| Good, Е.М. «Apocalyptic as Comedy: The Book of Daniel.» Semeia 32 (1985): 4170. Gooding, D.W. «The Literary Structure of the Book of Daniel and Its Implications.» TynBul 32 (1981): 4379. Gottwald, Norman. The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Grayson, A.K. Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1975. Greenbcrg, Moshe. Ezekiel 120; Ezekiel2137. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1983; 1997. Gwaltney, W.C. «The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament Literature.» In Scripture in ContextII: More Essays on the Comparative Method, pp. 191211. Ed. by W.W. Hallo, J.C. Moyer, and L.G. Perdue. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Hals, R.M. Ezekiel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Hanson, Paul D. Isaiah 4066. Int. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1995. Harrison, R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Harrison, R.K. Jeremiah and Lamentations. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973. Hartman, L.P., and A. A. DiLella. The Book of Daniel. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978. Hasel, G.F. «The Book of Daniel: Evidences relating to Persons and Chronology.» A USS (1981): 3749. Hayes, John II ., and Stuart A. Irvine. Isaiah, the Eighth-century Prophet. Nashville: Abingdon, 1987. Heim, K. «The Personification of Jerusalem and the Drama of Her Bereavement in Lamentations.» In Zion, City of Our God, pp. 129169. Ed. by R.S. Hess and G.J. Wenham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Killers, Delbert. Lamentations. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1972. Holladay, WL. The Architecture of Jeremiah 1–20. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University, 1976. Holladay, W.L. «Had Ezekiel Known Jeremiah Personally?» CBQ 63 (2001): 3134. Holladay, W.L. Jeremiah. Hermeneia. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986,1989. Holladay, W.L. Jeremiah: Spokesman Out of Time. Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1974. Holladay, W.L. «Prototype and Copies: A New Approach to the Poetry-Prose Problem in the Book of Jeremiah. " VBI 79 (1960): 351367. |
| Our Humbleness, at the proposal of the Metropolitan Synod of the Holy Metropolis of Oltenia, together with all the members of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church, observing the lives well-pleasing to God of these blessed saints and venerable fathers, who have hallowed and embellished the land of Oltenia, taking into account their praiseworthy diligence towards prayer and in the defence of true faith, and in pursuing the spiritual benefit of the Orthodox people bearing the name of Christ, following the holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church, on a canonical and synodal basis, calling the help of the grace of the Most Holy, Consubstantial, Life-giving and Undivided Trinity, WE DECIDE That from now on and unto eternity the venerable Saints Neophyte and Meletios from Stânioara Monastery, with a feast day on September 3rd, and Daniel and Misael from Turnu Monastery, with a feast day on October 5th, be numbered among the saints of the Church and be commemorated and honored with hymns of praise on their feast days. We also decide, in the Holy Spirit, that the priests, monastics and lay faithful of our Church receive, with piety, the lives, services and icons of the venerable Saints Neophyte and Meletios from Stânioara Monastery, and Daniel and Misael from Turnu Monastery. In order to establish completely what we have decided synodically and canonically, we reinforce with our signatures this Synodal Tomos on the canonization of the venerable Saints Neophyte and Meletios from S tânioara Monastery, and Daniel and Misael from Turnu Monastery, bringing it to the attention of the clergy and all the faithful of the Romanian Patriarchate. This canonization Synodal Tomos is proclaimed today, 28 September, the year of salvation 2016, in the church of the Holy Monastery of Saint Anthimos, in the Troianu neighborhood in Râmnicu Vâlcea, dedicated to the Life-Giving Spring and the Holy Hieromartyr Anthimos the Ivirite. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God the Father and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all! President of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church |
