| О происхождении и жизни Василида практически ничего неизвестно, кроме того, что он учил в Александрии при императорах Адриане и Антонии Пии ( Clem. Alex. Strom. VII 106. 4). Сообщения ересиологов о том, что ранее он учился вместе с Саторнилом у Менандра в Антиохии ( Epiph. Adv. haer. 23. 1; ср.: Iust. Martyr. Dial. 35; Iren. Adv. haer. I 24. 1; Hipp. Refut. VII 28. 1) и посещал Персию ( Hegemon. Arch. 67. 4), подвергаются сомнению в работах совр. исследователей ( Rudolph. 1990. S. 333). Василид называл себя учеником Главка, переводчика ап. Петра ( Clem. Alex. Strom. VII 17. 106), возводил свое учение к ап. Матфию и через него к Самому Христу ( Hipp. Refut. VII 7. 20), а также ссылался на авторитет неких пророков Варкаббы (Βαρκαββς), Варкофа (Βαρκφ) и др. ( Euseb. Hist. eccl. IV 7. 7). Возможно, ту же пророческую традицию использовал в проповеди его сын и ученик Исидор ( Clem. Alex. Strom. VI 6. 53, 55), упоминаемый в трактате «Свидетельство истины» (NHC IX 3. 57. 7). От лит. наследия Василида, включавшего некое Евангелие (κατ Βασιλεδην εαγγλιον - Orig. Hom. in Luc. 1), 24 книги комментариев на канонические Евангелия (Εξηγητικ - Clem. Alex. Strom. IV 12. 81; ср.: Euseb. Hist. eccl. IV 7. 7; Hegemon. Arch. 67. 5) и некие гимнографические сочинения (δα - Orig. Hom in Job. 21. 11-12; ср.: Can. Murat. 81-85), сохранились только фрагменты ( Clem. Alex. Strom. II 8. 36; 20. 112-114; III 1. 1-3; IV 12. 81-87; 24. 153; 25. 162; 26. 165; V 1. 3; 11. 74; Orig. Comm. in Rom. V 1). Евангельский комментарий Василида - древнейший из упоминаемых в лит-ре. При реконструкции учения Василида основным источником служат его высказывания и свидетельства о взглядах его учеников, цитируемые в сочинениях Климента Александрийского и Оригена. Описания системы Василида у сщмч. Иринея Лионского (Adv. haer. I 24) и мч. Ипполита Римского (VII 20-27) значительно различаются, попытки их согласования не дают удовлетворительных результатов. Возможно, они отражают развитие взглядов Василида в учениях его последователей, он сам не излагал свое учение систематически, но высказывал отдельные положения в устных беседах с учениками и в евангельских комментариях, что и объясняет разнообразие систем его учеников ( Rudolph. 1990. S. 334-335; Mühlenberg. S. 297). |
| 235 . Rofé 1988: The prophetical stories: the narratives about the prophets in the Hebrew Bible, their literary types and history/Alexander Rofé. – Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988. – 218 p. – (Publications of the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem). 236 . Rofé 2000: Ruth 4:11 LXX – a midrashic dramatization/Alexander Rofé//Textus. – 2000. – Vol. 20. – p. 129–140. 237 . Rowley 1963: The Marriage of Hosea/Harold Henry Rowley//Men of God: studies in Old Testament history and prophecy. – London: Nelson, 1963. – p. 66–97. 238 . Rudolph 1962: Das Buch Ruth; das Hohe Lied; die Klagelieder/W. Rudolph. – Gerd Mohn: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1962. – 269 p. – (Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Bd. 17/1–3). 239 . Sacon 1978. The Book of Ruth: its Structure and Theme/Kiyoshi K. Sacon//Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute. – 1978. – Vol. 4. – p. 3–22. 240 . Sæbø 1996–2008: The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: the history of its interpretation/Ed. by Magne Sæbø [in co-operation with Chris Brekelmans, Menahem Haran etc.] – Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2008. – 3 vol. 241 . Sakenfeld 1978: The meaning of hesed in the Hebrew Bible: a new inquiry/By Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. – Missoula, Mont.: Published by Scholars Press for the Harvard Semitic Museum, 1978. – 263 p. 242 . Sakenfeld 1999: Ruth/By Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. – Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1999. – XII, 91 p. 243 . Sandelin 1986: Wisdom as nourisher: a study of an Old Testament theme, its development within early Judaism and its impact on early Christianity/By KarlGustav Sandelin. – Abo: Abo Akademi, 1987. – 274 p. 244 . Sasson 1978: Ruth III: a Response/Jack M. Sasson//JSOT. – 1978. – Vol. 5. – p. 49–51. 245 . Sasson 1979: Ruth: a New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation/Jack M. Sasson. – 2 ed., with corr. – Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979. – XVII, 292 p. – (Biblical seminar, ISSN 0266–4984; 10). 246 . Saxegaard 2001: «More than Seven Sons»: Ruth as example of the Good Son/Kristin Moen Saxegaard//Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament. – 2001. – Vol. 15, 2. – p. 257 – 275. |
