| P., 19562; Finegan J. The Original Form of the Pauline Collection//HarvTR. 1956. Vol. 49. N 2. P. 85-103; Koskenniemi H. Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. Helsinki, 1956; Müller-Bardorff J. Zur Frage der literarischen Einheit des Philipperbriefes//Wissenschaftliche Zschr. der Univ. Jena. 1957/1958. Bd. 7. S. 591-604; Héring J. La seconde épître de S. Paul aux Corinthiens. Neuchâtel, 1958; idem. La première épître de S. Paul aux Corinthiens. Neuchâtel, 19592; Schlier H. Über das Hauptanliegen des 1. Briefes an die Korinther// Idem. Die Zeit der Kirche. Freiburg, 19582. S. 147-159; Wilckens U. Weisheit und Torheit: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu 1. Kor 1 und 2. Tüb., 1959; idem. Zu 1 Kor 2, 1-16//Theologia Crucis - Signum Crucis: FS für E. Dinkler/Hrsg. C. Andresen, G. Klein. Tüb., 1979. S. 501-537; idem. Das Kreuz Christi als die Tiefe der Weisheit Gottes: Zu 1. Kor 2, 1-16//Paolo a una chiesa divisa (1 Co. 1-4)/Ed. L. De Lorenzi. R., 1980. P. 43-108; Dinkler E. Korintherbriefe//RGG. 1960. Bd. 4. Sp. 17-23; idem. Signum Crucis: Aufsätze zum NT und zur Christlichen Archäologie. Tüb., 1967; Judge E. A. The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century. L., 1960; Bornkamm G. Die Vorgeschichte des sogenannten Zweiten Korintherbriefes. Hdlb., 1961; idem. Herrenmahl und Kirche bei Paulus// Idem. Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum. Münch., 19632. S. 138-176; idem. Paulus. Stuttg., 1969; Robertson A., Plumber A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Edinb., 1961r; Schlatter A. Paulus, der Bote Jesu. Stuttg., 19623; Friedrich G. Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief//Abraham unser Vater: Juden u. Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel: FS für O. Michel. Leiden; Köln, 1963. S. 181-215; idem. Christus: Einheit und Norm der Christen// Idem. Auf das Wort kommt es an: Gesammelte Aufsätze/Hrsg. J. H. Friedrich. Gött., 1978. S. 147-170; Wendland H.-D. |
| 526 His primary basis for ethics was union with the risen Christ rather than the tradition (cf. Pfitzner, «School»), so such attestation was incidenta1. 527 1Cor 9:14; 11:2,23, 15:3; 1 Thess 4:1–2; cf. 1Cor 7:10–12; 1 Thess 4:15; 2 Thess 2:15; cf. perhaps Rom 6 (Writers used terms like «receiving» and «passing on» for both teachings [e.g., Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.29.621; Iamblichus V.P. 28.148; 32.226] and customs [e.g., Thucydides 1.85.1; Iamblichus V.P. 28.149].) That these were generated by Christian prophecy is extremely unlikely; see our treatment of prophecy and the Johannine sayings tradition. Many also find Jesus tradition in Rom 12–14 (e.g., Thompson, Clothed; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 13), although many of these paraenetic themes were more widespread (Gerhardsson, «Path,» 81, argues that paraenesis was probably not the dominant reason for preserving the Jesus tradition). 529 Theissen, Gospels, 3–4. Given the differing genres of «lives» and letters, it is not surprising that we lack more Jesus traditions in the letters (see Stuhlmacher, «Theme,» 16–19; Gerhardsson, «Path»). 530 Pace Koester, Gospels; idem, «Gospels.» Oral traditions of Jesus» sayings continued to circulate even after the written gospels were in existence, however; see John 21:25 ; Papias " s collection; Hengel, «Problems,» 213; Hagner, «Sayings.» 532 Gundry, Use, 191, also emphasizing the lack of «Pauline terminology in the gospels» and Paul distinguishing his teaching from that of Jesus. 533 Cf. Stein, «Criteria,» 225–28; Goetz and Blomberg, «Burden of Proof»; Bartnicki, «Zapowiedzi.» 535 This is not to deny that some individual sayings in John preserve an earlier form; but even most individual sayings appear more developed by Johannine idiom (cf. Ingelaere, «Tradition»). 536 Burridge, Gospels, 225,227, citing Philostratus Vit. Apoll; Satyrus Euripides; and Socratic literature; cf. the sayings section in Iamblichus V.P. 8–11. 537 Black, «Words,» 221–23, argues that Jesus» speech employs conventions of rhetorical grandeur appropriate to discussing the divine. |
