| Пер. с англ. Т.1, 224 сл. и Aron R. Les annees obscures de Jesus. Paris, 1960. 42 Флавий И. Иудейская война, III, 3,2; о зелотах см.: Флавий И. Арх. XIV, 9,2; XVIII, 1, 1; Иуд.война, I,10,5; II,8,1. 43 Лк 2,41-52 . Поясняя слова “преуспевал в премудрости и возрасте”, св.Иустин говорит, что Иисус “рос, как растут все люди, отдавая должное каждому возрасту” (св.Иустин. Диалог с Трифоном Иудеем, 88). 44 Мк 6,6 . 45 Уже одно то, что перед смертью Иисус поручил Свою Мать ученику ( Ин. 19:25-27 ), свидетельствует, что Он был Ее единственным сыном (см.: Hillarii, In Matt., IX, 92). Остается неясным, кто были Иаков, Иосия, Симон и Иуда, названные в Евангелии “братьями” Иисуса ( Мк. 6:3 ), — сыновьями ли сестры Девы Марии ( Ин. 19:25 ) или детьми Иосифа от первого брака, как утверждают апокрифы (например, Книга Иосифа Плотника, II). Быть может, и те и другие назывались “Его братьями”. В греческом и еврейском языках слово “брат” может означать разную степень родства. 46 Эти слова сохранились в апокрифических “Деяниях Петра” (гл. X). По мнение видного современного специалиста по Новому Завету И.Иеремиаса, они скорее всего подлинны. 47 Mauriac F. La vie de Jesus. Paris, 1962, p.33. 48 Штраус Д. Жизнь Иисуса. Т. I, с.195. О Штраусе см. в приложении “Миф или действительность?” 49 Ис 40,3 . 50 См.: Кумранский устав, VIII, 12–14. 51 Книга Тайн, 8–11. 52 Мф 3,4 ; Мк. 1:6 ; св.Иустин. Диалог с Трифоном Иудеем, 88; св.Епифаний. Панарион, 30. См. также славянскую версию “Иудейской войны” Иосифа Флавия, II,2. Назореями, или назиритами, назывались в древности лица, которые посвящали себя Богу и давали обет воздерживаться от вина и не стричь волос. (См. Числ. 6:1-21 ; Суд 13 .) С названием г. Назарета (евр. Ноцерат) слово “назорей” (назирит) не имеет ничего общего. 53 Флавий И. Иудейская война, II, 8. О связи Иоанна с ессеями см.: еп. Михаил (Чуб). Иоанн Креститель и община Кумрана. – ЖМП, 1958, N 8; Daniйlou J. Jean-Baptiste, mйmoin de l’Agneau. Paris, 1964, p.42. 54 Мишна, Песахим, VIII,8. |
| 5 Лк 2, 22 сл. Слова «падение и восстание» указывают на тех, кто примет или отвергнет Мессию. «Знамение пререкаемое» означает чудо, явление, которое вызовет пререкания и споры. 6 Флавий И. Арх. XVII, 7—13. Глава вторая 1 Фаррар Ф. Жизнь Иисуса Христа, с.120. 2 Эти легенды изобилуют историческими анахронизмами и ошибками, которые сразу же выдают подделку; в них описаны нелепые, а порой и жестокие чудеса, якобы совершенные Отроком Иисусом. 3 Книга Иосифа Плотника, XIV. 4 Иустин Гностик. — У св.Ипполита. О философских умозрениях, XV, 26. 5 Некоторые синагогальные молитвы приведены в т.1 русского пер. Мишны, с.39 сл.; см. также: Гейки К. Жизнь и учение Христа. Пер. с англ. Т.1, 224 сл. и Aron R. Les annйes obscures de Jйsus. Paris, 1960. 6 Флавий И. Иудейская война, III, 3,2; о зелотах см.: Флавий И. Арх. XIV, 9,2; XVIII,1,1; Иуд.война, I,10,5; II,8,1. 7 Лк 2, 41—52. Поясняя слова «преуспевал в премудрости и возрасте», св.Иустин говорит, что Иисус «рос, как растут все люди, отдавая должное каждому возрасту» ( св.Иустин. Диалог с Трифоном Иудеем, 88). 8 Мк 6, 6. 9 Уже одно то, что перед смертью Иисус поручил Свою Мать ученику (Ин 19, 25—27), свидетельствует, что Он был Ее единственным сыном (см.: Hillarii, In Matt., IX, 92). Остается неясным, кто были Иаков, Иосия, Симон и Иуда, названные в Евангелии «братьями» Иисуса (Мк 6, 3), — сыновьями ли сестры Девы Марии (Ин 19, 25) или детьми Иосифа от первого брака, как утверждают апокрифы (например, Книга Иосифа Плотника, II). Быть может, и те и другие назывались «Его братьями». В греческом и еврейском языках слово «брат» может означать разную степень родства. 10 Эти слова сохранились в апокрифических «Деяниях Петра» (гл.Х). По мнение видного современного специалиста по Новому Завету И.Иеремиаса, они скорее всего подлинны. 11 Mauriac F. La vie de Jйsus. Paris, 1962, p.33. 12 Штраус Д. Жизнь Иисуса. T.I, с.195. О Штраусе см. в приложении «Миф или действительность?» Глава третья 1 Ис 40, 3. 2 См.: Кумранский устав, VIII, 12—14. |
