Craig S. Keener The Response of the Unorthodox. 4:1–54 THE BULK OF THIS SECTION, which actually continues the general thought of 3:1–36, revolves around a sinful Samaritan woman and her response to Jesus. If the initial faith of the best representative from the Judean elite appears ambiguous (3:1–10), the faith of the socially worst representative from an unorthodox and ethnically mixed sect appears far more positive, even allowing her to bring her people as a whole to Jesus (4:39–42; cf. 1:46). She is one of those who believe, not one on whom God " s wrath remains (3:36); but those who exalt themselves will be brought low (3:30–31), and most, like Nicodemus initially, do not receive Jesus» witness (3:32). Yet Christ is available even to the elite. If we place John the Baptist in the special category of witness, 5206 the context surrounding his witness (3:22–36) in fact alternates between the socially powerful and the weak, providing positive and ambiguous or negative examples of each: Nicodemus (elite, open but uncomprehending), a Samaritan woman (receptive), an official of Antipas (receptive), and a lame man (unfaithful). Only Nicodemus, however, is part of the Judean religious elite, for the royal official could be viewed as unorthodox. This section also includes a much briefer healing miracle with no accompanying discourse (4:46–54). The royal official here represents part of a Galilean economic elite, but like many other Herodian aristocrats would have been religiously impure by Pharisaic standards. Through him the Gospel writer illustrates various levels of faith. True Worshipers in Samaria (4:1–42) This extended narrative contrasts starkly with the Nicodemus narrative. 5207 There a religious teacher in Israel proved unable to understand Jesus» message (3:10); here a sinful Samaritan woman not only received the message (though starting with no less daunting social obstacles–cf. πς in 3:4, 9 and 4:9; perhaps πθεν in 4:11), but brought it to her entire Samaritan town (4:28–29, 39–42). Here, as often, John employs ironic contrasts among characters to convey his emphases. 5208 (That the Samaritan woman, in contrast to Nicodemus, is unnamed is probably not as significant. As a woman, her name was less likely to be recorded in John " s tradition; 5209 further, most characters in the context are unnamed, and perhaps their names had not been preserved–2:1; 4:46; 5:5; 7:3; 9:1.

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gosp...

Craig S. Keener Conflict at Hanukkah. 10:22–42 THE ENTIRE SECTION FROM 7to 10occurs at Sukkoth, the festival of Tabernacles. This passage (10:22–42) occurs at the festival of dedication, not long afterward. Sukkoth motifs dominate 7:1–10far more than Hanukkah motifs dominate this section, which is shorter and overshadowed by it, perhaps as a continuation of it (cf. 4:46–54 with 4:1–42). The conflict about Jesus» identity escalates, with Jesus revealing his identity (10:30) and provoking deadly hostility (10:31) more rapidly than on his previous visit to Jerusalem (8:58–59). In this case as in the last one, Jesus speaks in terms whose meaning is obvious enough in an early Jewish or biblical framework (10:33), but which leave his claim sufficiently inexplicit that he can again escape their grasp (10:34–39). His hour, in other words, had not yet come (7:30; 8:20). The Setting (10:22–23) The setting provides a transition from the festival of Tabernacles (7:1–10:18), if only to emphasize that the debates of that festival continued here not many weeks later. Because the intensity of conflict in 10:19–21 is not great enough to require a transition for narrative reasons (as was necessary in 8:59–9:1, where, however, the transition was by location rather than by time), a historical reminiscence seems the best explanation for it. Some parallels between Jesus and Hanukkah appear, but had John exercised total creative freedom he could have provided much more explicit ones. 1. Hanukkah (10:22, 36) In the Jewish year, Hanukkah, the «feast of dedication» 7449 (10:22), came soon after Sukkoth, the festival of tabernacles, indicating another journey to Jerusalem. That both feasts were seven days in length also linked them in popular thought. 7450 In view of their temporal proximity and the brevity of this section, it is not surprising that motifs would carry over from the previous section, 7451 as if this section somehow stands in the shadow of the previous one. That this feast commemorated national liberation but did not appear in the Bible 7452 would be telling for Johns Jewish-Christian audience; Jesus could also attend an extrabiblical festival as a sign of solidarity with his nation " s heritage. But it is also strikingly ironic that the promised Messiah, Israel " s deliverer, would face rejection at a festival commemorating a national deliverance (cf. 1:11). 7453

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gosp...

