| That cosmopolitanism has almost vanished. Considered less as Turkish citizens than as an outpost of Greece, the Rum have endured what the Ecumenical Federation of Constantinopolitans, a moderate group that meets with Turkish ministerial officials to solve Rum-minority issues, describes as “systematic discrimination and harassment”. The Cyprus conflict of the 1950s to the 1970s provoked violent, governmentsponsored anti-Rum riots and 2,000 Rum buildings, including churches, schools, hospitals and 24 monasteries – some of them over a thousand years old – were confiscated. Most were sold or demolished. Father Samuel’s family was forced to leave Turkey, so he studied for the priesthood in Greece. Without Turkish citizenship, he is forbidden by law from working here as a priest. Yet, no priests can train here. Without priests, the Church cannot function. And without priests, there is no pool from which to choose the next patriarch, who must also be born in Turkey. When the 73-year-old Bartholomew retires or dies, it may prove hard to find his successor. Metropolitan Elpidophoros Lambriniadis is tipped as a possible patriarch, but he had to be persuaded to return from abroad, do national service and regain his Turkish citizenship. In future the Church may not be so lucky. “Why shouldn’t they study in their homeland?” asks Panos Anagnostopoulos, who assists at the Athens-based Halki Theological School Graduates Association, of which his father is president. “Halki is protected by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which the Turkish government – a democracy –has ignored.” I wonder how many Rum would want to study Orthodox theology, given that as few as 2,500 remain and their average age is 65. During the 1960s Panos Anagnostopoulos’s Rum primary school on Halki island had 60 pupils: since then, dwindling numbers have forced its closure, and throughout Turkey only 120 Greek-speakers remain in Rum-minority schools. Following the Istanbul riots of 1955, the Rum fled and others were deported. |
| 865 A disciple could start in boyhood (Eunapius Lives 461; cf. Acts 22:3; or schoolteachers, Plutarch Camillus 10.1; Watson, «Education,» 310–12). 866 Leon, Jews, 229, notes the preponderance of early deaths (before the age of ten) in the inscriptions, but also observes (230) that «epitaphs tended to record the age of those who died young.» Perhaps only 13 percent reached sixty (Dupont, Life, 233). 867 The elderly figure of Polycarp in Martyrdom of Polycarp may also be modeled after John, though one could also argue the reverse. 868 Bruce, Peter, 121–22, cites Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.31.3–4; 5.24.2, for the early tradition (from Polycrates of Ephesus and Proclus) concerning Philip s family and John. 869 It also dulled taste (Athenaeus Deipn. 9.404D). Aulus Gellius 15.7 thinks one safer if one survived to onés 64th birthday (though Themistocles died by suicide at 65!–Plutarch Themistocles 31.5). P. Bik. 2:1, §2, makes 60 an average age for death, 70 a blessing, and after 80 life becomes difficult; in p. Ber. 1:5, seventy is a long life; in Seneca Ep. Luci1. 77.20,99 is extremely old. 870 Valerius Maximus 8.7.1; Dupont, Life, 233–34. Plutarch Marcus Cato 15.4 quotes a wise saying Cato uttered at his trial at age 86; Cicero Brutus 20.80 recalls a powerful speech Cato delivered in the year of his death (which he places at 85). Musonius Rufus 17, p. 110.7, comments on someone doing well at age 90. 871 Diodorus Siculus 32.16.1, Valerius Maximus 8.13.ext.l, and Polybius 36.16.1–5, 11, on Masinissa of North Africa at 90. Agesilaus continued to rule competently at about 80 (Xenophon Agesilaus 2.28); though his body weakened, his soul remained strong (Agesilaus 11.14–15). Polybius reports an envoy aged 80 (though he died then; 30.21.1–2). 872 Valerius Maximus does, however, accept some ancient reports uncritically (ages 500 and 800 in 8.13.7). 873 Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 150; Leon Morris was in his 70s when he contributed to that introduction. 874 Even as an old man, he claims, his memory fails only when unprompted, but remains good if his memory is jogged by some cue (Seneca Controv. 9.pref.l). His son Seneca the Younger also exceeded expectations for old age (Nat 3.pref.l-2). For some aged Stoics, see Lucian Octogenarians (LCL 1:238–39). |