| Ed. by M. Vervenne. BETL, 126. Leuven, 1996. pp. 113–147. Propp 1993 – Propp W.H. That Bloody Bridegroom (Exodus TV 24–6)//VT 43 (1993), pp. 495–518. Ratzinger 1989 – Ratzinger J. Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundation and Approaches of Exegesis Today//Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: the Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church. Ed. by R.J. Neuhaus. Grand Rapids, 1989. Ratzinger 2007 – Ratzinger J., Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus of Nazareth: from, the baptism in the Jordan to the transfiguration Translated from the German by A.J. Walker. New York, 2007. Reid 1957 – Reid J.K.S. The Authority of Scripture. New York, 1957. Rendtorff 1993 – Rendtorff R. The Paradigm Is Changing: Hopes-and Fears//BI 1 (1993), pp. 34–53. Reventlow 2009 – Reventlow H.G. History of Biblical Interpretation: From the Antiquity to the End of the Middle Ages. RBS 51. Winona Lake, 2009. Reventlow 2010 – Reventlow H.G. History of Biblical Interpretation: From the Old Testament to Origen. RBS 50. Winona Lake, 2010. Reynolds – Wilson 1991 – Reynolds L. D., Wilson N. G. Scribes and Scholars, A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. Oxford, 1991. Rhoads 2004 – Rhoads D. Reading Mark: Engaging the Gospel. Minneapolis, 2004. Rhoads 2010 – Rhoads D. Biblical Performance Criticism: An Emerging Discipline in New Testament Studies. Eugene, 2010. Ri 1987 – La Caverne des Tresors: les deux recensions syriaques. Ed. par S.-M. Ri. CSCO 486, Syr. 207. Louvain, 1987, pp. 80–87. Richardson 1974 – Richardson D. Peace Child. Glendale, 1974. Ricoeur 1981 – Ricoeur P. Essays on Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia, 1981. Ricoeur 1991 – Ricoeur P. World of the Text, World of the Reader//A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination. Ed. by M.J. Valdes, New-York London, 1991. Rogerson 1978 – Rogerson J.W. Anthropology and the Old Testament. Oxford, 1978. Rollins 1999 – Rollins W. Soul and Psychë The Bible in Psychological Perspective. Minneapolis, 1999. Rudolph 1981 – Rudolph W. |
| Jesus declares, «It has been finished!» (19:30), and John reminds his audience that the Sabbath began at sundown that evening (19:31). (John does not invent this Sabbath tradition–cf. Mark 15:42 –but may make theological use of it.) 10219 Or Jesus may have «finished» «preparing» dwelling places for believers (14:2–3); or «finished» may signify the fulfillment of Scripture (19:28) and Jesus " word (18:32). 10220 5C. Handing Over His Spirit (19:30b) Jesus bows his head, perhaps as a matter of mortal weakness (cf. 4:6) but, on the Johannine level, perhaps as an authoritative nod of approva1. 10221 What invites more comment is what follows: Jesus «gave his spirit.» John probably intends «finish» to include the work of redemption (cf. 1:29). One suggestion that might support this probability is the appearance of John " s verb for the surrender of Jesus» spirit, παραδδωμι, twice in the LXX of Isa 53(παρεδθη). 10222 By itself, such an observation would remain insignificant; the verb is frequent elsewhere. But John elsewhere portrays Jesus» death in servant language, especially «glorified» and «lifted up» (Isa 52LXX), and his proclivity toward double entendres commends for us the possibility that he reads the «betrayals» of the Passion Narrative in light of Isaiah. In Isaiah LXX as elsewhere in the Passion Narrative, the «handing over» is in the passive voice; here Jesus takes the lead in his death, consistent with John " s Christology and view of Jesus» «hour» and submission to the Father " s wil1. Although the departure (often breathing out) of onés spirit appears frequently in ancient texts as a euphemism for death, 10223 that Jesus gave up his spirit (19:30) is theologically significant. In Mark " s tradition, Jesus breathed his final «breath» (εξπνευσεν, Mark 15:37 ); here he hands over his «spirit» (πνεμα, John 19:30 ), suggesting a Johannine twist on a more familiar tradition. (What John would add to Mark may also stem from tradition; see Luke 23:46, where Jesus «commits» his «spirit» to God before «breathing» his last breath.) The text does not clarify to whom Jesus hands over his spirit; probably the term for «hand over» here is employed for its symbolic value (see below; cf. 18:2, 30; 19:16) rather than with an indirect object in view, but if an indirect object is implied, it must be the Father (Luke 23:46). This image of handing over his spirit to his Father could evoke the Roman custom in which the nearest kin would receive in the mouth the dying person " s final breath to ensure the survival of that person " s spirit (spiritum). 10224 But the custom seems to have been a local Italian one largely removed from John " s eastern Mediterranean audience, 10225 and in any case, a more typical Johannine image is likely. |
