| b. The Text of the Bible: Biblical Criticism. The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament, it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. When this differs from the original Hebrew (which happens quite often), the Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation. The best known instance is Isaiah 7:14 ( Is. 7:14 ) – where the Hebrew says ‘A young woman shall conceive and bear a son,’ which the Septuagint translates ‘A virgin shall conceive,’ etc. The New Testament follows the Septuagint text (Mat. 1:23). The Hebrew version of the Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. The Septuagint contains in addition ten further books, not present in the Hebrew, which are known in the Orthodox Church as the ‘Deutero-Canonical Books’ (1 (alias 3) Esdras; Tobit; Judith; 1, 2 and 3Maccabees; Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus; Baruch; Letter of Jeremias. In the west these books are commonly termed ‘The Apocrypha’). 10 These were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be ‘genuine parts of Scripture;’ most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament. Christianity, if true, has nothing to fear from honest inquiry. Orthodoxy, while regarding the Church as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, does not forbid the critical and historical study of the Bible, although hitherto Orthodox scholars have not been prominent in this field. c. The Bible in worship. It is sometimes thought that the Orthodox attach less importance than western Christians to the Bible. Yet in fact Holy Scripture is read constantly at Orthodox Services: during the course of Matins and Vespers the entire Psalter is recited each week, and in Lent twice a week (Such is the rule laid down by the service books. |
| Mosshammer, Alden A. “Disclosing but Not Disclosed: Gregory of Nyssa as Deconstructionist» In Studien zu Gregor von Nyssa und der Christlichen Spa tantike, ed. Hubertus R. Drobner and Christoph Klock, 99–123. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Mulhall, S. Inheritance and Originality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. Nancy, Jean-Luc. “La Deconstruction du Christianisme « Les E tudes Philosophiques 4 (1998): 503–519. – . “Dies Iliä (From One End to the Infinite, or of Creation).» Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 32 (October 2001): 257–276. Nicholas of Cusa. De Li non Aliud. Translated by Jasper Hopkins. Minneapolis: Arthur J. Banning, 1987. – . De Visione Dei. Translated by H. Lawrence Bond. In Nicholas of Cusa, Selected Spiritual Writings, 233–269. New York: Paulist Press, 1997. – . Opera Omnia. Edited by Adelaida Dorothea Riemann. Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 2000. Nietzsche, F. W. Beyond Good and Evil. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books, 1966. – . Die fr hliche Wissenschaft. Translated by Walter Kaufmann as The Gay Science. New York; Vintage Books, 1974. – . Götzen-Dammerung oder Wie Man mit dem Hammer philosophiert. Translated by Walter Kaufmann as Twilight of the Idols in The Portable Nietzsche. New York: Penguin Books, 1968. – . The Will to Power. Translated by Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage Books, 1968. – . Zur Genealogie der Moral. 1887. Samtliche Werke 5. Translated by Walter Kaufmann as Genealogy of Morals. New York: Vintage Books, 1967. Norman, Malcolm. Thought and Knowledge. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977. Nussbaum, М. C. The Fragility of Goodness. Cambridgë Cambridge University Press, 1986. Oliver, Harold H. Relatedness: Essays in Metaphysics and Theology. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984. – . A Relational Metaphysic. The Haguë Martinus Nijhoff, 1981. О Murchadha, F. Zeit des Handelns und Möglichkeit der Verwandlung: Kairologie und Chronologie bei Heideger im Jahrzehnt nach Sein und Zeit. Wu #776;rzbung: Königshausen & Neumann, 1999. |