Жена злая. Taken from Meffreth, ibid. 11. 1–4 cf Meffreth: «Certe multo fortius mulieres intoxicant mentem, quam colubri camem.... Eccle. 25.[Ecclus. 25.22–23] de iniqua faemina dicitur. Non est caput nequius super caput colubri, non est ira super iram mulieris.» 11. 21–32 cf Meffreth: «De hoc loquitur signanter Petrus Blesensis, ad regem Henricum regem Angliae in expositione quadam, super lob, vbi causam exponit, quare Diabolus, qui lob de omnibus bonis suis, filijs, & filiabus, & substantia expoliauit, vxorem tarnen sibi reliquit. Hoc, inquit, non fuit ad solatium viri, sed ad suam consummationem suae malitiae, vt per faeminam vinceret, quern persecutione non vicerat, & quod verberibus non poterat, verbis mulieris efficeret.» 11. 33–38 cf Meffreth: «Per faeminam, inquit, Ioseph incarceratus est.» 11. 39–40 cf Meffreth: «Naboth occisus; ... Miphiboset interfectus, ... Sysara clauis confossus.» 11. 41–42 cf Meffreth: «Samson vinculatus est.» 11. 43–44 cf Meffreth: «Salomon, apostata affectus.» 11. 45–46 cf Meffreth: «Praecursor Christi Baptista decollatus.» 11. 47–54 cf Meffreth: «Et cum per filium Dei ordinata est nostra redemptio, serpens hostis, quod ne in morte Christi nostrae redemptionis participate impleretur, salutem totius generis humani machinatus est per faeminam impedire. In vxorem namque Pilati visiones deceptorias & phantasticas illusiones immisit, in tantum quod Pilato mortem Christi dissuadendo mandauit. Nihil tibi et iusto illi, multa enim per visum hodie passa sum propter ilium [Matt. 27.19]. Haec ille.» 11. 59–62 cf Meffreth: «Nullum enim venenum dicitur [coluber] inficere camem priusquam cum carne misceatur, species autem mulieris etiam a longe sine tactu inficit mentem» (Pars aestiv., p. 93). Жена блудная. Taken from Faber, Dominica 4 Post Pentecosten, No. 3 «Quam frustra laborent sectatores mundi», sect. 4 «Voluptuarii». 11. 1–20 cf Faber: «Scribit Cardanus 1. 12. de rerum variet. c. 56. Fenellam Reginam Kemetho Regi Scotorum porrexisse pomum aureum ita fabrefactum, ut quicumque illud tetigisset, statim multis telis e porno prosilientibus transfigeretur: eoque Regem nihil suspicantem invitatum in Festicarii oppido occidisse.» 11. 21–28 cf Faber: «Profecto huiusmodi pomum meretrix et libido est, quo contactu suo plurimis ac venenatis telis configit amatorem.»

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Simeon_Polocki...