| Testimonia virorum illustrium, 13–20. Card. Albani præfatio, 9–10. Index nominum, 1423–38. Novellæ Constitutiones (Leunclavius), 613–34. BASILIUS NEOPATRENSIS metropolita, s. X, III. Prologus in Prophetas minores (M.), 411–16. [Fg. in Prophetas (M.), 162, 1329]. BASILIUS PROTOASECRETIS, s. XI. Carmina 1–3 in Symeonem juniorem, græce, 120, 308–9. BASILIUS THESSALONICENSIS (ACHRIDENUS), arch., s. XII, 119. Responsio ad Hadrianum papam IV, 919–34. Responsio de matrimonio, 933–36. Responsio altera, 1119–20. BASILIUS SELEUCIENSIS episcopus, s. V, 85. Orationes (cum notis Dausqueii editoris.) I. In illud principio... terram (Gen., I,1), 27–38. 2–3. In Adamum, 37–50; 49–62. 4 . In Cainum et Abelum, 61–76. 5–6. In Noemum, 75–84; 83–102. 7 . In Abrahamum, 101–12. 8 . In Josephum, 111–126. 9 . In Moysen, 127–38. 10 .In Elisæum et Sunamitiden, 137–48. 11 .In sanctum Eliam, 147–58. 12–13. In Jonam, 157–72; 71–82. 14–17. In Davidis historiam, 181–92; 191–204; 203–216; 215–26. 18 .In Herodiadem, 225–36. 19 .In Centurionem, 235–46. 20 .In Chananæam, 245–54. 21 .In claudum ad portam Speciosam sedentem, 253–264. 22 . In illud Navigabant simul (Luc, VIII, 23). (Sedata tempesias), 263–70. 23 .In arreptivum dæmoniacum, 269–78. 24 .In duos filios Zebedæi (in illud Matt., XX, 21), 277–81. 25 . In Petri confessionem (in illud Matt., XVI, 13), 287–98. 26 . In Joan., X, 11 (Ego sum pastor bonus), 299–308. 27 .In Olympia, 307–316. 28 .In Matt., XVIII, 3 (Nisi conversi fueritis...sicut parvuli), 315–26. 29 . In Matt.,XI, 28(Venite ad me... reficiam vos), 325–32. 30 . In Matt., IV, 19 (Venite post me... piscatores hominum), 331–38. 31 . In Marc, X, 33 (Ecce ascendimus... manus peccalorum), 337–50. 32 . In Matt., XXVI, 39 (Pater si possibile,.. calix iste), 349–60. 33 . In homines quinque panibus pastos (Matt., XIV, 14), 359–66. 34 . In Matt., XI, 3 (Tu es qui.., exspectamus), 365–74. 35 .In Publicanum et Pharisæum, 373–84. 36 .In duos Evangelii cæcos, 383–88. 37 .In infantes Bethleem ab Herode sublatos, 387–400. |
| Thus, like most of this Gospel, we lack sufficient external data to verify or falsify this passage from a strictly historical perspective; the stories do not appear in the Synoptics and the language is Johannine. The images employed, however, are certainly consistent with the Synoptic portrait of the historical Jesus (whether John received them as entire stories or wove together images from Jesus tradition or elsewhere). Jesus elsewhere spoke of wolves as false prophets (10:12; cf. Matt 7:15; cf. Matt 10:16; Luke 10:3) and the shepherd who cares sacrificially for his sheep (Matt 18/Luke 15:4–5). Other images such as robbers ( Mark 11:17 ; Luke 10:30) and gates (Matt 7:13–14; Luke 13:24–25) are frequent enough in other teachers» illustrations that the «coherence» is less significant. 7206 «Knowing the Father» (10:14–15) resembles a passage in Q (Matt 11/Luke 10:22). Historically, then, one finds here, at the least, verisimilitude of substance, albeit in Johannine idiom. 3B. The General Background of the Sheep and Shepherd Image (10:1–10) Scholars have proposed various backgrounds for Jesus» teaching about the sheep. Some have argued for a gnostic, 7207 especially Mandean, background. 7208 As we argued in our introduction, however, a demonstrable Mandean background for anything in the Fourth Gospel is virtually impossible, since the earliest extant Mandean sources are over half a millennium later than the Fourth Gospe1. Indeed, the late Mandean «parallels» probably reflect some dependence on John here. 7209 By contrast, Gods intimacy with his flock is clearly an OT image (e.g., Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:12–16 ), and where John goes beyond this he may reflect the early Christian development of the intimacy theme (e.g., in Q, Matt ll:27/Luke 10:22). 