| Hardhearted and unlearned readers belonging to the Circumcision have not believed on our Saviour, because it is their habit to follow the bare letter of the prophecies concerning Him, and they do not see Him with their bodily eyes proclaiming liberty to the captives, 27 nor building what they think the true city of God, 28 nor cutting off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, 29 nor eating butter and honey, and before He knoweth or preferreth evil choosing the good. 30 They still suppose that prophecy declares that the four-footed animal, the wolf, shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard lie down with the kid; and the calf, and the bull, and the lion feed together, and that a little child shall lead them; and that the cow and the bear shall be pastured together, their young ones being reared together, and that the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 31 Because they saw nothing like this when He Whom we believe to be Christ dwelt on the earth, they did not receive Jesus, but crucified Him, maintaining that He had no right to call Himself Christ. And heretics when they read the words, «A fire is kindled in mine anger»; 32 and, «I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and fourth generation»; 33 and, «It repenteth me that I have anointed Saul to be king»; 34 and, «I am God that maketh peace and create evil»; 35 and in another place, «Shall evil befall a city, and the Lord hath not done it»; 36 or again, «Evil is come down from the Lord unto the gates of Jerusalem»; 37 and, «An evil spirit from the Lord plagued Saul»; 38 and countless similar passages: when they read these, I say, they will not venture to deny the Divine origin of the Scriptures, but believing them to have come from the Demiurge, 39 Whom the Jews worship, and holding that the Demiurge is imperfect and lacking in goodness, they suppose our Saviour while He dwelt on earth to have proclaimed a more perfect God, Whom, from different motives, they affirm not to be the Demiurge. |
| The lawyer said to Him, «You are right, Teacher! You have truly said that to love God with all one’s being and to love one’s neighbour as oneself is much more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.» When Jesus Christ saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, «You are not far from the kingdom of God.» Note: See the Gospels of Matthew 22:35–40; Mark 12:28–34 ; Luke 10:25–28. 32. The Parable of the Good Samaritan. One Jew, a lawyer, desiring to justify himself since the Jews considered «their neighbours» to be only Jews and all others to be held in contempt asked Jesus Christ, «And who is my neighbour?» In order to teach people to consider every other person as their neighbour, no matter who he might be of whatever nationality, or descent, or belief; and also that we must be compassionate and merciful to all people, doing what we can to help those in need and misfortune, Jesus Christ answered him with a parable. «A man (a Jew) was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him, and beat him, and departed leaving him half-dead. Now by chance, a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite (a Jewish church official), when he came to the place and saw him, he passed by on the other side. »But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was. (The Jews despised the Samaritans so much that they would not have sat at the same table with them and even tried to avoid speaking to them). When the Samaritan saw him covered with wounds, he had compassion on him. He went to him and bound up his wounds pouring on them oil and wine. Then, he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii (a denarius was a Roman silver coin) and gave them to the innkeeper saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I repay you when I come back’.» Then, Jesus Christ asked the lawyer, «Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?» |
