| 45 Св. Амвросий: de sacram. 1, 2. ef. Concil. tolet. 2 (403) can. 20. Concil. orang. (441) can. 2. Arelat. (455). Epaon. (517) can. 16. Vide in synopsi conciliorum a Cabassutio. Paris. 1838. О папском на это разрешении см. Gau. dissert. de valore manuum imposit. atque unctionis. 46 Соборами было установлено, чтобы пресвитеры ежегодно пред праздником св. Пасхи получали миро от своих епископов. Concil. carthag. IV. can. 36. Tolet. 1. can. 20. 47 Concil trident. sess. 7. can. 3. «Si quis discerit, sanctae confirmationis ordinarium ministrum non esse solum episcopum, sed quemvis simplicem presbyterum, anathema sit». Id. sess. 23. can. 7. Cath. rom. 2. 3. 13. 49 См. выше. Самый тридентский собор, называя епископа ministrum confirmationis ordinarium, не отказывается и пресвитера признать ministrum – по крайней мере, extraordinarium. 50 Collect. council. Harduin. tom. IX. p. 438. На основании той мысли, что папа выше всех канонов, римские канонисты допускают, что только один папа и может разрешать для пресвитеров совершение миропомазания, даже независимо от епископов. Cours droit canon. par l, Abbé André. t. 1. Paris. 1844. au mot: confirmation. Действительно, этим правом в новейшие времена пользовались римско-католические миссионеры и иезуиты. Впрочем, более умеренные паписты признают это несправедливым. Tamburini – praelectiones de Ecclesia Christi. 1845. Paris. pars IV. pag. 24. 25. 51 Римско-католические уставы, возложив обязанность миропомазания на епископов, внушают им для этого учащать свои посещения по епархиям. Concil. de Tours (1583) – de Bourges (1584) – d Aix (1855) – de Toulouse (1596) etc. А приходские священники обязываются только побуждать своих прихожан к принятию сего таинства. 53 Древние греческие законы также требовали, чтобы самое место для основания храма было освящаемо епископами. Justin. nov. 5. cap. 1. 67, cap, 1. 131, 7. 9. 54 Симеон Сол. гл. 108. 120. 127. cf. Balsamon. ad can. 7. concil. VII. Matthaei Blastar. lit. a. cap. 8. ap. Beveregium. 55 Симеон Сол. гл. 126. Johannis Cytri respons. II ad Cabasilam: in jure graeco-rom. Leunclavii. lib. 5. |
| θελθω (=θλω) wollen: ProdGed LXXVII 41, cf. JÖB 38 (1988) 319. θελω (=θλω) wollen, wünschen: TzetzAr I 33,25,99,3. θλημαν, τ (= θλημα) Wille, Auftrag: AZog 32,29; 33,43 (a.1342). MM II158 (a.1392). Einwilligung: MM I 580 (a.1371); III 285 (a.1450). TsirpDod 2,11.– Kr, PontLex. θεληματανω nach Belieben (willkürlich) handeln: NChonHi 562,48. CramOx III 216,18. NikMesQuel 20,28. NikMesBer 18,25. JoApokBees 19,32. DemChom 26,7=PitParal 116. freiwillig tun: PRK 271,58 (a.1363). θεληματριος eigenwillig, eigensinnig: JoDamPG 96,453. EEBS 45 (1981–2) 500,1032 (a.1407), (subst.) Freiwilliger: PachF I 157,18; 193,1.18 etc. PRK 91,25 (a.1325); 202,36 (a.1353–5). DöSch 43/4,140 (ca.1350) .– PLP, I, Karayannopulos, O Θεληματριοι, in: ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝ. »Studies in Honour of Robert Browning. Venedig 1996, 159–174; vgl. -ρης Kr, Somav, LexPont. θεληματικς freiwillig, willentlich: Cyr. Alex., Dial. trin. 456B (SC 231). AnSinSerm III 4,66 v.l. FontMin VI 41,11. JoApokBees 19,25.