| One proposed background that we will not investigate here is that of the protognostic and Mandean «helper.» 8577 The suggestion of a protognostic background for the Paraclete has been severely critiqued as deficient, as an inadequate parallel offered when much better parallels could be adduced; 8578 it may be added to the variety of anachronistic interpretations given to the Paraclete, such as those applied to Montanus, Mani, or Muhammad. 8579 The tendency today is to seek the background for the Paraclete in Jewish sources. 8580 2A. Senses Related to Παρακαλω The relationship of the term, which frequently bears a forensic usage, to the function of the Paraclete in John has been a subject of much academic discussion. On the analogy of one sense of the cognate verb παρακαλω and the context as a farewell discourse, 8581 some scholars read the Paraclete as the «Consoler.» This view is at least as old as Origen 8582 and has often been held by modern commentators in opposition to the forensic sense often inferred from the term. 8583 J. G. Davies argued in 1953 that since παρακαλω in the LXX normally means «console» and replicates much of the semantic range of , παρκλητος, despite the passive form, referred to an active consoler. 8584 But the passive form should not be so easily ignored, and the fact remains that the noun is used quite differently than its verbal cognate–particularly since Johannine literature nowhere employs the verb. 8585 The term «comforter» in the English Bible dates from Wycliffés translation, based on the Latin con fortis, comfortare (one who strengthens); 8586 but this is simply not the standard use of the Greek noun, which typically connotes an intercessory function. None of the functions of the Johannine Paraclete specifically refer to comfort, and the context of Jesus» departure need not imply the meaning of comfort (cf. 14:28). More significantly, 16suggests that Jesus is departing in order to send the Paraclete (as Shafaat points out, would he depart to send him to console the disciples over that departure?); and finally, this reading of «Paraclete» makes no sense of the «other comforter» in 14:16: concerning whose departure had Jesus been comforting them? We may conclude that there is no evidence for taking the Johannine παρκλητος in this sense. |
| 2 In fact, the third. 3 Idem. Sermon 23.8 (PG 35.1160). This could be punctuated to read: ‘The monad is moved because of its wealth and the dyad is superseded (that is, [the monad, presumably, passes] beyond matter and form, out of which bodies are made). The triad is defined on account of its perfection.’ 4 Gregory Nazianzen, Sermon 40.5 [on baptism] (PG 36.364). 5 The temptation to translate enhypostatos (here and elsewhere) as ‘existing in persons’ (or ‘existing as persons’), under the influence of the once-popular theory of ‘enhypostasia’, should probably be resisted: enhypostatos is best taken as the opposite of anhypostatos in its basic meaning of ‘non-existent’ (pace Lampe 1961 s.v. enhypostatos, B.2). This was argued by B.E.Daley, in relation to Leontius of Byzantium, to whom, since Loofs, the doctrine of ‘enhypostasia’ has been ascribed, in a paper at the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies (1979), that has never been published. I am grateful to the author for a copy of it, which is summarized in Grillmeier (1989), 204–8. Maximus certainly, however, intends a play on words between the monad as enhypostatos ontotis homoousiou Triados and the triad as enousios hyparxis trishypostatou monados (see chapter 4 of the Introduction). 6 Another play on words: the tri-hypostatic triad is monad, because it is (from the verb that provides ousia, ‘substance or essence’), and the one- substance monad is triad, because it subsists (from the verb that provides hypostasis, ‘person’). 