G , sic*ness ( Is. %3:3 , 'i!ine punish"ent an' 'i!ineretribution ( 2er. 1:&1 0 >. &%:1 . )he DFF usually has #@in such cases, butK$woul' be better 5ree*, 3% an' it is characteristic that no 'istinction is seen

between #@an' K$. It is in this connection that we are to un'erstan'the use of Z~Wfor se7ual intercourse ( 5n. :1 , 1; , &% etc., not only of the "an but also ofthe wo"an ( Eu. 31:1G , 3% 0 2u. &1:1& . In Z~Wthe ele"ent of "ere infor"ation can, ofcourse, be e"phasise' ( Ps. /:11 0 13/:1 , an' NZ~, especially in the 6is'o" literature,

can "ean the conte"plati!e perception or *nowle'ge possesse' by the wise "an ( Pr!. 1: 0&: 0 %:& 0 oh. 1:1G . )he 'istincti!e feature, howe!er, is that the concept of *nowle'ge inthe H) is not 'eter"ine' by the i'ea that the reality of what is *nown is "ost purely graspe'when personal ele"ents are obliterate' between the subect an' obect of *nowle'ge, an'*nowle'ge is re'uce' to conte"plation fro" without. Hn the contrary, the H) both percei!esan' asserts the significance an' clai" of the *nowing subect. $ence *nowle'ge is un'erstoo'"ore as a way of hearing than of seeing, an' it is to be note' that seeing, too, is un'erstoo'otherwise than in the 5ree* worl', 4%. It is in *eeping with this that we 'o not fin' inIsrael any *nowle'ge which obecti!ely in!estigates an' 'escribes reality. It is also in *eepingthat for the H) reality is not constitute' by the 3 `, by the ti"eless an' per"anent for"s

31 Z~W"eans ?to *now,@ or ?to learn to *now,@ by personal 'ealings at 7. 1:G 0 -t. /:& . & 0 1 #. 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

47/131

an' principles which gi!e shape to things, but by that which constantly ta*es place in ti"e.!ents, howe!er, are not un'erstoo' as the unfol'ing of a causal ne7us of processes0 they area 8ualifie' action of 5o', or of "en in relation to 5o'. 5o' is not regar'e' as that whichalways is0 $e is the will which has a specific goal, 'e"an'ing, blessing an' u'ging. )hereference, then, is not to *nowle'ge in a general sense but to *nowle'ge in a special sense.

)his *nowle'ge is the *nowle'ge of 5o' M[MW NZ~( . )his 'oes not "ean that it is a*nowle'ge of 5o'`s eternal essence. Hn the contrary, it is a *nowle'ge of $is clai", whether

present in 'irect co""an's or containe' in $is rule. It is thus respectful an' obe'ientac*nowle'g"ent of the power an' grace an' 'e"an' of 5o'. )his "eans that *nowe'ge isnot thought of in ter"s of the possession of infor"ation. It is possesse' only in its e7ercise oractualisation. +or this reason the i'eal of the ' +&is ust as alien to the H) asthe i'eal of a & or , i.e., of an i"age of hu"an society which isgroun'e' in a theory of philosophy an' which is then to be fulfille' in action. Eo less alien isthe thought of "ystical conte"plation of the 5o'hea'.

)hus *nowle'ge has an ele"ent of ac*nowle'g"ent. ut it also has an ele"ent ofe"otion, or better, of "o!e"ent of will, so that ignorance "eans guilt as well as error.Dinguistically this is e7presse' pri"arily in the fact that *nowle'ge, as a grasping of thesignificance an' clai" of what is *nown, can ha!e the connotation of an an7ious concern