| Свт. Евстафий, еп. Фессалоникийский. Фрагмент росписи жертвеника кафоликона мон-ря Ватопед на Афоне. 1312 г. О происхождении Е. и о его родителях ничего не известно. Предположение С. Кириакидиса, что Е. принадлежал к визант. роду Катафлоронов ( Eust. Thess. Esp. P. XXXV), основано на неоднозначном прочтении именования Е. το Καταφλρον в леммах ( Каждан. 1967. С. 88-89). Согласно А. П. Каждану и В. Лорану, Е. был либо племянником, либо учеником магистра риторов Николая Катафлорона († 1160) и не носил такого родового имени. То, что Е. род. в К-поле, является допущением (ср.: Laurent. 1967. Col. 33). Е. никогда не был монахом в монастырях св. Евфимии и св. Флора, как утверждает Бонис (ср.: Μπνης Κ. Εστθιος Κατφλωρος//ΘΗΕ. Τ. 12. Σ. 1091). Начальное образование он получил в К-поле ( Εθυμου Μαλκη τ σωζμενα. 1937. Σ. 80. 18-19; Eust. Thess. Opusc. P. 111. 57-59), в школе при мон-ре св. Евфимии ( Eust. Thess. Opusc. P. 337. 81-83), затем учился у магистра риторов Николая Катафлорона, «священного и великого мужа» (Ibid. P. 103. 90-93). По окончании обучения Е. стал имп. ритором и, по мнению Ф. Кукулеса ( Κουκουλς Θ. Λαοϒραφικα εδσεις παρ τ Θεσσαλονκης Εσταθ//ΕΕΒΣ. 1924. Τ. 1. Σ. 6) и Лорана ( Laurent. 1967. Col. 34), уже при патриархе Николае IV Музалоне (1147-1151) - диаконом Великой ц., потеряв это место при патриархе Константине IV Хлиарине (1154-1157). При патриархе Луке Хрисоверге (1157-1170) Е. был диаконом храма Св. Софии. Однако, по мнению Каждана ( Каждан. 1967. С. 90), Е. был рукоположен во диакона Великой ц. только при патриархе Луке, до этого оставался мирянином и служил в патриаршем ведомстве под началом буд. К-польского патриарха Михаила III Анхиала сначала писцом в канцелярии, затем в патриаршем суде. Вопреки распространенному мнению Е. не занимал должность патриаршего начальника прошений ( π τν δεσεων), но мог нек-рое время служить в этом ведомстве (см.: Курц. 1910. С. 288; Wirth. 1963. Studien zum Briefcorpus. S. 14; Guilland R. Études sur histoire administrative de empire Byzantin: Le Maître des Requêtes//Byz. 1965. Vol. 35. P. 108). При патриархе Луке Хрисоверге Е. служил в ведомстве священных сокровищ и в патриаршей сакелле ( Laurent V. Corpus des sceaux de l " Empire byzantin. P., 1963. Vol. 5/1. N 462). |
| Concerning the resurrection from the dead, the apostle teaches that as Jesus truly rose, so will all “those who have fallen asleep” (Thess 4.14). For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven .?.?. and the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord (1 Thess. 4.16–17). This entire passage (1 Thess 4.16–17) is the epistle reading at the funeral liturgy in the Orthodox Church. Both letters to the Thessalonians are included in the liturgical lectionary during the Church year. Timothy The letters of Saint Paul to Timothy and Titus are called the pastoral epistles. Although some modern scholars consider these letters as documents of the early second century, primarily because of the developed picture of Church structure which they present, Orthodox Church Tradition defends the letters as authentic epistles of Saint Paul from his house arrest in Rome in the early sixties of the first century. The two letters to Timothy are of similar contents, having the same purpose to teach “how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” ( 1Tim 3.15 ). In his first letter to Timothy, Saint Paul urges his “true child in the faith” (1.2), who was in Ephesus, to “wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience” (1.18–19). He urges that prayers “be made for all men” by the Church (2.1) and that “good doctrine” be preserved and propagated, most particularly in times of difficulties and defections from the true faith (4.6, 6.3). In the letter, the apostle counsels all in proper Christian belief and behavior, giving special advice, both professional and personal, to his co-worker Timothy whom he counsels not to neglect the gift which he received “when the elders laid their hands” upon him (4.14). The main body of the first letter to Timothy describes in detail the requirements for the pastoral offices of bishop, deacon and presbyter (priest or elder), and offers special instructions concerning the widows and slaves. The rules concerning the pastoral ministries have remained in the Orthodox Church, being formally incorporated into its canonical regulations. |
| Устроение кн. Романом Ростиславичем Смоленским училищ, содержание учителей Греков и латинистов; личные занятия князя: Татищев. Кн. Михаил Юрьевич, внук Мономаха, мог говорить с Греками и Латинами на их языке, как на своем: Татищев. Суд Ростовского еп. Льва и Суздальского еп. Феодора перед имп. Мануилом: Пер.-Сузд. (1164). Пение в Ростове правым клиросом по Славянски, левым по Гречески: Ж. Петра Ордынского. Речь Кузмищи: Ипат. Греческая Надпись на мече в Оружейной Палате. Прибытие из Цареграда на Русь митр. Иоанна, Грека: Густ. Прибытие из Цареграда на Русь митр. Константина: Густ. Позволение имп. Мануила Генуезцам торговать на Руси у Азовского моря. Конюший. Трепет Византии перед Русью: Родословие Русских Государей. Пребывание в Киеве Греков: Сл. О Пол. Игор. Пользование Византиею раздорами и междоусобиями Русских (Σκϑαι): Eust. Thess. Реминисценция о нашествиях Русских (Σκϑαι): Eust. Thess. Бегство Алексея Комнина в Россию, оттуда в Сицилию; трагическая кончина его: Eustath. Thess., Nic. Chon. Новг. I, Coф. I , Псковск. I, Псковск. II. Влияние Руси на имп. Андроника: Nic. Chon., Ephr. Ростовский еп. Николай (Грек): Ипат., Пер.-Сузд. Кончина митр. Константина, Митр. Никифор (Грек?). Бегство имп. Андроника в Россию; арест и казнь его: Nicet. Chon., Ephr. Подтверждение грамоты Генуезцам, с упоминанием Русских. Замужество Евфимии Глебовны за Греческим царевичем (Алексеем Исааковичем?): Лавр., Ипат. Роспись Греками Новгородского храма: Новгор. 1 Принесение из Солуни гробной доски св. Димитрия: Пер.-Сузд. Кончина митр. Никифора. Русские Иерусалимские паломники в Цареграде: Ант. Новг. Послы кн. Романа Волынского в Константинополе: Антоний. Принесение Антонием на Русь святынь: части ризы св. Феодора Стратилата, части мощей св. Власия Севастийского, части камня, находившегося в изголовьи во гробе св. Иоанна Богослова, части Древа Креста Господня, меры Гроба Господня: Антон Новгор. Перевод “Сказания о создании святой Софии”. Митр. Матфей (Грек). Опустошение Половцами Фракии и поражение, нанесенное им союзником Византии, кн. |
| The Corinthian «Parties» and the Corinthian Crisis//StTheol. 1991. Vol. 45. N 1. P. 19-32; idem. Paul and Hellenistic Judaism in Corinth//The NT and Hellenistic Judaism/Ed. P. Borgen, S. Giversen. Aarhus, 1995. P. 204-216; Machalet C. Paulus und seine Gegner: Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen//Festgabe f. K. H. Rendstorf zum 70. Geburtstag. Leiden, 1973. P. 183-203. (Theokratia; 2); Osten-Sacken P., von der. Die Apologie des paulinischen Apostolats in 1 Kor 15, 1-11//ZNW. 1973. Bd. 64. N 3/4. S. 245-262; Pearson B. A. The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and its Relation to Gnosticism. Missoula (Mont.), 1973; idem. Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Paul//Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity/Ed. R. L. Wilken. Notre Dame (Ind.)., 1975. P. 43-66; idem. Philo, Gnosis and the NT// Idem. Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity. Minneapolis, 1990. P. 165-182; Wikenhauser A., Schmid J. Einleitung in das NT. Freiburg, 19736; Bookidis N., Fisher J. E. Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth//Hesperia. 1974. Vol. 43. N 3. P. 267-307; Niederwimmer K. Zur Analyse der asketischen Motivation in 1 Kor 7//ThLZ. 1974. Bd. 99. S. 241-248; Safrai S., Stern M., ed. The Jewish People in the First Century. Assen, 1974. Vol. 1; Doughty D. J. The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth//ZNW. 1975. Vol. 66. N 1/2. P. 61-90; Pagels E. H. The Gnostic Paul. Phil., 1975; Suhl A. Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Chronologie. Gütersloh, 1975; idem. Paulinische Chronologie im Streit der Meinungen//ANRW. 1995. R. 2. Bd. 26. Tbd. 2. S. 939-1188; Vielhauer P. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. B., 1975; idem. Paulus und die Kephaspartei in Korinth//NTS. 1975. Vol. 21. N 3. P. 341-352; idem. Oikodome: Das Bild vom Bau in der christlichen Literatur vom NT bis Clemens Alexandrinus// Idem. Aufsätze zum NT. Münch., 1979. Bd. 2: Oikodome. S. 1-168; La Verdière E. |
| 34:15). 7613 One would honor persons by meeting them and conducting them to their destination (e.g., 12:13; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.7.2; Chariton 4.7.6; Judg 4:18; 11:31,34 ; 1Sam 13:10; 16:4; 21:1; 25:32 ; cf. royal parousia contexts, e.g., 1 Thess 4:17; cf. 2Sam 19:25 ; Jdt 5:4; 7:15; Pesiq. Rab. 51:8). Certainly cities treated visiting dignitaries in this manner, and the same is probably true for visiting scholars among those who respected them (cf. Acts 28:15). Yet at least by later custom, one should not greet a mourner (p. Ber. 2:6, §3). 7616 Haenchen, John, 2:61. Others regard her faith as inadequate; «any Pharisee could have said this» (Fenton, John, 122). 7619 Cf. similarly Koester, Symbolism, 109. On the soul " s immortality, see, e.g., Sir 9:12 ; Josephus War 1.84; 2.154–155, 163; 7.341–348; Ant. 17.354; 18.14,18; Philo Abraham 258; Moses 2.288; T. Ab. 1:24–25A; 4:9; 9:8B; Ps.-Phoc. 108; Apoc. Mos. 13:6; 32:4; 33:2; Jos. Asen. 27:10; Wolfson, Philo, 395–413. For exceptions, see 1Macc 2:63; Josephus Ant. 18.16. 7620 Malzoni, «La résurrection,» prefers the shorter reading «I am the resurrection» (following some Old Syriac witnesses); the textual tradition would more likely be expansive here, and the omission has significant and early geographic range. The longer reading is more widely attested from the beginning, however (cf. Metzger, Commentary, 234). In either case, «life» is implicit in «resurrection» and «lives.» 7621 «Not die» makes «live» more emphatic (e.g., L.A.B. 23:10; see comment on 8:51), but it deals with the question of eternal life, not the question of Lazarus " s physical raising central to the narrative itself (unless to say that Lazarus " s physical state was irrelevant to his eternal life; cf. Gamble, «Philosophy,» 55; 1 Thess 4:13–14). 7622 Such foreshadowing made sense in a Jewish framework, e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:4. John elsewhere uses «tomb» only for that of Jesus (19:41–20:11) or the dead he will raise (5:28). Derrett, «Lazarus,» infers a connection, probably anachronistically, between Lazarus " s resurrection and Moses bringing water from the rock (based on later Roman catacomb paintings). |
