| 3573 Contrast the language of some rabbis (e.g., " Abot R. Nat. 12 A; 26, §54 B; Sipre Deut. 32.2.1; Song Rab. 1:3, §3), although the language is essentially hyperbolic (cf. similar language in b. Sanh. 99b); the rabbis would have attributed the conversion to God as wel1. 3574 Cf. 1QH 9.14–16; Lev. Rab. 14:5; in Greco-Roman antiquity in general, cf. Keener, Marries, 80, esp. nn. 155–56 on 187. The contrast between human and divine will (also 3:8) reflects the Johannine emphasis on God " s will (4:34; 5:30, 40; 6:38, 39; 7:17; 9:31; cf. 5:6) vs. the world " s rebellion, and God " s will to give life (6:40; cf. 5:21). Cf. Plutarch T.T. 8.1.3, Mor. 718A: God created the cosmos but not δια σπρματος. 3575 Many considered passion virtually irresistible (e.g., Sophocles Track. 441–448; Publilius Syrus 15, 22; Plutarch Oracles at Delphi 20, Mor. 403F-404A; see further Keener, Matthew, 186, on Matt 5:28). Some later rabbis attributed to the yetzer hara the positive function of incentive for procreation (Gen. Rab. 9:7; Ecc1. Rab. 3:11, §3). 3576 See Keener, Marries, 74, esp. nn. 76–77 on 179–80; on paternal authority, see ibid., 98 and nn. 110–119 on 197–98. 3578 Virgil Aen. 2.74. Rarer uses, such as «blood» meaning courage (Aeschines Ctesiphon 160), make much less sense here. 3580 See Gardner, Women, 53, citing Aristotle Gen. Anim. 773a, 30ff.; cf. Pliny Nat. 7.49. In Greek myth a mother could bear twins, one for her husband and the other due to divine impregnation (Pindar Ryth. 9.84–86). 3581 Boismard, Prologue, 44. Cf. Lightfoot, Talmud, 3:241, who associates «bloods» here with a passage in Exod. Rah. that reads Ezek 16:6 " s plural for bloods as a reference to circumcision and Passover; he thus applies it to the means of conversion for proselytes. 3582 Bernard, John, 18; cf. Boismard, Prologue, 44 (though Boismard suggests that this may represent a textual error). 3585 That the point is simply «not by natural intercourse» is usually agreed; e.g., Michaels, John, 8. 3586 Cf. Talbert, John, 77, 98 (on 1:18; 3:6), for the ancient Mediterranean epistemological premise that only like recognizes like, hence necessitating the incarnation for sufficient revelation. |
| 1280 Scott, «Attitudes.» Apparently only the Greeks who traveled to the East knew much about Indian religion, however (Delaygue, «Grecs»). 1281 Pyrrho (ca. 360–270 b.C.E.; Diogenes Laertius 9.11.61); Apollonius of Tyana (Philostratus Vit. Apoll, books 2 and 3 [LCL 1:117–229,2:231–345]); cf. Finegan, Religions, 149, on archaeological confirmations of such reports. 1282 Cicero Tusc. 5.27.78; Strabo Geog. 15.1.11–13ff. (LCL 7:14–19ff.); Xenophon Cyr. 2.4.1–8; Valerius Maximus 2.6.14; 3.3.ext.6; cf. Horace Ep. 1.6.6; Carm. 1.12.56; 1.31.6; 3.24.1–2; 4.14.42; Jub. 8:21. Some of the information was clearly speculative (e.g., Achilles Tatius 4.5.1). See more fully Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 164–66; Nock, Conversion, 46–47. 1283 Petronius Sat. 38; Poem 18; Martial Epigr. 