| By Jesus» day, however, a nearer context for a Galilean teacher was certainly early Judaism, and whatever the measure of Greek influence on its preference for the language, its most direct source was the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible recognized God as Israel " s father by adoption in redemption 7904 and Jewish literature in general continued this tradition (e.g., Wis 2:16; 3Macc 5:7; 7:6). Jewish literature regularly calls God Israel " s (occasonally in Diaspora Judaism, humanity " s) «father.» 7905 Jewish tradition also employed this biblical image in prayer, though in a relatively restrained manner (3Macc 6:8). 7906 The form of synagogue Judaism we know from later rabbinic literature commonly calls God «our Father in heaven,» 7907 as scholars conversant in the material regularly point out. 7908 But even Jewish texts not intended for corporate use only rarely designate God as personally «my Father,» 7909 whereas Jesus nearly ahvays did. 7910 Matthew and John, the most explicitly Jewish of the extant gospels, also emphasize Jesus» use of «Father» most frequently. But while «Father» should be clear to John " s primarily Jewish audience and its peripheral Gentile adherents, the titlés significance should have been lost on anyone in the story world. For John, their failure to understand emphasizes their denseness, and appears to stem from a failure to believe. The voice came for their sakes (12:30; cf. 11:42); Jesus did not doubt his own identity (11:42), but they needed testimony and signs to believe (5:34; 10:38). Now the climactic time of Jesus» glorification had come; at the very point where the world system would seem to crush Jesus (12:32–33), the spiritual ruler of the world would be convicted and cast out (12:31). 2D. Judgment on the World " s Ruler (12:31) Jesus came not to judge the world (3:17; 12:47), but the moment of judgment nevertheless arrived in him. The world " s judgment was at hand: the context is Jesus going to the cross (12:32–33); that judgment was coming «now» (12:31) revealed the eschatological significance of the cross in history (cf. 12:27; 13:31, 36; 16:5, 22; 17:5, 13). Jesus» death signaled defeat for the «prince of the world» (12:31; cf. 14:30; 16:11). Another document probably circulating in the same circle of believers as this Gospel depicts Satan being «cast out» from heaven in strikingly similar language, at the time of Jesus» exaltation (possibly on the cross; Rev 12:4, 9). |
| Archive Press conference in Moscow on persecution of Christians in Africa 4 February 2022 year 22:07 On February 4, 2022, a press conference took place at MIA Russia Today with the online participation of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Leonid of Klin, Patriarchal Exarch for Africa, Hieromonk Stephen (Igumnov), DECR secretary for inter-Christian relations and head of the Interreligious Working Group for defending the rights of believers from discrimination and xenophobia under the Presidential Council for Cooperation with Religious Associations. As Metropolitan Hilarion noted in his introductory remarks , every fifth Christian in African countries is subjected to persecution and each year thousands of African Christians have been deprived of life for their faith in Jesus Christ. “The Russian Orthodox Church considers the opposition to persecution on religious grounds to be one of its primary tasks on the international arena and for many years has given support to persecuted Christians in various regions of the world, including Africa”, the DECR chairman stated. He recalled that His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia repeatedly urged “not to leave without attention the problems of Christians in African countries”. Metropolitan Hilarion pointed out that the work of the Moscow Patriarchate “concerns both the informational support of the persecuted Christians and projects for giving them humanitarian aid”. It is the task, in particular, of the International Working Group for defending the rights of believers fr om discrimination and xenophobia under the Russian Presidential Council for Cooperation with Religious Associations. “The Moscow Patriarchate has given support to persecuted African Christians, maintaining contacts with Christian Churches of the continent, including its largest ones - the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches”, the hierarch said, “The work with them is carried out by the Russian Orthodox Church as part of the work of the bilateral Commission for Dialogue. Thus, in Ethiopia, the Moscow Patriarchate has given support to local Christians who found themselves in a grave situation as a result of the actions of extremist groups and the development of civic confrontation. In 2019-2020, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia personally came out in defense of Christians subjected to organized attacks in central and western Ethiopia. “His voice was heard and the country authorities gave attention to this problem”, the DECR chairman said. |
