| 114 A view regularly ascribed to Aristotle in late antiquity and the Byzantine period. Nemesius (on whom Maximus is drawing) discusses Aristotle’s views on providence in On human nature 43 (Morani 1987 , 127ff.) 115 As Nemesius says: On human nature 43 (Morani 1987 , 130, ll. 7–10). Maximus has modified Nemesius’ first reason. 116 A Stoic idea, that became a commonplace in much late ancient philosophy. 117 This sentence is very close to Nemesius, On human nature 43 (Morani 118 Another sentence drawn directly from Nemesius, On human nature 43 (Morani 1987 , 133, ll. 2–5). 119 Maximus now returns to the text from Gregory Nazianzen’s sermon to discuss the final phrase about passing beyond the material dyad. Gregory uses this imagery in other sermons, notably Sermon 23.4, which is the subject of other Ambigua: Arab. 23, from the early set, and from the later set, Amb. 1, translated below. 120 This notion of a Trinitarian image of God in man–which is reminiscent of Augustine (see On the Trinity 9–10)–is derived from Gregory Nazianzen (Sermon 23.11; PG 35:1161C) and found elsewhere in Maximus (e.g. Quaestiones et dubia 105: Declerck 1982 , 80), who bequeathed it to John Damascene (Exposition of the Faith 26: Kotter 1973 , 76. In Byzantine theology it never attained the influence that Augustine’s conception exercised in Western medieval theology. 121 Most of this chapter is a precis of Nemesius, On human nature 15–22 (Morani 1987 , 72–82): Maximus begins with chapter 22. The material appears again, in a form that is indebted to Nemesius, independently of whatever debt it owes to Maximus, in John Damascene, Exposition of the Faith, 26–30 (Kotter 1987 , 75–83). 122 Literally: is not ‘within us’ (en himin), an important category in Maximus’ ethics. It occurs, too, in Nemesius, On human nature 26 (Morani 1987 , 87, l. 22], whose normal expression is, however, eph’ himin (see On human nature 39 [Morani, 112–14]), which is found in Aristotle (Nichomachean Ethics., III.3.6; 1112a31). |
| 1 . Autocephaly, (Documents and Commentary on the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America). Tuckahoe, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1971. 2 . Curtiss, John Shelton. The Russian Church and the Soviet State 1917–1950. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1954. 3 . Every, George. The Byzantine Patriarchate 451–1204. London: S.P.C.K., 1962. 5 . Fletcher, William C. A Study in Survival, The Church in Russia, 1927–1943. London: S.P.C.K., 1965. 7 . Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953. 8 . Meyendorff, John. The Orthodox Church. New York: Pantheon Books, 1962. Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1957. 9 . Schmemann, Alexander. The Historical Road of East-ern Orthodoxy. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. 10 . Struve, Nikita. Christians in Contemporary Russia. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1967. 11 . Swan, Jane. A Biography of Patriarch Tikhon. Jordanville, New York: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1964. 12 . Ushimaru, Proclus Yasuo. Bishop Innocent – Founder of American Orthodoxy. Bridgeport, Conn.: Metropolitan Council Publications Committee, 1964. 13 . Ware, Timothy (Father Kallistos). The Orthodox Church. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1964. 14 . Zernov, Nicolas. The Russians and Their Church. London: S.P.C.K., 1964. History Questions and Reflections for Discussion Introduction When Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko of blessed memory was in the process of revising his series The Orthodox Faith, he requested the Department of Christian Education of the Orthodox Church in America, which had originally published the series, to create questions to accompany the texts of each volume. The following questions are the fulfillment of his request for the Church History volume of the series. There are questions for each chapter of this volume, for each century from the first to the twentieth. They can be used to review the material in the chapter, and page numbers follow each question to show where it came from. |
| 457 dated August 9, 1981. The reason for uncertainty among scholars as to whether Jerusalem was desolated in 587 or 586 B.C.E. stems from the Bible, not extrabiblical sources. All scholars agree in dating Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth regnal year to 587/86 B.C.E. (Nisan to Nisan). The Bible dates the desolation to Nebuchadnezzar’s nineteenth regnal year’ at 2 Kings 25:8 repetition of the former), but to his eighteenth year at Jeremiah 52:29 year system is postulated for the kings of Judah. (See the section, “Methods of reckoning regnal years,” in the Appendix for Chapter 2 below). The 597 B.C.E. date for the earlier capture of Jerusalem and the deportation of Jehoiachin, says Dr. Campbell, is one of the very few secure historical dates recognized by scholars. The reason is the exact synchronism between the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicle at this point. – See the two sections, “The “third year of Jehoiakim’ ( Daniel 1:1 “Chronological tables covering the seventy years,” in the Appendix for Chapter 5 that follows. 