about so"ething, whether in relation to 5o' or "an. 3 bo!e all, howe!er, Z~Wis use' forac*nowle'g"ent of the acts of 5o' ( -t. 11:& 0 Is. 1:&< 0 $os. 11:3 0 4i. :% . n' it bearsthe sa"e sense when use' of the recognition that _ahweh is 5o' ( -t. :3/ 0 G:% 0 &/:% 0 Is.3:1< 0 Ps. :1< . )o *now $i" or $is na"e is to confess or ac*nowle'ge $i", to gi!e $i"honour an' to obey $is will ( 1 #. &:1& 0 Is. 1:3 0 2er. &:G 0 /:&J% 0 Ps. /:1< 0 3:1< 0 G;: 0 2ob1G:&1 0 -a. 11:3& . )he ?*nowle'ge of 5o'@ ( $os. :1 0 : 0 Is. 11:& , / , or ?*nowle'ge@in the absolute ( $os. : 0 Pr!. 1:; 0 /:1< , is al"ost i'entical with the fear of 5o' withwhich it is lin*e' in Is. 11:& , an' it i"plies the 'oing of what is right an' ust ( 2er. &&:1 .6e can thus rea' of the *nowle'ge, i.e., the confession an' ac*nowle'g"ent, of guilt on the

part of "an ( 2er. 3:13 0 Ps. %1:3 an' of the *nowle'ge or recognition of innocence on thepart of 5o' ( 2ob 31: . ?Bnown@ "en are those who are recognise' an' respecte' ( -t.

1:13 , 1% 0 Pr!. 31:&3 . +inally, the ele"ent of will in Z~We"erges with particular e"phasiswhen it is use' of 5o', whose *nowing establishes the significance of what is *nown. In this

connection Z~Wcan "ean ?to elect,@ i.e., to "a*e an obect of concern an' ac*nowle'g"ent.3;

&. In the DFF3G we fin' special nuances in certain passages. )hus #@occurs only ti"es in D!. (4as. Z~WG ti"es, an' the reference in each is to sin. )his usage for"s the basis fora !iew of *nowle'ge which awa*ens "an, which threatens his whole e7istence, but which lea's

hi" to repentance an' sal!ation if accepte'. part fro" the "any instances in which #@

3 Hf "an, 5n. 3/: , G 0 -t. 33:/ 0 Pr!. 1&:1< 0 2ob /:&1 0 Ps. 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

48/131

in this sense si"ply follows the $eb. original, the DFF often has it in'epen'ently, e.g., inre!elations, intro'uce' by an i"perati!e, which contra'ict hu"an hope an' e7pectation. $ere theirrational ele"ent in such *nowle'ge is stresse' fro" the !ery outset ( 2u. :/0 +' tOcf. !. 4as.q0 3:%0 Pr!. &/:&

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

49/131

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

50/131

influence there is a plain subecti!e ele"ent of profoun' religious *nowle'ge in the "ystical an'5nostic sense. )hus gnosis"ay be insight into the worl' plan of 5o' ( -a. 1&:an' 4as. ,where the DFF presupposes ZZ}rather than Z~W. )nosisis *nowle'ge concerning 5o' an' $iswor* which goes beyon' all hu"an co"prehension (E tOu an' which is proclai"e' for

belie!ers by the whole of creation (E tO.

D. The e&ish ,sage.

1. )he H) conception of *nowle'ge persists in 2u'ais", an' in the DFF an' other5raecoK2ewish sources (apart fro" 2osephus the use of #@ is greatly "o'ifie'thereby. In 2u'ais", with the e7ception of Philo, *nowle'ge as such is not a proble". 6hen

the =abbis spea* of *nowle'ge ( MZ W~Oj in the absolute, they "ean *nowle'ge of there8uire"ents of the Daw,%3 as they 'o when *nowle'ge is e7tolle' ( NZ~O.(% _et *nowle'gecan also ha!e a general sense for the =abbis. "an who has NZ ~O is a. one who is capable ofthin*ing, as 'istinct fro" the chil' or the feebleK"in'e' ( NZ ~ [kXO mWj QS0 b. one who is

gifte' as contraste' with the stupi'0 c. one who has ac8uire' learning in contrast with a "anof the people x} M Z who has ha' no e'ucation. +or the =abbis, howe!er, the )orah an'tra'ition are the only source an' the"e of *nowle'ge an' instruction. $ence all the "eaningsa"ount to !ery "uch the sa"e in fact. gain, accor'ing to the =abbinic !iew the fulfil"entof the co""an's present in the )orah an' tra'ition is possible only when they ha!e been