| 204 Pritchard, op. cit. (1975), p. 107, col. 11:2629. For additional comments on the Adadguppi’ inscription, see the Appendix for Chapter 3. 205 p. 107. Until the last column (III 5ff), the Adadguppi’ stele is written in the first person. But it is evident that the inscription was chiselled out after her death, undoubtedly by order of Nabonidus. That is why Dr. T. Longman III would like to classify it as a “fictional autobiography” (a literary method known also from other Akkadian texts), although he adds: “This, however, does not mean that the events and even the opinions associated with Adadguppi’ are unauthentic.” (Tremper Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1991, pp. 41, 101, 102, 209, 210; cf. Beaulieu, op. cit., p. 209.) But it is questionable if the Adadguppi’ inscription, even in this sense, can be classified as a “fictional autobiography” In his review of Longman’s work Dr. W. Schramm points out that the text “essentially is a genuine autobiography. The fact that there is an addition in col. Ill 5ff. composed by Nabonidus (so already Gadd, AnSt 8, 55, on III 5), does not give anyone the right to regard the whole text as fictional. The inscription, of course, was chiselled out after the death of Adadguppi’. But it cannot be doubted that an authentic Vorlage on the story of Adadguppi’s life was used ‘–Bibliotheca Orientalis, Vol. LII, No. 1/2 (Leiden, 1995), p.94. 206 Canon, of course, does not give the reigns of the Assyrian kings Ashurbanipal and Ashuretilili. For the earliest period (747539 B.C.E.) the Canon gives a kinglist for Babylon, not for contemporary Assyria. The reigns of Assyrian kings are given only in so far as they also ruled directly over Babylon, which was true, for example, of Sennacherib, who ruled over Babylon twice (in 704/03–703/02 and 688/87–681/80 B.C.E.), and of Esarhaddon, who ruled over Babylon for thirteen years (680/79668/67 B.C.E.). For the period of Ashurbanipal’s reign in Assyria, the Canon gives the reigns of the contemporary vassal kings in Babylon, Shamashshumukin (20 years) and Kandalanu (22 years).–Compare Gadd, op. cit., pp. 70, 71. |
| 705 В. В. Стасов, Славянский и Восточный орнамент по рукописям древнего и нового времени, СПБ. 1887, табл. LIII (из Юрьевского евангелия XII века), LXXVII (из рукописи 1459 года Кирил. белоз. библ). 706 I. Henry Middleton, Illuminated manuscripts in classical and mediaeval times, their art aud their technique, Cambridge, 1892, 60, 64 и т. п. 710 Рукоп. Кир. библ. 71–1310, л. 190–191 об. К 1621 году в алтаре оставались: на жертвеннике складни «с шестодневом» на затворах и иконы обозначенные выше буквами: в), д), г). Вместо прочих образов были поставлены: 1) «образ Пречистые Богородицы» (над жертвенником), 2) «Одигитрия, на поле Кирил чюдотворец», 3) «Чюдо архистратига Михаила», 4) «Варлам хутынский», 5) «Александр сверский»,6) «соловецкие чюдотворцы», 7) «велмвомученик Мина», 8) св. Николай чудотворец можайский, 9) св. Дмитрий прилуцкий (Рукоп. Кир. библ. 73–1312, л. 288–2S9), 10) сорок мучеников (розные) в 11) Антоний римлянин (последние два образа – на жертвеннике; Рукоп. Кир. библ. 73–1312, л. 289 в об.). 711 Рукоп. Кир. библ. 71–1310, л. 191 об. – Как видно из описи 1621 года, паникадило и свечи находились в церкви, а не в алтаре (Рукоп. Кир. библ. 73–1312, л. 289). 712 Рукоп. Кир. библ. 71–1310, л. 192–194. – В описи 1621 года местная икона св. Николая не упомянута, и с каждой стороны царских дверей помещалось следовательно тогда по одной иконе. В деисусе оставался «образ Спасов на престоле», но по сторонам добавлено шесть образов на празелени. На нижнем тябле писцы 1621 года видели шесть пядниц на золоте и шесть образов на красках (Рукоп. Кир. библ. 73–1312, л. 290 и об.). 713 Рукоп. Кир. библ. 71–1310, л. 194–195. – Сравн. Рукоп. Кир. библ. 73–1312, л. 290–291. – В 1621 году потир и блюдцо (дискос ?) были оловянные, а «блютца что дору носят деревяные». Над горним местом был «образ Спасов нерукотворенный», а над царскими дверьми – Одигитрия (там же, л. 290 об,–291). 716 По вычислению, сделанному в 1773 году, размер церкви Преображения был «внутри в ширь четыре сажени пять верхов, в доль с олтарем шесть сажен один аршин восемь верхов» (Рукоп. Кир. библ. л. 982 об., опись Кириллова монастыря 1773 года). Размер придела св. Николая (внутри): «в ширину одна сажень четырнадцать верхов бес трети верха, в доль с олтарем две сажени десять верхов бес трети верха». (Рукоп. Кирилл, библ. 102–1338, л. 1013 об.). Размер придела св. Ирины (внутри): «в ширину одна сажень, поменьше трех верхов, вдоль с олтарем две сажени шесть верхов с третью верха» (там же, л. 1054 об.). Сравн. прилагаемый план церкви. |