470 Authentic des Daniels und die Integritat des Sacharjah (Berlin, 1831), p. 57. Translated from the German. 471 works, viz., at Antiquities X, 7, 3; X, 9, 7; XI, 1, 1; XX, 10, 2; and Against Apion I, 19. In these passages the seventy years are alternatingly referred to as a period of slavery, captivity, or desolation, extending from the destruction of Jerusalem until the first year of Cyrus. 472 William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1978), pp. 678708. Whiston’s translation was originally published in 1737. 478 A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds., The AnteNicene Fathers, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprinted 1979), p. 119. Theophilus probably based his terminal date of the seventy years on Ezra 4:24 Darius Hystaspes with “Darius the Mede” of Daniel 5:31 479 years may have been influenced by Rabbinic views. Referring to the Rabbinic chronicle Seder Olam Rabbah (SOR), Dr. Jeremy Hughes points out that “later Jewish tradition reckoned 52 years for the Babylonian exile (SOR 27) and 70 years as the interval between the destruction of the first temple and the foundation of the second temple, with this event dated in the second year of Darius (SOR 28; cf. Zc 1.12).” The 70 yearperiod was “divided into 52 years of exile and 18 years from the return to the foundation of the second temple (SOR 29).” – Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 41 and 257. |
| The three years of training But what about the three years of training referred to in Daniel 1:5 natural reading of Daniel 1:1 and 2:1 way to solve this seeming conflict than to suppose that the prophet in Daniel 1:1 regnal years from the beginning of his vassalage to Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar’s regnal years in Daniel 2:1 reckon the regnal years of these two kings in such a confusing, abnormal manner when he knew that his readers no doubt would misunderstand him? And why does he not reckon the regnal years in this peculiar way elsewhere in his book, for instance in 7:1 customary method of reckoning regnal years? Before such strained explanations are adopted, should not a simpler and more natural solution be sought? It has already been demonstrated in the appendix for chapter two (”Methods of reckoning regnal years”) that there is no real discrepancy between the third year of Jehoiakim in Daniel 1:1 year in Jeremiah 25:1 and nonaccession year systems are taken into consideration, this difference of one year is easily understood. 566 This solution also has bearing upon the seeming conflict between the three years of training and Daniel 2:1 Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year (in agreement with the Babylonian Chronicle), his “second year” at Daniel 2:1 may be regarded as the third year of the training of the Jewish captives. According to the Hebrew way of reckoning time periods, whereby fractions of time were reckoned as full units, this would make three years. 567 necessarily three full years. Dr. Young presents the following table: 568 Years of training: Nebuchadnegggir: First year Year of accession Second year First year Third year Second year Applying this simple and biblical method to the problem solves the seeming conflict without unfounded theories and strained explanations. Many modern Biblical scholars, who regard the book of Daniel as authentic, have adopted this simple solution. Gerhard F. Rasel, for one, says: It is no longer necessary to explain the difficulty between Dan. 2:1 emendation (H. Ewald, A. Kamphausen, J. D. Prince, K. Marti, and J. Jahn) or double reckoning (C. B. Michaelis, G. Behrmann). The practice of inclusive reckoning, together with the recognition of the Babylonian usage of the king’s accession year as not being counted, removes all difficulties. 569 |
| Whence in Latin this word (quærit) receives a preposition and becomes acquirit (acquires), the meaning of which is plain enough; although even without the addition of the preposition quærere is understood as acquirere, whence gains are called quæstus. Chapter 7.– Of the Disruption of the Kingdom of Israel, by Which the Perpetual Division of the Spiritual from the Carnal Israel Was Prefigured. Again Saul sinned through disobedience, and again Samuel says to him in the word of the Lord, Because you have despised the word of the Lord, the Lord has despised you, that you may not be king over Israel. 