7210 While the OT background is paramount, John " s audience would also think of what they knew of shepherds. Less informed members of his original audience, new to the Jewish and Christian conceptual realm, would have at least recognized various affective associations with the shepherd image. Some in the western Mediterranean would have recalled nostalgically «the idyllic life of» shepherds, 7211 but a more widespread perception, especially among urban dwellers, was one of suspicion, since many perceived shepherds «as rough, unscrupulous characters, who pastured their animals on other peoplés land and pilfered wool, milk, and kids from the flock.» 7212 Yet the nature of Jesus» comparisons in the passage will evoke especially the pictures of shepherd as «leader» rather than as unscrupulous. |
| 2636 Lane, Mark, 236, cites for «passing by» only Exod 33:19,22; 1 Kgs 19:11; and Job 9:8,11 . 2637 Conjoined with the oft-recognized probable allusion to Christ " s deity in the «I am» of Mark 6 (Lane, Mark, 237–38; Hurtado, Mark, 91; cf. Argyle, Matthew, 115; Ellis, Genius, 110–11; Appold, Motif, 82), this allusion is very likely. But «I am» in Mark 13may simply mean «I am [messiah]» (Reim, Studien, 261 η. 20). 2638 Given the two Lords of Ps 110 , Peter argues, on which «Lord» should one call (Juel, «Dimensions,» 544–45; see Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 22; Knowling, «Acts,» 81; Ladd, Church, 50–51; idem, Theology, 338–41). That 2concludes an exposition of 2is clear from the fact that 2picks up the rest of the Joel passage where Peter left off in 2(the allusion is noted, e.g., by Zehnle, Discourse, 34; Dupont, Salvation, 22; Haenchen, Acts, 184 n. 5). 2639 See Abrahams, Studies, 1:45; De Ridder, Discipling, 107, for evidence that Jewish proselyte baptism could occasionally be described as «in God " s name»; cf. Longenecker, Christology, 42–46, 127–28; Urbach, Sages, 1:124–34, for a discussion of the «name.» 2640 For divine language, cf., e.g., Danker, «God With Us» (though it is not necessarily «Hellenistic»). Cf. the emphasis on Jesus» deity in Heb (1:8), also probably in ethnically Jewish (albeit very hellenized) circles. Longenecker, Christology, 139, also notes that the most strictly Jewish circles in early Christianity most emphasized Jesus» deity. 2641 See examples in Smith, Parallels, 152–54 (m. " Abot 3to Matt 18:20; Sipra on 25to Matt 10:25; Mekilta on 15and Matt 13/Luke 10:24; Mekilta on 18and Matt 10:40; Midrash Tannaim 15to Matt 25:35,40). 2642 For Wisdom Christology in Matthew, see Witherington, Sage, 339–40; Deutsch, «Wisdom.» 2643 E.g., Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 102; cf. T. Sol 6for what is probably the earliest extant non-Christian exegesis of this Matthean text or of its subsequent use. 2644 The language likely echoes Dan 7:13–14 (Meier, Matthew, 369; Ellis, Matthew, 22; Schaberg, Father, 335–36). |
| He held with the Gnostics, that Christ was a mere Phantom; he put it forth that himself was the Christ, and the Comforter (Paraclete): and his twelve Disciples accordingly proscribed marriage as being of the Devil, &c. See Theodoret, Haeret. Fab. I. XXVI. Tom. IV. with the Index. Epiphan. de Mens. et Pond. as cited by Asseman. A Syriac translation of the work of Titus, Bishop of Bozra, against this heresy, is to be found in the volume from which I take this work of Eusebius. All these, according to Hegesippus, as preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. Lib. IV. cap. XXII.) originated from Thebuthis, who, being mortified because not made a Bishop, set about secretly to corrupt the Church. He was of one of the seven sects then spread abroad among the Jews. Out of which also arose Simon, whence the Simonians: also Cleobius, Dositheus, Gortheus, Masbotheus; whence also Menander, Marcion, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Basilides, &c. &c. Hence also the false Christs, false Apostles, false Prophets, &c. See the notes of Valesius, Ed. 1695, p. 69. seq. 479 Matt. X. 16: comp. Luke X. 3. Cited also by Theodoret, Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford, p. 446. 