| The method of introducing new courses to students and their parents and process of selection of courses was organized by the schools. Very often the meetings of teachers and parents were held where the parents would have filled out the questionnaires related to the topic. C ompleted questionnaires were sent to the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry then sent to the schools exact instructions about the number of new teachers, etc. In some schools teachers were giving questionnaires to children to fill out at home with their parents since parental consent was required. The newspapers announced the first unofficial and preliminary data under the title “Most students refused the new curriculum”. However, it is fair to say that statistically Religious Education had more success than Civic U pbringing. Also, it was impossible to expect a greater percentage of enrolment into courses in a situation where students had the option to reject both subjects thus avoiding new responsibilities and more learning. According to the Ministry of Education, based on 80 percent of processed data, from 59,956 first-grade students in secondary schools, Religious Education was selected by 20.76 percent and 9.45 percent opted for Civic Upbringing. Only 2.44 percent of students took both courses and 67.35 percent of students did not want to take any subject. In the first grade of primary schools, the situation was quite different, so out of a total 44,105 students, Religious Education was chosen by 39 percent and 19 percent opted for Civic Upbringing. An interesting fact is that only 11 students chose both subjects, and 31 percent of the students refused to attend either of the courses. According to the latest statistics from the Ministry of Education (2001) in primary schools Religious Education was chosen by 36.2 percent of students, Civic Upbringing by 22.4 percent, 10.2 percent were enrolled in both subjects and no subjects were chosen by 30.6 percent. In secondary schools, Religious Education was supported by 16.90 percent of students, 7.06 percent chose Civic Upbringing, 1.97 percent were enrolled in both courses and no subjects were chosen by 74.07 percent of first-grade students chose neither of the courses. |
| (Свт. Филарет, митрополит Московский и Коломенский. Разговоры между испытующим и уверенным о Православии Восточной Греко-Российской Церкви (1815). Творения. М., 1994). - Прим. ред. 16. CSEL 16. CSEL 3. P.443. 17. См. наст. издание. Т.1. Очерки из истории догмата о Церкви. С.340 и далее. - Прим. ред. 18. De bapt. IV,17,24. PL. T.43. Col.170. Cf. col.695. 19. Блаж Августин. Contra epist. Parmeniani. II,13,28. PL. T.43. Col.71. 20. Его же. De bapt. IV,1,1. V,23,33. PL. T.43. Col.155,193. Serm. 208,2. PL. T.38. Col.1232. In. ep. Ioan. tr.6,11. PL. T.35. Col.2026. 21. Его же. I,12, 29-21. VI,34,65. VII,3,5. PL T.43. Col.119-121,219,227. 22. Фирмилиан. Epist.75. Cap.9. 23. Свщм. Киприан Карфагенский. Epist.73-60 ad Jubajanum. Cap.3. Ep.71-58 ad Quintum. Cap.4. 24. Euseb. H.E. V.7,5. 25. Epist. Firmiliani, Cap.7,19. CSEL 3. P.815,823. Русский перевод в творениях святителя Киприана. Ч.1. С.384-385. 26. Сщмч. Киприан Карфагенский. Epist.74-61 ad Pompejum. Cap.1. 27. Его же. Epist.73-60. Cap.4-5. 28. Его же. Epist.62-69 ad Magnum. Сарр.1-11. CSEL 3. P.759 sq. Русский перевод. Ч.1. С.368-369. 29. Его же. Epist. Firmiliani 75. Cap.18. P.822. Ч.1. С.384. Epist.74-61 ad Pompejum. Cap.5. P.802-803. Ч.1. С.353. 30. Его же. Epist.74-61 ad Pompejum. Cap.5. 31. Его же. Epist.73-60 ad Jubajanum. Cap.11. P.786. C.338-339. 32. Euseb. H.E. VII.7,5. 33. Pitra. Analekta sakra. T.4. Parisiis, 1883. P.171,414. Творения в русском переводе. Казань, 1900. С.60. 34. Свщм. Киприан Карфагенский. Epist.75-60 ad Jubajanum. Cap.23. P.769. С.347. 35. Его же. Epist.75. Cap.21. 36. Его же. Epist.73-60 ad Jubajanum. Cap.23. 37. Euseb. H.E. VII.9. 38. Epiphan. Expositio fldei cath. 13. PG. T.42. Col.805. Творения в русском переводе. Ч.5. М., 1882. С.338. 39. Святитель Афанасий Великий. На ариан слово I,1,2,4. 40. Там же. II,42-43. 41. Его же. К Серапиону послание I. Гл.30. 42. Весьма характерный случай был на первом заседании VII Вселенского Собора, где долго рассуждали о том, как принимать епископов-иконоборцев. |
