| The centrality of Torah for early Judaism cannot be overstated. 3115 Jewish people scrupulously taught Torah to their children, 3116 and were thus regarded among pagans as a particularly educated people. 3117 The relatively popular Pharisees and their successors were particularly known for their study of the Law. 3118 Tannaim emphasized lifelong study of Torah; 3119 a Torah scroll could be said to be «beyond price.» 3120 Some declared study of Torah the Biblés point in saying «serve the Lord with all onés heart and soul»; 3121 other Tannaitic texts attribute the exile to neglect of Torah, 3122 or declare it better never to have been born than to be unable to recite words of Torah, 3123 or declare one who does not study worthy of death; 3124 or declare that Torah study is a greater role than priesthood or kingship. 3125 Amoraim tend to be even more graphic: God himself keeps Torah; 3126 the entire world represents less than a thousandth of Torah. 3127 Amoraim elaborated the Tannaitic tradition that the world is sustained by Torah: the world would not continue without it. 3128 And whereas the Holy One may be lenient in judging idolatry, sexual immorality, murder, or even apostasy, he would not be lenient in neglect of Torah. 3129 But Torah " s importance was hardly limited to the Pharisees and later rabbis, although most people did not have the time for academic pursuits in which rabbis reveled. The Qumran sectarians, practicing virtual monasticism so as to devote themselves fully to Torah study, apparently emphasized devotion to Torah more heavily than their other is broader than code or custom, denoting instruction and revelation. 3130 God " s law is like an «answer,» that is, an oracle, from God ( Sir 36:3 ). We may safely leave aside discussion of the concept of «oral law» here. Although rabbinic traditions eventually came to be identified with the law itself as a sort of «oral law,» 3131 and viewed oral tradition as greater than written Torah 3132 (because oral law encompassed and explained written law), 3133 it is debated how widely spread this development was in the Johannine period. 3134 (Proposed early attestation in Philo probably simply attests a Greek idea which may or may not prove relevant to the study of Jewish oral law.) 3135 Like the Samaritans, 3136 many non-Pharisaic Jews regarded the written Torah as sufficient, while filling in its gaps, which they did not explicitly admit existed. The early image of the fence around Torah, 3137 however, reflects the importance of Torah observance; the «fence» of traditional interpretations that grew up around the law, assumed to be correct, 3138 was undoubtedly in practice identified contemporaries. 3139 The Laws centrality appears in Greek-speaking Jewish texts as well as documents in Hebrew or Aramaic: for instance, the Law was eternal ( Bar 4:1 ) and constituted God " s holy words (Let. Arts. 177). 3140 |
| John Anthony McGuckin Canon Law ANDREI PSAREV Canon law is the sum of ecclesiastical regulations recognized by church authorities; the discipline, study, or practice of church jurisprudence. The term derives from the ancient Greek word kanon, meaning “yardstick” or “standard.” It has been used since the time of the early church for the rule of faith (regula fidei) established by Christ and the apostles ( Gal. 6.16 ; Phil. 3.16 ). THE TASKS OF CANON LAW As a field, canon law deals with the following issues: the sources of canon law, church order, the foundation of new Orthodox churches, the canonization of saints, the ecclesiastical calendar, control for the execution of justice, the ecclesiastical court, marriage regulations, reception of converts from other confessions, the church’s relations with civil authorities, the correlation of church law with civil law, finances, and ownership relations. Canon law includes the subjects and methods of other theological disciplines: critical analysis (church history), doctrinal teaching (dogmatics), canons of the holy fathers (patristics), baptism, and reception into the church (liturgics). The New Testament is the disclosure of the essence of the “Covenant of the Law” contained in the Old Testament Pentateuch: “Not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” ( 2Cor. 3.6 ); thus, for Christian Orthodox: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but rather faith working through love” ( Gal. 5.6 ). The Decalogue and all the commandments of Christ and his apostles have received in the Christian Church the status of law. Every church regulation is supposed to be based on them as on a source. From the very beginning, Christian society had to deal with a diversity of opinions. In order to establish consensus as to whether or not the proselytes had to observe Mosaic Law, a council of apostles was convened in Jerusalem (Acts 15). This principle of conciliarity, the convention of church representatives for an open competition of views, became one of the main mechanisms that the Orthodox Church applied, and still uses, to establish consensus. |