| A ll the Sacred books of the New Testament were written in the vernacular Greek, an Alexandrian dialect, called koine. This language was spoken, or at least understood, by all the educated inhabitants of the Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire. It was the language of all the cultured people of that time. The Evangelists wrote in Greek rather than in Hebrew, in which the books of the Old Testament were written, in order to make the New Testament books accessible to a maximum number of people. At that time only the capital letters of the Greek alphabet were used in writing, without diacritics, punctuation, or separation between words. Lower case letters appeared only in the ninth century, together with spacing between words. Punctuation marks were introduced only with the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. The present separations of chapters was introduced by Cardinal Hugo in the 13th century, and the separation into verse was done by the Parisian typographer Robert Stephen in the 16th century. Through its learned bishops and priests, the Church always concerned itself with preserving the texts of the Sacred Books in their original purity. This was especially important before the introduction of the printing press, when the texts were copied by hand, and errors could easily infiltrate the new copies. It is known that several Christian scholars of the 2nd and 3rd centuries such as Origen; Isihi, the Bishop of Egypt; and Lukian the priest of Antioch, labored with great diligence over the amendment of the Biblical texts. With the invention of the printing press, careful attention was given to the reproduction of the Sacred New Testament Books to ensure that they were copied according to the most ancient and reliable manuscripts. During the first quarter of the 16th century there appeared two publications of the New Testament texts in Greek: the “Complete Book of Writings” published in Spain, and the edition of Erasmus of Rotterdam in Basel. By the end of the last century, the scholar Tischendorf completed an important critical edition, for which he compared approximately nine hundred manuscripts of the New Testament. |
| As we noted in Chapters 1 and 3, Christian writers often spoke of their Gospels (and other books) as handed down to them. Christian writers of the second century do not speak of choosing the Gospels, or of the criteria they might have created for making such choices. This is not the way they thought. When speaking of the church’s part in the process they instead use words like ‘receive’, ‘recognize’, ‘confess’, ‘acknowledge’, and their opposites. Just like the faith itself, which had been ‘received from the apostles and transmitted to its children’ (Irenaeus, AH 3.I.praef; cf. 1.10.1), so the Gospels themselves were ‘handed down’ to the church by the same apostles (AH 3.1. praef.; 3.1.1, 2). Irenaeus contrasts the Gospel of Truth to ‘those [Gospels] which have been handed down to us from the apostles’ (3.11.9). He criticizes Marcion and his followers for not ‘recognizing’ some books of the New Testament (3.12.12), and others because they do not ‘confess’ the Scriptures but pervert them with their interpretations (3.12.12). Others, again, ‘do not admit’John’s Gospel … but ‘set aside ... both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit’ (3.11.9). The Muratorian Fragment, too, speaks of certain books which cannot be ‘received’ into the catholic Church (lines 66 – 7; cf. 1. 82), and includes a story about the apostle Andrew and others ‘receiving’ or ‘recognizing’ (1. 14) the Gospel which John wrote. Serapion tells the church at Rhossus: ‘For our part, brethren, we receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ but the pseudepigrapha written in their name we reject, as men of experience, knowing that we did not receive such by tradition’ (EH 6.12.3 – 6). Clement of Alexandria speaks of the ‘acknowledged’ Gospels and calls them ‘the four Gospels that have been handed down to us’. Justin distinguishes between those books which the Jews ‘confess’ and those they do not ‘confess’ (Dial 120.5; cf. 71.5), and has a notion of what the church has ‘received’ from the apostles (here specifically a tradition of Jesus’ words instituting the Eucharist). The Epistle of the Apostles depicts the apostles ‘entrusting’ the ‘word of the gospel’ to their sons and daughters in the church. In the view of these Christians the church is not in a position to choose the books it wants but rather to receive, confess, or acknowledge what has been given. |