4.28.4; Pausanias 3.12.4; Xenophon Eph. 4.1; cf. Sib. Or. 11.299; Wheeler, Beyond Frontiers, 115–71; Casson, Travel, 124; Koester, Introduction, 1:86. Cf. Ceylon [modern Sri Lanka]-Rome ties in Pliny Nat. 6.84–85 (in Sherk, Empire, 32); cf. «The Sea Route to India and Ceylon,» ch. 4, 57–73 in Charlesworth, Routes. 1284 Juvenal Sat. 6.585. The Indian emperor Asoka reportedly sent representatives of Buddhism to Egypt in the third century b.C.E. (Finegan, Records, 67). 1287 For China, see Casson, Travel, 124–26; cf. «The Overland Route to China and India,» ch. 6, 97–111 in Charlesworth, Routes; Wheeler, Beyond Frontiers, 172–75. 1292 E.g., Bull, «Medallion»; Lease, «Mithraeum»; Flusser, «Paganism,» 1099; see fuller documentation in our comment on the resurrection narratives. 1307 Barrett, «Vocabulary,» 223; but cf. Wilcox, «Dualism,» 88; Pearson, Terminology, 2–3; Giblet, «Développements,» 72. Stendahl, Paul, 76, calls it «gnostic» «with a small gl» 1308 Bultmann, John, 8–9,487; cf. idem, Theology, 2:17; Wilson, Gnosis, 46; cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 97–114; Schnelle, Christology, 228–29 (emphasizing John " s antidocetic Christology). 1309 In detail, see Thompson, Humanity; cf. also Morris, «Jesus.» Schnelle, Christology, passim (e.g., 229) regards the Gospel " s Christology as a reaction against docetism, but this goes too far. |
| 4245 Cf., e.g., CIJ 1:291, §375; 2:112, §880; 2:117, §890; 2:126, §905; 2:128, §911; 2:137, §932; 2:171, §986; 2:312, §1367; 2:391, §1468; 2:445, §1538. 4248 E.g., CIJ 1:117, §165; 2:117, §890; 2:126, §905; CPJ 1:29; 3:191–192; see further Williams, «Personal Names,» 93. 4249 Cf., e.g., Hachlili and Killebrew, «Saga»; idem, «Byt glyt»; Samuel the Small in p. Sotah 9:13, §2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.2.4; Cornelius Nepos 3 (Aristides), 1.2; Philostratus Hrk. 14.4. 4250 E.g., m. Yad. 4:4; Sipre Deut. 253.2.2; h. Ber. 28a; Bamberger, Proselytism, 234; cf. Dominus Flevit ossuary 31 in Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 68, Finegan, Archeology, 247–48, and Bagatti, Church, 237. That these instances represent Jewish «proselytes» to Christianity is unlikely, since Jewish Christians thought in terms of fulfillment more than conversion; cf. Avi-Yonah, «Sources,» 47–48. Name change was sometimes used elsewhere to connote conversion; see Horsley, «Change»; on initiation rites, cf. Mbiti, Religions, 165,228; Bietenhard, «νομα,» 243. It could also be associated with a promise or new hope and identity; cf. Gen 17:5 ; Rev 2:17; 3:12; cf. perhaps Ford, Revelation, 399. 4251 Cf. R. Johanan ben Zakkaís praise of each of his five disciples (m. " Abot 2:8, redactionally balanced). 4252 E.g., John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 19. Reitzenstein, Religions, 40,320–32, finds parallels to the Christian concept of a divine call in the Mysteries, but the concept is pervasive in the Hebrew Bible and appears in Diaspora Judaism (e.g., God calls Abraham in death in T. Ab. 4:9B). 4253 Cf., e.g., Danker, Age, 17; Harrelson, Cult, 39; names might fit circumstances of birth (Cambridge Geniza Text 3.13–16). On the Roman custom of naming boys on the ninth and girls on the eighth day, cf. Plutarch R.Q. 102, Mor. 288BC; Luke 1:59–60; 2and the late Pirqe R. E1. 48 suggest that the custom may have also affected Palestinian Jewry (Safrai, «Sources,» 5; idem, «Home,» 767). 4255 See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 146–47. This precise name (in contrast to some similar forms) is not attested in the pre-Christian era (Gnilka, Jesus, 186–87), so would not be a name from his parents. |