| Hence we are less interested in idiosyncratic interpretations of a given text than we are in those texts that fairly represent the central flow of ecumenical consensual exegesis. Just what is central is left for the fair professional judgment of our ecumenically distinguished Orthodox. Protestant and Catholic volume editors to discern. We have included, for example, many selections from among the best comments of Origen and Tertullian, but not those authors peculiar eccentricities that have been widely distrusted by the ancient ecumenical tradition. 4. We have especially sought out for inclusion those consensus-bearing authors who have been relatively disregarded, often due to their social location or language or nationality, insofar as their work is resonant with the mainstream of ancient consensual exegesis. This is why we have sought out special consultants in Syriac. Coptic and Armenian. 5 A number of Ph.D. dissertations are currently being written on the history of exegesis of a particular passage of Scripture. This may develop into an emerging academic methodology that promises to change both biblical and patristic studies in favor of careful textual and intertextual analysis, consensuality assessment and history of interpretation, rather than historicist and naturalistic reductionism. 5. We have sought to cull out annoying, coarse, graceless, absurdly allegorical6 or racially offensive interpretations. But where our selections may have some of those edges, we have supplied footnotes to assist readers better to understand the context and intent of the text. 6. We have constantly sought an appropriate balance of Eastern. Western and African traditions. We have intentionally attempted to include Alexandrian, Antiochene, Roman, Syriac, Coptic and Armenian traditions of interpretation. Above all, we want to provide sound, stimulating, reliable exegesis and illuminating exposition of the text by the whole spectrum of classic Christian writers. 7. We have made a special effort where possible to include the voices of women7 such as Macrina,8 Eudoxia, Egeria, Faltonia Betitia Proba, the Sayings of the Desert Mothers and others who report the biblical interpretations of women of the ancient Christian tradition. |
| 72 Когда кипело сердце мое. Псалмопевец вспоминает о пережитых им сомнениях во всеблагости Господа. 72 Ты держишь меня за правую руку. Псалмопевец представляет Господа в образе своего проводника или даже поводыря. 72 примешь меня в славу. Эти слова допускают двоякое понимание. С одной стороны, может подразумеваться такое Божие благословение, как земные слава и признание. Однако более вероятно, что речь идет о небесной славе в вечности. Глава 73 Пс. 73 Этот псалом представляет собой плач о разрушении храма, произошедшем в 586 г. до Р.Х. По общему настроению его можно сравнить с книгой Плача Иеремии. 73 Для чего, Боже, отринул нас. Поражение, нанесенное израильтянам Вавилоном, явилось знаком того, что Бог отвернулся от Своего народа и больше не защищает его. Пророки (напр., Иез., гл. 9–11), оплакивая осквернение и разрушение храма, возлагали вину за произошедшее на Израиль, впавший в беззаконие и неверие (см. ком. к Пс. 21,2 ). возгорелся гнев Твой на овец. Псалмопевец, используя образ пастыря и его стада, подчеркивает трагичность разрыва некогда тесных и теплых отношений между Богом и Его народом (см. Пс. 22,1 ). 73 Вспомни. Псалмопевец молит Господа не только помыслить о существовавших некогда взаимоотношениях между Ним и избранным народом, но и, памятуя о прошлом, спасти Израиль от нынешних его несчастий. гору Сион. На горе Сион в Иерусалиме находился храм место, избранное Богом для Своего пребывания с Израилем (см. Пс. 2,6; 49,2; 127,5 ). 73 Подвигни стопы Твои к вековым развалинам. Псалмопевец призывает Господа обозреть разрушения, которым подвергся священный город Иерусалим, в надежде, что это зрелище подвигнет Его на спасение Своего народа. во святилище. Захватив в 586 г. до Р.Х. Иерусалим, Навуходоносор повелел до основания разрушить святилище. 73 Знамений наших мы не видим, нет уже пророка. Наибольший ужас псалмопевца вызывает то обстоятельство, что перед лицом всех бед Израиля Бог безмолвствует. Этот стих дает основание полагать, что псалом был создан вскоре после разрушения храма, поскольку в период его восстановления в стране несло служение сразу несколько пророков. |
|
|