– Tgl, Kr, Duc, Somav, Stam; LS -ς. θεληματικς freiwillig, willentlich: Cyr. Alex., Dial. trin. 456A (SC 231).– LS (Eust.), Kr. θεληματω willkürlich handeln: PoemMor 272. θελμη, Wille: BekkerAn 1381.1403 (Theognost.).– TLG. θελητος wünschenswert, erwünscht: GregNazPG 37.948A. VClem 124,9 v.l. MM III 24 (a.1192). θελητικς willentlich, mit Absicht: AnSinSerm X 5,108; III 5,66. LegRoth 68. ConcCP II 842,11. JÖB 46 (1996) 255,2.8 (Man. Moschop.).– L -ς. θελκτρ (adj.) bezaubernd, verführerisch: NonnDion 32,4.64.– LS (subst.). θελκτικς bezaubernd: Theophyl IV 1064C. – LS, L, Dem, Stam -ς. θελκτς verlockend: Herod I 217,27; II 900, 38. -τερα Malak I 43,20. θλκτρον, τ Zauber (mittel): SynesEp 139, 3. Hesych θ 219.–LS. θελξινειρα männerbetörende: γλττα AnLaur 230,23. θελξθεος Gott besänftigend: JoGeoHym 77, 9. θελξθυμος das Gemüt besänftigend: Miller: cod. Esc. Y II 10,534r. cod. Laur. Acqu. 341, 92v. μλος cod. Marc. XI 22,85r (Mang. Prod.). θελξικρδιος herzbetörend·, das Herz bezaubernd: ManasL 311. ManasKurtz II 86,254. ManasUned 4,26. ManasAristM 209,181,1. GermII 288,2.– TLG, Dem, Stam. |
| 6605 E.g., Hodges, «Adultery»; Heil, «Story»; idem, «Rejoinder» (cf. Trites, «Adultery,» on John " s structuring style). Hodges, «Adultery,» supposes that its deletion in one manuscript affected others, but this argument (1) must admit our lack of textual evidence in the earliest extant sources, i.e., argues from silence, and (2) supposes a model of deletion possible on a word processor but more difficult in the middle of a scroll (which the first generations of manuscripts were)! 6606 See full discussion in Metzger, Commentary, 219–21; Wallace, «Reconsidering.» 6607 See Metzger, Commentary, 220. Calvin, John, 1(on 7:53–8:11), already noted that it was missing among Greek manuscripts preserved by Greek churches. 6608 For androcentric early-church prejudices (e.g., the focus on the woman " s adultery rather than that of her accusers) that could have marginalized the passage, see ÓDay, «Misreading.» 6609 Metzger, Commentary, 221. 6610 E.g., Michaels, John, 113; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 95. Perrin, Kingdom, 131, notes that over one-sixth of the words occur nowhere else in John. Admittedly the vocative γναι is more common in this Gospel (2:4; 4:21; 19:26; 20:13, 15) than elsewhere in the NT (Matt 15:28; Luke 13:12; 22:57; 1Cor 7:16 ). 6611 E.g., Comfort, «Pericope.» By contrast, Baylis, «Adultery,» thinks the passage climaxes Johns portrayal of Jesus as the prophet of Deut 18 . 6612 Also, e.g., Yee, Feasts, 77. 6613 E.g., Montefiore, Gospels, 1:280; Derrett, Law, 156; Hunter, John, 199; Michaels, John, 132; Watkins, John, 176; Ridderbos, John, 286; Whitacre, John, 204; Bürge, «Problem»; idem, John, 238–41; Beasley-Murray, John, 144; Grayston, Gospel, 73; Bordiert, John, 225, 329, 369. 6614 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 46–47, attributes this view to «most exegetes.» Papias frg. 6 (Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.39.17) knew the story in the Gospel of the Hebrews; Beasley-Murray, John, 143–44, also cites Syr. Did. 7 (early third century C.E.); for the tradition in Didymos the Blind, see Luhrmann, «Geschichte.» |