1 Samuel 15:23 And again for the same sin, when Saul confessed it, and prayed for pardon, and besought Samuel to return with him to appease the Lord, he said, I will not return with you: for you have despised the word of the Lord, and the Lord will despise you that you may not be king over Israel. And Samuel turned his face to go away, and Saul laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and rent it. And Samuel said to him, The Lord has rent the kingdom from Israel out of your hand this day, and will give it to your neighbor, who is good above you, and will divide Israel in two. And He will not be changed, neither will He repent: for He is not as a man, that He should repent; who threatens and does not persist. He to whom it is said, The Lord will despise you that you may not be king over Israel, and The Lord has rent the kingdom from Israel out of your hand this day, reigned forty years over Israel – that is, just as long a time as David himself – yet heard this in the first period of his reign, that we may understand it was said because none of his race was to reign, and that we may look to the race of David, whence also is sprung, according to the flesh, Romans 1:3 the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5 But the Scripture has not what is read in most Latin copies, The Lord has rent the kingdom of Israel out of your hand this day, but just as we have set it down it is found in the Greek copies, The Lord has rent the kingdom from Israel out of your hand; that the words out of your hand may be understood to mean from Israel. Therefore this man figuratively represented the people of Israel, which was to lose the kingdom, Christ Jesus our Lord being about to reign, not carnally, but spiritually. |
| The Praktikos and Chapters on Prayer, trans. J. E. Bamberger OCSO, Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1981. Evagrius Scholasticus Ecclesiastical History, trans. M. Whitby, Translated Texts for Historians, 33, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000. Gregory Akindynos Discourse before Patriarch John XIV , trans. (Spanish) J. N. Cañellas in C. G. and V. Conticello (eds.), La théologie byzantine et sa tradition, vol. II, Turnhout: Brepols, 2002. Gregory of Nazianzus Epistle 101, trans. L. Wickham in St Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ, Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2002, pp. 155–66. Oration 2, In Defence of His Flight To Pontus, trans. NPNF, series 2, vol. 7, pp. 204–27. Oration 14, On the Love of the Poor, trans. B. E. Daley, SJ, Gregory of Nazianzus, London and New York: Routledge, 2006, pp. 75–97; also trans. M. Vinson, St Gregory of Nazianzus. Select Orations, Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2003, pp. 39–71. Oration 21, On the Great Athanasius, trans. NPNF, series 2, vol. 7, pp. 269–80. Oration 31, The Fifth Theological Oration, On the Holy Spirit, trans. L. Wickham in St Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ, Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2002, pp. 117–47; NPNF, series 2, vol. 7, pp. 318–28. Oration 38, On Theophany, trans. NPNF, series 2, vol. 7, pp. 345–52. Oration 40, On Holy Baptism, trans. NPNF, series 2, vol. 7, pp. 360–77. Oration 42, The Last Farewell, trans. NPNF, series 2, vol. 7, pp. 385–95. Oration 43, Panegyric on St Basil, trans. NPNF, series 2, vol. 7, pp. 395–422. Oration 45, The Second Oration on Easter, NPNF, series 2, vol. 7, pp. 422–34. Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius, trans. NPNF, series 2, vol. 5, pp. 33–248. Great Catechism, trans. NPNF, series 2, vol. 5, pp. 473–509. Homilies on Ecclesiastes, ed. and trans. P. Alexandre in Grégoire de Nysse, Homélies sur l’Écclésiaste, SC 416, Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1996. Homily on the Beatitudes, trans. A. Meredith in Gregory of Nyssa, London and New York: Routledge, 1999, pp. 91–9; see also H. R. Drobner and A. Viciano (eds.), Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on the Beatitudes. An English Version with Commentary and Supporting Studies. Proceedings of the 8th Intl. Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa, Leiden, Boston and Cologne: Brill, 2000. |
| Johns use of double entendres, clear to the informed reader but missed by Jesus» continually dense opponents, reflects a broader pattern of polemical irony in the Fourth Gospe1. 1884 In John, Jesus» opponents repeatedly make ironic self-indictments and glaring errors in understanding Jesus» words. This is first of all evident in regard to Jesus» origin (8:14). On the one hand, «the Jews» assume that they know his origin (6:42): Jesus is not from Bethlehem (7:42), and his alleged Galilean origin is hence nonmessianic (7:41; cf. 1:46). 1885 On the other hand, «the Jerusalemites» (7:27) and «the Pharisees» (9:29) admit that they do not know his origin. 