| In Article I of the Antidiscrimination Law, the equality of all citizens is declared before the law, in spite of the differences between them, which, of course, is guaranteed even without this by the fundamental law of the State—the Constitution. Furthermore the Antidiscrimination Law adds such terms as “sexual orientation,” “gender identity” and “marriage state.” The Patriarchate has requested that these concepts be clarified, since they were not included in the Constitution before. The answer to this request was not forthcoming. The question arises: Are “sex” and “gender” synonymous? We all know that there are two sexes and the civil rights of both are protected by the Constitution; but how many genders exist, and what is to be understood by the term “gender identity?” The suspicion arises: isn’t this law the first step to the legalization of same-sex marriages? The Patriarchate demanded of the authorities that in the Antidiscrimination Law the general formula about “marriage state” be clarified in the following way: ‘marriage means the voluntary union of a man and a woman with the aim of the creation of a family.’ We considered this to be essential, because the suspicion arises: isn’t this general formulation, ‘marriage state’, a deliberately left-open door for a potential future amendment to the Civil Code, with the help of which the legalization of same-sex marriages could easily be pushed through? Article 3 defines the sphere of action of this law. When the law was presented in the form of a bill, its sphere of action was defined concretely and began with pre-school age and (grade) schools. This provoked public indignation, and we are glad that these words were deleted from the law. However, instead of this, the following formulation appeared: ‘The requirements provided in the present law apply to the actions of state institutions, organizations, private and legal entities in all spheres of activity…’ ‘In all spheres’—this is an unrestricted understanding and in a veiled way may likewise mean pre-school and school institutions. |
| Here is the explanation from the perspective of sacred cosmology of the variation observed in Darwin’s finches and Kettlewell’s peppered moths --not examples of “natural selection” originating new species, but expressions of the wonderful Providence and wisdom of God found in the world of nature, in which the natural law that reveals the Logos in the logoi of created beings permits the miraculous adaptability of organisms to adjust to the changing circumstances of the sensible world without in any way confusing or violating the inherent fixity of their essential natures. Theistic evolutionists who, like Teilhard de Chardin, seek to explain the origin of things “scientifically” as God creating the world by the process of evolution, are, Maximos would say, conceiving the cosmogonic process unworthily of God, as well as denying the true nature of the union of the logoi of beings in the Logos. Underlying the triple embodiment of the Logos in creation, Scripture and humanity are the three great laws of embodiment: the natural law, the Scriptural law and the law of grace. In the Quaestiones ad Thalassium 19 , Maximos shows the three laws to be equivalent in their ability to provide access to the Logos, since He is the Author of all three and the Judge of all who are under those laws (which is everyone and everything). In Amb. 10 , Maximos refers to the cosmos under the natural law as a “bible” and the Scripture under the written law a “cosmos,” strongly underlining their mutuality and reciprocity: “[T]he two laws are interchangeably the same in relation to each other: the written law is potentially identical with the natural law, while the natural law is habitually identical with the written law.” He teaches that it is possible to interpret the cosmos with the same exegetical principles used with Scripture; indeed, this must be done if the cosmos is to be properly understood. This insight recalls a general patristic principle of Scriptural exegesis, found in St. Basil the Great and St. |