stu'ie' an' are *nown. $ence the 'istinction between the e'ucate', i.e., the =abbi an' the Zx} M is the sa"e as that between the righteous an' the sinner ( f+&. If in theH) the thought of obe'ience is regulati!e in the e8uation of the *nowle'ge of 5o' an' thefear of 5o', an' if this obe'ience is roote' in *nowle'ge, then the i'ea of the *nowle'gewhich is the presupposition of obe'ience is 'o"inant for the =abbis. Ee!ertheless, the

specifically H) !iew of the *nowle'ge of 5o' is not wholly lost in 2u'ais".%%

In the liturgythe 2ewish co""unity praises 5o' for en'ow"ent with *nowle'ge, an' this custo" is ta*eno!er by the Christian Church.%

$ellenistic 2u'ais" has the sa"e usage, cf. 6is. 1%:3 : > # 4& -, 3 K5 > $ LS . )here isreference to ac*nowle'g"ent off the power an' acts of 5o' in #ir. 3:&& (1/0 ar. &:1% , 31 0

1 4acc. :11 0 & 4acc. 1:&; 0 )ob. 1: ( 0 2't. /:; 0 #ib. , 3, /30 an' to the *nowle'ge of$is 4& P4Qetc. in 6is. %:; 0 /:1< 0 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

51/131

2u'ais".%G )hus both the concept of *nowle'ge an' the concept of 5o' are to so"e e7tenthellenise' in either a #toic or a 5nostic 'irection. %/

&. Philo`s !iew of *nowle'ge an' his use of #@etc. are wholly $ellenistic, i.e.,rationalist or 5nostic. $e can spea* generally of #+ ( H"n. Prob. Dib. ,; but also of #( > `( Airt. , &1% . Ee!ertheless, what he finally "eans is the*nowle'ge of 5o'. Hn the one han' he spea*s of the *nowle'ge of the one 5o' in opposition

to polytheis" ( Airt. , 1;G f. 0 br. , f. or to scepticis" ( br. , 1/ an' in so 'oing usesthe #toic theory of the *nowle'ge of 5o' ( Airt. , &1% f. 0 Poster. C. , 1; . Hn the other han'this *nowle'ge, as Philo sees it, lea's only to the fact of 5o' an' not $is nature ( #o". , I,&31 0 #pec. Deg. , I, 3& ff. 0 Prae". Poen. , 3/ an' 0 or it lea's only to a *nowle'ge of $is$( #pec. Deg. , I, 3 ff. 0 cf. +ug. , 1% 0 4ut. Eo". , 1; . eyon' this, howe!er,there is a *nowle'ge of 5o' which consists in 'irect !ision, 'escribe' by Philo as the ecstasyin which the soul is both 4($ 3 4+5( #o". , II, && . )his is not attaine'

by stu'y0 it is gi!en by 5o' ( Hp. 4un'. , ;< f. 0 br. , ;/ f. 0 Prae". Poen. , 3; an' 1 ff.etc..". =. on 1:&< an' 7curs. on 1:&%0 also agnwsto, n. 3 . )he =abbis 'o not 'iscuss the proble"( #tr.K. , III, 330 when they spea* of the un*nowability of 5o', they refer to the inscrutability of $is

pro!i'ence ( #tr.K. , III, &/ f.0 6#+.%/ +or #toic influence n. %G , also p. r. , 1/%0 &1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

52/131

Phil. :%. #o"eti"es it can sha'e into the sense of ?to confir"@ ( 4*. :3G0 13:&G f.0 D*. 1:1G01 C. :1/0 & C. 13:0 In. :%30 ;:%10 -i'., 11, G0 esp.co""on in 1 2n. in the phrase -h#@etc.. It can also "ean ?to *now@ in the sense of awareness ( 4t. &:%. &%:1with Is. 3:1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

