| 10113 Cullmann, State, 42–43; Blinzler, Trial, 251; Winter, Trial, 109; Reicke, Era, 186; Brown, Death, 963, cite Suetonius Calig. 32.2; Dom. 10.1; Dio Cassius 54.3.7; 54.8; Tertullian Apo1. 2.20; Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 5.1.44; cf. the herald in b. Sanh. 43a. The posting of the accusation on the cross is not well attested, either because those describing crucifixion had already mentioned it being carried (Bammel, «Titulus,» 353) or because the practice was not in fact standard although, given the variations among executions, in no way improbable (Harvey, History, 13); wearing tablets around the neck was not unusual in the broader culture (students in Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.1.557). Blinzler, Trial, 254, thinks the tablets included «black or red letters on a white ground.» 10119 Epigraphic data suggest that Aramaic probably predominated in Galilee (Horsley, Galilee, 247–49) despite Hebrew " s use as a holy language and the ideal of its use (pace Safrai, «Literary Languages»; idem, «Spoken Languages»; Let. Aris. 11, 30, 38; Sipre Deut. 46.1.2). 10122 E.g., Jub. 12:25–27; p. Meg. 1:9, §1; hence its use in the Mishnah, many DSS, and the Bar Kokhba materials (cf. Carmon, Inscriptions, 73). 10123 Brown, Death, 965; he also cites the five languages (Greek, Latin, Persian, Hebrew, and Egyptian) at Gordian Ill " s tomb. Talbert, John, 243, cites these plus the Greek and Latin warnings in the temple (losephus War 5.194). 10125 Tob 1:20; Sallust Cati1. 51.43; 52.14; CPJ 2:251–52, §445; 2:255–57, §448; BGU 5.16.51–5.17.52; P.Oxy. 513; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 4.5.3; 4.15.6; Appian C.W. 4.5.31; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 4.5; Herodian 7.3.2; Josephus Life 370–371; Heb 10:34. 10126 E.g., Polybius 11.30.1–2; also in illegal lynchings (e.g., Herodian 8.8.6); also in beatings (Longus 2.14); see comment on scourging, above. 10127 Artemidorus Onir. 2.61; Brown, Death, 870, adds Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.69.2; Valerius Maximus 1.7.4; Josephus Ant. 19.270. 10129 Brown, Death, 870, thinks the Gospels might «reflect a local concession,» noting that Josephus War 2.246 and Ant. 20.136 do not mention Celer " s disrobing; but this would be an argument from silence. (Brown, citing Melito of Sardis On the Pasch 97 in favor of nakedness and Acts of Pilate 10.1 in favor of a loincloth, ultimately doubts that we can know either way [p. 953].) Nakedness was probably the rule of thumb (in public Roman punishments, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.69.2; in non-Roman executions, e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.191; 2.53). |
| «Очень похоже, что у Иоанна действительно выражена реакция против современного ему сакраментализма, получившего уже некоторое распространение... При этом Иоанн не занимает антисакраментальную позицию, он не отказывается от Таинств, а ссылается на них — в 6, 51-58 (почти наверняка) и в 3, 5 (очень возможно). Однако в какой-то мере Евангелие от Иоанна все же является проявлением протеста против (вероятно) растущего сакраментального буквализма» (С. 210). 885 «В Иоанновской пневматологии новозаветное откровение о Святом Духе отличается наибольшею полнотою. Только в Ин. указано Ипостасное свойство Св. Духа: исхождение от Отца (15, 26) и ниспослание Св. Духа ученикам поставлено в зависимость от прославления Иисуса (ср. 7, 39; 16, 7)». — Кассиан, еп. С. 338. 886 См. Гатри Д.С. 188. 887 Здесь опять уместно поразмыслить по поводу (анти)сакраментализма Ин. 888 В данном случае употреблено греч. file/w, которое здесь близко к более привычному a)gapa/w. — см. А Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich. 2nd ed. Chicago. London. 1979. P. 859. 889 См. Charpentier E. P. 31; Телушкин Й. P. 99. 890 См. Brown R. P. 705. 891 Например, рассматривать сначала 1 Петр., как наиболее близкое по духу к Павловым посланиям. 892 Сходства и различия Ин. и 1 Ин. специально и подробно рассматриваются, например, в: Гатри Д. С. 673-9. 893 В Гатри Д. С. 663 указываются многочисленные свидетельства древних христианских писателей, начиная со св. Поликарпа и Папия, называющие автором 1 Ин. апостола Иоанна. 894 Кассиан, еп. С. 359. 895 Такая датировка, например, в Brown R. P. 384. 896 См. Гатри Д. С. 672. 897 Charpentier E. P. 98. 898 См. Гатри Д. С. 670. 899 Кассиан, еп. С. 359. 900 См. Гатри Д. С. 665. 901 Brown R. P. 395. 902 Kümmel W.G. P. 446. 903 Об этом см. также Kümmel W.G. P. 449-51. 904 2 и 3 Ин. состоят каждое из одной главы (так же как и Флм.), поэтому в ссылках на эти послания указываются только стихи. 905 См. Brown R. P. 396. N. 3. 906 |