| 252 Пред началом литургии верных дьякон подает умываться иерею и пресвитерам, окружающим жертвенник Божий. И это, говорит св. отец, совсем не ради телесной скверны, ибо с плотскою скверною не входим в Церковь , но умовение знаменует, что надлежит вам очистить себя от всех грехов. Не слышал ли ты блаженного Давида, сие самое тайнодейственно глаголющего: умыю в неповинных " ... Поуч. V, 2. – Об умовении упоминает Епифаний пред целованием: «входящему иерею дьякон несет воду для омовения рук» – следов. первое вступление священника в алтарь было только пред этим (Bunsen, II. s. 501, прим. 2.). 255 Литургия верных. Начало – греческ. и сирский тексты: возглас дьякона: да никто от оглашенных, никто от непосвященных, никто из немогущих молиться вместе с нами. Друг друга опознайте. Прямо все. Паки Господу помолимся (Swains. 238–239; Daniel, p. 97, § XVI). Начинательная молитва священника: Боже и Владыко всех, достойными часа сего соделал нас недостойных, человеколюбец, дабы мы очистившись от всякой лести и всякого лицемерия, соединились друг с другом союзом мира и любви (Sw. р 245; Daniel, р. 99–100, § XIX; Renaudot, II, р. 29 oratio ante osculam pacis). Дьякон: будем стоять благопристойно... яко Бог мира... (Sw. р. 214–245: Daniel, р. 100, § XIX, ср. Renaud. р. 29). Молитва священника: единый Господь и милостивый (Sw.p. 245; Dan. р. 100–101, § XXI, Renaud. р. 30 (Sw. р. 335) qui solus Dominus miserecors es....). Молитва; Боже, по великому и неизреченному человеколюбию, пославый Единородного Сына Твоего в мир... не отвратись от нас грешных, приступающих к сей страшней и бескровной жертве твоей (Sw.258–259; Даниель, р. 105, § XXV; сирский, Deus pater qui propter amorem tuum erga hominem, Renaudot, p. 29–30 (Sw. 335) Возлюбим друг друга лобзанием святым (Sw. 244–245, Daniel, 100, § XX, Renaudot: date pacem, p. 30, Sw. 336). 256 «Потом возглашает дьякон: обымите друг друга! И друг друга целуем целование сие знаменует соединение душ, посему то Христос сказал: аще принесёши дар твой к алтарю.... После сего иерей возглашает: горе сердца». Поуч. V, 3. Подобное начало излагает Иаков Едесский. См. ниже. |
| Bühner 1983=Bühner J.A. πας. – Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 3. Stuttg., 1983, 11–14. Burini 1982=Burini С. Il ringraziamento «anzitutto per il calice», Didache 9, l-2a. – Atti della Settimana Sangue e antropologia Biblica nella patristica (Roma, 23–28 novembre 1981). T. II. Roma: Centro Studi Sanguis Christi, 1982, 331–352. Buschmann 1994=Buschmann G. Martyrium Polycarpi – Eine form-kritische Studie. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung der Gattung Märtyrerakte. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994 (Beihefte zur ZNTW. Hrsg. v. E.Gräβer. Bd. 70). Buschmann 1998=Das Martyrium des Polykarps/Übersetzt und erklärt von Gerd Buschmann. Göttingen, 1998. Cambe 1993=Cambe M. La Predication de Pierre (ou: le Kerygma de Pierre). – Apocrypha 4, 1993, 177–195. Chase 1912=Chase F.H. On πρηνς γεννμενος in Acts 1, 18. – JThS 13, 1911–1912, 278–285. Collins 1993=Collins J.J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. With an essay «The influence of Daniel on the New Testament» by Adela Yabro Collins/Ed. by F.M. Cross. Minneapolis, 1993 (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible). Couilleau 1977=Couilleau G. L» «alliance» aux origines du monachisme égyptien. – Collectanea Cisterciensia 39, 1977, 170–193. Cowe 1992=Cowe (S. Peter). The Armenian Version of