53/131

)here is no special sense e!en in cases where there is a'"onition to e"brace a special*nowle'ge. _et the usage 'i!erges at this point fro" that which characterises the 5ree*worl'. It appro7i"ates to the H) !iew in which *nowle'ge is also a "o!e"ent of the will, sothat #@"eans: ?Det it be tol' you.@ )hat is to say, it is no "ere 8uestion ofobecti!e confir"ation but of a *nowle'ge which accepts the conse8uences of *nowle'ge.)hus alrea'y in the parable in 4t. &:3 an' par. : F #@, K 4

K& gain, D*. 1 K 1#+ , an' $b. 3:1< ( Ps. /%:1< : 3 F 1#+ 4- . In the sa"e connection we "ay also "ention D*. 1/:& , :K 1#+ > K 1#+ > > , an' =. 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

54/131

f. : & F K& > - .- D ^X )2 F #& & ( infra. )hat there is no thought of a speculati!e *nowle'geof 5o' "ay be seen also fro" =. 11:3 0 1 C. &:1 : # 1#+ 2 (8uotingIs. 1#+ , though ;11 on 2n. #i"ilarly, theoretical an'

practical con!ersion to "onotheis" is "eant in 1 Cl., %/, 3: (5o' as the J :^.: 7( K > #@ > & TE E . )he practical ele"ent is 'o"inant in -i'. , %, &0 arn. , & -, cf. $er".s. , , . )he theoretical aspect ofcon!ersion is "ore strongly e"phasise' in & Cl., 3, 10 1;, 1, where #@ P> &Q"eans con!ersion to Christianity. )he sa"e is true in $er".s. , /, 1G, 1 f.0 1, ; ( ob. >` 2 Z2 2 2 an' !. , 3, , & ( ob. the . Cf. also Beryg"a Petri+r. , & an' 3. #@is use' in the sa"e way at 1 )". :3 ( ob. D 0this is use' interchangeably with #@in $er".s. , /, 1G, 1 f. (cf. Col. 1:1 , while &Pt. &:&1 PD #+5 D 4> - ? #25EQunites the practical an' theoretical ele"ents. Cf. also pict.-iss. , I, , & ff.0/, 110 P. 4asp. , , / (th cent. .-. : > #@ &.

)he correspon'ing use for *nowle'ge on 5o'`s part in the sense of election, which is socharacteristic of the H) , is occasionally foun', "ost 'early at & )". &:1/ : 1#+ -: ` (VV Eu. 1:% 0 cf. also 4t. ;:&3 , but also 1 C. G:3 0 13:1& 0 5l. :/( infra. )his usage is the furthest fro" or'inary 5ree* an' was later aban'one'.

)he noun #(occurs in the sa"e H) sense as #@" #( P2 2Qisobe'ient ac*nowle'g"ent of the will of 5o'. 6hen Paul in =. &:&< characterises the 2ews as

10 D &.+ #@+ 3 ! &h, #(,e!en though it 'oes not ha!e the supple"entary gen., is e8ui!alent to the H) NZ~O , i.e.,*nowle'ge of the will of 5o' as 'eclare' ! &h. _et there is also a suggestion of thetheoretical *nowle'ge of "onotheis"0 this is e"phasise' by the a''ition 3 . +or at this point the 2ew is contraste' with the 5entile who is engulfe' by the&of polytheis". Hbe'ience is plainly "eant by the #( ( +$+ofarn. , &1, % an' the #( 42 -of arn. , %, . )he sa"e is true of & Cl.,3, 1: 7 #( 7 > & (5o', ? > D K H 1#+&(i.e., Christ0 the re8uire' 4#, howe!er, consists ! 5#(&Cl., 3, . 6e ha!e alrea'y seen ( ;

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

55/131

, supra or "ore li*ely an inwar' appropriation or e7perience. G 5o' $i"self is the#ubect of #( in =. 11:33 : k '$ - 3 . 3 #@+2. )he e7pression is H) an' 2ewish, though there is no 'irect parallel. / It best fits theconte7t to ta*e it on the analogy of Z~Win the sense of election. )hat is, the reference is to thegracious will of 5o' 'irecting history accor'ing to $is plan.

