| Archive His Holiness Patriarch Kirill sends Paschal greetings to the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches 8 April 2018 year 14:41 His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia has sent Paschal greetings to the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches: His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople; His Beatitude Pope and Patriarch Theodoros II of Alexandria; His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch; His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem; His Holiness and Beatitude Catholicos-Patriarch Iliya II of All Georgia; His Holiness Patriarch Irinej of Serbia; His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel of Romania; His Holiness Patriarch Neofit of Bulgaria; His Beatitude Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus; His Beatitude Archbishop Hieronymos II of Athens and All Greece; His Beatitude Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and All Albania; His Beatitude Metropolitan Savva of Warsaw and All Poland; His Beatitude Metropolitan Rastislav of the Czech Lands and Slovakia; and His Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon of All America and Canada. The text reads as follows: I wholeheartedly greet You, sending fraternal kiss, and congratulate You on the Holy Passover: Christ is Risen! Today we glorify the miraculous Resurrection of the Lord from the tomb, which “reconciles the whole world” (St. Gregory the Theologian, Homily on Holy Pascha), and bring witness to people of the great victory of Jesus the Giver of Life who “gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6) and has opened the gates of his kingdom to us. Like the apostles, who brought the name of the Lord before the people (cf.Acts 9:15) and forgiveness of sins through him (cf.Acts 13:38), we share with those near and those far away the radiant Paschal joy, which abides in our hearts and strengthens our hope for life eternal. On this Feast of feasts I wish You strong health and spirit and the inexhaustible aid from the Redeemer of the human race in Your primatial ministry, peace and prosperity to Your flock saved by God. With brotherly love in the Risen Christ +KIRILL PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA Календарь ← 7 December 2023 year |
| 483 Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 15–22; E. J. Timsley, The Gospel According to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), pp. 2–4; C. F. D. Moule, Christ " s Messengers: Studies in Acts of the Apostles (New York: Association Press, 1957), pp. 10–13; Hunter, Introducing the New Testament, pp. 49–50; William Hamilton, The Modern Reader " s Guide to Matthew and Luke (New York: Association Press, 1957), p. 14; Robert Grant, pp. 134–135; F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 19; Bruce, The New Testament Documents, pp. 41–44; Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco: Word Book, 1972), pp. 8–10. 484 Документ Q («Quelle») является основным источником, который, по мнению многих, стоит за синоптическими Евангелиями. 485 Hunter, Introducing the New Testament, pp. 55–56; Robert Grant, p. 129; Bruce, New Testament Documents, pp. 39–40; cf. Drane, p. 191. 486 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, The Anchor Bible (Garden city: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), Volume I, chapter VII; Raymond E. Brown, The New Testament Essays (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1965), pp. 129–131; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1968), pp. 8–35; R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1968), pp. 11–20; Hunter, Introducing the New Testament, pp. 61–63; Robert Grant, p. 160; William hamilton, The Modern Reader " s Guide to John (New York: Association Press, 1959), pp. 13–15; Robinson, p. 83; Bruce, The New Testament Documents, pp. 48–49; Drane, pp. 196–197. 487 Источники в предыдущих сносках (15–20) содержат материал для дискуссии о датах этих текстов, и заинтересовавшийся читатель может обратиться к ним. В отношении примеров о сборе свидетельских показаний за период, выходящий за рамки нашей настоящей дискуссии, см. Eisenschiml, Eyewitness: The Civil War as We Lived It (упоминается в главе 24). 496 Для более конкретных данных по этим пунктам критики см. Sherwin-White, pp. 186–193; Grant, pp. 180–184, 199–200. |