Daniel. Atlanta, GA, 1992 (University of Pennsylvania. Armenian Texts and Studies, Cowley 1983=Cowley R.W. The Traditional Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St John in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Cambridge, 1983 (University of Cambridge. Oriental Publications 33). Daniélou 1966=Daniélou J. Études d’exégèse judéo-chrétienne. (Les Testimonia). Paris, 1966 (Théologie historique 5). Daniélou 1991=Daniélou J. Histoire des doctrines chretiennes avant Nicée. I. Théologie du judéo-christianisme. Paris, 19912. Davis 1995=Davis C. The Didache and Early Monasticism in the East and West. – Didache in Context 1995, 352–367. de Vito 1974=de Vito J. The leopards of Ignatius of Antioch (Romans 5.1). – The Classical Bulletin 50, 1973–1974, 63. |
| CONFERENCE 4. CONFERENCE OF ABBOT DANIEL. ON THE LUST OF THE FLESH AND OF THE SPIRIT. Chapter 1. Of the life of Abbot Daniel. Among the other heroes of Christian philosophy we also knew Abbot Daniel, who was not only the equal of those who dwelt in the desert of Scete in every sort of virtue, but was specially marked by the grace of humility. This man on account of his purity and gentleness, though in age the junior of most, was preferred to the office of the diaconate by the blessed Paphnutius, presbyter in the same desert: for the blessed Paphnutius was so delighted with his excellent qualities, that, as he knew that he was his equal in virtue and grace of life, he was anxious also to make him his equal in the order of the priesthood. And since he could not bear that he should remain any longer in an inferior office, and was also anxious to provide a worthy successor to himself in his lifetime, he promoted him to the dignity of the priesthood. He however relinquished nothing of his former customary humility, and when the other was present, never took upon himself anything from his advance to a higher order, but when Abbot Paphnutius was offering spiritual sacrifices, ever continued to act as a deacon in the office of his former ministry. However, the blessed Paphnutius though so great a saint as to possess the grace of foreknowledge in many matters, yet in this case was disappointed of his hope of the succession and the choice he had made, for he himself passed to God no long time after him whom he had prepared as his successor. Chapter 2. An investigation of the origin of a sudden change of feeling from inexpressible joy to extreme dejection of mind. So then we asked this blessed Daniel why it was that as we sat in the cells we were sometimes filled with the utmost gladness of heart, together with inexpressible delight and abundance of the holiest feelings, so that I will not say speech, but feeling could not follow it, and pure prayers were readily breathed, and the mind being filled with spiritual fruits, praying to God even in sleep could feel that its petitions rose lightly and powerfully to God: and again, why it was that for no reason we were suddenly filled with the utmost grief, and weighed down with unreasonable depression, so that we not only felt as if we ourselves were overcome with such feelings, but also our cell grew dreadful, reading palled upon us, aye and our very prayers were offered up unsteadily and vaguely, and almost as if we were intoxicated: so that while we were groaning and endeavouring to restore ourselves to our former disposition, our mind was unable to do this, and the more earnestly it sought to fix again its gaze upon God, so was it the more vehemently carried away to wandering thoughts by shifting aberrations and so utterly deprived of all spiritual fruits, as not to be capable of being roused from this deadly slumber even by the desire of the kingdom of heaven, or by the fear of hell held out to it. |