| The resultant uprooting of longstanding European political and social institutions caused many to believe that they were indeed living in the last days. Men of many backgrounds – ministers, politicians, lawyers, and laymen – became involved in prophetic study. A voluminous body of literature on the prophecies was produced, numerous prophetic periodicals were started, and prophetic conferences were held on both sides of the Atlantic. The apocalyptic revival commenced in England, but soon spread to the European Continent and the United States of America where, in the latter case, it culminated in the wellknown Millerite movement. Based on interpretations of Daniel 8:14 developed generally pointed to 1843, 1844, or 1847 as the time for Christ’s second advent. It was in this feverish atmosphere that a new interpretation of the Gentile times was born, in which, for the first time, the oftused figure of 1,260years was doubled to 2,520years. The chart presented on the facing page shows the results that the “yearday” method of counting prophetic timeperiods produced over a period of seven centuries. Though almost all of the thirtysix scholars and prophetic expositors listed were working from the same basic Scriptural text referring to 1,260 days, very rarely did they agree on the same starting and ending points for the period’s fulfillment. The ending dates for the Gentile times set by them or their followers ran all the way from 1260 C.E. to 2016 C.E. Tet all of them advanced what to them were cogent reasons for arriving at their dates. What results now came from the doubling of this figure in connection with Jesus’ statement about the “Gentile times”? John Aquila Brown In the long history of prophetic speculation, John Aquila Brown in England plays a notable role. Although no biographical data on Brown has been found so far, he strongly influenced the apocalyptic thinking of his time. He was the first expositor who applied the supposed 2,300 yeardays of Daniel 8:14 so that they ended in 1843 (later 1844). article in the London monthly The Christian Observer of November 1810. According to his understanding of the Gentile times, the “trampling Gentiles” were the Mohammedans (or Muslims), and he therefore regarded the 1,260 years so widely commented on as Mohammedan lunar years, corresponding to 1,222 solar years. He reckoned this period from 622 C.E. (the first year’ of the Mohammedan Hegira era) to 1844, when he expected the coming of Christ and the restoration of the Jewish nation in Palestine. – J. A. Brown, The EvenTide, Vol. 1 (1823), pp. vii, xi, 160. Advent movement. 42 He was also the first who arrived at a prophetic time period of 2,520 years. Brown’s calculation of 2,520 years was based on his exposition of the “seven times” contained in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the choppeddown tree in Daniel, chapter 4. |
| 9571 For bibliography on the Sanhedrin, see Saffai, «Self-Government,» 418 (the section on the Sanhédrin is pp. 379–400). Josephus generally prefers the term συνδριον, «sanhedrin,» «assembly,» in the Jewish Antiquities, and βουλ, «council,» in the Jewish War. The rabbis believed that God supported the decrees of the rabbinic Beth din hagadol, great assembly (Exod. Rab. 15:20), on which Israel rightly depended (Song Rab. 7:3, §1; Lam. Rab. 2:4, §8). 9573 E.g., b. Ber. 3b; Gen. Rab. 74:15; Exod. Rab. 1:13; Pesiq. Rab. 11:3. Some of the «scribes» may have been Pharisees, but Pharisees were not dominant in the Sanhedrin (Brown, Death, 350–52), despite Josephus " s possible favoritism toward them (Josephus Ant. 18.15, 17; cf. Life 1, 12 and Ant. passim; Brown, Death, 353–56). 9575 Cf. Sanders, Figure, 484–87; Josephus War 2.331,336; Ant. 17.160,164; 20.216–217; probably the municipal aristocracy in Ant. 14.91, 163, 167, 180; Life 62. 9580 Brown, Death, 342–43. Levine, Hellenism, 88–90, argues that the Jerusalem Sanhedrin was probably simply an ad hoc group in some texts. 9581 Yamauchi, Stones, 106. Stauffer, Jesus, 118, overestimates their sense of threat at this point when he proposes that the disciples may have gone by different roads to prevent notice (Luke 22:39). 9583 Brown, John, 2:806. Many rivers and wadis in the East fill or overflow during the rainy winter or (sometimes) when winter snows melt in spring (Homer 17. 5.87–88; 13.137; Od. 19.205–207; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.9; Appian R.H. 12.11.76; Livy 44.8.6–7; Herodian 3.3.7; 8.4.2–3; Arrian Alex. 7.21.2). 9588 Lane, Mark, 515. If the press originally belonged to an individual estate rather than a local village, the estate must have been sizeable (cf. Lewis, Life, 127). On the question of the Gethsemane tradition " s historicity, see Green, «Gethsemane,» 268. 9589 Cohn, Trial, 83, though citing a rabbinic tradition that «high priests were wont to engage in undercover activity.» 9592 Passover was a night «watch» (; προφυλακ) for the Lord (Exod 12:42); cf. t. Ketub. 5:5; Lane, Mark, 509; Keener, Matthew, 637. |