Казнь вечная. Taken from Meffreth, Dominica 2 Post Trinitatis, No. 3. 11. 1–18 cf Meffreth: «Sunt ergo ibi nouem poenae, quae damnatis pro ferculis apponuntur. Et has enumerat August, in Sermon, de Aduentu Domini ad iudicium, super illo verbo Apoc. 16.[Rev. 16.19] Et facta est ciuitas magna in tres partes» 11. 19–24 cf Meffreth: «Prima est ig n is qui extingui non potest, etiam si mare totum intus mitteretur.» 11. 25–30 cf Meffreth: «Secunda poena qua cibantur damnati, est frig u s, quod nemo potest sustinere, etiamsi igneus mons immitteretur, nihil calefacere possit, & propter istas poenas dicit Dominus in Euangelio. Matt. Ibi erit fletus & strid ordentium .... Sed quare sustinebunt glacialem poenam? Respondet Augustinus, quia hie frigidi in caritate fuerunt.» 11. 31–34 cf Meffreth: «Tertia poena est de vermibus, qui nunquam moriuntur Isaiae vltimo [Isa. 66.24]. ... Causa autem quare mordentur vermibus est, quia sic inuidiam contra proximos habuerunt, & congruum est vt mordeantur vermibus, sicut felicitate proximorum per inuidiam hie mordebantur, vt dicit August.» 11. 35–38 cf Meffreth: «Quarta poena infemi est foetor quasi sulphuris, & istum sustinebunt propter foetorem luxuriae.» 11. 39–42 cf Meffreth: «Quinta poena sunt flagella percutientium, quae feriunt ad instar malleorum: haec praecipue sunt contra Tyrannos, alios iniuste flagellantes.» 11. 43–46 cf Meffreth: «Sexta poena sunt tenebrae ita spissae, vt sicut arena maris possint pugillari. ... & hanc poenam patientur, qui in tenebris peccatorum finaliter perstiterunt.» 11. 47–50 cf Meffreth: «Septima poena est verecundia, quia ibi videbuntur honores, & peccata eorum nec poterunt occultari. Et huius causam allegat Augustinus in sermone de aduentu Christi ad iudicium, dicens. Quia noluerunt ad confessionem venire, nec poenitentiam agere pro peccatis.» 11. 51–56 cf Meffreth: «Octava poena est timor magnus, quando videbunt daemones emittentes flammas igneas, & audient clamores miserorum, quia cruciabuntur, expectabuntque semper acrius crucian. Et hoc est ideo, quia hic timoré Dei postposito peccauerunt.» 11. 57– 60 cf Meffreth: «Nona poena est, Catena ignis, quia propriis peccatis recesserunt inetiti, & quasi vna catena ligati.» 11. 61–64 cf Meffreth: «Sed decimam poenam ponit B. Augustinus in libro qui vocatur de triplici habitaculo, & est separatio a Christo. Dicit enim quod haec erit poena illorum specialis absentia Christi post visionem eius» (Pars aestiv., pp. 243–4).

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Simeon_Polocki...