| Taken from Meffreth, Dominica 3 Post Pascha, No. 2. 1. 1–4 cf Meffreth: «O si peccator animaduerteret mala, quae per peccatum incurrit, fleret vtique in praesenti, ne haberet materiam flendi in futuro.» 11. 5–12 cf Meffreth: «Nam per peccatum homo Deum offendit, consortium angelorum & sanctorum amittit, & suffragia Ecclesiae perdit, animam per peccatum interficit, diabolo se subijcit, & in infemum se submergit.» 11. 13–18 cf Meffreth: «Quis ergo peccator habet adeo durum cor, quod possit se continere a fletu, qui aduertit haec mala, quae peccatum adducunt? Circumspice vndique ex omni parte inuenies damna.» 11. 19–24 cf Meffreth: «Si respicis sursum inuenies tibi Deum offensum, & coelum clausum.» 11. 25–28 cf Meffreth: «Si deorsum, infemum apertum.» 11. 29–30 cf Meffreth: «A dextris, consortium bonorum perditum.» 11. 31–32 cf Meffreth: «A sinistris, consortium malorum afflictiuum.» 11. 33–34 cf Meffreth: «Ante te mortem, quia si tu mortuus fueris in peccatis damnaberis.» 11. 35–36 cf Meffreth: «Post te damnum, quia suffragia ecclesiae & sanctorum nunquam tibi prodesse possunt. Haec Iordanus in suis postill.» (Pars aestiv., p. 86). Злонравие. Taken from Faber, In Festo S. Nicolai, No. 4 «Quid debeant parentes Liberis», sect. 2 «Morum honestas»: «S. Chrysost. horn. 9. in 1. Epist. ad Tim. ait... Dedecus est parentum, si liberi eorum incedant sordidi, laceri, nudi; quanto magis si male morati.» Злонравие 2. Taken from Faber, In Festo S. Stephani Protomartyris, No. 2 «Modi ulciscendi se Christiane», sect. 1 «Bonus esto». 11. 1–8 cf Faber: «Idem docet Cardinalis Bellarmin. cone. 26. ’Si quis forte avarus, inquit, vel intemperans vel irreligiosus appelletur, mox cum stomacho respondebit: Non est ita, mentiris: hoc ferro ostendam me virum probum atque integrum esse. Videte hominis dementiam.... Quid habet gladius cum probitate? ... Optimum igitur et saluberrimum ultionis genus hoc est: Avarum te appellavit: exhibe te erga ilium ipsum liberalem, obrue ilium beneficiis. Intemperantem te esse dixit? sobrie vivito, ieiuniis operam dato...» Sic ille.» 11. |
| 4832 Sipre Deut. 45.1.2; " Abot R. Nat. 16A; b. B. Bat. 16a; Ber. 5a; Qidd. 30b, bar.; Sukkah 52b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2; Lev. Rab. 35:5; Pesiq. Rab. 41:4; cf. 2Macc 2:23; T. Ash. 3:2; Aristotle Po1. 3.11.4, 1287a. 4836 Often noted, e.g., Sylvia Mary, Mysticism, 64; White, Initiation, 70 (though White, p. 252, sees Hellenistic background in John 3:3 ); Watkins, John, 74; Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 82 (citing b. Yebam. 22a; 48b; 62a; 97b; Bek. 47a). Lightfoot, Talmud, 3:265, noted this in regard to John 3in the seventeenth century. 