| 620 R. Bauckham, «Kerygmatic Summaries in the Speeches of Acts,» in B. Witherington, ed., History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridgë Cambridge University Press, 1996) 185–217; см. также G.N.Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (SNTSMS 27; Cambridgë Cambridge University Press, 1974). 621 На мой взгляд, лучше всего это показано в критике Шмидта у Hall, The Gospel Framework. См. также: V.Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (second ed.; London: Macmillan, 1935) 38–41. 622 См., например, Easton, The Gospel, глава 3; Taylor, The Formation; R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford: Clarendon, 1950) 102: «Стремление приспособить рассказ к определенным целям, несомненно, хорошо видно в Евангелиях – и было замечено задолго до того, как мир услышал о критике форм; однако нет причин полагать, что такое приспособление искажало смысл рассказа, или на этой основе сомневаться в достоверности источника в целом». 623 Travis, «Form Criticism,» 158–159; R. Blank, Analyse und Kritik der formgeschichtlichen Arbeiten von Martin Dibelius und Rudolf Bultmann (Basel: Reinhardt, 1981) 201. 624 G.N.Stanton, «Form Criticism Revisited,» in M.Hooker and C.Hickling, eds., What about the New Testament? (C. Evans FS; London: SCM, 1975) 23; он же, Jesus of Nazareth, 181; R. Riesner, Jesus ah Lehrer (WUNT 2/7; Tübingen: Mohr, 1981) 12–13. Касательно устных преданий вообще это отмечает J.Vansina, Oral Tradition as History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985) 101: предания «часто служат множеству целей и используются очень по-разному» 625 Vansina, Oral Tradition, 121; cf. S. Byrskog, «A New Perspective on the Jesus Tradition: Reflections on James D.G.Dunn " " s Jesus Remembered,» JSNT 26 (2004) 468–469. 627 E.P.Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 9; Cambridgë Cambridge University Press, 1969) 272. 629 См. Easton, The Gospel, 81: «Критика форм может подготовить путь для исторической критики, однако сама она – не историческая критика». |
| Критику концепции о. О’Каллагана см.: Baillet М. Les manuscrits de la grotte 7 de Qumran et le Nouveau Testament/Biblica. 1972. Vol. 53. 4; idem. Les fragments grecs de la grotte 7 de Qumran et le Nouveau Testament/Orient chretien: Acts du 29 e Congres International des orientalistes. P., 1975; Benois P. Notes sur les fragments grecs de la grotte 7 de Qumran/Revue biblique. 1972. Vol. 79. 3; idem. Nouvelle note sur les fragments grecs de la grotte 7 de Qumran/Revue biblique. 1973. Vol. 80. 1; Chmiel J. Papi- rusy Groty 7 Qumran/Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny. 1973. Rok 26. 2–3; Fee G.D. Some Dissenting Notes on 7Q5= Mark 6: 52–53 /Journal of Biblical Literature. 1973. Vol. 91. 1; Roberts C.H. On Some Presumed Papyrus Fragments of the New Testament from Qumran/The Journal of Theological Studies. 1972. Vol. 23; Urban A.C. Observaciones sobre ciertos papiros de la cueva 7 de Qumran/Revue biblique. 1973. 30. Cf.: HaelstJ. van. Catalogue des papyrus litt6raires juifs et chretiennes. Paris, 1976. P. 339–340. Как справедливо отмечал И.Д. Амусин, «при столь малом количестве сохранившихся знаков оригинала априори можно предположить вероятность альтернативных решений этих загадок. Лишь время покажет, возможно ли в принципе их убедительное решение» ( Амусин И.Д. Кумранская община. М., 1983. С. 90). 9 См.: Thiede С.Р. The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? The Qumran Fragment 7Q5 and Its Significance for New Testament Studies: Carlisle, 1982; idem. 7Q – Eine Riickkehr zu den neutestamentlichen Papy- rusfragmenten in der siebten Hohle von Qumran/Biblica. 1984. Vol. 65 erratum: Biblica. 1985. Vol. 66); Estrada D., White W, Jr. The First New Testament. Nashville, 1978; Pickering W.N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. 2 nd ed. Nashville, 1980. App. В, и критику концепции Пикеринга в: Fee G. A Critique of W.N. Pickering " s The Identity of the New Testament Text’/Westminster Theological Journal. 1979. Vol. 41. Из последних работ см.: Enste S. Qumran-Fragment 7Q5 ist nicht Markus 6, 52–53 |