По множеству примеров их невозможно привести. См. цитаты в настоящей работе. 3 Ер. (Письмо). 243.1 l.(=lignes) 4-8 (изд. Courtonne, Paris, 1966, t.III); Ер.222 (P.G. 32.820A). 4 Jud.3 (о суде Божьем) (P.G. 31.660A). 5 Ер.156.11.12-16 (Courtonne, Paris, 1961, t.II); P.G. 32.613CD. Имеется в виду раскол Павлина в Антиохии. 6 Ер.70.1 6-8 (Courtonne, Paris. 1957. t.I; P.G.433B). Письмо Дамасу. 7 Ps.44.10 (P.G.29.409C). 8 Ер.50.119-21 (P.G.32.388B). 9 Ps.28.3 (P.G.29.288AB). 10 Ps.45.4 (там же, 421С). 11 Ps.45.5 (там же, 424В). 12 Hom. (Беседа) 13.3 (P.G.31.440A). 13 Hom.13.3 (там же); ef. Hom.13.1 (там же, 425А). 14 Ps.28.1 (P.G.29.308A). 15 Ps.132 (P.G.30.116C). 16 Ps.44.7 (P.G.29.405F). 17 Ps.44.10 (там же 409А). 18 Hexaem (=Шестоднев) 4.7 (P.G.29.93C). 19 Там же, 5.5 (там же, 104С). 20 Там же, 5.6 (там же, 108В). 21 Hom.2.3 (P.G.31.189A). 22 S.S. (=О Святом Духе) 16.39 (P.G.32.140CD). 23 S.S.16.39 (там же, 141А). 24 S.S.26.62 (там же, 181D-184A). 25 Ps.45.4 (P.G.29.421B). 26 Там же, 421С. 27 Ер.227 1.17-22 (P.G.32.852C). 28 Ps.44.12 (P.G.29.413B). 29 Ер.92,3 1.43-45 (P.G.32.474A). 30 Ер.105.11.16 (513А). 31 Ps.44.5 (P.G.28.499C D). 32 Jud.7 (P.G.31.672A). 33 Hom.20.4 (P.G.31.532C-533A). 34 Regula fusius tractatae (=Монашеские правила обширные). 44.2 (P.G.31.1032AB). 35 Ps.28.2 (P.G.29.284AC). 36 Ер.222 1.29-37 (P.G.32.820A). 37 Там же, 1.37-45 (там же, 820АВ). 38 Ер.227 1.3-7 (852А). 39 Ер.238 1.20-23 (889В). 40 Ер.28.2 1.142-51 (309А). 41 Ер.62 1.15-19 (417CD). 42 Ер.161.2 1.1-7 (629ВС). 43 Ер.65 1.26-30 (421CD). 44 Ер.204.7 ст.179-180 (С-756В). 45 Ер.240.3 1.1-10 (897АВ). 46 Ер.70.1 1.45-49 (436В). 47 Hexaem.2.4 (P.G.29.36D-37A). 48 Ib.4.7 (93С). 49 Ib.5.5 (104ВС). 50  Ib.5.7 (112ВС). 51 Ер.65 1.17-26 (P.G.34.421C). 52 Ер.151.1 18-27 (608D). 53 Ер.262.2 1.19-22 (976А). 54 Ер.265.3 1.35-41 (989С-992А). 55 Ib.1.3-8 (989А). 56 Ер.266.1 1.41-46 (933АВ). 57  Ер.92 1.23-32 (481С). 58 Ер.92.2 1.25-28 (480С). 59 Ер.125.3 1.1-50 (P.G.32.549). cf. Hermann Doerries. De Spirito Sancto. Der Beitrag des Basilius zum Abschluss der trinitarischen Dogmas. Goettingen, 1956, s.35-49: Die Friedensurkunde (Ep.152). 60

http://pravbiblioteka.ru/reader/?bid=733...

J.M. Szymusiak: «Apologle а 1 " Empereur Constance et Apologie pour sa fuite», S. CH. 56, Paris, 1958, pp. 42–57. 37 X. Le Bachelet: «St Athanase» In DTC. t. I. (Paris, 1923), col. 2165. 38 Smьlcken: «Athanasiana», (Texte und Untersuchungen, 19, 4), Leipzig, 1899. 39 Hoss: «Studien liber das Schrifttum und die Theologie des Athanasius», Freiburg. i. Br., 1899. 40 F. Drдseke: in «Theol. Studien und Kritiken», 1893, LXVI, 251–315. 41 F. Draseke: in «Gesammelte patrlstische Untersuchungen», Altona, 1889, 169–207. 42 Le Bachelet, op. cit. col. 2164. 43 См. Архим. Киприан (Керн): «Антропология Св. Григория Паламы». УМСА — PRESS, Париж, 1950, стр., 139–144. 44 «Против Ариан», I, 14. 45 Ibid. I, 17. 46 Ibid. I, 20. 47 «Против Ариан», I, 22 48 «Против Ариан», I, 39. 49 Ibid. II, 45. 50 Ibid. II, 46. 51 «Против Ариан», II, 47. 52 Ibid. II, 57. 53 Ibid. III, 1–4. 54 «Против Ариан », III, 30. 55 Ibid. III, 20. 56 Его можно найти и у писателей раннего христианства: Татиан, «Против язычников», 5; Ориген, «Против Целса», I, 3; VIII, 67; чтобы не говорить о позднейших. 57 Н. Е. II, 6. 58 Выражение церковного историка Сократа. Н. Е. II, 41. 59 Metaphys. V, 16. 60 Болотов, op. cit., 39–40. 61 «О Соборах», 26. 62 Ibid., 25. 63 Ер. I, 1. 64 J. Lebon, Introduction. Lettres a Serapion. S.CH. 15, Paris, 1947, pp. 31–39. 65 Smьlcken, op. cit. 66 Ер. 1, 10–12. 67 P.G. 25, 685–90. 68 Ер. 8 и 13. 69 «The festal letters of Athanasius, discovered in an ancient syriac version ». London, 1848. 70 T. Vll/1. — Roma, 1863 71 P.G. 26, 1351–1432; 1431–44. 72 A. Puech: «Histoire de la limmйramure grecque chrйmienne», t. III, p. 313. 73 cf. A. Puech: «Histoire de la limmйramure grecque chrйmienne», t. Ill, pp. 261–262. 74 Stanislas Giet: «Homйlies sur l’Hexaйmйron». SCH. 26. Paris, 1950, pp. 56–69. 75 Cruice: «Essai critique sur l’Hexaйmйron de Saint Basile », Paris, 1844. 76 Kari Gronau; «Posidonius, eine Quelle fьr Basilius’ Hexahemeron», Braunschweig, 1912; «Posidonius, und die jьdisch–chrismliche Genesis–Exe–gese», Leipzig–Berlin, 1914. 77