4840 In practice, freed slaves converted to Judaism were forbidden lest they view Judaism as less than holy (Cohen, Law, 148–49). Moreover, the emphasis on embracing proselytes fully (Kern-Ulmer, «Bewertung»; Bamberger, Proselytism, 145–61; McKnight, «Proselytism,» 840–41) may not have always translated into practice (cf., e.g., m. Hor. 3:8; Sipre Deut. 253.2.2; Bamberger, Proselytism, 161–69; McKnight, «Proselytism,» 841–42; Keener, Spirit, 146–47; 4Q279 frg. 1, line 6). 4841 Cf., e.g., Jeremias, Jerusalem, 324. Further on legal status, see Hoenig, «Conversion,» 54–55. 4842 Gaius Inst. 1.59; this remained true even after the adoptive tie was broken. Cf. also blood siblings in Mbiti, Religions, 276. 4843 Gaius Inst. 1.127–128. Cf. the loss of agnatic ties by change of status in 1.161; the invalidation of a will through status change in 2.147. 4846 Sallust Speech of Gaius Cotta 3; cf. Cicero Att. 6.6.4. Accepting citizenship in one place terminated it elsewhere (Cornelius Nepos 25 [Atticus], 3.1). 4849 L.A.B. 20:2; 27:10. For Philo, ascending to the pure realm of spirit as Moses did could produce a «second birth» (QE 2.46). 4850 Jos. Asen. 8:9/8:10–11. Some also think the prayer for the regeneration of catechumens in Apos. Con. 8.6.6 reflects an earlier Jewish prayer, but this is unclear. 4854 n Abraham: Gen. Rab. 44:12; 48:6; Exod. Rab. 38:6; cf. Apoc. Ab. 20:2–5. Abraham " s exaltation appears in earlier sources without reference to this motif (e.g., T. Ab. 9:6–15A; 8:2–12:15B; cf. T. Mos. 10:8–9), which may reflect broader Hellenistic currents about exalted deities (cf. also Eph 1:21–22 ). |
| 78 Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius I.270, III.6.62 (Jaeger 1960 , 1. 105, 2.66) and frequently elsewhere in Gregory of Nyssa. 79 Cf. Luke 10:30–7. 80 Cf. Gen. 2:17 . 81 Eriugena distinguishes between speculatio and theoria–translated here ‘contemplation’ and ‘spiritual interpretation’. Theoria could well be translated ‘contemplation’, but it is the regular word in the Antiochene tradition for spiritual interpretation, and is used in that sense here. The eighteen spiritual interpretations seem to consist of ten numbered ones (in 31a), and the seven sections that follow (31b-h) plus the introduction to 31a. 82 Cf. 4 Kgd 2:11. 83 For time as number, see Aristotle, Physics 4.11. 84 Cf. Psa. 94:11; Heb. 3:16–4:1. 85 For this understanding of the relationship of time to eternity (derived from Plato’s metaphor of time as a ‘moving image of eternity’), see Plato, Timaeus 37D; Plotinus, Enneads III.7.2; Denys the Areopagite, Divine Names X.3. 86 Cf. Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals I.5. 87 This introduces the theme of the two modes of theology – apophatic and cataphatic – which continues through to section 31e (cf. above section 17, and also below Amb. 71) 88 Theourgiai: to be taken in the Christian sense, found in Denys the Areopagite, of ‘divine works’, rather than in its pagan meaning of ‘ritual ceremonies’. See Louth (1986). 89 The oneness and threeness of the Godhead: discussed below in section 43, and in Amb. 1. 90 Presumably the account of the Transfiguration. 91 Cf. Luke 9:31. 92 Cf. Luke 16:19–31. 93 This is borrowed, more or less word for word, from Nemesius, On human nature 43 (Morani 1987 , 129, ll. 6–14). 94 Omitting the two sections, 1173B-1176B, which are identical with Amb. 53 and Amb. 63. They are not found in this Difficulty in Eriugena nor are they found in Vat. gr. 1502 and other MSS: they are clearly out of place here. See Sherwood (1955a), 32. Sections 35–40 have many parallels with the early chapters of John Damascene’s Exposition of the Faith (chapters 3–5, 9, 11–13). |