| 53 Цит. по: Ассиро-вавилонский эпос/Пер. с шумерского и аккадского В. К. Шилейко. СПб., 2007. С. 109. 54 В этом мифе можно увидеть теснейшую связь письменности и устного слова: «С самого начала письменная и устная речь рассматривались не отдельно, но во взаимной связи» (Eggleston Ch. L. See and Read All These Words… P. 123). 56 «В Афинах только с первой половины IV века документы начинают играть более важную роль в государственной и судебной сферах» (Thomas R. Literacy and City-State in Archaic and Classical Greece//Literacy and Power in the Ancient World. Cambridge, 1994. P. 33–34). 57 Плутарх. Избранные жизнеописания/Пер. с др.-греч.; Сост., вступ. ст., примеч. М. Н. Томашевской. Т. 1. М., 1990. С. 104. 59 Аристотель. Политика//Аристотель. Сочинения: В 4 т. М., 1984. Т. 4. С. 631. О функциях письменных текстов в Рреции и их развитии см.: Hairis Ж Ancient Literacy. Boston, 1989. Р. 45–147. 60 Платон. Федр/Пер. с др.-греч. А. Н. Егунова//Платон. Собрание сочинений: В 4 т. Т. 2. М., 1993. С. 187. 63 Диоген Лаэртский. О жизни, учениях и изречениях знаменитых философов/Пер. и примеч. М. Л. Гаспарова. М., 1979. С. 72. 64 О споре между Алкидамантом и Исократом см.: Van Hook L. Alci-damas versus Isocrates: Lhe Spoken versus the Written Word//Lhe Classical Weekly. Vol. 12. N. Y., 1919. P. 89–94. О греческом понимании искусства слова и его силы см. также: Gera D. L. Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization. N. Y., 2003. 65 Leipoldt J., Morenz S. Heilige Schriften. Betrachtungen zur Religionsge-schichte der antiken Mittelmeerwelt. Leipzig, 1953. S. 12–13. 67 Интересно, что Вергилий в Георгиках отмечает как одно из важных преимуществ деревенской жизни отсутствие «populi tabularia» (Georgica 2.501–502). 69 М. Бирд перечисляет основные функции письменности в религиозной сфере: запечатление участия в храмовых культах, записи календарей, записи древних песен в честь праздничных церемоний. Письменные записи позволяли сохранять древнейшие традиции (см.: Beard М. Ancient Literacy and the Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion//Literacy in the Roman World. P. 35–59). |
| As with most things in the Orthodox Church, there are boundaries of acceptability within which there is a certain amount of diversity of opinion that is completely acceptable, but outside of which there is spiritual danger that must be avoided. There may even be some disagreement about exactly where the lines should be drawn that mark those boundaries, but Orthodox Christians should be in agreement that translations that distort and obscure the meaning of the text, that strip the text of significant Christological and prophetic concepts, and lack a reverence for the words that the Holy Spirit has inspired His prophets and apostles to write are to be avoided. The translation of the Sacred Scriptures should be approached with the utmost care and reverence—this should be obvious. The selection of a translation calls for care and reverence as well. Furthermore, the reading of that translation calls for all of that plus a great deal of diligence, as we read in the Psalter: Set before me for a law, O LORD, the way of Thy statutes, and I will seek after it continually. Give me understanding, and I will search out Thy law, and I will keep it with my whole heart (Psalm 118:34-35 LXX). As anyone who has invested the effort into the reverent study of the Scriptures can attest, the rewards are well worth the effort. Fr. John Whiteford 10 августа 2015 г. Clark Carlton, The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church , (Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 1997) p. 137f. See Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text . Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1980. http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ . M. Kurt Goedelman, A Critical Look at the Jehovah’s Witness Bible, the New World Translation , Aug. 31, 2006 < http://www.xmark.com/focus/Pages/jehovahs.html > . See also: Aug. 31, 2006 < http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html > . C. P. Lincoln, " A Critique of the Revised Standard Version , " Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 110 (Jan. 1953) pp. 50-66, Sept. |
| 2340 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 3. Cf., e.g., Vermes, Religion, 5,73–74; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 257. 2342 For Elijah and Elisha as examples of healing miracles in Josephus, see Betz, «Miracles,» 219–20. 2346 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 171; Meeks, Prophet-King, 163–64; Horsley, «Prophets»; see Josephus Ant. 20.97–99, 168–172; War 2.259, 261–263; 6.283ff. For a Greco-Roman context for signs-prophets, consult Kolenkow, «Miracle» (her Jewish examples are actually less convincing). 2348 See further Betz, «Miracles,» 222–30, on the «signs» (smeia) of the messianic prophets; their signs invited faith, but some responded with unbelief (pp. 224–25). 