| There was one accomplice, albeit unwilling, in the Muscovite schism, and that was Venice. Thus, in conclusion, there remains but to ask: where did Venice find its new edition of the Greek liturgical texts? From the point of view of loyalty to Orthodoxy, these texts were entirely without reproach, pure. But this is the source of the perplexity: insofar as one is able to rely on descriptions of Greek ecclesiastical manuscripts given in Russian liturgical science, there comes to light, even among the Greeks, a similar rift between the manuscript and printed books, such as we observe in Russia. The peculiarities of the Venetian printed text do not find precedent in the manuscripts. What is the reason for this? That there were not enough learned manuscripts? That by chance there appeared in the hands of the researchers books of very ancient origin and old type, and that they did not set their eyes on newer manuscripts? Or, finally, could Venice perhaps have had its own personal source from which it took its texts, apart from the Greek East? The latter is entirely plausible if we take into account that in southern Italy and in Venice itself there were Greek monasteries and an Orthodox population. Be that as it may, this question was not elucidated in Russian historico-liturgical science until the First World War. Another question arises, in and of itself: Was it so completely easy to attain uniformity among the Greeks themselves with the introduction of the printed editions? Were there not open and secret divisions between adherents of the old, manuscript type of church books and proponents of the new, printed books, or perhaps conflicts? Why, for example, do the Jerusalem Liturgicon of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgicon of the Venetian printing differ from each other so markedly that in liturgical science it is accepted practice to speak of the “Jerusalem edition” of the Liturgicon and the “Venetian”? These questions remain unanswered. It is possible that liturgists of the next generation shall find an answer. |
| The sacred books of the New Testament were first written in Greek, which at that time was in common usage. Only the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews were first written in Hebrew. The Gospel of Matthew, however, was translated into Greek in the first century, most likely by the Apostle Matthew himself. The books of both the New Testament and the Old Testament appeared by God’s revelation, were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are therefore called divinely inspired. Apostle Paul says, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness ( II Tim. 3:16 ). The loftiness and purity of Christian teaching in these writings, prophecies, and miracles convince one of the divine origin of Holy Scripture. With special signs, the divine inspiration of sacred books is revealed in the mighty acts of the word of God toward mankind. Wherever the Apostles preached, the hearts of people submitted to the teaching of Christ. The Jews and pagans of the world armed themselves with every evil power known to man against the Christians. Christian martyrs died by the thousands, yet the word of God grew and became firmly established. There are examples in which people started to study the Bible with the hope of disproving the teachings contained therein, and in the end became sincerely reverent and deeply believing people. Each one of us, attentively reading Holy Scripture, can experience in himself the Lord’s almighty power, and be convinced that it is the revelation of God Himself. All Divine revelation is preserved in the Holy Church. The books of Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition – that is, that which was not originally written down in these books, but handed down by word of mouth and only afterwards written down by saints in the early centuries of Christianity (4th and 5th centuries) and consequently have profound antiquity and authenticity – all this is preserved in the Holy Church. The Church was founded by the Saviour Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, and established as the custodian of His Divine revelation. God the Holy Spirit invisibly guards Her. |