http://pravbiblioteka.ru/reader/?bid=742...

Т. е., обвинение Паламы в том, что он учит о двух Божествах «вышележащем» и «нисходящем». 19 Св. Василий Великий, Adv. Eunom. 2, 1 (PG 29, 656А; 657С), св. Кирилл Александрийский, — см., напр., «De Adoratione in Sp. et ver». (PG 68, 148А); De Trin., dial., 6 (PG 75, 1009). 20 Текст, взятый св. Григорием из того же отрывка, приписанного святоотеческим сборником Афанасию Великому, но относящегося к позднейшей эпохе (см. прим. 8). 21 De Divin. nomin. 5, 1 (PG 3, 816В). 22 Ibid., 1, 1 (585В–588А). 23 Ibid., 5, 2 (816С). 24 Ibid., 9, 6 (953D–956A). 25 De divin. nomin.12, 3 (972А). 26 Ibid., 12, 4 (972АВ). 27 Ibid., 11, 6 (953D–956A). 28 Ер. 2 (1068–1969А). 29 De divin. nomin. 11, 6 (956А). 30 Oratio 41, 3 (PG 36, 431С). Имеется в виду Ис. 40 2. 31 Ср. Nom. Div. 5, 2 (816). 32 Epist. 2 (1069А). 33 Ibidem. 34 Ad Thalass. (PG 90, 637D). 35 Ibid., (644D–645A). 36 Ibid. (324А). Ср. Capit. quinquies centenorum I, 75 (1209С). 37 Ibid. (321А). Cf. 644D. Cp. Capit. quinqu. centen. I, 76 (1212АВ). 38 Adv. Eunom. 5 (PG 29, 772D), св. Василию не принадлежащее. 39 Ав Tit. Hom. 6, 5 (PG 62, 696). 40 Capit. quinqu. centen. IV, 54 (PG 90, 1329), V, 13 (1353В); Ad Thalass. 61, shol. (645A, 645В, С). 41 Adv. Eunom. 5 (PG 29, 769В), св. Василию приписано по ошибке. 42 De Spiritu Sancto, 15 (PG 32, 132В). 43 «De beatitudinibus», Oratio VII (PG 44, 1280С). 44 Ad Thalass. 21 (321А). 45 Слово 72, изд. Никифора Феотоки, Лейпциг, 1770, стр. 415; переиздание Специери, Афины, 1895, стр. 281. 46 Здесь имеется в виду «Святогорский Томос» (PG 101, 1225–1236). 47 Звание «великаго управителя» принадлежало тогда некоему Глабе, одному из четырех верховных судей империи, имеющих голос не только в государственных, но и в церковных делах (см. Кантакузин «История», изд. Боннское II, 91; Томос 1341 года (PG 160, 679–680); Miklosich–Muller «Acta et Diplomata» I, 177). Все материалы, размещенные в электронной библиотеке, являются интеллектуальной собственностью. Любое использование информации должно осуществляться в соответствии с российским законодательством и международными договорами РФ. Информация размещена для использования только в личных культурно-просветительских целях. Копирование и иное распространение информации в коммерческих и некоммерческих целях допускается только с согласия автора или правообладателя

http://pravbiblioteka.ru/reader/?bid=691...