| 78 Cf. G. Kirchmeyer, art. «Grecque (Église),» DSp 6 (1967) 813–819. Note also the references in G. W. H. Lampe, A Partistic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961), B.v. εκν, pp. 413–414. 79 For Byzantine discussions of λγος see K.-H. Uthemann, «Die ‘Philosophischen Kapitel’ des Anastasius I,» ocp 46 (1980) 344; the so-called Sammlung von Definitionen in F. Diekamp, Doctrina patrum di incarnatione verbi, 2nd edition with revisions by B. Phanourgakis and E. Chrysos (Münster, 1981), p. 263; Philosophica 9.29–33 in Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, ed. B. Kotter (PTS 7: Berlin, 1969), p. 161; Suda, s.v. λγος, ed. A. Adler, 5 vols. (Leipzig, 1928–1938) 3:281; John Zonaras, Lexikon, s.v. λγος, ed. J. A. H. Tittmann, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1808; repr. Amsterdam, 1967) 2:1314–1315. 80 Homily 60.2 (ed. Oikonomos), pp. 248–249. Because of the rarity of this edition, I quote the Greek text in full. I am grateful to the Gennadius Library of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens for providing me with a photocopy of this edition. 86 Para. 18.272–275: ς λγος τν ν ατ κρυπτμενον νον και νος τν ξ ατο προερχμενον λγον ν πνεματι 88 Note that Gregory describes the voice/spirit as an νργεια ζωτικ and ζωτικν δναμιν (19.291, 301), just as Palamas speaks of the spirit as ζωοποιν and of a ζωοποις ενργεια and δναμις (c. 30.10–11, 32.2, 38.7,9). However, the Sinaite’s usage does not seem to include communication of life, which is essential to the concept in Palamas. 89 Para. 20.303–305: οσιωδς καθ πστασιν νον και λγον και πνεμα μοφθτε και διαρετα κκτηται νθρωπος. εκν και δξα τς τριδος και ν τοτοις πρχων. 91 «Was St Gregory Palamas St Gregory the Sinaite " s Pupil?,» St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28 (1984) 115–130. 92 The texts are quoted from Ottobonianus gr. 405, fols. 197r.8–197v.3; 197v.19–23; 199v.8–18 [-Philokalia 4.13.a».1–5]; 201r.22–201v.10. Alexandrinus gr. 131 offers no significant variants. In my forthcoming edition of the Monastic Discourses of Theoleptos these texts can be located as md 23, sections 1–2, 2, 7 and 13 respectively. |
| 405 Antisthenes, fr. 65. 406 Crates, fr. 3, 8, 9, 17 (14 Diels); cf. Diogenes Laert. VI 86. 407 Philemon, Philosophi, fr. 85 CAF II 502. 408 Чтение L.: musthri oi» (тайны) вслед за Munzel заменяем на a)munthri oi» (защита). 409 Homer., Ilias V 739—742. 410 Cf. Mt. 11: 29. 411 Sophocles, fr. 703. 412 Homer., Odyssea XIX, 163. 413 Zenon, fr. 241 SVF. 414 Cf. Ps. 81: 1. 415 Cf. Rom. 8: 9. 416 Cf. II Cor. 10: 3. 417 Hebr. 13: 5; Deut. 31: 6.8. 418 Cf. Mt. 11: 30. 419 Cf. Hippocrates, Epidem., VI 4, 18. 420 Вероятно, лакуна в тексте. 421 Usener, Epicurea 200, 406, 450, 502. 422 Cf. Cicero, Disputationes Tusculan., V 30, 85. 423 Usener, Epicurea, fr. 509. 424 Aristoteles, Ethica Nicomacheia, passim, e.g. I 6, 1098 a 18. 425 Имеются в виду блага внешние (материальные), телесные (здоровье) и душевные. 