| 4100 Although God " s «Spirit» means more than «purifying wind» here, perhaps John " s baptism partly symbolized cleansing by the spirit of judgment and burning (Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2 ) that would deliver from eschatological fire (so Dunn, «Spirit,» 695); Barnard, «Matt. Ill,» 107, suggests the Jewish and Iranian image of a fiery stream. 4101 Keener, «Pneumatology,» 65–69. 4102 See Kraeling, John, 58–59, against detractors citing the obscure ignorance of Baptist disciples in Acts 19:2. That they were unaware of any Holy Spirit is unlikely, given the prevalence of teachings about the Holy Spirit in early Judaism (with or without the Baptist). 4103 Flowers, «Pneumati»; Manson, Sayings, 41 (citing Acts 19:1–6 against Spirit); cf. Kraeling, John, 61–63; Bruce, «Matthew,» 84; for the wind in winnowing, e.g., Ps 1:4 ; Isa 17:13; 29:5; 41:15–16; Hos 13:3 ; Lev. Rab. 28:2; Ecc1. Rab. 5:15, §1. 4104 See Bruce, «Spirit,» 50. 4105 Aune, Prophecy, 132, citing 1QS 4:20–21; for further documentation, see Keener, «Pneumatology,» 65–69. 4106 Cf. Robinson, Problem, 74. For the essential identity between John " s and Christian baptism, cf. Bultmann, Theology 1:39. 4107 On the difference, e.g., Meier, Matthew, 25; Parratt, «Spirit»; on their similarity (Christian baptism and Spirit baptism; John " s may function paradigmatically, but this is not in view here) cf. Beasley-Murray, «Spirit»; idem, Baptism, 275–78; Richardson, Theology, 357. 4108 See Dunn, Baptism, 33–34. 4109 Robinson, Problem, 76–77. 4110 The aorist here might contrast with Jesus» eschatological baptism; cf. Botha, " Ebaptisa,» who describes it as a «timeless aorist.» 4111 Dunn, Baptism, 24; cf. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 290; White, Initiation, 87; Robinson, Problem, 9; Hooker, Message, 11; Robinson, Studies, 169. 4112 See more fully Keener, «Pneumatology,» 77–84; less eschatological segments of early Judaism stressed this less, but biblical traditions were clear (e.g., Isa 44:3; 59:21; Ezek 36:27; 37:14; 39:29 ; Joel 2:28–29 ). |
| 7068 Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 104–5; cf. Brodie, «Elisha.» For another example of healing on the condition of going to (and drinking) particular water, see Valerius Maximus 2.4.5; for water washing away an undesirable trait, cf. Ovid Metam. 11.139–143. Later Christians found a hint of baptism here (Ambrose Sacraments 3.15); but on the water motif, cf., e.g., comments on John 1:26; 3:5 . 7069 The narrative typifies the way prophets did things and does not demand detailed comparison of the two stories. Cf. the also apparently silly instructions that resulted in the healing of M. Julius Apellas in IG 4.955 (Grant, Religions, 58–59); Acts 8:26. 7070 Despite the lack of clarity in Josephus (War 5.145, 252–253, 410); see Adan, «Siloam»; Cornfeld, Josephus, 333, on War 5.140; pace Finegan, Archeology, 114. It may have been outside the walls of earlier Jerusalem (Shaheen, «Tunnel»); on the earlier development of the Gihon and Siloam water supply system, see Issar, «Evolution,» 131–33. Cf. a probably adjoining tower in Luke 13:4. 7072 Ibid., 156–57,191. On the baths, see pp. 225–28; a water line only 12 inches above the flooring (227) may not fit a mikveh, but could this stem from standing water after the devastation of 70? 7076 Kotlar, «Mikveh,» 1543. Davies, Land, 315, believes that its water was also used in the ritual of the red heifer. 