| He quite correctly sees Winkle’s conclusion as the opposite of his own: ‘There is no passage in the Bible which definitely says that Jerusalem and Judah should be desolate for 70 years while the people were exiles in Babylon!’ What RF does not concede, however, in the face of the overwhelming Biblical and linguistic evidence for Winkle’s conclusion, is that it is correct! In fact, Winkle proves his point in a very careful and methodical way, far removed from RF’s prolix and clumsy attempts to pervert the clear and incontrovertible truth of God’s Word. Actually, despite his lengthy and confused efforts, RF does not prove one single point of his Watchtowerinspired theory, for the very simple reason that it is not true! Some of his arguments in this part are nothing less than ludicrous: he does not like that Winkle seems to assume that what the Bible says is true’, (indeed, what is wrong with that? Doesn’t the Watchtower people reason in the same way as Winkle?) and neither does he like Winkle’s acceptance of ‘the traditional chronology’ but here Winkle stands on firm ground: the Bible is God’s own inspired word, truthful and inerrant, and what RF calls ‘traditional chronology’ is certainly not based on ‘circular arguments’ but on many years of diligent research by serious and competent scholars! Of course, mistakes have been made over the years, especially in the infancy of this science, but in time they have ben corrected whenever new evidence came to light, and today the ancient history and chronology of the Middle East for the first millennium B.C.E. is wellestablished and trustworthy in practically all aspects, notwithstanding RF’s contrary claims and his unproven pet theories. RF truly feels unhappy about Winkle’s beginning from Jeremiah’s testimony and his going on from there to Daniel and the Chronicler, while he himself starts with Daniel and the Chronicler and then goes back to Jeremiah; however, in a situation like this the ideal method is actually to begin from the beginning, which naturally means to take Jeremiah’s prophecies first and then, having familiarized oneself with their message, to move on chronologically to the later reactions to these early prophecies and their fulfilment, going first to Daniel and then to the somewhat later Chronicler. In this way the true picture of the events of those times emerges clearly, and that is evidently what Winkle tries to do even though he takes the Chronicler before Daniel, probably because he wants to handle the matter of the ‘sabbath rest’ for the land properly, without getting it mixed up with the message of Jeremiah’s prophecies, and this he does very well indeed. |
| His Grace Bishop Visarion reiterated the importance and the role of the departments of the Basilica Media Centre, established less than a month after the enthronement of Patriarch Daniel, which he called “an apostolic work in the heart of our ancestral Church.” National Cathedral About the National Cathedral, one of the landmark projects of Patriarch Daniel, the Bishop of Tulcea said that it “will speak over the centuries about the permanence of the Orthodox faith in these lands and the love and sacrifice” of the current Patriarch of Romania. Bishop Visarion likened the cross that will be placed on the main tower of the National Cathedral to the cross on Mount Caraiman. “You moved the Carpathian Mountains in the middle of the city of Bucur through this great cathedral which is a sign of permanence, faith and our Romanian people.” “The thought of the great unifying patriarch of the country, Miron Cristea, was embodied in the exceptional realization of Your Beatitude.” Diaspora & Youth Among the achievements of the 13 years, Bishop Visarion mentioned the care for monasteries, places of worship, for clergy and the faithful. “You did not forget the Romanians abroad either, because immediately after Your Beatitude’s coming you multiplied the number of parishes and dioceses in the country, but also abroad, sending there dynamic and young hierarchs who did apostolic work and sacrifice.” The