| 10069 Dahl, «History,» 135; cf. also Strachan, Gospel, 216; Schnackenburg, John, 3:266; Barrett. John, 546; Meeks, «Agent,» 58. 10070 Ancient literature is replete with examples of masses being easily swayed by leaders (e.g., Cornelius Nepos 3 [Aristides], 1.4), including these priests (Josephus War 2.237–238, 316–317. 321–325; cf. 2.406), and being fickle in the populist favor they bestowed on various figures (Livy 31.34.3; Tacitus Ann. 2.41; Hist. 1.32,45; 3.85; Lucan C.W. 3.52–56; Cornelius Nepos 10 [Dion], 10.2; 13 [Timotheus], 4.1; Ps.-Phoc. 95–96; Philo Embassy 120; Josephus Life 87,97,143–144,313–317,333; 1Sam 18:16; 25:10 ; 2Sam 3:36 ). This was always a negative trait (often used by Romans to characterize other peoples, e.g., Sallust Jug. 56.5; Cicero Pro Flacco 11.24; Caesar Gal1 . W. 4.5). 10075 Blinzler, Trial, 251; Lane, Hebrews, 2:541. In this case, a proposed site for the execution is only about a thousand feet north to northeast of Herod " s palace, where Pilate pronounced the sentence (Reicke, Era, 185). 10079 Also Brown, Death, 917; Lightfoot, Gospel, 315; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 150. Some find Isaac typology (cf. Gen 22:6 ; Ellis, Genius, 268; many church fathers), but in the absence of clearer contextual allusions, the normal procedure for crucifixion obviates the need for this view. 10080 Artemidorus Onir. 2.56; Plutarch D.V. 9, Mor. 554AB; Chariton 4.2.7; 4.3.10; also Brown, Death, 913. 10081 E.g., Blinzler, Trial, 244, citing Valerius Maximus 1.7.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.69. 10082 Some second-century gnostics had Simon die in Jesus» place (Talbert, John, 242, who sees antidocetic polemic here, cites Irenaeus Haer. 1.24.3–6; Second Treatise of the Great Seth 7.56); but that view is probably too late to have provoked Johannine polemic here (Carson, John, 609). 10085 Most scholars agree that Simon of Cyrene is a historical figure (Brown, Death, 913; see Sanders, «Simon,» 56–57). 10086 Brown, Death, 914, questions whether the Romans would force someone when Josephus says they did not force subjects to break their own laws (Ag. Ap. 2.73), but this objection lays too much weight on Josephus " s propaganda; Josephus employs legal precedents apologetically (cf. Rajak, «Charter»). |
| Bockmuehl M. Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory. Grand Rapids, 2012. Boer M. C. de. Galatians: A Commentary. Louisville, 2011. Bond H. W. Was Peter behind Mark’s Gospel?//Peter in Early Christianity. Ed. by H. K. Bond and L. W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2015. P. 46–61. Boobyer G. H. St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story. Edinburgh, 1942. Brown R. E. An Introduction to the New Testament. New Haven; London, 1997. Brown R. E. The Death of the Messiah. Vols. 1–2. New York; London; Toronto; Sydney; Auckland, 1998. Brown R. E. The Gospel according to John (I–XII). Introduction, Translation and Notes. New York, 1966. Brown R. E. The Gospel according to John (XIII–XXI). Introduction, Translation and Notes. New York, 1970. Bruce F. F. Peter, Stephen, James and John. Grand Rapids, 1979. Bruce F. F. The Acts of the Apostles. The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, 1990. Bruce F. F. The Book of the Acts. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, 1988. Bruce F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians; A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids; Carlisle, 1982. Callan T. Second Peter//Watson D. F., Callan T. First and Second Peter. Grand Rapids, 2012. P. 129–219. Carson D. A., Moo D. J. Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, 2005. Chancey M. A. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. Cambridge, 2005. Chancey M. A. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. Cambridge, 2002. Clark A. C. Parallel Lives: The Relation of Paul to the Apostles in the Lucan Perspective. Carlisle; Waynesboro, GA, 2001. Conzelmann H. 1Corinthians. Philadelphia, 1975. Conzelmann H. Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis, MN, 1987. Cullmann O. Petrus: Jünger, Apostel, Märtyrer: Das historische und theologische Problem. Zürich, 1952. Cullmann O. The Christology of the New Testament. London, 1963. Culpepper R. A. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia, 1983. Davids P. H. A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude. Grand Rapids, 2014. Davids P. H. The First Epistle of Peter. Grand Rapids, 1990. |