7077 Davies, Land, 314–15; Ellis, World, 69; Bruns, Art, 27. Grigsby, «Siloam,» contends that Siloam " s waters anticipate the salvific water of 19:34. 7078 Brown, John, 1:373. John knows how to translate literally when the occasion demands (1:38, 41–42). 7080 Cf. perhaps also Exod 2:10, where Pharaoh " s daughter named him (a good enough Egyptian name) because she drew him () from the water. 7081 E.g., Diodorus Siculus 1.15.6; 3.64.6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.31.4; Aulus Gellius 1.18; 3.19; against decorating speech with various wordplays, see Theophrastus in Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 14. Nevertheless, fallacious etymologies were common (e.g., Hierocles Father-land 3.39.34, in Malherbe, Exhortation, 89; Plutarch Isis 2, Mor. 35IF; Marcus Aurelius 8.57). |
| 9748 See also Demosthenes Against Meidias 1,80; Euripides Herac1. 219; Plato Apo1. 32E; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.43.2; Sallust Speech of Gaius Cotta 4; Josephus Life 361; Acts 26:4–5,26. 9749 Plato Apo1. 33, in MacGregor, John, 331. Secretive action is hostile (Philodemus frg. 41.2–3). 9751 Brown, Death, 585; for unofficial blows for reviling leaders in another ancient Mediterranean tradition, cf. Homer Il. 2.265; on honor accruing to even a disobedient priest, e.g., Acts 23:5; p. Sanh. 2:1, §2. On the requisite formality with social superiors, see, e.g., Malina, Windows, 37–38. 9752 Even those in authority who struck soldiers for discipline (Xenophon Anab. 5.8.12–13) might afterwards need to justify it (5.8.18). One might interpret «giving» a blow (also 19:3) as a worldly parody of the «giving» motif in John (cf. comment on 3:16), though here it may be simply idiomatic (cf. Gen. Rab. 78:11). For ρπισμα, see Isa 50LXX. 9753 Deut 25:2–3 ; Josephus Ant. 4.238,248; m. Hu1. 5:2; Ki1. 8:3; Mak. passim, e.g., 1:1–3; 3:3–5, 10–11; Naz. 4:3; Pesah. 7:11; Tern. 1:1; Sipra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; Sipre Deut. 286.4.1; 5.1; b. B. Mesi c a 115b; Ker. 15a; Ketub. 33b; Pesah. 24ab; p. Besah 5:2, §11; Naz. 4:3, §1; Ter. 7:1; Yoma 77a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3. 9754 Cf. Brown, John, 2:827; Morris, John, 757 (citing the assault by the attendant in b. Sebu. 30b). 9757 Diogenes the Cynic, once accosted, allegedly complained that he forgot to don his helmet that morning (Diogenes Laertius 6.2.41–42). Jesus» answer with dignity here contravenes an inappropriately literalist reading of Matt 5(Vermes, Religion, 36; cf. idem, Jesus and Judaism, 53). 9759 Blinzler, Trial, 135, suggests that proper public trials required an advocate, which Jesus appears to have lacked; but he also concedes (pp. 142–43) that the Mishnaic rules are late. 9761 Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.191, citing Hecateus of Abdera; 2.218–219,233–235. They also would die rather than disobey their laws (1.212) and wanted to kill those they thought brought harm to the nation (Josephus Life 149). |
| 8264 If we read «with me» temporally, on the analogy of the Essene custom of dipping by rank 11QS 6.4–5; lQSa [lQ28a] 2.20–21; Josephus War 2.130–131), as do Fensham, «Hand»; Albright and Mann, Matthew, 321; but this reading does not explain well why the disciples did not recognize the betrayer ( Mark 14:19 ). 8265 Others also contrast the respective emphasis, in the Markan and Johannine portraits, of the passion (e.g., Boring et a1., Commentary, 151, comparing Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 7.14). 8267 Matthew mentions «Satan» three times, Mark five (in four contexts), and Luke five times. The devil appears six times (in three contexts) in Matthew and five times (in two contexts) in Luke. 8268 Various titles of the devil were synonymous (on the term, see, e.g., Bruce, Acts: Greek, 132; Elgvin, «Devil»). Thus «Satan» is Sammael or Beliar (e.g., Ascen. Isa. 2:2). 