| 3238 Wis 8:3. Cf. the close relationship between Isis and Osiris, Isis being mediator (Plutarch Mor. 352A in Betz and Smith, «De Iside,» 41). 3239 Gen. Rab. 1:1, using language from Prov. 8:30 . Freedman and Simon observe (Midrash Rabbah 1n. 1) that here «the Torah was with God as with a tutor, reared, as it were, by the Almighty.» Cf. Burkitt, Gnosis, 95, who suggests that John here echoes Genesis, which pictures God «producing the creation by consulting with Himself.» 3240 Pollard, «Relationships,» 364–65 (all six instances outside John connote «active relationship or intercourse «with»»); cf. Carson, Discourse, 92. The construction here represents neither movement toward God (Ellis, John, 21; Stevens, Theology, 90; cf. Morris, John, 76) nor an Aramaism; by this period, prepositions were becoming more ambiguous (cf., e.g., μετ» αλλλων in 6and προς αλλλους in 6:52). 3241 E.g., Pereira, «Word,» 182, citing 7:29. On relations among Father, Son, and Spirit in this Gospel, see more fully Harner, Analysis, 1–43; cf. also Gruenler, Trinity. 3249 E.g., Euripides E1. 1298–1300; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.245; cf. Homer Il. 18.94–96; Ovid Metam. 4.234–244. Most deities could not restore life once it was gone (Ovid Metam. 2.612–613). 3250 E.g., Homer Od. 4.459–461; Apollodorus 2.5.11 (cf. magical papyri for the manipulation of demons). 3251 E.g., 2Macc 6:26; 3Macc 5:7; Wis 7:25; Let. Arts. 185; Sib. Or. 1.66; T. Ab. 8:3; 15:12A; b. Šabb. 88b; Yebam. 105b; Yoma 12a; cf. Goodenough, Symbols, 2:179. 3252 E.g., Virgil Aen. 1.60; 3.251; 4.25, 206, 220; 6.592; 7.141, 770; 8.398; 9.625; 10.100, 668; 12.178,791; Georg. 2.325; Ovid Metam. 1.154; 2.304,401,505; 3.336; 9.271; 14.816; Valerius Flaccus 3.249; Plutarch Isis 2, Mor. 352A; Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 232, also cites Macrobius Sat. 1.23.21. But Juno might be omnipotens (Virgil Aen. 7.428) yet prove unable to prevail against Fate (7.314); other deities appear as omnipotent, e.g., Pluto in Orphic Hymns 18.17 (but perhaps as the «chthonic Zeus,» 18.3). In unrelated religious traditions, see, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 40–41. |
| 2216 Gager, Anti-Semitism, 107–10; Arnold, Ephesians, 31–32; Goodenough, Symbols, 12:58–63; Hengel, Judaism, 1:241; Gaster, Studies, 1:356–60; even Moses came to be associated with magic (Apuleius Apologia in Stern, Authors, 2:201–5; Gager, Moses, 134–61). Jewish magic influenced Greco-Roman magic (cf. Deissmann, Studies, 277–300,321–36; Knox, Gentiles, 208–11; Koester, Introduction, 1:380–81). Among modern Yemenite Jews, cf. Hes, «Mon,» passim. 