2350 E.g., Isa 12:2; 35:1, 8–10; 40:3; 51:11; Hos 2:14–15; 11:1–5, 10–11 ; Zech 10:10. In Isaiah, see Glasson, Moses, 15–19. Daube, Pattern, addresses exodus typology through the OT; he notes that no other OT patterns of deliverance are comparable to the exodus motif (11–12). 2351 E.g., t. Ber. 1:10; b. Ber. 12b (attributed to Ben Zoma); Exod. Rab. 2:6; Lev. Rab. 27:4; Deut. Rab. 9:9; Pesiq. Rab. 31:10; Teeple, Prophet, 51; in Matthew, see Davies, Setting, 25–93. Note the exodus as «Israel " s first salvation» (CD 5.19) and «first visitation» (CD 7.21). 2352 Deut 18:18 ; Gen. Rab. 100:10; Deut. Rab. 9:9; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:8; see further Meeks, Prophet-King, 246–54; Longenecker, Christology, 34–37,72–73; Mauser, Wilderness, 55–56; Patte, Hermeneutic, 173 (on Pss. Sol); and on the «hidden Messiah» tradition some commentators find in John 7 ; in the DSS, see Aune, Prophecy, 126 (who cites 1QS 9.10–11; 4QTest 1–20). Many scholars appeal to the new Moses picture in NT interpretation (e.g., Georgi, Opponents, 174; Hengel, Mark, 56), although its prominence in Judaism increased in the later period. 2353 Jub. 48:4; L.A.B. 9:7; Sipre Deut. 9.2.1; 4Q422 frg. 10 line 5; see further Meeks, Prophet-King, 162–63. 2356 Cf., e.g., Smith, «Typology,» 334–39; Meeks, Prophet-King, passim; Schnackenburg, John, 1:527. The ten plagues of Exodus (cf. the ten miracles for Israel at the sea in Mek. Bes. 5.1, Lauterbach 1:223) are paralleled in the seven plagues of Revelation, but probably also in the Fourth Gospel " s seven signs; compare the water turned to blood with water turned to wine as the first sign in each (Smith, «Typology,» 334–35, on John 2:1–11 and Exod 7:14–24). The seven signs may follow the midrash on Exodus implied in Wis 11–19 (Clark, «Signs»); the seven miracles of Pirqe R. E1. 52 are probably irrelevant (the document probably dates to the ninth century; see Strack, Introduction, 225–26). |
| 143 Nicholas Cabasilas, Explanation of the Divine Liturgy, chs. 29–30; ed. Perichon, SC 4 bis (Paris: Cerf, 1967), pp. 179–199; trans. J. M. Hussey and P. A. McNulty (London: SPCK, 1960), pp. 71–79. 144 Photius, Hom., 1; trans. in C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 50. 146 Theophanes Kerameus, Hom., 55; PG 142:965A. For a more general view of patristic exegesis on Matthew 16:18, see particularly J. Ludwig, Die Primatworte Mt. 16, 18, 19 in der altkirchlichen Exegese (Munster, 1952); and J. Meyendorff, «St. Peter in Byzantine Theology,» The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church, ed. J. Meyendorff (London: Faith Press, 1963), pp. 7–29. 147 On Cyprian, see, for example, A. d " Ales, La theologie de St. Cyprien (Paris: Beauchesne, 1922); P.-Th. Camelot, «St. Cyprien et la primaute,» Istina 4 (1957), 421–434; cf. also M. Bevenot " " s introduction and notes for Cyprian De catholicae ecclesiae unitate in ACW 25. (Westminster: Newman, 1957.) 150 Nicholas Mesarites, in A. Heisenberg, ed., Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, II. Die Unionverhandlungen von 30. Aug. 1206, in AbhMunchAk, phil. Klasse (1923) II, 34–35. 151 Francis Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium (Gambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 39. 154 See J. Meyendorff, «Projets de Concile oecumenique en 1367: un dialogue inedit entre Jean Cantacuzene et legat Paul,» Dumbarton Oaks Papers 14 (1960), 174. 155 See J. Meyendorff, Introduction a l " etude de Gregoire Palamas (Paris: du Scull, 1959), p. 194. 156 Demetrios Cydones, Letter I in Demetrius Cydones, Correspondance, ed. G. Camelli (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1930), p. 2. 157 Demetrios Cydones, Apology I. in G. Mercati, «Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone . . .,» Studi e Testi 56 (1931), 365. 168 For this see Cabasilas» commentary on the exclamation «The holy things to the holy» in the liturgy; see also Life in Christ, PG 150:613A. 170 A good discussion of this can be found in M. Lot-Borodine, Nicholas Cabasilas (Paris: l " Orante, 1958), pp. 114–116. |