8270 The image of Satan " s inspiration or filling an agent " s heart appears in Acts 5:3; T. Job 41:5/7; cf. the late Apoc. Sedr. 5:4–5; Boring et a1., Commentary, 296, cite T. Sim. 2:7, where the prince of error moves Satan against Joseph. 8277 E.g., Pesiq. Rah. 25:2. A common purse was one sign of organization as a group (Livy 39.18.9). 8278 With Michaels, John, 237. One who was trusted could excuse oneself and then go elsewhere than where onés companions assumed, especially at night (Xenophon Eph. 3.10; cf. Iamblichus V.P. 2.11). 8279 The Passover meal was after nightfall (m. Pesah. 10:1; t. Pisha 5:2; 10:9; b. Ber. 9a; Pesah. 107b; cf. Lachs, Commentary, 405). 8280 With Bultmann, John, 482–83; Schnackenburg, John, 3:32; Lee, Thought, 35. Night symbolized evil in other sources as well (e.g., 4Q299 frg. 5, lines 1–4; cf. Aeschylus Eumenides 745). 8283 See Schnackenburg, John, 3:167. Thus «now» in 13may involve Judas " s departure (Holwerda, Spirit, 13), but only because it foreshadows the cross (17:5; cf. «now» in 12:27; 13:1). 8284 Thus Barrett, John, 450–51, reads the announcement as Jesus» sharing the Father " s pre-creation glory (17:5), in contrast with those who expect this glory only eschatologically. |
| 2152 E.g., Wis 2:21; 1 En. 89:33, 41, 54; 93:8; 99:8; cf. T. Dan 2:2, 4; Τ Jos. 7:5; T Benj. 4(the last may be interpolated). Vision apparently functions as a symbol for knowing more of God in 1 En. 89:28. 2157 «Abot R. Nat. 1 A; Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.5; Sipre Deut. 310.6.1; Pesiq. Rab. 12:9; 37:2; cf. also Tanhuma 4.18 and »Aggadat Beresit 73.48 in Marmorstein, Anthropomorphism, 95; and discussion in ibid., 96–99; Kirk, Vision, 14–15. 2158 Marmorstein, Anthropomorphism, 105–6; this was also the prerequisite for the eschatological vision of God (96,101). 2161 Against Phillips, «Faith,» 84–85; Derrett, «Seeing.» See further Sanchez Navarro, «Acerca»; idem, «No existe.» 2165 E.g., Aristotle Rhet. 1.2.18, 1357b; Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428a.l9–23; 12.1430b.30–40; 1431a.l-6; also Anderson, Glossary, 108–9; cf. the remez in Judaism (Sandmel, Judaism, 116). Cf. Plutarch Alex. 1.3, on Alexander " s acts as «signs» of his sou1. 2166 Sik Or. 3.410, 441, 457; Plutarch Demosthenes 19.1; Philostratus Hrk. 16.5; 17.3–4; 18.2; 31.5; cf. Cicero Div. 1.46.104; «signs and wonders» (σημεα and τρατα) may be intended thus in Wis 8:8; in Josephus, see Betz, «Miracles,» 231–33. Suetonius (e.g., Aug. 94–97, probably not true) accepts such signs more frequently than the more cynical Tacitus. 2168 For the use of the term in Judaism, cf. Bonsirven, Judaism, 15. The language of miracle categories overlapped; thus, e.g., exorcism could be called «healing» (Tob 12:3,14). 2169 Smith, Johannine Christianity, 82; see at greater length Becker, Evangelium, 1:112–35, including the extensive bibliography on the subject on 112–13; and von Wahlde, Version. 2170 E.g., Neirynck, «Kritiek»; Witherington, Wisdom, 9–10; Davies, Rhetoric, 259–60; most thoroughly and convincingly, Van Belle, Signs Source, esp. 366–76. 2171 Crossan, Jesus, 311–12. After cutting John " s first two signs, he parallels two stories that include both sickness and sin, but he could have included other ones (e.g., John 9:2 ); then he must appeal to Secret Gospel of Mark to parallel one story. The only real parallel is that water-walking immediately follows the feeding in both sources; both were probably usually transmitted together. |
| 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). 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. 2645 As in Did. 7.1–3; Odes So1. 23:22. Various analyses recognize Matthew " s emphasis here on Jesus» centrality and authority (e.g., Meier, Matthew, 371; Brooks, «Design»; Schaberg, Father, 336–37 [emphasizing Jesus as the supreme teacher, not the Trinity]; Parkhurst, «Reconsidered» [connecting Jesus» words here with the worship of 28:17]). On the possible antiquity of the tradition, see Albright and Mann, Matthew, 362. |
|
|