2217 Cf., e.g., Text 20.11–12 (Isbell, Bowls, 65); 69.6–7 (150); Pr. Jos. 9–12; T. Sol 18:15–16; b. Git. 68a; Num. Rab. 16:24; Isbell, «Story,» 13; Nock, Conversion, 62–63; MacMullen, Enemies, 103; Tiede, Figure, 170. The name of Israel " s God (in various permutations) outnumbers any other deity in the papyri «by more than three to one» (Smith, Magician, 69); cf. also, e.g., CIJ 1:485, §673; 1:490, §679; 1:517, §717; 1:523, §724; 2:62–65, §819; 2:90–91, §849; 2:92, §851; 2:217, §1168. 2218 On name invocation in general (some references including secret names), see Apuleius Metam. 2.28; Theissen, Stories, 64 (citing Lucian Menippus 9; Philops. 12; Plin. Nat. 28.4.6; PGM 4.1609–1611; 8.20–21); Twelftree, «ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,» 376. 2219 M. Sanh. 7:11; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Roš Haš. 3:8, §1; Sanh. 7:13, §2; Urbach, Sages, 1:97–100, 572: Bietenhard, «νομα,» 270. Note also Wis 17:7; Ps.-Phoc. 149; 1 En. 65(Sim.); Asc. Isa. 2:5; 2 Βαr. 60:2; 66:2; T. Reu. 4:9; cf. Sib. Or. 1.96. The rabbis recognized that not all sorcery was genuine (m. Sanh. 7:11; Sipra Qed. pq. 6.203.2.2; b. Sanh. 67b), although Amoraim stressed the dangers more (e.g., b. Hor. 10a; Sanh. 67b; Šabb. 66b; p. Ketub. 1:1, §2; cf. the amulets and charms in Goodenough. Symbols, 2:153–295), but even when genuine, rabbis stressed its limits (e.g., Gen. Rab. 11:5; Pesiq. Rab. 23:8; 43:6). 2220 See Goldin, «Magic»; Neusner, Sat, 80–81; b. Sanh. 65b; 67b; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 25 A (on R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus); Basser, «Interpretations.» Such syncretism was not intentional; apparently even Jacob employed pagan fertility rituals in Gen. 30:37–42 , though he trusted that God was the one working through them (31:8–9, 12; cf. 28:15). Cf. also some Jewish polemic in b. Git. 56b-57a which may be rooted in earlier magical tradition (Gero, «Polemic»). Many societies believe that magic can be used either for good or for evil (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 258–59). |
| 9309 Cf. Schlier, «Begriff,» 269, who says that the Spirit illuminates the work of Jesus in his glory. In Wis 8:3, Wisdom δοξζει, but the object is her own nobility. 9310 John Chrysostom believed that the Spirit would glorify Jesus by performing greater miracles, as in 14(Hom. Jo. 78). 9313 E.g., 1 En. 1:2; 72:1; 74:2; 75:3; Jub. 32:21; 3 Bar. 1:8; 5:1; 6:1; 4 Ezra 4:1; Rev 1:1; b. Ber. 51a; Ned. 20ab; cf. gnostic traditions in Paraphrase of Shem (NHL 308–28) and Hypsiphrone (NHL 453). It also appears in negative polemic ( Gal 1:8 ; Col 2:18), some of which reflects the Prometheus myth (b. Sabb. 88a; Gen. Rab. 50:9; 68:12; 78:2). 9314 T. Mos. 1:14; 3:12; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.15; b. Ned. 38a; Acts 7:38; cf. Isaacs, Spirit, 130. Aelius Aristides claimed that Athena passed on what she received from her Father (37.4–7, in Van der Horst, «Acts,» 57). 9316 Cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.1.11 (Antisthenes); Achilles Tatius 3.10.4; 1Macc 12:23; T. Job 18(OTP 1:847)/18(ed. Kraft, 40). 