bishop of Tulcea added that Patriarch Daniel showed a special care for youth, for students and schoolchildren, “impelling us members of the Holy Synod and the priests and the believers to participate all in the foundation of the fraternal relationship, as it has always been, between the Church, the School, the Society and the Family.” “With the spiritual zeal that characterizes you,” Bishop Visarion noted, “you have always urged and still urge us to be in support of those who are in trials, tribulations, and sufferings.” Strong faith According to Bishop Visarion, the Patriarch of Romania received the power to carry out the work entrusted to him by the “humble prayer” and “strong faith” received from His Beatitude’s parents, the family of the teacher Alexie and Stela Ciobotea. “Faith that you have fruited by word and deed you show as a true father of all Romanian Orthodox Christians.” Among the first, Lord, remember |
| Св. муч. Иулиана, и с ним 40 друзей. Пострадали в Галатии от Антонина, в царствование Диоклетиана и Максимиана. Пролог. (Аста SS. sept. IV. p. 54), не отличают его от воспоминаемого 13 сент. Св. муч. Феодора Александрийского. Скончался от меча. Пролог. Мес. В. 13 Обновление храма Воскресения Христова во Иерусалиме. Память освящения храма, воздвигнутого на Голгофе Константином Великим в 335 г. Чет. Минея от Евсевия, Феодорита и Никифора. В службе канон Иоанна монаха. Св. священномуч. Корнилия сотника. Первый христианин из язычников, крещенный ап. Петром ( Деян.10 ). Чет. Минея от Метафраста. (Surius ad 13 sept. Acta SS. febr. II. р. 279). Март. Р. 2 февр. Мес. В. 20 окт. В службе канон Иосифа. Свв. мучч. Илии, Зотика, Иулиана и Валериана. Пострадали от Максина в царствование Ликиния, и Томах. Пролог (Acta SS. sept. IV. р. 53). Мес.В. Преп. Петра, иже в Атрои. " Сей же мнится быти, иже и выше сего месяца в 5 день, иже во Афире». Чет. Минея. Св. муч. Иулиана пресвитера. Из Анкиры Галатской. Он скрылся от гонителей в одной пещере с 40 христианами, но когда пошел в свою очередь за водою, его схватили язычники, и представили князю. Так как он не хотел объявить, где скрывались его товарищи, то его усекнули, при Ликинии. Пролог. Мес. В. Март. Р. Свв. мучч. Кронида, Леонтия и Серапиона. Адександриане; после мук утоплены в море, при Максимине. Пролог. (Act SS. sept. IV. р. 13). Март. Р. 12 сент. (Кронида называет Иеронидом). Пролог воспоминает их вторично 11 сент. с Селевком и Валерием. Свв. мучч. Селевка, Макровия и Гордиана. В Галатии брошены на съедение зверям, при Ликинии. Пролог. (Act SS. sept. IV. р. 55). Мес. В. (Соединяет с Илией, Зотиком и др.) Март. Р. Св. муч. Стратоника. Привязан был к двум нагнутым деревам и ими растерзан, по приказанию Вифинского князя. Чет. Минея. «Той един мнится быти, ижс и выше бе в 9 день сего месяца, Стратор нареченный». 14 Воздвижение честного и животворящего Креста Господня. Животворящий Крест Господень обретен св. Еленой в 326 г. Торжество воздвижения Креста введено с 330 г., после освящения (13 сент.) новосозданного Константином Вел. храма Воскресения Господня. |
| 55 Cfr.Knopf. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S.356.F.Loofs. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichtel. §14,4a,S.90. Можно привести в параллель к последней мысли место из «проповеди Петра»: κενοι (т. е. иудеи) μνοι οιμενοι τν Θεv γινσκειν οκ πστανται, λατρβοντες γγλοις κα pχαγγλοις, μην κα σελν. Clem. Alex. Strom. VI 5, 41 2.Grch.Sch.15. S 4 2:8–10. То же и в апологии Аристина.14 4: хотя в мыслях своих думали, что служат Богу, по роду их дел оказывалось, что служение их относится к ангелам, а не к Богу. J.Geffken.Zweigriechische. Apologeten. Leipzig und Berlin 1907. A. Покровский. Философ Аристид и его недавно открытая апология. Сергиев Посад, 1898. 61 О жертвах – Barn 2 4–10, о постах – 3 1–6, смысл обрезания – 9 1–7, заповеди о яствах имеют нравственный смысл – 10 1–11, смысл закона о субботе – 15 1–8. Иудейский храм говорит о духовном храме, создаваемом для Господа – 16 1–10. 