7 ‘Mode’: tropos. There is an allusion here to the Cappadocian Definition of person (hypostasis) as ‘mode of existence’ (tropos tis hyparxeos). DIFFICULTY 5 1 There is an analysis of this Difficulty by E.Bellini, in Heinzer and Schonborn (1982), 37–49. 2 Denys the Areopagite, Ep. 4:1072A. 3 ‘Mode’ has been used throughout this Amb. to translate tropos. ‘Mode of existence’ (tropos tes hyparxeos) is used by the Cappadocians as equivalent to hypostasis (see chapter 4 of the Introduction, above). Throughout this Amb. Maximus makes a consistent distinction between logos which characterizes nature, and tropos (mode) which characterizes the person. It is part of the ‘Cappadocian’ or ‘Chalcedonian’ logic that Maximus strives to use in a systematic way. |
| This utilization of the verb leaves traces until the middle ages. For example, in the 11 th century Nicetas Stethatos writes: “kata thn tjn kanonjn oikonomoymen akribeian.” The correct determination of the meaning of the substantive “oikonomia” in the canonical texts of the fourth century must be sought while considering the different ways the verb is employed. If we neglect this connection we risk making serious errors. Obsessed by the subsequently acquired technical sense “derogation of the norm,” the texts of the fourth century have often been read with the anachronic semantic presuppositions. “Oikonomia” can have a literal and a banal meaning of “economic-financial management.” In relation to penance, the term brings itself back to its modality of application without being tied in the least to mitigation of the punishment incurred. Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes: “ One of the elements that contribute to the good celebration of the great solemnity (Pascha), is knowing the legitimite and canonical manner of behaving (thn ennomon te kai kanonikhn oikonomian) towards those who have committed transgressions.” We notice in Saint Gregory of Nyssa that the softening of the penitential rules is explained by the traditional terms of “filanvropia,” “simperifora,” and “sygkatabasic.” The more standard sense is “administration of ecclesiastical affairs,” “ecclesiastical discipline,” concrete decisions concerning the affairs of the Church. The most well known text and the one that does not lead to uncertainty is canon 2 of the above mentioned council of Constantinople in 381, where it says, “if they are not invited, let bishops not go out of a diocese for a chirotonie or for some other ecclesiastical act (h tisin allaic oikonomiaic ekklhsiastikaic). We come to a controversial question: Saint Basil died two years before the reunion of the council of 381, did he use the term economy in the sense of a derogation of a strict rule? We notice that this is an opinion almost universally admitted, yet it seems doubtful to us. |
| Gregory the Theologian, Second Oration on Pascha; English translation in Eerdman Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 7, p. 431).In this theological reflection of St. Gregory the Theologian, the idea which appears in the First Catholic Epistle of the Apostle Peter is given complete expression: “Ye were not redeemed with vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:18–20). For a theological definition of the concept of “redemption,” a philological examination of the Greek words which correspond to this concept has great importance. In the Greek text of the New Testament Scriptures, this concept is expressed by two words, and each of them has a significant shade of meaning. The first of them lytro-o, means “to buy off,” “ransom.” In those times the world knew three forms of ransoming people, namely (according to Greek dictionaries), 1) ransoming from captivity, 2) ransoming from prison, for example, for debts, 3) ransoming from slavery. In the Christian meaning, the Apostles use this term to express the moment in the accomplishment of our salvation that is joined to the Cross of Christ, that is, the deliverance from the sinful world, from the power of the devil, the liberation from the curses, the liberation of the righteous from the bonds of hades. These are the same three forms of “ransoming:” ransoming from the captivity of sin, ransoming from hades, ransoming from slavery to the devil. The second verb, agorazo, signifies “to buy for oneself,” “to buy at the marketplace” (agora means “marketplace”). The image utilized in this term refers only to believers, to Christians. Here it has an especially rich significance. This verb is encountered three times in the writings of the Apostles, namely: “What! Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own. |