| 4044 In Greek the term is pleonastic (emphatic but superfluous; see Anderson, Glossary, 102) despite its value for John " s vision motif. 4045 Tg. Onq. on Exod 12:43; Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 12:43; the Targum translations also cite Mek. 15 on Exod 12:43; and Mek. de R. Simeon b. Yohai on Exod 12:43. 4046 Thus Bernard, John, 1:44–46, suggests that the author expressed the Baptist " s messianic confession in his own words. 4047 The scapegoat, however, would be a more obvious allusion than the intercessor of 2 En. 64(in Boring et a1., Commentary, 247); but αρω is not used in LXX of Lev 16 , though it is a common term (twenty-three times in John alone). 4048 Nock, «Vocabulary,» 137. 4049 Various clues, such as the potentially theological use of «follow» in 1:40, could shift the case, but even their cumulative weight seems inadequate for certainty. «Walking» might possibly allow for peripatetic instruction (see comment on 1:37–39), which was common (hence the name of Aristotlés school; see Aune, Environment, 186; Robbins, Jesus, 171,178). 4050 See Dodd, Tradition, 274; Stauffer, Jesus, 65; Lane, Mark, 52; Kraeling, John, 55, summarizing Lohmeyer, «Überlieferung,» and K. Grobel, «After Me.» On the Baptist " s direct influence on Jesus, see further Michaels, Servant, 1–24. 4051 Kraeling, John, 55. 4052 Blomberg, Reliability, 79, following Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:116–20. 4053 Cf.Ibid. 4054 Ibid., 56–57, although we doubt his contention that this Son of Man was viewed as an ange1. 4055 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:34–35, doubts that John saw this announcement in divine terms. 4056 Luke 14:7–11; 1QS 2.19–23; lQSa 2.11–17; t. Sank 7:8; b. Hor. 13b, bar.; p. Ketub. 12:3, §6; Sanh. 1:2, §13; Ta c an. 4:2, §§8–9; Ter. 8:7; Plutarch T.T. 1.2.3, Mor. 616E; T.T. 1.2.4, Mor. 617B; Apuleius Metam. 10.7; cf. 1QS 6.10–13 (with 6.26–27; Josephus War 2.132; and comments of Marcus, «Mebaqqer,» 302; cf. p. Roš Haš. 2:6, §9). In current Middle Eastern custom, see Eickelman, Middle East, 23–24. 4057 Philo Contemp1. Life. 66ff.; Ps.-Phoc. 220–222; t. Meg. 3:24; Sanh. 8:1; p. Ta c an. 4:2, §12; Lycurgus 14 in Plutarch S.S., Mor. 227F; on respecting elders in general, cf. Sir 8:6 ; Wis 4:8–9; 1Tim 5:1–2 ; 4 Bar. 5:20; Syr. Men. 11–14, 76–93 (though cf. 170–172); t. c Abod. Zar. 1:19; Pythagoras in Diogenes Laertius 8.1.22–23. |
| It is obvious here that Basil’s argument: “the object nature does not follow the names but, vice versa, names are invented (ερηται) after objects” (CE, 580, 26) is incorrect, because Eunomius shared it himself. See, for example, Homily 16 ( PG 31, col. 477.3–6) where Basil distinguished the word pronounced ( τς φωνς προφερμενος) from the internal word (νδιθετος), which somewhat resembles the Stoics’ λγος προφορικς and λγος νδιθετος. Aristotle was a classical follower of the idea of all word meanings having been formed by social convention, see “[name] by convention (κατ συνθκην), because no name is a name by nature (φσει), but [only] when it has become a symbol (σμβολον). For at any rate even the inarticulate noises of beasts for example indicate something, but none of them is a name” (Aristoteles, De interpretatione , 16а, 26–29). About names as judgments (propositions) see Basil, Contra Eunomium , PG 29, col. 533.35–536.38. About discourse on proper nouns, used by Basil to explain the status of the names “Father” and “Son,” see Basilius, Contra Eunomium , PG 29, col. 577.31–580.30. The latter passage contains elements of Stoic logic and physics, rather than those of the doctrine of language. In his De interpretatione I, 3 (34–40b), Ammonius notes the double meaning of “nature-based naming” (when names are said to be the products of nature and when they are said to correspond to the nature of objects), as well as the double meaning of “convention-based naming” (when it is believed that any human being could give any name to an object and when it is stated that names were ordained by the name giver). As a result, Ammonius concludes: “It is clear, that the second interpretation of ‘nature-based naming’ coincides with the second case of ‘convention-based naming.’” See Long, Stoic Linguistics…, 36–55, especially p. 40–49. It is noteworthy that many authors of Antiquity advanced the view on names as having been established by God, without speaking about names’ correspondence to the named objects’ nature, but implying it, see Cicero, Tusk. disp ., XXV, 62; De rep ., III, 2; Origenes, Contra Celsum , V, 30; Philo, Legum allegoriae , II, 14–15 [Mondésert]. |