480 Syr. [Syriac], which, I think, should be read [Syriac]: the intention of our author evidently being, to give an equivalent to the «amarum et maligni principis apostasies serpentis venenum» of Irenaeus, Edit. Grabe. p. 105. 481 Matt. X. 24, 25, 26. Differing slightly from the Peschito, as before. Cited partly by Theodoret, Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford, p. 447. 482 Matt. IX. 84; XII. 34. Mark III. 22 . Nothing was more common, among both the Jews and heathens, than the accusation of Magic against the miraculous powers of Christ, and of His immediate followers. (See Wetstein on Matt. XII. 24.) «The Heathen,» says Bingham,... «because our Saviour and his followers did many miracles, which they imputed to evil arts, and the power of magic,....therefore generally declaimed against them as magicians, and under that character exposed them to the fury of the vulgar,» &c. |
| Like the rest of the Fourth Gospel, John here insists that Jewish believers remain faithful to the God of Israel through fidelity to Jesus, not through satisfying the synagogue leadership (12:42–43). This is because Jesus is God " s faithful agent; he neither spoke (14:10; cf. 16:13) nor acted (5:30; 8:28, 42) on his own (12:49), but only at the Father " s command (12:49; see comment on 5:19). 7989 By again reinforcing the portrait of Jesus as God " s faithful agent, John reminds his hearers that their opponents who in the name of piety opposed a high view of Jesus were actually opposing the God who appointed him to that role. «The Father " s commandment is eternal life» (12:50) is presumably elliptical for «obedience to the Father " s command produces eternal life,» but also fits the identification of the word (1:4), Jesus» words (6:68), and knowing God (17:3) with life. For John, the concept of «command» should not be incompatible with believing in Jesus (6:27; cf. 8:12; 12:25), which is the basis for eternal life (3:15–16; 6:40, 47; 11:25; 20:31); faith involves obedience (3:36; cf. Acts 5:32; Rom 1:5; 2:8; 6:16–17; 15:18; 16:19, 26; 2 Thess 1:8; 1Pet 1:22; 4:17 ). Jesus always obeys his Father " s commands (8:29), including the command to face death (10:18; 14:31); his disciples must follow his model of obedience to his commandments by loving one another sacrificially (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10,12). 7803 Matthew " s stirring of «the entire city» (Matt 21:10), however, may invite the reader to compare this event with an earlier disturbance of Jerusalem (Matt 2:3). 7804 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 306; Catchpole, «Entry.» In favor of reliability, see also Losie, «Entry,» 858–59. 7805 In view of ancient patronal social patterns, Jesus» numerous «benefactions» would also produce an entourage, seeking favors, that could potentially double as a political support base, exacerbating his threat to the political elite (DeSilva, Honor, 135). 7806 Also for Matthew (Matt 21:10–11); in Luke those who hail him are disciples (Luke 19:37, 39); even in Mark, where «many» participate, those who go before and after him are probably those who knew of his ministry in Galilee ( Mark 11:8–9 ). This may represent a very different crowd from the one that condemned him (Matt 27:20–25; Mark 15:11–14 ; Luke 23:13, 18, 21, 23)–certainly in John, where the condemning «Jews» are the «high priests» (19:6–7, 12–15). |