426 Zeno, fr. 180 SVF I; Cleanthes, fr. 552 SVF I. 427 Добавлено О. Штелином. Diogenes Babylonius, fr. 46 SVF III. 428 Antipatros, fr. 58 SVF III. 429 Archedemos, fr. 21 SVF III. 430 Ariston, fr. 360; Herillos, fr. 419 SVF. 431 Лик был главой перипатетической школы. Ликиск или Левким (чтение имени сомнительно) неизвестен. Мы следуем О. Штелину. 432 Cf. Stobeus, Ecl. II 7, 3 b 46, 10—13 Wachsm. 433 Anaxagoras, A 29 DK; cf. Aristoteles, Ethica Nicom. 1141 b ( A 30 DK). 434 Heraclitus, A 21 DK. 435 Heracleides Ponticus, fr. 13 Voss. 436 Democrites, B 4 DK; в тексте лакуна, которая заполняется аналогичным свидетельством из Стобея. 437 Hecataeus, fr. 20 FHG (FGrH III 264); Apollodotus Cyzicus упомянут один раз в: Diogenes Laert. IX 38; Nausiphanus, 75 B 3 DK; Democrites, 68 B 4 DK. 438 Cf. Diogenes Laert. X 3. 439 Usener, Epicurea, fr. 451. 440 Metrodorus, fr. 5 Koerte. 441 Климент пользуется, по всей вероятности, каким-то учебником платоновской философии. 442 Cleanthes, fr. 558 SVF I. 443 Plato, Timaeus 90 c. Счастье (eu)daimoni a), таким образом, — это сохранение «даймона», охраняющего духа, в хорошем состоянии. 444 Plato, Laches 188 d; Theaetetus 176 b. 445 Plato, Leg. IV 715 e — 716 d; цитата сокращена Климентом и слегка искажена. |
| They could not come to Jesus without the Father " s enabling, Jesus claims, because Scripture promised that God " s eschatological people would learn directly from him (6:45). Yet Jesus» interlocutors here fail to «hear» him (cf. 5:37; 6:60; 7:51; 8:38,43,47; 10:3). Jesus claims the fulfillment of the promise that God " s people in the time of restoration would learn from God (Isa 54:13; cf. 1 Thess 4:9); 6184 the Father " s witness should therefore besufficient to bring those who are truly the remnant of Gods people to Jesus ( John 6:45 ). Like other midrashic interpreters, Jesus is explaining the text from the Torah proper in light of a text from the prophets; indeed, allusions to the larger context of Isa 54–55 seem to be presupposed in the rest of the discourse. 6185 (The direct allusion to Isaiah obviates the need to appeal to other ancient claims to direct instruction by God, though they did appear.) 6186 That Jesus appears as the «teacher» from God par excellence in this Gospel is significant (3:2; 6:59; 7:14, 28, 35; 8:20; 18:20); Jesus learned from the Father (8:28; cf. 7:15–17; cf. 8:26, 40) and the Spirit would continue Jesus» ministry (14:26; cf. Luke 12:12; 1Cor 2:13 ). Again, Christology impacts ecclesiology (see our introduction, on background; and comment on 10:3–4). God had taught Israel at Sinai, 6187 and would teach them again at the eschatological giving of his Word (Isa 2:2–4). Here the Father, the great teacher, sends his disciples to Jesus, as John the Baptist had (l:36–37). 6188 Interpreters could debate the identity of the one who sees God in 6:46. On the one hand, Jesus could speak generically about all who see God in him (1:18; 14:7–9). Although that may seem out of place at this point in the Gospel, it fits the context quite well: those who learn from the Father (6:45) also see the Father " s glory as reflected in the Son (6:46; cf. 1:51; 5:37; 11:40; 12:41; 15:24; 1 John 3:6; 3 John 11 ). These believers contrast starkly with Jesus» accusers, who