| 1693. ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ Священного Синода от 19 июля 2000 года: Преосвященным Магаданским иметь титул Магаданский и Синегорский. –2000, 8, 14. 31. Майкопская и Армавирская 1694. НИКИТИН В. Пребывание Предстоятеля РПЦ на Северном Кавказе и в Закавказье. – 1996, 8, 6. 32. Московская а) г. Москва 1695. РОЖДЕСТВО Христово в Патриаршем соборе. – 1984, 2, 2. 1696. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. Рождественские поздравления Святейшего Патриарха Пимена. – 1984, 3, 9. 1697. ПАСХА Христова в патриаршем соборе. – 1984, 5, 4. 1698. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. Неделя Православия в Богоявленском патриаршем соборе. – 1984, 5, 13. 1699. ПРАЗДНОВАНИЕ памяти святого князя Московского Даниила. – 1984, 5, 13. 1700. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. Пасха Христова в патриаршем соборе. – 1984, 6, 6. 1701. РЕЧЬ Святейшего Патриарха Пимена на приеме по случаю годовщины его патриаршей интронизации 3 июня 1984 года. – 1984, 8, 9. 1702. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. Празднование годовщины патриаршей интронизации. – 1984, 8, 11. 1703. РЕЧЬ Святейшего Патриарха Пимена на приеме по случаю его тезоименитства 9 сентября 1984 года. – 1984, 11, 13. 1704. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. День Ангела Святейшего Патриарха Пимена. – 1984, 11, 14. 1705. АЛЕКСИЙ, священноинок., СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. В святые рождественские дни. – 1985, 3, 8. 1706. МАКАРОВ А. Неделя Православия в Богоявленском патриаршем соборе. – 1985, 5, 13. 1707. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. Пасха Христова в Богоявленском патриаршем соборе. – 1985, 6, 7. 1708. БОГОСЛУЖЕНИЕ в патриаршем соборе в связи с 40-летием Великой Победы. – 1985, 7, 7. 1709. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. 14-я годовщина интронизации Святейшего Патриарха Пимена. – 1985, 7, 7. 1710. П. Богослужение на греческом языке в московском храме. – 1985, 10, 17. 1711. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. День тезоименитства Святейшего Патриарха Пимена. – 1985, 11, 42. 1712. СЛОВО Святейшего Патриарха Пимена на приме в день его тезоименитства. Москва, 9 сентября 1985г. – 1985, 11, 40. 1713. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. Новый год и праздник Рождества Христова в Богоявленском патриаршем соборе. – 1986, 3, 8. |
| 2. Трофимов С. Лютеровские торжества в Латвии. – 1984, 1, 68. 4914. РЕЧЬ Святейшего Патриарха Пимена на приеме представителей Евангелическо- Лютеранской Церкви Латвии в Московской Патриархии 18 сентября 1985 года. – 1985, 12, 5. 4915. РЕЧЬ Святейшего Патриарха Пимена при вручении ему поздравительного адреса Архиепископом Евангелическо – Лютеранской Церкви Эстонии д-ром Эдгаром Харком 18 сентября 1985 года. – 1985, 12, 5. 4916. ПИМЕН, патр. Поздравление Архиепископу д-ру Эдгару Харку (в связи с 50– летием пасторской ординации). – 1986, 7, 62. 4917. ИЗБРАНИЕ Архиепископа Евангелическо –Лютеранской Церкви Латвии. Телеграмма (с извещением) Патриарху Московскому и всея Руси Пимену и ответ на нее. – 1986, 8, 62. 4918. К КОНЧИНЕ Архиепископа д-ра Эдгара Харка. Пимен, патр. Телеграмма соболезнованием Консистории Евангелическо- Лютеранской Церкви Эстонии. – 1987, 1, 57. 4919. ИНТРОДУКЦИЯ Архиепископа Евангелическо-Лютеранской Церкви Эстонии д-ра Куно-Паюлы. Поздравительная телеграмма Святейшего Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Пимена. – 1988, 7, 66. 4920. ГОСТИ из Таллинна в Ленинградской Духовной Академии (Экуменическая хроника). – 1988, 9, 76. 4921. ПРАЗДНОВАНИЕ Рождества Христова в инославных приходах Ленинграда. (Хроника). – 1989, 8, 62. США 4922. И.Б. Визит делегации Лютеранской Церкви в Америке. – 1984, 7, 66. 4923. ПРЕБЫВАНИЕ в Москве епископа Лютеранской Церкви в Америке Джеймса Р. Крамли. – 1987, 12, 66. Финляндия 4924. ПОЕЗДКИ архиепископа Волоколамского Питирима в Финляндию, ФРГ и Данию. – 1984, 2, 56. 4925. К ВИЗИТУ Главы Евангелическо –Лютеранской Церкви Финляндии Архиепископа д-ра Йона Викстрема в Советский Союз. Речь Святейшего Патриарха Пимена во время приема Архиепископа д-ра Йона Викстрема 12 июня 1985 года. – 1985, 10, 60. 4926. ПРЕБЫВАНИЕ митрополита Таллиннского и Эстонского Алексия в Финляндию. – 1985, 11, 85. 4927. ПРИСВОЕНИЕ архиепископу Вологодскому Михаилу звания доктора богословия “гонорис кауза”. – 1985, 3, 59. 4928. И.Б. Визит Архиепископа д-ра Йона Викстрема в Советский Союз. – 1986, 1, 54. |