| Of the fact that they were justly punished, who sinned before the flood. And so then we see that from the beginning God created everything perfect, nor would there have been need for anything to have been added to His original arrangement – as if it were shortsighted and imperfect – if everything had continued in that state and condition in which it had been created by Him. And therefore in the case of those who sinned before the law and even before the flood we see that God visited them with a righteous judgment, because they deserved to be punished without any excuse, for having transgressed the law of nature; nor should we fall into the blasphemous slanders of those who are ignorant of this reason, and so depreciate the God of the Old Testament, and run down our faith, and say with a sneer: Why then did it please your God to will to promulgate the law after so many thousand years, while He suffered such long ages to pass without any law? But if He afterwards discovered something better, then it appears that at the beginning of the world His wisdom was inferior and poorer, and that afterwards as if taught by experience He began to provide for something better, and to amend and improve His original arrangements. A thing which certainly cannot happen to the infinite foreknowledge of God, nor can these assertions be made about Him by the mad folly of heretics without grievous blasphemy, as Ecclesiastes says: I have learned that all the words which God has made from the beginning shall continue forever: nothing can be added to them, and nothing can be taken away from them, Ecclesiastes 3:14 and therefore the law is not made for the righteous, but for the unrighteous, and insubordinate, for the ungodly and sinners, for the wickedand profane. 1 Timothy 1:9 For as they had the sound and complete system of natural laws implanted in them they had no need of this external law in addition, and one committed to writing, and what was given as an aid to that natural law. From which we infer by the clearest of reasonings that that law committed to writing need not have been given at the beginning (for it was unnecessary for this to be done while the natural law still remained, and was not utterly violated) nor could evangelical perfection have been granted before the law had been kept. |
| 562 Stein, «Criteria,» 225–28; see also Stanton, Gospel Truth, 60–61; Wright, People of God, 421. 563 Theissen, Gospels, 25–29. Cf. also the presence of Semitisms (e.g., Jeremias, Theology, passim; 565 This image appears in Tannaitic sources (Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.14 [anonymous and R. Akiba]; Sipre Deut. 306.25.1 [perhaps an Amoraic gloss]; 313.2.4; 351.1.2–3 [anonymous and R. Gamaliel]; " Abot R. Nat. 15 A and 29, §§61–62 Β [attributed to Shammai and Hillel]) as well as later Amoraic ones (b. Ber. 5a; Meg. 19b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:7; 10:5; 15:5; Pesiq. Rab. 3:1; Num. Rab. 13:15–16; 14:4; Lam. Rab. proem 2; Song Rab. 1:2, §5; 1:3, §2; cf. Neusner, Sat, 73–74; Patte, Hermeneutic, 23,87–92). Because it completes it, oral law takes precedence over and is more precious than Scripture in later sources (e.g., b. c Abod. Zar. 35a; c Erub. 21b; Menah. 29b; p. c Abod. Zar. 2:7, §3; Hor. 3:5, §3; Sanh. 11:4, §1; Song Rab. 1.2, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 3:2; cf. Sipra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.1; Sipre Deut. 115.1.1–2; 161.1.3; " Abot R. Nat. 2–3A; p. Meg. 1:5, §3; Urbach, Sages, 1:305), but rarely in the earliest rabbinic sources (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 115–125), and never in Josephus or early Christian comments (Bonsirven, Judaism, 85). «Oral law» may have developed the Pharisaic fence of tradition to counter Jewish Christian and gnostic use of Scripture; cf. Chernick, «Responses»; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 159. 566 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 97–130; idem, Judaism, 424. The idea does appear in m. " Abot 1–2; this structure cannot be dated before the time of the last disciples mentioned, i.e., to end of the first century C.E. or later, but may derive support from earlier purported esoteric revelations to Moses on Sinai (cf. Charles, Jubilees, p. L, on Jubilees; cf. 4 Ezra 14:6). Sanders (Jesus to Mishnah, 126–27; Judaism, 424) thinks that the Essenes were closer to regarding their own tradition as law ( 11QT) than the Pharisees were (though Essene halakah, in contrast to Pharisaic halakah, was primarily written; see Baumgarten, «Unwritten Law»). Some groups, like Sadducees and Samaritans, pretended to reject postbiblical halakah (cf. Bowman, Documents, v-vi). |