25 3 Kgd 19:9 ff. 26 Probably an echo of both the chariot in which Elijah ascends into heaven in 4 Kgd 2:11, and of the chariot of the soul in Plato’s Phaedrus (246A-C). 27 Cf. 4 Kgd 2:1ff. 28 Probably commenting on 4 Kgd 1:9–12, but alluding also to 4 Kgd 6:15–17. 29 Cf. 1 Kgd 1:9–20. 30 Cf. Lev. 14:33–42 . 31 Cf. 3 Kgd 17:8–24. 32 Cf. Matt. 17:1–8, Магк 9:2–8 , Luke 9:28–36. 33 Cf. Isa. 53:2. 34 Cf. Psa. 44:3. 35 Cf. John 1:1 . 36 Apophasis: Maximus introduces here the technical terms of apophatic and cataphatic theology. 37 Cf. John 1:14 . 38 This section develops the theme just introduced in the dual interpretation of the radiant garments of the Transfigured Christ as both Scriptures and creation. 39 The Evagrian triad of ascetic struggle (praktike), natural contemplation (physike), and theology was related by Origen to a very similar classification of the categories of philosophy in the prologue to his Commentary on the Song of Songs: see Louth (1981), 57–8. 40 Cf. Denys the Areopagite, Ep. 9.1 (1105D). 41 Literally: in a Greek way. It is in contrast with the later ‘in a Jewish way’: cf. St Paul’s contrast between Greeks/Gentiles and Jews, especially in Rom. 1–3 . 42 Cf. Phil. 3.19 . 43 A metaphor for the Incarnation used by Gregory Nazianzen in Sermon 38.2 (PG 36:313B). Maximus devotes a Difficulty to Gregory’s use of the term (suspected of Origenism?): Amb. 33:1285C-1288A, where the Word’s expressing itself in letters and words is one of the interpretations offered of the metaphor. 44 Cf. Gen. 39:11–12 . 45 This is an important section in which Maximus reworks a fundamental Evagrian theme. For Evagrius, the five modes of contemplation are: 1. contemplation of the adorable and holy Trinity, 2. and 3. contemplation of incorporeal and incorporeal beings, 4. and 5. contemplation of judgment and providence (Centuries on Spiritual Knowledge I.27, in Guillaumont 1958 ). Maximus’ understanding is quite different. See Thunberg (1965), 69–75 and Gersh (1978), 226–7. 46 I do not know where Maximus gets these five secret meanings (or hidden logoi) from. They recall Plato’s ‘five greatest kinds’ (being, rest, motion, sameness and difference: see Sophist 254D-255C), but are evidently not the same.

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Endryu-Laut/ma...