never did see God, despite their claims about Sinai (5:37). On the other hand, and more likely, one could view the «one who has seen God» (6:46) as Jesus (cf. 8:38), the only one in the Father " s bosom (1:18; cf. 1 John 4:20 ) and the one sent directly παρ God (7:29; cf. 1:6). In this case, Jesus as the only one from above (3:13) is the one who causes others to be born from above and see God " s kingdom (3:3). John could therefore be providing an aside: «hearing» and «learning» from God (6:45) differs from «seeing» him (6:46). 6189 In either case, believers ultimately see God " s revelation only by means of the Son. And in either case, this language may allude to the theophany at Sinai as in 1:14–18. 6190 |
| 8610 From his role in Daniel, it was clear that he was among the chief angels (1 En. 9:1; 54:6; 3 En. 17:1–3; 3 Bar. 11:2; 1QM 8.15–16; Sib. Or. 2:214–220; Gen. Rab. 78:1; Lam. Rab. 3:23, §8; Pesiq. Rab. 46:3; cf. 1 En. 40:9; b. B. Mesía 86b; Deut. Rab. 5:12; Song Rab. 2:4, §1; 6:10, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:9; Coptic charm in Goodenough, Symbols, 2:174–88), sometimes the chief angel (2 En. 22:6; 33:10; probably T. Ab. 1:13A, 2:1, 13–14 and passim A; 4:6; 14:7B), perhaps even the angel of the Lord (Exod. Rab. 2:5; Pesiq. Rab. 40:6; cf. L.A.E. 25:2), and in some texts he was Israel " s guardian angel (3 En. 44:10; 1QM 17.6–7 [see further Delcor, «Guerre,» 374]; cf. 1 En. 20[ed. Knibb, 107; but contrast Isaac, trans., 24]). 8611 Exod. Rab. 18:5; cf. T. So1. 1:7; Michael vs. the wicked prince in 1QM 17.6; Michael vs. Sammáel on Moses» death, Deut. Rab. 11:10; Jude 9 (against Philo Sacrifices 8; b. Sotah 13b, etc.). In the Similitudes of Enoch (J En. 40:7, 9), it is Phanuel who drives away the satans (plural). In 3 En. 14:2, it is Enoch who is the exalted one appointed against Sammáel, the Prince of the Accusers greater than all the heavenly princes; in Esth. Rab. 7(in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 98–99), Moses in heaven and Mordecai on earth interceded for Israel against Satan the accuser; in Exod. Rab. 43:1, Moses and Satan oppose one another before God " s court; in 2Macc 15:12–14 Onias the deceased high priest and Jeremiah the prophet intercede for the people. God could also appear as an accuser (Marmorstein, Names, 78), but not of Israe1. 8612 Angelic intercession appears in Tob 12:12,15; 1 En. 9:2–11; 40:6,9; 99:3; 104:1; Rev 5:8; 8:3; 3 Bar. 14:2; Apoc. Mos. 33:5; T. Levi 5:6; Dan 6 (if not interpolation); cf. 1 En. 15:2; T. Ab. 9:3, 7A; Russell, Apocalyptic, 242; Montefiore, Hebrews, 39–40. Montefiore, «Judaism,» 47, thinks they rarely functioned as mediators in rabbinic Judaism (cf. Midr. Pss. 4, §3), and Moore, «Life,» 249, shows how this contrasted with Platonic Hellenism; but less «orthodox» texts show the popularity of angelic invocations (Smith, «Note»; Deissmann, Light, 455–57; Goodenough, Symbols, 2:174–88; 0/2:90–91 [sixth century C.E.]; 2:91, §850 [no date]; 2:109, §876; 2:373–374, §1448 [amulet, late third century]; cf. JE 1:588, 595); the divergent data is balanced well in Longenecker, Christology, 29–30; Bonsirven, Judaism, 37. |