| 52. Bobrinskoy B. Liturgie et ecclésiologie trinitaire de S. Basile//Eucharisties d " Orient et d " Occident. T. II. Paris, 1970. [Bobrinskoy. Liturgie et ecclésiologie] 53. Bobrinskoy B. The Mystery of the Trinity. NY, 1999. [Bobrinskoy. The Mystery of the Trinity] 54. Boismard M. E. De son ventre couleront des fleuves d " eau//Revue Biblique. 1958. 65. P. 523–546. [Boismard. RB 65] 55. Boismard M. E. Le prologue de S. Jean. Paris: Cerf, 1953. [Boismard. Le prologue de S. Jean] 56. Boismard M. E. Revue Biblique 55, 1948. [Boismard. RB 55] 57. Borgen Peder. Targumic Character of the Prologue of John//New Testament Studies. 1970. P. 291–293. [Borgen. Targumic Character of the Prologue of John] 58. Bornkamm G. Der Paraklet im Johannes evangelium/Festschrift für R. Bultmann. Stuttgart, 1949. [Bornkamm. Der Paraklet im Johannes evangelium] 59. Boulnois M.-O. Le Paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d " Alexandrie. Paris, 1994. [Boulnois. Le Paradoxe trinitaire] 60. Braun F.-M. New Testament Studies 4, 1958. [Braun. NTS 4] 61. Breck John. Spirit of Truth. The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1991. [Breck. Spirit of Truth] 62. Breck John. The Power of the Word. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1986. [Breck. The Power of the Word] 63. Breck John. The shape of biblical languagë chiasmus in the Scriptures and beyond. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1994. [Breck. The shape of biblical language] 64. Brown Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. 1 vol. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1966. [ Brown. John, 1] 65. Brown Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. 2 vol. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1970. [Brown. John, 2] 66. Brown Raymond E. The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel//New Testament Studies. 1966/67. 13. P. 113–132. [Brown. The Paraclete] 67. Büchsel F. Der Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament. Gütersloh, 1926. [Büchsel. Der Geist Gottes] 68. Bultmann R. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. [Bultmann. Das Evangelium des Johannes]. Translation: Bultmann R. The Gospel of John/Tr. G. R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. [ Bultmann. John] |
| Rome: Universitas Gregoriana, 1950. Biarne J. La Bible dans la vie monastique//Le monde latin antique et la Bible/Ed. J. Fontaine, C. Pietri, 409–429. Bible de tous les temps, 2. Paris: Beauchesne, 1985. Bogan M. I. Augustine. The Rétractations//Fathers of the Church, 60. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1968. Bonner G. St. Augustine of Hippo. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963. Bouhot J.-P. Review of Johannes Maxentius (CCSL 85A/Ed. Fr. Glorie)//Revue des études augustiniennes, 25 (1979). P. 377–379. Brown P. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Idem. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Idem. Pelagius and His Supporters: Aims and Environment//Journal of Theological Studies. New series, 19 (1968). P. 93–114 (Repr.: Brown. Religion and Society in the Age of St. Augustine. P. 183–207). Idem. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. Idem. Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine. N. Y.: Harper and Row, 1972. Idem. The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity//Journal of Roman Studies, 61 (1971). P. 80–101 (Repr.: Brown. Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. P. 103–152). Idem. Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Idem. Town, Village, and Holy Man: The Case of Syria//Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1976. P. 213–220 (Repr.: Brown. Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. P. 153–165). Idem. The World of Late Antiquity. Norwich: Harcourt Brace Jovanovic h, 1971. Buonaiuti E. Manichaeism and Augustine’s Idea of “massa perditionis”. Harvard Theological Review, 20 (1927). P. 117–127. Burns J. P. Grace: The Augustinian Foundation//Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century/Ed. B. McGinn 8c J. Meyendorff. N. Y.: Crossroad, 1987. |