| Suggesting that the Fourth Gospel is not directly dependent on the Synoptics need not imply that John did not know of the existence of the Synoptics; even if (as is unlikely) Johannine Christianity were as isolated from other circles of Christianity as some have proposed, other gospels must have been known if travelers afforded any contact at all among Christian communities. 381 That travelers did so may be regarded as virtually certain. 382 Urban Christians traveled ( 1Cor 16:10,12,17 ; Phil 2:30; 4:18 ), carried letters ( Rom 16:1–2 ; Phil 2:25 ), 383 relocated to other places ( Rom 16:3,5 ; perhaps 16:6–15), and sent greetings to other churches ( Rom 16:21–23 ; 1Cor 16:19 ; Phil 4:22 ; Col 4:10–15). In the first century many churches knew what was happening with churches in other cities ( Rom 1:8 ; 1Cor 11:16; 14:33; 1 Thess 1:7–9), and even shared letters (Col 4:16). Missionaries could speak of some churches to others ( Rom 15:26 ; 2Cor 8:1–5; 9:2–4 ; Phil 4:16; 1 Thess 2:14–16; cf. 3 John 5–12 ) and send personal news by other workers ( Eph 6:21–22 ; Col 4:7–9). Although we need not suppose connections among churches as pervasive as Ignatiuse letters suggest perhaps two decades later, neither need we imagine that such connections emerged ex nihilo in the altogether brief silence between Johns Gospel and the «postapostolic» period. No one familiar with the urban society of the eastern empire will be impressed with the isolation Gospel scholars often attribute to the Gospel «communities.» John could have known one, two, or more other published gospels and yet have chosen not to follow their model or employ them as sources in writing his own. 384 (Xenophon, for example, knows of an earlier work recounting the retreat of Greek mercenaries from Persia, mentioned in Hel1. 3.1.2, but later composes his own eyewitness account.) If, as is likely, Mark circulated widely (and hence could provide a primary framework for both Matthew and Luke), John might even safely assume his readers» knowledge of it. 385 Certainly a few decades earlier the tradition was widely known; given its circulation in Jerusalem and Antioch, «it is historically quite unlikely that Paul would have no knowledge of the Jesus-tradition» that circulated in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Damascus, locations he had frequented. 386 By John " s day, such tradition would be even more pervasive. In other words, independence need not mean anything so dramatic as that Mark and John «developed the gospel form independently.» 387 John " s very divergence from the Synoptics probably led to its relatively slower reception in the broader church until it could be explained in relation to them. 388 |
| 1108 An eschatological Sabbath is apparently implied in L.A.E. 51(contrast Apoc. Mos. 43:3); possibly T. Ab. 19(cf. 7:16B); Mek. Šabb. 1.38ff.; b. Sank. 97ab; cf. Bacchiocchi, «Typologies»; Johnston, «Sabbath»; Russell, Apocalyptic, 213, 58. In medieval Kabbalah, cf. Ginsburg, Kabbalah, 127. The 7000-year history schema may appear in L.A.B. 28:8, MSS; it is related to the interpretation of days as ages (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 17:4) based on Ps 91 . This is a more probable direct background for Rev 20 than the 1000-year waiting period of Gentile mythology (Plato Rep. 10.621D). 1109 Some have suggested a play on the Lord " s day as eighth day of the week and the day of the Lord as an eighth period in history, superceding the seven-millennium Jewish schema (Shepherd, Liturgy, 78; Cullmann, Worship, 87, following Barnabas; cf. Daniélou, Theology, 396–404.). This may be the case, although the wording may also oppose a custom that had come to be associated with the imperial cult (Deissmann, Light, 358–61; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 65; Ford, Revelation, 382; cf. t. c Abod. Zar. 1:4). 