=ather curiously, the co"poun' #+has beco"e al"ost a technical ter" for the'ecisi!e *nowle'ge of 5o' which is i"plie' in con!ersion to the Christian faith. )he !erb,too, is often use' in this sense ( supra. )o be sure, there is no technical use in =. 1:&G (> > 10 #@, ; &of =. 1:&1correspon's to the > > 10 #@of1:&G0 an' the D f 1#+ K D &of ;:;to the # + f of 3:&. 2oh. , II, FAII, n. & on #( +.;< PhiloH"n. Prob. Dib. , ; an' pict. -iss. , II, &

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

56/131

'eter"ining its e7pression ( 1 C. 1:% 0 1&:G 0 ;3 & C. G:; 0 1 Cl., 1, &0 if there is here nosupple"entary gen., this 'oes not "ean that we are to assu"e a technical $ellenistic usage.)his e7plains the "any 'esires an' 'e"an's for PQ #( an' other state"entsconcerning it. Intrinsically the usage is that of popular 5ree*, an' we "ay always translate?*nowle'ge.@ If the theoretical ele"ent 'eter"ines the concept, the practical conse8uencesare always i"plie'. It is characteristic that the gui'ing factor is not interest in Christian

learning but the e'ification of the co""unity which is to be a'!ance' by the #(of thein'i!i'ual ( =. 1%:1 0 1 C. 1: 0 1 Cl., G, %0 -i'. , 11, &. Phil. 1:/ f. shows plainly thatreflecti!e en8uiry is in!ol!e', but it is groun'e' in lo!e an' thus lea's to right action:b 7#$ ( -] #@ 3 $] K, K >$S % .5, b j K 3 & . Cf.also Phl". : =+ 7 + @ #D #5 #@ > #2 2 7 K &. )he faith which Phl". sharesis to be effectual in his recognition of all that is gi!en to the belie!er an' of what "ust fosterunion with Christ when it is e7presse'. )hat this *nowle'ge of the #&"ust result inaction "ay be seen fro" what follows. In Col. 1:/ f. #+ lea's to 0+ 2 . )he new "an, who has put away heathen !ices, is renewe' K#+( Col. 3:1< . )he Christian husban' li!es with his wife #(( 1 Pt.3:; . In arn. , 1G, 1 ethical instruction is a 'istincti!e for" of #(an' 0, an'the 'escription of the 4> 2 .+&in 1/:1 is intro'uce' as follows: 1 H 7 7 #( 2 B -) # >$ Cf. also & Pt. 1:3 , % f. 0 3:1G 0 arn. , &, 30 &1, %.

Ee!ertheless, the theoretical ele"ent can be "ore strongly e"phasise'. #@ (or#( can be specifically theological *nowle'ge. )his grows, e.g., out of the stu'y of#cripture. #@is use' in this way in 5l. 3:; 0 2". &:&< 0 arn. , ;, 10 1, ;0 1, &0 an'#(, which in arn. , 1, % "eans pri"arily Christian *nowle'ge in general, later 'enotesthe *nowle'ge attaine' by allegorical e7position of #cripture (, /0 /, G0 13, ;. #i"ilarly, in 1

Cl., 3&, 10 sc*er,Das apostol. +eitalter der christl. 0irche3(1/

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

57/131

&:& is not the first state"ent to the effect that they 1#+ '5 2 q%.;)he Past. are not the first epistles to conten' against E@ #(( 1 )". :&< .)he ter"inology of Col. an' ph. is not the first to be fashione' in opposition to 5nosticis".;% lrea'y at Corinth there ha' been a "o!e"ent of 5nostic pneu"atics, an' Paul ha' ha' toresist their influence. )he struggle for speculati!e wis'o" ( 1 C. 1:1; ff. , the insistence on#( , on the Jwith which it in!este' the" in "atters of personal con'uct

( :1&ff .0 G:1ff ., an' on 'e"onstrations of a pneu"atic 8uality ( & C. 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