| 3982 B. Ketub. 96a, cited by various commentators (many following Billerbeck), cf. Davies, Sermon, 135; Morris, John, 141. 3988 Inscription in Grant, Religion, 122; Martin, Slavery, xiv-xvi (citing Sophocles Oed. tyr. 410; Plato Phaedo 85B; Apuleius Metam. 11.15; inscriptions), 46,49 (against, e.g., Beare, Philippians, 50); cf. Rom 1 (cf. Minear, Images, 156). Slaves of rulers exercised high status (e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.19.19; 4.7.23; inscriptions in Sherk, Empire, 89–90; Deissmann, Light, 325ff., passim; P.Oxy. 3312.99–100 in Horsley, Documents, 3:7–9; Suetonius Gramm. 21 [in Dixon, Mother, 19]; cf. Chariton 5.2.2). 3990 Kraeling, John, 53–54 points to «the thong of whose sandals I am not fit to loose» as the most primitive form (enumerating variations therefrom on p. 198 n. 13). Matthew " s form probably reflects his penchant for abridgement (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 106; Manson, Sayings, 40, instead suggests «a single Aramaic verb» behind both). 3991 Daube, Judaism, 266, citing Mek. on Exod 21:2; Sipre Num 15:41; b. Qidd. 22b; see also Urbach, Sages, 1(citing Sipre Šelah §115 and comparing Sipre Zuta 190). 3992 On Mark " s editorial subordination of the Baptist, see Trocmé, Formation, 55 (although Mark " s condensation of Q material attested in Matt 3 and Luke 3 probably reflects standard abridgement for an introduction). 3993 Against Kraeling, John, 130 (cf. 159), who doubts Matt 11:2–6 par. (to which we would respond, if this material were anti-Baptist polemic, why would Q include Matt 11:7–15 par.?). Conversely, Mason, Josephus and NT, 159, thinks Matt 11:2–6/Luke 7:18–23, «read by itself… implies the beginning of Johns interest» rather than doubting a previous position; but any datum read «by itself» may contradict other data in an account. Both accounts reflect Q material, and the Baptist " s christological testimony may be multiply attested. 3994 This is especially the case if John writes to a Diaspora audience, even one with Palestinian roots. The exception would be if John presumes a perspective from east of the Jordan (Byron, «Bethany»), in which case this Bethany anticipates the later events at Bethany (12:1–3); but this Bethany is too far from baptismal water (11:18), and geographical digressions were commonplace (Polybius 1.41.6; cf. 1.42.1–7). |
| 4276 That Mark would transfer Andrew and Simon to Capernaum because of their fishing cooperative with James and John is far less probable, though not impossible if Mark has simply connected chronologically discrete narratives for the sake of narrative unity ( Mark 1:21,29 ; cf. 2:1; Matt 4:13,18). 4277 See, e.g., France, Matthew, 103. Clan and village endogamy may have been common (Isaeus Estate of Pyrrhus 63; Horsley, Galilee, 199; Ilan, Women, 75–79), and many in the ancient Mediterranean preferred to marry a woman who lived nearby (Hesiod Op. 700), but Capernaum was directly opposite Bethsaida and ties were undoubtedly close. The husband and the bridés father could determine the new marital home (P.Eleph. 1.5–6, 311 B.C.E.), though it was usually initially with the groom " s parents (see Keener, Matthew, 271, 330, on Matt 8:14; 10:35). 4279 Tracking people down, as with locations (cf. Ling, «Stranger»), was probably done by asking for them; Jesus, however, presumably had other methods (1:48). 4280 Higgins, Historicity, 59. See, e.g., Νατανλου on a Jerusalem ossuary inscription in CIJ 2:296, §1330. 4281 Leidig, «Natanael»; cf. more tentatively Higgins, Historicity, 59–60; Blomberg, Reliability, 82. Hill, «Nathanael,» suggests that the identification with James son of Alphaeus in the Epistula Apostolorum might reflect Asian tradition, perhaps early enough to be known by John. 4284 The contorted argument of Hanhart, «Structure,» 24–26, that he was Matthew depends on fanciful linkages. 