| -------- 3207. НАРЕЧЕНИЕ и хиротония архимандрита Петра (Пэдурару) во епископа Бельского. – 1991, 9, 33. -------- 3208. 13-ЛЕТИЕ со дня интронизации Святейшего Патриарха Пимена: 1. Речь Святейшего Патриарха Пимена на приеме по случаю годовщины его патриаршей интронизации 3 июня 1984 года. – 1984, 8, 9. 2. Соколов Ф., диак. Празднование годовщины патриаршей интронизации. – 1984, 8, 11. 3209. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. 74-я годовщина со дня рождения Его Святейшества. – 1984, 9, 8. 3210. СЛОВО Святейшего Патриарха Пимена на приеме по случаю его 74-летия. (Москва, 23 июля 1984 года). – 1984, 9, 8. 3211. РЕЧЬ Святейшего Патриарха Пимена на приеме по случаю дня его тезоименитства 9 сентября 1984 года. – 1984, 11, 13. 3212. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. День Ангела Святейшего Патриарха Пимена. – 1984, 11, 14. 3213. АЛЕКСАНДР, еп. Святейший Патриарх Пимен о задачах Духовной школы. (К 300-летию МДА). – 1985, 1, 60. 3214. 75-ЛЕТИЕ Святейшего Патриарха Пимена: 1. Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР о награждении Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Пимена орденом Трудового Красного Знамени. 2. Празднование юбилейной даты. – 1985, 7, 2. 3215. ВРУЧЕНИЕ юбилейной награды Святейшему Патриарху Пимену. – 1985, 7, 3. 3216. СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. 14-я годовщина интронизации Святейшего Патриарха Пимена. – 1985, 7, 8. 3217. СЛОВО Святейшего Патриарха Пимена на официальном приеме в день празднования 14-ой годовщины патриаршей интронизации 3 июня 1985 года. – 1985, 7, 7. 3218. К 75-ЛЕТИЮ Святейшего Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Пимена: 1. Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР о награждении Патриарха Московского и всея Руси орденом Трудового Красного Знамени. 2. Пимен, патр. Телеграмма Председателю Президиума Верховного Совета СССР А. А. Громыко. 3. Обмен телеграммами между Святейшим Патриархом Пименом и Председателем Совета по делам религии К. М. Харчевым. 4. Заключительное слово Святейшего Патриарха Пимена на торжественном акте в МДА 23 июля 1985 года. 5. Ответное слово Святейшего Патриарха Пимена на праздничной трапезе в Свято-Троицкой Сергиевой Лавре 23 июля 1985 года. |
| Bergmeier, «Beobachtungen» Bergmeier, Roland. «Beobachtungen zu 4Q521 f 2, II, 1–13.» Zeifschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 145 (1995): 38–48. Bergmeier, «Erfüllung» Bergmeier, Roland. «Erfüllung der Gnadenzusagen an David.» ZNW 86 (1995): 277–86. Bergmeier, «Frühdatierung» Bergmeier, Roland. «Zur Frühdatierung samaritanischer Theologoumena.»JSJ 5 (1974): 121–53. Bergmeier, «ΤΕΤΕΛΕΣΤΑΙ» Bergmeier, Roland. «ΤΕΤΕΛΕΣΤΑΙ Joh 19:30.» ZNW 79 (1988): 282–90. Bernabe Ubieta, «Mujer» Bernabe Ubieta, Carmen. «La mujer en el evangelio de Juan: La revelaciôn, el discipulado, y la mision.» Ephemerides mariologicae 43 (1993): 395–416. Bernal, Athena Bernal, Martin. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. Vo1. 1: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece, 1785–1985. London: Free Association Books, 1987. Vo1. 2: The Archaeological and Documentary Evidence. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1991. Bernard, John Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T8cT Clark, 1928. Berrouard, «Paraclet» Berrouard, M.-F. «Le Paraclet, défenseur du Christ devant la conscience du croyant (Jo. XVI, 8–11).» Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 33 (1949): 361–89. Berry and Heath, «Declamation» Berry, D. H., and Malcolm Heath. «Oratory and Declamation.» Pages 393–420 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.-A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Best, Mark Best, Ernest. Mark: The Gospel as Story. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T8cT Clark, 1983. Best, Peter Best, Ernest. 1 Peter. New Century Bible. London: Marshall, Morgan 8c Scott, 1971. Best, Thessalonians Best, Ernest. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. Black " s New Testament Commentaries. London: A&C Black, 1977. Betz, «Gospel» Betz, Otto. «Jesus» Gospel of the Kingdom.» Pages 53–74 in The Gospel and the Gospels. Edited by Peter Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. |
|
|