| 6479 E.g., m. Mid. 2:7; Sukkah 4:9; t. Sukkah 3:14; b. Sukkah 48ab; Ta c an. 2b-3a. Libations were employed regularly in the temple, including other festivals (cf., e.g., Lev 23:18, 37 ; Num 28:7–10 ; p. Ter. 9:8), as also in other cultures (Egyptian cults in Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 135; cf. Wild, Water). If our Tannaitic sources are accurate, the people expected the water to be poured out as a libation in the temple during the day " s lamb sacrifice (t. Sukkah 3:16); cf. 19:34. Some rabbis contended that the pits under the altar derived from the time of creation (t. Sukkah 3:15; b. Sukkah 49a; p. Sukkah 4:6, §1). 6480 It may have been a Pharisaic innovation in that period (Charles, Jubilees, lxv; Bowman, Gospel, 35); compare Josephus Ant. 13.372 with 13.292. 6481 " Abot R. Nat. 27, §55B. With characteristic anachronism, Amoraim claimed it stemmed from Moses (b. Móed Qat. 3b; cf. Zebah. 110b; p. Roš Haš. 1:3, §43; Sukkah 4:6, §1) and was practiced in the time of Ruth (Ruth Rab. 4:8). 6482 Against scholarly consensus, the Sadducees may not have rejected the water libation even in early rabbinic texts (see Rubenstein, «Libation»). 6483 See Engle, «Amphorisk,» 117. For second-century Diaspora Jews, cf., e.g., CP] 3:5–6, §452. 6484 See, e.g., St. Clair, «Shrine.» For widespread evidence concerning the festivals lulab and ethrog, see Leon, Jews, 198; Goodenough, Symbols, 4:145–66, 12:86–88 (only the menorah appears more frequently in Jewish artwork). Daniélou, «Symbolisme,» seeks to trace messianic interpretation of this festival from biblical times to fourth-century C.E. Jewish sources. Belkin, Philo, 192–218, finds many parallels between Philo and Tannaitic views on festivals, but for differences on Tabernacles, see p. 217. 6485 Sipre Deut. 142.3.1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 2:8. See further Safrai, «Temple,» 894–95. Greek festivals also included celebrative dancing and could include bearing a sacred vessel (e.g., Eleusis " s Lesser Mysteries at initiation, Mylonas, Eleusis, 241) and libation processions (Philostratus Hrk. 53.9). |
| 5932 Jesus is essentially the Father " s voice in 5:37–40; one might compare him to a bat qo1. 5933 E.g., Westcott, John, 91; Morris, John, 330; Michaels, John, 82; Bruce, John, 136; Beasley-Murray, John, 78. 5934 Schnackenburg, John, 2:125, cites, e.g., 1QS 5.11; CD 6.7. See most fully Culpepper, School, 291–99, on darash and ζητω. 5935 So here, e.g., Dodd, Interpretation, 82; Hunter, John, 62; Brown, John, 1:225, citing, e.g., m. " Abot 2:7; see comment on 1:4. It was «the most meritorious of all good deeds» (Sandmel, Judaism, 184). 5936 So also Odeberg, Gospel, 224. 5937 Refuting someone on the basis of the very arguments or witnesses that person cites in his support was good rhetorical technique (e.g., Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 311, §101D; 340, §112D; 343–344, §114D; 446, §150D; Matt 12:37; Luke 19:22; Tit 1:12–13 ). 5938 See Culpepper, School, 298–99. They do not «will» to come to him (5:40), though they had «willed» to listen to John momentarily (5:35). 5939 DeSilva, «Honor and Shame,» 520 (citing Seneca the Younger De constantia sapientis 13.2,5; Epictetus Ench. 24.1). 5940 Not needing such glory was commendable (e.g., Scipio in Macrobius Comm. 2.10.2, in Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 225), though Diogenes the Cynic claimed to deserve public praise (Diogenes Laertius 6.62). 5941 Seeking glory was honorable only if sought in the right places ( Rom 2:7 ; Polybius 6.54.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 5.25.1; 5.27.2; Cicero Earn. 10.12.5; 15.4.13; Sest. 48.102; Valerius Maximus 2.8.5, 7; 4.3.6a; 5.7.ext.4; 8.14; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 94.63–66; Orphic Hymn 15.10–11; Prov 22:1 ; see comment on 12:43). 5942 Cf. Michaels, John, 82. Brown, John, 1:226, suggests an allusion to Moses (leading naturally into 5:45–47), who sought God " s glory (Exod 34:29); cf. comment on 1:14–18. At least some later rabbis believed that Moses exalted God above everything else and after death God exalted him (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:20). 5943 See comment on 14:13–14; comment on agency, pp. 310–17 in the introduction. Cf. also Sanders, John, 73. It is unlikely that this stems from Isaiah (pace Young, «Isaiah,» 223); though God " s name is a dominant motif in Isaiah, «coming» in his name more likely alludes to Ps 118:26 . |
|
|