9317 Diogenes Laertius 6.2.37 (LCL); cf., e.g., Crates Ep. 26–27 (to the Athenians); Anacharsis Ep. 9:12–14 (to Croesus). In early Christian literature, see, e.g., Sent. Sext. 228. See further the comment on 15:15. 9321 In the Q tradition cf. Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22; for Jesus passing to the disciples what he received from the Father, cf., e.g., Luke 22:29. 9322 Cf., e.g., Holwerda, Spirit, 132. Brown (John, 2:728) divides 16:16–33 into a chiasmus: prediction of a test and subsequent consolation (16:16, 31–33); intervening remarks of disciples (16:17–19,29–30); and promise of blessings to be enjoyed by disciples (16:20–23a, 23b-28). But the structure is too general to be clear, and remarks about a test and consolation appear elsewhere in the section (16:20–21). 9324 Pass, Glory, 233 (cf. also Westcott, John, 231–32; Phillips, «Faith,» 89; Derrett, «Seeing»), tentatively suggests a distinction between the two terms here «behold» (for bodily sight) and «see» (for spiritual vision); in view of Johannine usage, however, the terminological distinction cannot hold (see «vision» in our introduction; also Sanchez Navarro, «Acerca»). |
| 27 Or. ad Pulch. 27:11, 27:19, 27:21–22, 28:18, 36:25, 40:18, 40:26, 43:11, 43:33–34, 45:5–6, 45:10, 47:24, 47:35, 49:1, 52:4–5, 54:1, 55:15, 56:31, 57:6–7, 57:22, 57:29, 58:2–3, 59:3, 59:24–26, 60:30. 28 Or. ad Pulch. 32:5, 32:27, 32:33, 36:35–36, 37:9, 38:37, 43:7, 43:10, 50:6–7, 54:36, 54:13–14, 56:38–57:1. 30 Or. ad Pulch. 27:10, 28:23, 29:11, 29:12, 32:36, 33:27, 33:30, 33:33, 37:16, 38:23, 39:25, 41:2, 41:10, 42:14, 42:22, 42:24, 46:1, 46:32, 47:5, 49:21, 50:9, 56:11, 56:37, 57:1, 57:9, 58:2, 58:7, 61:11. Также, следуя за Евр. 2, 14 , «плоть и кровь» (Or. ad Pulch. 30:23, 30:32–33, 32:26, 33:9, 35:2–3, 41:8). Само вочеловечение Слова и Его искупительные деяния именуется «домостроительством с плотью» (Or. ad Pulch. 33:20, 33:24, 33:30, 34:16, 40:3, 42:1–2, 43:12, 44:25, 45:10, 47:23–24, 49:18–19). Для свт. Кирилла, который опирается в этом на книгу пророка Иоиля ( Иоил. 2, 28 ), «плоть» означает не что иное, как всего че- ловека: Лоуо? усу ove σρζ, τοντστιν νθpornos κατ ye το εκχε ττο τον πνευμα, τς μον Ιπι πσαν σρκα (Or. ad Pulch. 27:32–33; cp.: Or. ad Pulch. 33:33–34, 38:32, 56:4). Впрочем, можно отметить, как некоторую непоследовательность его богословского языка, что в рассуждении против аполлинариетов «плотью» названа только часть человека, отличная от души (Or. ad Pulch. 58:36, 59:1–2). 31 Or. ad Pulch. 27:12, 29:34, 36:33, 37:16, 38:11, 39:1–2, 40:27, 57:8, 58:33. При этом уточняется, что воспринятое тело имеет разумную душу (Or. ad Pulch. 27– 12, 37:16,58:33). 32 O r. ad Pulch. 27:27, 27:32, 28:18, 29:10, 30:4, 30:33, 33:25, 33:34, 37:11, 38:11, 39:23, 39:34,40:12, 41:7,45:32, 46:3, 47:1,47:36, 53:1, 53:23, 54:37, 56:3, 58:33. Однако подчеркивается, что Христос – не обыкновенный ( απλς, φιλς, κοινς ) человек (Or. ad Pulch. 32:24–25, 33:9, 38:17–18, 38:31, 41:28, 43:1, 43:23–24, 43:31, 49:30, 49:32, 59:16). 33 Or. ad Pulch. 37– 10, 38:32, 39:23, 40:25, 55:5. Также «условия человечества», то της νθρωτττητος μτρος (Or. ad Pulch. 28:27, 29:33, 30:7, 31:35, 39:36–37). |
|
|