| 36 . Interpretation of the outward form of Scripture according to the norms of sense-perception must be superseded, for it clearly promotes the passions as well as proclivity towards what is temporal and transient. That is to say, we must destroy the impassioned activity of the senses with regard to sensible objects, as if destroying the children and grandchildren of Saul (cf. 2Sam. 21: 1 – 9 ); and we must do this by ascending to the heights ofnatural contemplation through a mystical interpretation of divine utterances, if in any way we desire to be filled with divine grace. 37 . When the Law is understood only according to the letter, it is hostile to the truth, as the Jews were, and as is anyone else who possesses their mentality. For such a person limits the Law " s power merely to the letter, and does not advance to natural contemplation, which reveals the spiritual knowledge hidden mystically in the letter; for this contemplation mediates between figurative representations of the truth and the truth itself, and leads its adepts away from the first and towards the second. On the contrary, he rejects natural contemplation altogether and so excludes himself from initiation into divine realities. Those who diligently aspire to a vision of these realities must therefore destroy the outward and evanescent interpretation of the Law, subject to time and change; and they must do this by means of natural contemplation, having ascended to the heights of spiritual knowledge. 38 . A man totally obliterates the outward or literal sense of Scripture when through the practice of natural contemplation he destroys his soul’s pleasure-provoked and body-indulging subjection – promoted by the written Law – to the restless and evanescent world of materiality. In this way he slays, as though it were Saul’s children and grandchildren, his earth-bound understanding of the Law. At the same time, through this natural contemplation on the heights of spiritual knowledge, he openly confesses his error of previously interpreting the Law according to its outward form. For the text, ‘to hang them before the Lord’ (cf. 2Sam. 21: 9 ), may be understood to mean this: to bring into the light by means of spiritual knowledge his preoccupation with the letter of the Law and the prejudice from which he suffers as a result. This is to show that, thanks to contemplation, the letter of the Law has been killed by spiritual knowledge. |
| 3449 Painter, «Christology,» 51: «In the beginning» vs. «came to be» (though cf. 1:14); «was with God» vs. «sent from God» (though this often depicts Christ, too); «was God» vs. «his name was lohn»; «in the beginning with God» vs. «came for a witness»; «all things came to be through him … in him was life … the light of men» vs. «to witness concerning the light.» These parallels are inexact, but the contrast of 1:8–9 is explicit. 3450 Fritsch, Community, 117, who adds that this «could explain how the Evangelist came to know so much about John the Baptist and the Essene-Covenanter background out of which he came.» Longenecker, Ministry, 70, suggests that the «one baptism» of Eph 4shares this polemical context. Cf. Bultmann, Tradition, 165; Morris, John, 88. 3451 Daniélou, Theology, 62. Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.54 warns that some followers of the Baptist proclaimed him the Christ (cited in Michaels, John, 7; cf. Luke 3:15). 3452 Stanton, Gospels, 167; Kysar, «Contributions of Prologue,» 359 n. 32; cf. still more strongly Smalley, John, 127. Taking an exalted self-understanding back to the Baptist himself (Hengel, Leader, 36) is even harder to argue. 3453 Cf. Kysar, «Contributions,» 359 (suggesting «Jewish opponents… arguing that Jesus was the equal of John the Baptist but no more»). His concessions to Bultmann, but with the warning that Bultmann certainly exaggerated, are in his n. 32. 3454 Cf. Fiorenza, Revelation, 195; cf. also Collins, Oracles, 118, who remarks concerning Egyptian oracles that the purpose of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles «was primarily to establish common ground between the Jewish and gentile worlds.» 3455 «Balaam» suggests an oracular connection (Aune, Prophecy, 218; as the greatest pagan prophet, cf. Josephus Ant. 4.104; Sipre Deut. 343.6.1; 357.18.1–2; Exod. Rab. 32:3; Num. Rab. 14:20; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1; as philosopher or sage, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Gen. Rab. 65:20; 93:10; Lam. Rab. proem 2), but he also epitomized wickedness in Jewish lore (e.g., «the wicked Balaam» in m. " Abot 5:19; b. c Abod. Zar. 4a; Ber. 7a; Sanh. 105b, 106a; cf. Exod. Rab. 30:20; Num. Rab. 20:6), these traditions supplying details missing in Num 22–25 ; Mic 6:5 : leading Israel to immorality, hence judgment (Josephus Ant. 4.157; LA.B. 18:13; Sipre Deut. 252.1.4; p. Sanh. 10:2, §8; cf. Jude 11; Judith 5:20–21; p. Ta c an. 4:5, §10), greed and eschatological shortsightedness ( 2Pet 2:15 ; Pesiq. Rab. 41:3), folly ( 2Pet 2:15 ; Philo Cherubim 32; Worse 71; Unchangeable 181; Confusion 64, 159; Migration 115–cited by LCL l:xxv; Ecc1. Rab. 2:15, §2), and vanity (Philo Confusion 159; m. " Abot 5:19); cf. Caird, Revelation, 39, who cites Philo Moses 1.292–304; Josephus Ant. 4.126–130 in support of the idea that religious syncretism is in view here. |