| The impact of the synagogues» response to the Johannine Christians must have shaped the polemic of the community, and many scholars agree that the secessionists in 1 John seem to be heading toward fully-developed docetism. But neither of these suggestions is original with Brown, and some of the details of his reconstruction, as well as the ingenious manner in which he develops them, are more questionable. His first phase, similar to that proposed by some other scholars, envisions a situation in which the Johannine community consisted of Jews with a low Christology 890 related to the teachings of the Twelve. 891 The situation is not inherently implausible, but it may be debated whether any traditions preserved in the Fourth Gospel address it. In John, the Christology of all true believers (this excludes those who remained in the ranks of Jesus» opponents) is higher than that of any believers described in the Synoptics. Brown himself does not contend that John disagreed radically with his sources; he points out that the terminology of this lower Christology appears in virtually every stratum of NT theology. His hypothesis is logical and explains some of the data, but other hypotheses could explain these features equally wel1. For instance, these terms of «lower» Christology could be included because they reinterpret messianic language from Judaism or other Christian sects with which the community had once been in dialogue; some terms were the heritage of early Christians in genera1. Brown proposes that a second group with a higher Christology subsequently entered the Johannine community, but apparently distinguishes this group from the original group on the basis of the frequent assumption that high Christology is not a primitive feature. This premise, however, is open to serious challenge. Pauline or pre-Pauline material in 1Corinthians, Philippians, and Colossians describes Jesus in similar terms (see ch. 7 of our introduction), and Brown " s reply that these traditions are lower in their Christology than John " s 892 misses the point. |
| 909. См., например, Кассиан, еп. С. 359. Там же еп. Кассиан отмечает, что в «Апостольских постановлениях» (VII, 46) Гаий называется епископом Пергамским, но при этом призывает к осторожному отношению к такому позднему свидетельству (С. 363). 910. Cм. Kümmel W.G. P. 447; Аверкий (Таушев), архиеп. С. 551. 911. Cм. Brown R. P. 401. 912. Brown R. P. 401. 913. Из чего вовсе не следует прямолинейное и безоговорочное отвержение всех без исключения форм современного экуменического диалога (как в: Аверкий (Таушев), архиеп. С. 550), хотя бы потому, что проблематика экуменизма чаще всего совершенно другая, нежели проблема лжеучений в 2 Ин. 914. Кассиан, еп. С. 364. Ср. Данн Д.Д. С. 375: «Диотреф действовал с полномочиями правящего епископа; именно против его «любви первенствовать» (filoprwteuw/n) в церкви высказывался «пресвитер». Ср. также Brown R. P. 404. 915. Brown R. P. 683. 916. Dana H.E. — cм. Brown R.P. 690. 917. Кассиан, еп. С. 260. 918. Аверинцев С.С. Некоторые языковые особенности в Евангелиях.//Православная община. М. 1997. С. 41-2. 919. Некоторые стали приписывать Евр. ап. Павлу в конце II века. Папирус Честера Битти II (Beatty Papirus II, P46), наиболее ранний из сохранившихся списков посланий Павла, помещает Евр. после Рим. — cм. Brown R. P. 693. «Не ранее, как в самом конце IV века, Западная Церковь закрепила Послание за ап. Павлом, но в эти же годы бл. Иероним и бл. Августин, авторитетные выразители церковного предания, несомненно содействовавшие его закреплению, открыто заявляли о тех сомнениях, которые еще недавно Евр. вызывало». — Безобразов С. Завещание иудео-христианства.//Православная мысль. Париж. 1930. С. 31. 920. В самом деле, Послание Варнавы, датируемое началом II века, выдержано в александрийском стиле, свойственном Евр. Впрочем, принадлежность указанного Послания именно Варнаве настолько же гипотетична, как и принадлежность Евр. Павлу. В древности существовали и другие атрибуции Евр.: Луке, Клименту Римскому, Силе, Филиппу, Акиле и Прискилле и др. Лютер, опираясь на довольно сильные аргументы, приписывал Евр. Аполлосу (ср. Деян. 18, 24). См. об этом: Brown R. P. 694-5; подробно — Гатри Д. С. 516-25. |
|
|