1112 Ibid., 109. The future evil ruler of Revelation still belongs to the present age, and may typify the successive embodiments of the spirit of antichrist which is already at work (1 John 2:18; cf. 2 Thess 2:7). That «son of perdition» (one destined for destruction) in John 17demythologizes the antichrist assumes (1) John " s acquaintance with the language or tradition of 2 Thess 2:3, and (2) that John considers this application of the image to Judas exhaustive. 1114 In contrast to most apocalyptic works, attributed to heroes of the remote past (cf. Morris, Apocalyptic, 52; Knibb, Esdras, 106–7). 1116 With Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 33–34, even though he does not share our conclusions (35–36). Bernard, John, l:lxiv, attributes the Gospel and Epistles to John the elder, bearer of tradition from John the apostle; but he attributes Revelation to the apostle (lxiv-vi). Ford, Revelation, 28–37, originally attributed the bulk of the Apocalypse to John the Baptist; although she makes as good a case as can be made for this unlikely position, it has not acquired supporters. |
| We should remember that whereas John strongly emphasizes realized eschatology, he does not thereby abandon all future eschatology (e.g., 5:28–29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48; 21:22–23). That Jesus was no longer physically present with the Johannine community was obvious, and the Lukan tradition of an ascension was the most obvious spatial solution to the current fact (Luke 24:50; Acts 1:9–11; cf. Mark 16:19 ; Rom 8:34 ; Eph 1:20 ; Col 3:1–2; Heb 1:3). Matthew, Mark, and John close before the point where the event would be described (Mark even before resurrection appearances), but the ascension is presupposed by Jesus» Parousia from heaven, a teaching found in Paul " s earliest letters (e.g., Phil 3:20; 1 Thess 4:16; 2 Thess 1:7). 10627 It appears multiply attested outside the Gospels, at least on a theological level ( Eph 4:8–10 ; 1Tim 3:16 ; Heb 4:14; 7:26; 8:1; 9:24; 1Pet 3:22 ). That the Spirit came as another advocate, standing in for Jesus, suggests that John also understood that Jesus would be absent from the community, while not «in spirit,» yet in body (cf. 1 John 2:1 ). 10628 Jesus would not only go to the Father and return to give them the Spirit; though it is not John " s emphasis, he also implies that Jesus would remain with the Father until the «last day,» when those in the tombs would arise. It is also clear that ancient writers could predict events never recounted in their narratives but that the reader would understand to be fulfilled in the story world; the Greek East " s favorite work, the Iliad, could predict, without recounting, the fall of Troy, which was already known to the Iliad " s tradition and which it reinforced through both subtle allusions and explicit statements in the story. 10629 The book ends with Hector " s burial, but because the book emphasized that Hector was Troy " s last adequate defender, 10630 this conclusion certainly implies the tragic demise of Troy. The Odyssey predicts but does not narrate Odysseus " s final trial, 10631 but in view of the other fulfillments in the story, the reader or hearer is not left with discomfort. The Argonautica will not directly address Medeás unpleasant slaying of Pelias yet hints at that tradition. 10632 Likewise, that Mark probably ends without resurrection appearances ( Mark 16:8 ) hardly means that Mark wanted his readers to doubt that they occurred (cf. Mark 14:28 )! John probably assumes the tradition of the ascension more widely held by his audience, just as he has probably assumed their knowledge of a more widely circulated passion tradition in earlier narratives. |
|
|