| 4287 For an example of the question demeaning one, cf. perhaps the later p. Pesah. 6(involving Hillel, and where he is vindicated). 4289 Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 56, suggest 1600–2000 inhabitants, based on the tombs; cf. p. 27. More recent estimates suggest below 500 (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 112; Horsley, Galilee, 193); perhaps those who lived in the nearby countryside would count themselves inhabitants in a more general way. Although some opined that coming from a famous city was necessary for happiness (Plutarch Demosthenes 1.1), Plutarch thinks life in a famous city necessary only if one needed exposure (Demosthenes 2.1; cf. John 7:3–4 ). 4290 Cf. Finkelstein, Pharisees, 1:41. See Harvey, History, 3, for a summary of the initial archaeological discoveries concerning early Roman Nazareth (for an early defense of Jesus» Nazarene connection " s authenticity, see Moore, «Nazarene»; more speculatively on earlier excavations of Joseph " s legendary home, cf. de Nazareth, «Maison»). 4291 Horsley, Galilee, 193. Cf. the more concrete data in Egyptian tax records in Lewis, Life, 67–68. 4293 The theater seated 4000–5000 (Freyne, Galilee, 138; cf. further Boatwright, «Theaters»). For a summary of archaeological and literary evidence on the city, see Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers, «Sepphoris»; cf. Boelter, «Sepphoris»; for the Dionysus mosaic, Weiss and Netzer, «Sty»; for its wealth, Meyers, Netzer and Meyers, «Byt-mydwt.» 4294 Later rabbis told of individual minim there (t. Hu1. 2:24) but do not provide details for an entire Jewish-Christian community (Miller, " Minim»). 4295 See Avi-Yonah, «Geography,» 105, citing especially Josephus Ant. 18.37; Life 67; and aniconic coins after 67 C.E.; Freyne, Galilee, 138; for Tiberias, see Josephus Life 275, 279. Cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5; later rabbinic Judaism found a welcome home there (see Meyers, «Judaism and Christianity,» 76). This is not to say that it was entirely orthodox by Pharisaic standards (cf., e.g., Cornfeld, Josephus, 216); more Gentiles may have also moved there, at least after 135 (see Horsley, Galilee, 104). For Christians coming there, cf., e.g., b. c Abod. Zar. 17a; Herford, Christianity, 115; Crocker, «Sepphoris.» |
| 3738 Sir 26:15 . The preposition differs (as most scholars cited above would point out, stressing ντ in 1:16); but LXX readers might have suspected an allusion; prepositions were losing some force by the Koine period. 3740 So also others, e.g., Boismard, Prologue, 62. Dumbrell, «Law,» proposes that Christ here fulfills God " s original purpose in the law-giving of Exod 19–20 as opposed to the second law-giving in Exod 34; this requires us to assume that the Johannine community accepted a difference between the two gifts of Torah (a possible reading of John because midrashically natural, but not clear in the text). 3743 Against Pancaro, Law, 540; cf. even Epp, «Wisdom,» 139: «Torah has been displaced–superseded by Jesus Christ,» though he notes that the contrast is temporal rather than qualitative (pp. 140–41). 3744 The argument that John must oppose Torah because Jesus speaks of «your law» falters on the analogy that he also calls Abraham «your father,» «though obviously no disparagement of Abraham is intended (cf. 8.39–40), but rather of their appeal to him» (Whitacre, Polemic, 65–66). 3746 Pancaro, Law, 534–46, argues correctly that the parallelism here is antithetical rather than synthetic. Some ancient versions, including the Peshitta, understood (and translated) an implicit adversative (see Baarda, « John 1 ,17b,» also suggesting that «grace» was missing in an underlying text). 3750 1 Esd 9:39; LA.B. 11:2; " Abot R. Nat. 1 A; Sipre Deut. 305.1.2; Ned. 38a; cf. Barrett, John, 169; Sib. Or. 11.37 (Egypt, maybe first century B.C.E.); cf. texts that stress Torah as God " s gift, e.g., Sipre Deut. 32.5.10; Lev. Rab. 35:8; Num. Rab. 19:33. Moore, Judaism, 1:398, cites also the ancient Ahabah Rabbah preceding the Shema. Despite Moses» greatness, others were worthy that Torah should have been given through them: Ezra (t. Sanh. 4:7; b. Sanh. 21b; p. Meg. 1:9, §3); yet Moses was «the best-known figure of Jewish history in the pagan world» (Gager, Moses, 18), and pagans called Moses the νομοθτης of the Jews (Gager, Moses, 25; for positive views, see 25–79; for deficiencies, 80–112). |
|
|