58/131

usage. ;; ut the ter" is robbe' of its 5nostic significance by the phrase N 3#@, which is to be un'erstoo' as in 1 C. G:3 an' 5l. :/ .;G

#i"ilarly it "ight be shown that in the struggle against 5nostic pneu"atics in & C. Paula'opts the 5nostic approach an' 'escribes his own calling in ter"s of the 'isse"ination of#( . ut the obecti!e geniti!es use' with #( show that it is pri"arilyac*nowle'g"ent ( &:1 0 : 0 1enstein $ell. 4yst. , 3G3 ff. see"s to "e to be right in his !iew that in 1 C. 13:13 Paul is wrestlingagainst a for"ula of 5nostic origin, in which #(is a 'i!ine power which in co"pany with other powers (, , #$ constitutes the pneu"atic "an an' establishes his i""ortality. Paul not only reectsthe 'escription of such "agnitu'es as $(or 0 but re'uces the nu"ber to three by thee7clusion of #(. Hn this 'iscussion, cf. also =. =eit>enstein,/istoria Monachorum u. /istoria :ausiaca(1/1, 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

59/131

1:&1 ff. 0 1%:1& , 1; . $ence it is plain that #@'oes not "ean the *nowle'ge ofin!estigation, obser!ation or speculation, nor of "ystical !ision re"ote fro" historicalcontacts or action0 it achie!es concrete e7pression in historical acts. )he #$of 5o' forthe &is actualise' in the sen'ing of the #on ( 2n. 3:1 0 1 2n. :/ f. , an' the #$of 2esus in obe'ience to the +ather an' ser!ice for the worl' or for $is own ( 2n. 1:31 0 13:1ff. 0 1%:/ , 1& f. . #ince the *nowle'ge of 2esus or of 5o' e7presses itself accor'ingly in

#%, obser!ing the co""an'"ents (which ha!e in #$their content "ight also becalle' a criterion of #@( 1 2n. &:3J% 0 cf. 3: . _et #@, as 'eter"ination by5o' or 2esus, is #$not "erely in #%as lo!ing action but also in awareness of

being lo!e'. )he saying: B #$B B B( 1%:/ can signify abi'ing bothin being lo!e' an' in lo!ing (cf. 1;:& 0 1 2n. :1 . In'ee', the for"er, an' awareness of it,are the basis of the latter ( 1 2n. :1< . )he phrase N #$ %( 2n. 13:3 01%:1& "eans ?on the basis of the fact that I ha!e lo!e' you.@ )his "eans that #@has pri"arily the sense of the recognition an' reception of lo!e, i.e., . ut this showsagain that the #@which is orientate' to 5o', which thus brings S+to "an ( 1;:3 01:G supra an' which the #on has been sent to "a*e possible ( 1:1G 0 1;:ff ., 'oes notconnote a 'irect relationship to 5o' but has its obect in re!elation, in 2esus. -irect*nowle'ge of 5o' is e7clu'e' ( 1:1G , an' all preten'e' *nowle'ge is teste' by theappearance an' clai" of 2esus ( %:3;f .0 ;:&G f. 0 G:1/ . 5o' 'oes not e7ist apart fro"re!elation.;/ 2esus, howe!er, is re!elation for the sinful &. )o see an' confess $i" isto see the +ather ( 1:;J/ 0 cf. 1:&< 0 1 2n. %:&< . )o *now $i", howe!er, is not "erely toha!e infor"ation concerning the circu"stances of $is life ( :& 0 ;:&G . It is to *now $isunity with the +ather ( 1 1#+( 2n. 1:1< . #ince J #5this is true in a specialsense: there is no *nowle'ge of 5o' apart fro" 2esus. Cf. =. ult"ann, L. '. L. , (1/&G, 11 ff.G< 1 2n. "a*es it 8uite e!i'ent that the opponents are 5nostics.

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

60/131

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

61/131

. The )ater De(elop"ent o# the ,sage.