62 Обетование земли Ханаанской Аврааму, Исааку и Иакову означает воплощение Сына Божия – Barn 6 8–10. День очищения указывает на страдания Христа во всех их подробностях – 7 4–11. Тот же смысл имеет и жертвоприношение рыжей юницы – 8 11–6 318 мужей, которых обрезал Авраам, числом своим указывают на имя Иисус и на крест («никто не слышал от меня слова более совершенного») – 9 8–9. Медный змий – «видишь и здесь славу Иисуса, ибо все в Нем и для Него» – 12 5–7. Иисус Навин также указывал на Иисуса Христа – 12 8–10. История Ревекки – указание на то, что христиане – наследники завета – 13 1–6. Cfr. N. Bonwetsch. Der Schriftbeweis für die Kirchc. SS. 6–8. 63 О неизбежности этого метода при господствовавшей теории боговдохновенности свящ. книг см. Dr. Iohannes Leipoldt. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 1-er Theil. Leipzig 1907. SS. 20–22. (Cfr. также Ludwig Diestel. Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der christlichen Kirche. lena 1869. S 30. 64 «Так, государи мои, продолжал я, – перечисляя и все прочие постановления Моисеевы, я мог бы доказать, что они были прообразами, символами и возвещениями того, что имело случаться со Христом, – тех людей, которых вера в него была предузнана, равно как и действий, которым надлежало совершить Самому Христу». Iust. Dial., cap. 42. CAG. I 2. p. 142. Сочинения, стр. 198–199. Действительно, пользуясь аллегорическим методом толкования, св. Иустин во всем Ветхом завете видит лишь пророчества и прообразования новозаветной Церкви, обнимающей все народы. См. N. Bonwemsch. Der Schriftbeweis für die Kirche. SS. 8–12. Подробно противоиудейская полемика св. Иустина изложена у F. Böhringer’a. Die alte Kirche. В. 1. Th. 1. SS. 174–204. Cfr. A. Ritschl Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. SS. 312–330. |
| EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS. Contra Massalianos, 131, 39–48. Vide 130, titulum 26 panopliæ. Contra Phundagiatas, 131, 47–58. GERMANUS II CP. De exaltatione crucis contra Bogomilos, 140, 621–44, de quibus vide Eumhymium ZIGABENUM, 130, tit. 27. NICETAS ACOMINATUS, 140, tom. 23. contra EUstRaTium Niceæ metropolitam: t. 24, adversus SoteRichum; t. 25, synodus СР., habita in illud Pater meus major me est; tomo incerto [revera 20] de Lizicinorum hæresi. [SYNODUS СР.]. CALLISTUS CP. Niphonis absolutio Massaliani, 152, 1308–12. GENNADIUS. (Scholarius) De hæresi Simoniaca, 160, 731–8. K) DE IMAGINIBUS EUSEBIUS CÆS. Epistola ad Constantiam, 20, 1545–50. ATHANASIUS. De SS. Imaginibus, 28, 709–10. De imagine Berytensi, 28, 797–824. SYMEON JUNIOR. Epistola ad Justinum Juniorem, 86, II, 3215–20. De SS. Imaginibus, 3219–20. LEONTIUS NEAPOLITANUS, 93, 1609–12. ANDREAS CRETEXS1S. De imaginum veneratione, 97, 1301–4. GERMANUS I, CP. Epistolæ dogmaticæ 1–4, 98, 147–222. JOANNES DAMASCENUS. Orationes 1–3, pro SS. Imaginibus, 94, 1231–1420. Ad Constantinum Caballinum, 95, 309–44. Epistola ad Theophilum imperatorem, 95, 345–86 [Christophorus Alex.]. De imaginibus, fg., latine. JOANNES HIEROSOLYMITANUS. Adversus iconoclastas, 96, 1347–62. (Alius) Narratio de iconomachis, 109, 517–20. NICEPHORUS CP. Antirrheticus 1–3, adversus Constantinum Copronymum, 100, 205–534. Apologeticus pro SS. Imaginibus, 533–832. Apologeticus minor, 833–50. Altera demonstratio, 849–50. THEODORUS STUDITA Antirrhetici 1–3, ad iconomachos, 99, 327–426. Refutatio poematum iconomachorum (JoannIs, IGNatii, Sergii, Stephani, quorum poemata, , 435–8, 475–8), 435–78. Problemata ad iconomachos, 477–86. Adversus iconomachos capita septem, 485–98. Oratio adversus iconomachos, 173–182. De cultu sacrarum Imaginum epistola ad Platonem, 499–506. Canon in erectione SS. Imaginum, , 1757–80. Iambi, , 1791–1802. ANONYMUS. Invectiva contra hæreticos, 109, 501–16. CONSTANTINUS PORPHYROGENITUS. De imagine Edessena CP. translata, 113, 423–54. |
|
|