| The Fourth Gospel employs the term somewhat differently from contemporary Jewish sources and the Synoptics. Linking it with present-tense verbs, the Fourth Gospel declares that the life of the kingdom era is available to those living in the present through faith in Christ. 2833 His resurrection has already inaugurated the resurrection era that the rest of Judaism still awaited in the future. 2834 This motif thus provides a major contribution to the realized eschatology of the Fourth Gospe1. 5. The World The term κσμος can refer to the universe, 2835 but this is not Johns usage (though cf. 21:25). 2836 In the prologue, «world» (1:10) may represent the nations in contrast to Israel (1:11; cf. 12in context; 8with Isa 42:6; 49:6), or may represent «all people» (1:7,9; cf. 5:34,41), a usage more suited to its inclusion of Palestinian Jews in the rest of the Gospel (18:20). The «world» represents the «public» (7:4; 12:19; 18:20), is in darkness (1:10), is ruled by a demonic power (12:31; 14:30; 16:11), is alienated from God and his agents (14:17,19; 17:9,25), and is morally opposed to Jesus and the people of light (7:7; 15:18–19; 16:20; 17:14). Still, it is the object of God " s saving love and enlightenment in Jesus (1:29; 3:16, 17, 19; 4:42; 6:51; 8:12; 9:5, 39; 12:46–47; also described as conquest by suffering the cross, 16:33; cf. the wordplay in 11:9), and the goal of Jesus» agents» witness (14:31; 16:8; 17:21, 23). The world is thus the arena of the light " s salvific invasion of darkness (6:14; cf. the wordplay in 16:21)–that is, sinful humanity, the «lost» that Jesus came to seek and to save (cf. Luke 19:10). But neither Jesus nor his disciples are genuinely «from» the world (13:1; 16:28; 17:16; 18:36); the disciples have come «from» it only in the sense that they no longer «belong» to it ( 17: 6), and Jesus invaded it so they could become differentiated from it (17:13–14). Both are now «from above,» that is, from God. That is, though they work in the world to bring salvation, they are sent from God, whose mission to determines their lives (17:11,15–18; cf. 8:26; 10:36; 11:27). |
| 6107 Also Hooker, Message, 109; see further Keener, Matthew, 420–22. The Qur " an (7.203) later echoes this refusal (Wansbrough, Studies, 7). 6108 Michaels, John, 102, regards this clause as a probable aside, suggesting others in 6:33, 46, 50, 58. 6109 Strachan, Gospel, 120. Rabbis could also tell a parable about a king setting his seal on some-one, representing God " s special protection for Noah (Gen. Rab. 32:8). 6114 Scholars have often cited 1QS 4.4 to parallel John " s phrase (Albright, «Discoveries,» 169; Driver, Scrolls, 520; Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 415). Cf. also 4Q491, MS A, frg. 10, co1. 2, line 14 (for the eschatological battle; cf. 4Q491 MS C, frg. 11, co1. 1); for the conjunction of verb and noun, as here and in 9:4, see Philostratus Hrk. 17.6. 6116 Freed, Quotations, 15. Schuchard, Scripture, 33–46, prefers Ps 78 (77LXX) with its context in the old Greek version. Greeks also conflated texts (e.g., Maximus of Tyre Or. 41.3, probably blending Homer II. 14.80 and 12.327). 