4285 The Law and the Prophets together constitute Scripture, e.g., 2Macc 15:9; 4 Macc 18:10–18; Matt 5:17; 7:12; Q (Matt 11=Luke 16:16); Rom 3:21 ; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:484, cite also t. B. Mesi c a 11:23. Cf. also the threefold division in Luke 24(more popular among the sages–Sir pro1.; " Abot R. Nat. 14A; b. c Abod. Zar. 19b; B. Bat. 13b, bar.; B. Qam. 92b; Mak. 10b; Sanh. 90b, Gamaliel II; 106a; p. Meg. 1:5, §3; Ned. 3:9, §3; Šeqa1. 3:2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:13; Gen. Rab. 76:5; cf. Philo Contemp1. Life 25). First-century Jews attributed the Pentateuch to Moses (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.39). |
| In order for us to even attempt to understand St. Justin, it is important to first and foremost know what the word ecumenism meant to him from an Orthodox perspective. The covering sheet of his notes stated: “The Orthodox Church=Ecumenism by catholicity (Russian: sobornost=“to gather”).” 5 Let us for a moment focus on the understanding of the term catholicity/catholic (sobornost). The word is understood in the Russian sense of meaning, 6 namely a “spiritual community of any jointly living people,” “to gather,” which has its core in the cooperation between people and the denying of individualism. The difference in the Western understanding of the word is almost non-existent, it is just important to understand that “catholicity/catholic” in this case has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church, but rather refers to the word “catholic” itself. The Western use of the word is often understood as “universal”, which can be seen as having the same or roughly the same meaning as the Russian “Sobornost”. Therefore: the “catholicity” of the Christian Church is about gathering all into one . Hence, the word “ecumenism/ecumenical” can now in this context be understood as St. Justin himself explains: “Ecumenism: The catholicity (sobornost) of heaven and earth, of God and man, the soul of universality, of evangelic and orthodox ecumenism: We live on earth but we store up for ourselves treasures in heaven (Matt. 6:20). Everything was the holy catholicity (sobornost); which lies in the unity of the theanthropic (Divine-human) Church=the God-man Christ the Lord. Body on earth, heart in heaven: Our wishes should be catholic; and they are such when they are holy (Matt 6:21). And man’s holiness is in God, more precisely: in the God-man. And in the Person of the God-man: God transfers all his attributes, including holiness, to man. Without God – man is a tiny mosquito (…) everything was created for the holy theanthropic catholicity and unity (Matt 6:25-34) (…) ‘Whoever receives you, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives the one who sent me’ (Matt 10:40). Therein=in Him the entire catholicity, the entire universality, the entire ecumenism. Where He is—all of those are present and more; the Entire Holy Trinity [is present]. Everything from Him and everything in Him! Everything towards Him.” 7 The saint spends a lot of time deepening his explanation of ecumenism as he sees the Orthodox Church seeing it. But to show and explain it all would take up too much space. Instead focus has been put on the one that is at the core of all else—the one that is the foundation of St. Justin’s understanding of his own title: “The Orthodox Church=Ecumenism by catholicity”. Ecumenism is only real if it places the God-man in the center. The WWC statement from Amsterdam 1948 in a similar fashion states: “The World council of Churches is a fellowship of churches that accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior” 8 |
|
|