1734 Josephus lists numerous local decrees which probably functioned as precedents by which Diaspora Jews sought to defend their status; he also reports the desire of Alexandrian Jews to be equal citizens with the Greeks who dominated the city " s cultural elite; see Rabello, «Condition»; Rajak, «Charter.» 1737 Dodd, Tradition, 120, suggests that it must be pre-70, but the decades shortly after 70 would function just as wel1. The period following 135, after the demise of the Bar Kokhba revolt, witnessed a consolidation of rabbinic antipathy toward inadequately substantiated messianic claims. 1739 Egyptian («The Instruction for King Meri-Ka-Re,» ANET 416; cf. also enthronement oracles, e.g., «The Divine Nomination of Thut-Mose III» and «The Divine Nomination of an Ethiopian King,» ANET 446–48; Wilson, «Prophecy,» 3–16, 10); Ugaritic (Craigie, Ugarit, 35); Mari Moran, «Prophecy,» 17; Craghan, «Mari, " 48, and Paul, «Prophets,» 1160, citing ARM.T 13.23,114); Akkadian («Assyrian Oracles,» ANET 449–50); Assyrian («Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,» ANET274–77,281,286,292); classical Greece (Nilsson, Cults, 123–42). Cf. Ross, «Prophecy,» 17; Hayes, «Oracles,» 81–85. 1741 Collins, Oracles, 4–5 for Mithridates; 9–12 for Persia; 12–19 for Egypt. In general, cf. Aune, Prophecy, 73–77. 1742 Collins, Oracles, 117. Not surprisingly, Tiberius banished all Sibylline oracles considered spurious (Dio Cassius 57.18.5). 1743 This was true not only under Domitian; cf. Tacitus Ann. 14.22; Suetonius Nero 36; MacMullen, Enemies, 133; Kee, Origins, 71. Some philosophers also suffered at Domitian " s hands; cf. lones, Dio Chrysostom, 45; Aulus Gellius 15.11.3–5; Philostratus Vit. Apoll, books 7–8. 1744 Suetonius Dom. 12; Williams, «Domitian»; though cf. Ramsay, Church, 268; Reicke, Era, 286; Josephus Life 429 (Josephus found a patron in the Flavians). The disdain was evidently reciprocated; cf. Sib. Or. 5.39–46 (toward Rome in general, among the early sources, cf., e.g., 4 Ezra 6:9; 11–12; m. " Abot 1:10; 2:3; Sipre Deut. 317.4.2; 320.2.3; Mendels, «Empires»).

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gosp...

580 Cf., e.g., Stowers, Diatribe, 86–93, 122–33. They function thus in both diatribe and other forms of literature: e.g., Cicero Tusc. 3.23.55; Macrobius Sat. 1:15.22 (Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 227); Seneca Dia1. 3.6.1; Epictetus Diatr. 1.1.23–25; 1.2.19–24; 1.28; Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.16.23–24; Dio Chrysostom Or. 21, On Beauty passim; Or. 61, Chryseis passim; Or. 67, On Popular Opinion passim; Meh. Pisha 1.35; p. Sanh. 6:1, §1. Both within and outside diatribe, rhetorical questions (e.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 42.2; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6; 1.19.2–6; Pesiq. Rab. 13:7; cf. Safrai, «Education,» 966) may reflect this form " s influence as wel1. Diatribe had employed interlocution even more in its early period (Malherbe, Exhortation, 129). 581 Dodd, Tradition, 319; cf. Plutarch Oracles at Delphi, Mor. 394D-409D; Epictetus Diatr. 1.11, where Epictetus " s frequent imaginary interlocutor is replaced by a «real» one in a Platonic-like dialogue. This mode of discourse probably also affected discourse traditions peripheral to those of sages (see Aune, Prophecy, 64–65, for some evidence for «oracular dialogue»). 583 Pernot, «Rendez-Vous.» Rhetoricians were, however, trained to argue both sides of an issue eloquently (e.g., Cicero Or. Brut. 14.46). 584 Aristobulus frg. 3, 4 (Eusebius Praep. ev. 13.12.1–2; 13.13.3–8); Let. Arts. 312–316; the various citations in Stern, Authors, 1:8–11, 46, 50, 93–95; cf. 4 Macc 7:7, 9; Charlesworth, «Judeo-Hellenistic Works,» 775; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 39. Christians subsequently claimed Plato: Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1.22.150 and Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.10.14, on Numenius (Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 59–60); Justin 1 Apo1. 59; Armstrong, «Platonism»; cf. Wright, «Faith,» 86), and appeared as a philosophical school (Wilken, «Interpretation,» 444–48; idem, «Christians,» 107–10; idem, «Collegia,» 277). 585   Let. Arts. 200–201,235,296; cf. also, e.g., Acts 17:18–34; b. c Abod. Zar. 54b, bar.; the late tradition in Lam. Rab. 1.1.12–13. For the portrayal of Abraham as a philosopher in early Jewish texts, cf. Mayer, «Aspekte,» 125–26.

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gosp...

  001     002    003    004    005    006    007    008    009    010