)he wor*s of the pologists yiel' nothing 'istincti!e. 7cept in 8uotations fro" the H), theyfollow popular usage, i.e., #@ an' #( (or #@ an' #+ always 'enote theoretical *nowle'ge, pri"arily as *nowle'ge of 5o' or of the orChrist,G then as *nowle'ge attaine' fro" #criptureG% an' finally as theological *nowle'ge.G)he battle against 5nosis an' wrestling with 5ree* philosophy le' the le7an'rians to reconstructthe !iew ofgnosisan' to 'istinguish between an' #(, not as 2ohn 'oes, but in suchsort that #(is regar'e' as a higher stage of Christian life0 the #+&is the 5.$ere we ha!e a 'istincti!e but obscure co"bination of the 5ree* conception of *nowle'ge an' the5nostic !iew of the !ision of 5o'.

)hat an' #( are lin*e' is often state' inci'entally an' with no atte"pt at'eli"itation ( Corp. $er". , IA, 0 IF, 1ley 7p. , G, #er. IA(1/1&, 13f.0 -ib. Past. on )t. &:G .

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

62/131

(as often in thepap., so"eti"es in the sense of selfKu'g"ent (cf. 4oult.K4ill., an' then ?to ta*ea low !iew of,@ ?to 'espise@ (cf. thepap..1

)he wor' is rare in the DFF. It "eans ?to con'e"n@ at -t. &%:1 (for ZQS }hiph in antith,to 2, ?to ac8uit@ an' #ir. 1:& : $ R 5#+ 7E0D 2

( $eb. ~pi. It apparently "eans ?to scorn@ at Pr!. &G:11 an' #ir. 1/:% . It is use' of selfKu'g"ent at #ir. 1:& an' 2ob &: q(for T0 >. 1:1 q(for Y{, an' also )est. 5.%:3: 0 6 #+& > K . )his usagerecurs in the E) at 1 2n. 3:&< f. : = #@] 7( 7 , = S+3 4 > 7( 3 #@ $, where the play of wor's showsthat so"e ele"ent of *nowle'ge is still felt to be present. #, 7 D#@] 10 > > &. Cf. also ct. )ho". , /, p. & - 0 2.

)he "eaning is ?to con'e"n@ or ?to 'espise@ in -g., 1 ( ! S #!.

$#+ "eans ?one against who" no fault can be allege', an' therefore noaccusation allege' or sustaine'.@ In 5*. it is foun' only in inscriptions an'pap.of the i"perial

perio' (Egeli, ;, where it is often lin*e' with 6 . In the DFF it occurs only at &4acc. :; : b - $#+ , an' in theE)"only at )t. &:G: (0& # $#+.

, . *

#@ usually "eans ?to *now beforehan'@ as hu"an foresight or cle!erness"a*es this possible (ur.$ipp., 1

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

63/131

;

8/14/2019 TDNT_03_G.doc

64/131

3 ##@ J, F #(cf. FA, 1/, 3 an' 4a7. )yr., 33, 3a: the E0is D F 2 $,##+> F #.

In the E) it occurs only at 1 C. ;: : 2 F 5#+ ##@,

# , ob!iously in the sense of ?forbearance@ or ?concession.@ )hough the conte7t"ight support ?personal opinion,@ there is no e7a"ple of this0 #@is the wor' use' insuch cases.

Cf. ##@ in )at.Hr. 5raec. , & 1+ 3 ( D #@ 2 3 #@ 0 cf. the #@in -e"osth. ,1 % #@ an' elsewhere,& also in PhiloAit. 4os. , I, &3% 0#pec. Deg. , II, 1% 0 III, ;3 ( > % 3 #@ an' 2os.nt. , ;, #5 ( 1:1/ 0 &:1 0 :1< 0 /:& etc.. In c. :1 ( #+> the "eaning is perhaps ?clearly recognisable.@ ?=ecognisable@ (in the DFF onlyat #ir. &1:; is certainly the sense in =. 1:1/ : > #+> 2 2 .& , though it is 'ebatable whether the gen. 2 2shoul' be un'erstoo' as a

partit., thus gi!ing us ?what "ay be