6117 Swancutt, «Bread from Heaven,» also contends that John reads Ps 78 in John 6in the context of Isa 54–55 (Smith, John 153), from which John explicitly quotes in 6:45; «seek» (6:26) could also allude to Isa 55:6; and Isa 55may have echoes. 6119 E.g., 2Chron 23:18 ; CD 1.13; 5.1; 7.10–11; 11.18, 20; 1QS 8.14–17; 4Q266 frg. 11, 2.4–5; cf. m. Git. 9:10; Sanh. 10:1; Mek. Pisha 1.76–77; Sipre Deut. 56.1.2b; p. Meg. 1:5, §1; Sukkah 2:10, §1; 3:5, §1; Ta c an. 3:11, §5; 3 En. 5:14; 18:7, 18, 24; 28:4, 9, 10; 31:2; cf. Fitzmyer, «Quotations» (who rightly argues that Qumran formulas are closer to those in the NT than rabbinic ones are); cf. Deissmann, Studies, 249–50, for the legal use of such a phrase in Hellenistic papyri, but Greek forms are not close (Alexander, «Ipse Dixit,» 119–20). For «said» instead of «written,» see, e.g., CD 4.19–20; CD-B 19.15; lQpHab 6.2; m. «Abot 1:18; 2:13; Mek. Pisha 1.70–71; »Abot R. Nat. 36A (and normally the rabbis); cf. related formulas in 1QM 11.5–6; CD 4.13; 5.8; 6.7–8,13; 7.8,14; 8.9, 14; 9.7–9; 10.16. |
| 580 Mt. 5: 27; Rom. 7: 7. 581 Rom. 7: 7; 7: 17—18; 20. 23—24; 8: 10. 2—4.11. 582 Лакуна в тексте. 583 I Tim. 3: 4—5; I Cor. 7: 22—24. 584 Rom. 7: 2; I Cor. 7: 39—40. 585 Татиан (или Тациан), ок. 150 г. н.э., автор труда, называемого Diatessaron, представляющего собой попытку гармонизировать все версии Евангелия. Из других источников известно, что он действительно ратовал за крайний аскетизм. 586 I Tim. 4: 1—5. 587 Rom. 14: 21; I Cor. 7: 8. 588 Климент цитирует Epist. Barnabae, 11: 9. Источник этого «пророчества» неизвестен. 589 1Кор. 7: 32—33.34. 590 Действительно, см.: Strom. VII 75, 3; VI 147, 1. 591 Is. 50: 1; Bar. 3: 10. 592 I Tim. 5: 14—15. 593 I Tim. 2: 15. 594 Cf. Jer. 3: 4. 595 Exod. 20: 14; Deut. 5: 18. 596 Имя это до Иеронима никем, кроме Климента, не упоминается. Трудно сказать что-либо более определенное относительно воззрений этого раннехристианского писателя. См. т.ж.: Strom. I 101. 597 В этой фразе или в манускрипте, или же у самого Климента, части предложения не вполне согласованы. Смысл, однако, ясен. 598 Mt. 19: 12; Is. 56: 3. 599 Этот же пассаж цитируется Климентом Римским (II Clem. Ad Cor. 12, 2). 600 Cf. Plato, Phaedo 81 c; Phaedrus 248 c. 601 II Cor. 11: 3. 602 Gen. 3: 21; cf. Philo, Legum Allegoriae, III 69. 603 1Кор. 7: 1—2.5. 604 Источник неизвестен. 605 Io. 13: 33; Gal. 4: 19; I Cor. 4: 15. 606 Deut. 23: 1; Mt. 19: 12. О соблюдающих пост говорится в Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1, 3 (J. Ferguson). 607 II Esd. 5: 35. 608 Cf. I Cor. 7: 6. 609 В смысле, «и познал Адам жену свою Еву…». Cf. Gen. 2: 9. 610 Место неизвестное. Ср. Rev. 9: 10.19. 611 Оба эти слова означают «хвост», однако часто используются для указания на половой член. Метафора, впрочем, вполне очевидная. Именно так употребляется, например, последнее слово в комедии Аристофана (Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae, 239). 612 Очевидно, цитата из первого послания Климента Римского к Коринфянам (I Ad Cor. 46, 8). Cf. Mt. 26: 24; Lc. 17: 2, etc. 613 Is. 52: 5; Rom. 2: 24. 614 I Tim. 3: 4.2. 615 Titus 1: 15. |
|
|