| Accepting a fixed date for Pascha would mean overthrowing the Christian consensus and acceptance of Nicea which has prevailed since the fourth century. Theoretically such a sea-change could be made, but only by another ecumenical council which was accepted by a similar consensus as the one that prevailed after Nicea. The non-Orthodox world symbolized by the archbishop of Canterbury clearly has little problem with unilaterally junking Nicea (when was the last time that its canons were quoted as binding in the Church of England?), but it is otherwise among the Orthodox. For us the seven ecumenical councils remain authoritative. The junking of the Nicene decision regarding Pascha therefore would have more than merely calendar significance. It also would speak volumes about our willingness to cut ourselves free from any past authority we might now regard as inconvenient. It is does not require much imagination to see where such “liberty” could lead. Our theology does not allow us to junk the ecumenical councils in such cavalier fashion. Even apart from our loyalty to the ecumenical council which produced the formula, such a decision would also sever Pascha from its Old Testament roots. The very name “pascha” tethers us theologically to those roots, for “pascha” is simply a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word “pesach”, meaning “passover”. Thus John 13:1: “Now before the feast of the passover [Greekpascha], Jesus knew that His hour had come to depart from this world”. This term pesach in turn was derived from the Hebrew verb meaning “to pass (over)”. Thus Exodus 12:11f: “It [this supper] is the Lord’s passover [Hebrew pesach]…when I see the blood [on your houses] I will pass over you [Hebrew pasachti alekem] and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you when I smite the land of Egypt”. (Despite some popular etymology, the Greek word pascha/πασχα has nothing to do with the verb “to suffer” [Greek pascho/πασχω]. Indeed, when the Passover lamb was slain, care was taken to inflict upon it as little suffering as possible. What mattered was its death and blood, not its experience of suffering.) |
| At the Council of Crete there was wide-ranging discussion on this issue, because two other Churches had related proposals. The Patriarchate of Romania proposed to replace the phrase “Christian Churches” with the phrase “heterodox Communities”, and the Church of Cyprus proposed that they be called “heterodox Churches”. It was possible to keep the phrase that was in the title of the text, namely, “The Orthodox Church and the rest of the Christian world”, or the phrase “The Orthodox Church and those outside it” or “the non-Orthodox”. During the discussion the Patriarchate of Romania withdrew its proposal and there remained the proposals from the Churches of Cyprus and Greece. This proposal by the Church of Greece was not accepted and the Ecumenical Patriarch urged Archbishop Hieronymus of Athens to submit a new proposal. Consequently the Archbishop suggested to the Delegation of the Church of Greece a new proposal, which was accepted by a majority of the Bishops of the Delegation. There was no authorization for the new proposal, as its meaning does not meet the recommendations of the Hierarchy. Unfortunately, added to all this is the fact that it was decided in a matter of minutes. Its content is as follows: The Church of Greece proposes “in paragraph 6, instead of: ‘The Orthodox Church recognizes [Note: In the original version the verb was ‘is aware of’, not ‘recognizes’] the historical existence of other Christian Churches and Confessions’, the wording: ‘The Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other heterodox Christian Churches and Confessions’.” In its final form, the text was recast as follows: “The Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other heterodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion with her.” That is, “is aware of” became “accept”, the term “historical existence” became “historical name” and the word “heterodox” was added to Churches. The questions are many: Why not keep the verb “is aware of”? Can there be a name for something without existence? What does “heterodox Christian churches” mean, since heterodox means heretical? |
|
|
