Slaughter, Fratricide and Sacrilege Cain and Abel Traditions 529 What this suggests is that when the author of 1 John used the Cain illustration common consent already identified him as a fratricide (ajdelfoktovno"). Although the terminology used in 1 John is somewhat different due to the author’s interpretive tradition, the Cain and Abel story was already part of a broader context of traditions (12). Thus the condemnation of those who do not love their brothers in 1 John 3 could be understood as an act of fratricide at the communal level. This is not to suggest that there was an actual threat of death, but simply that hatred of one’s brother was easily equated with Cain’s act of fratricide. Although the terminology in 3,15 can be more accurately translated as ‘murderer’ or ‘manslayer’, using a label reserved for repugnant acts of killing in the context of the familial language and the Cain and Abel illustration would have made it easy to identify the act as a specific type of murder: fratricide. 2. Purity and Impurity In 1 John 3,3 readers are told that they will become pure just as Christ is pure. Used here both in its noun and verb form is aJgnov" which is normally translated as “pure” and often used in the context of ritual purity. For instance, in Exodus 19,10-11; Numbers 8,21; 4 Maccabees 5,37; John 11,55 and Acts 21,24, 26 aJgnov" is used in the context of worshippers preparing themselves for an encounter with the deity, entrance into the temple or the maintenance of personal purity. At other times, however, the term’s usage reflects the idea of moral purity as in the exhortations to purify one’s heart in James 4,8 and in 1 Peter 1,22 where obedience to God brings about the purification of the soul. Commentators, with good reason, usually interpret aJgnov" in 1 John 3,3 as moral rather than ritual purity. They conclude that the thought of Jesus as “without sin” represents the kind of moral purity that the readers of 1 John are supposed to imitate (13). Others, like Raymond Brown and John Painter, have tried to give more consideration to the aspect of ritual purity by suggesting that the language was part of an early Christian baptismal formula, but this hypothesis cannot be confirmed (14). The fact that the occurrence in 1 John 3,3 is the only instance in the NT when aJgnov" is used to describe Jesus leads to the suggestion that its usage here may refer to more than simply moral purity and includes features of ritual purity. When read in the broader context of the author’s contrast between Christ, who sacrificed his own life, and Cain, who killed his brother, it is possible that some degree of ritual purity still stands behind the term’s usage. If we proceed on the assumption that the author portrays the brother- haters not just as murders but more specifically as fratricides, then there is another nuance for the interpretation of this chapter. In antiquity there were instances when the act of murdering a helpless victim, a fellow countrymen or a family member was associated with an act of a[go", usually translated as (12) I am not suggesting that the reader of 1 John 3 was aware of all if any of the interpretive traditions that became attached to the Cain and Abel story. But the author was either aware of some of these traditions or at least familiar with a set of terms that were often used to describe Cain’s act of treachery against Abel. (13) BROOKE, The Johannine Epistles, 84; SMALLEY, 1, 2, 3 John, 149. (14) BROWN, The Epistles of John, 397-398; PAINTER, 1, 2, and 3 John, 218.