1886 Jesus replies that in one sense they really do know: he is from God, and they misconstrue this only because they do not know God (7:28). They cannot know Jesus» real place of origin, that is, from above, because they do not know the Father (8:19). They are also inconsistent in their accusations against Jesus. Jesus, whom the reader knows to be really God " s Son, is not permitted to say that he is (5:18; 10:36), but his opponents claim the title (with an admittedly different significance) for themselves (8:41). Likewise, the leaders want Jesus crucified so that the Romans will not take away their place and nation (11:48). But unless J. A. T. Robinson " s early dating of John is correct, the original reader would have known that the Romans did in fact take away these leaders» place and nation, either in spite of or because of Jesus» crucifixion. 1887 Further, Pilate acknowledges Jesus as the Jewish king, but the Jewish leaders deny it. Indeed, they acknowledge no king but Caesar (19:15; contrast the language of 8:41), 1888 although this acknowledgement may be meant to remind the Johannine community of the claims of the imperial cult. Those who claim to interpret the Law properly repeatedly appear obtuse in their interpretation. Nicodemus, for instance, though a teacher of Israel, misunderstands Jesus (3:1–21), thereby comparing unfavorably with the Samaritan woman in the next chapter (4:7–42). The fact that he later appears to be paradigmatic for first the secret (7:48–51; cf. 12:42–43) and then the open (19:39) believer does not reduce the harshness of this first portraya1. |
| 8. Shawei S. S. Bible, IV, 5. Slavonie versions//New Catholic Encyclopedia. Washington, 1967. Vol. II. Дополнительная литература 1. Пиперов Б., проф. Презвитер Лукиан, неговата рецензия на библейския текс и преводът на св. Кирил и Методий//ГДА. Т. XVIII (XLIV) (1968/69). 2. Рубан Ю. Сретение Господне: Опыт историко-литургического исследования. Приложение 1: Материалы по истории Септуагинты. СПб. 1994. 3. Barthélemy D. Les devanciers d’Aquila. Leiden, 1963. 4. Metzger B. M. The Lucîanic Recension of the Greek Bible//Chapters in the History of the NT Textual Criticism. Leiden, 1964 5. Rahlfs A. Paul Lagardes wissenschaftliches Lebenswerk im Rahmen einer Geschichte seines Lebens dargestellt//(MSU 4). I. 1928. 6. Rahlfs A. Septuaginta-Studien. Göttingen, 1907–1911. 7. Skehan P. W. Bible IV, 5. Septuaginta//New Catholic Encyclopedia. Washington, 1967. Vol. II. 8. Spanneut M. La Bible d’Eustathe d’Antioche. St. Patr. 4. TU 79, Berlin 1961. 9. Τον Е. Lucian and Proto-Lukian: Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text/Ed. by Moore Gross/Sh. Lalmon. Cambridge; London, 1975. 10. Würthwein E. Der Text des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart, 1973. 11. Ziegler J. Die Vorlage der Isaias. Septuaginta (LXX) und duecerste Isaias//Rolle von Qumran (1 QISa). 1959. Глава 9. 1. Долгова С. Неизвестное русское сообщение XVIII в. о Кирилле и Мефодии в книге Ф. В. Каржавина и E. Н. Каржавина «Заметки о русском языке и его алфавите»//Кирило-Методиевски студии. Кн. 5 (1988). 2. Евсеев И. Е. Книга прор. Даниила в древнеславянском переводе. М., 1905. 3. Калайдович К. Ф. Иоанн, Экзарх Болгарский. М., 1824. 4. Камчатнов А. М. История и герменевтика Славянской Библии. М., 1998. 5. Логачев К. Библейская комиссия и изучение истории Библии у славян//ЖМП. 1974. 7. 6. Михайлов А. В., проф. Опыт изучения текста книги Бытия пророка Моисея в древнеславянском переводе. Варшава, 1912. Ч. I. Паримийный текст. 7. Мещерский Н. А. Источники и состав древней славяно-русской переводной письменности IX-XV веков. М., 1978. |
| 130 This section is based on Lev. 13 , a long discussion of the diagnosis and treatment of leprosy. 131 Num. 25:6–9. 132 See Num. 25 :14f. Maximus’ interpretation of Zambri (in English bibles Zimri) is traditional: see Wutz (1914–15), 420. Chasbi (English bibles: Cozbi) is usually interpreted as meaning ‘deceitful’ (see Wutz 1914–15 , 951). 133 Cf. Matt. 10:10, Luke 9:3, 10:4, though the text as Maximus cites it agrees exactly with none of these. 134 Following the emendation suggested in Migne. 135 See Matt. 17:14–21. 136 For the word translated ‘epileptic’ literally means ‘pertaining to the moon’ (and therefore ‘lunatic’ in older English translations). 137 Cf. Denys the Areopagite, Divine Names II.11; IV.7, 10, 14; X.1. 138 Cf. the teaching in Ep. 2, above, esp. 396A (p.86). DIFFICULTY 41 1 There is a translation of most of this Difficulty (all apart from the final contemplation) in Hausherr (1952), 164–70, which I have found helpful. 2 From St Gregory Nazianzen’s Sermon 39.13, on the Feast of Lights (i.e., the Theophany, or Epiphany) (PG 36.348D). 3 For these divisions, cf. Gregory of Nyssa, ContraEunomium I.270–2, III. 6.62–7 (Jaeger 1960 , 1.105–6, 2.66–7), and elsewhere, and the discussion above, Introduction, chapter 5. Amb. 10.26, above, also develops the notion of the divisions of being and alludes to similar texts in Gregory of Nyssa. 4 See Gregory of Nyssa, On human creation 2 (PG 44:133A). 5 Syndesmos: a key term in Maximus’ theology, used by Nemesius, On human nature 1 (Morani 1987 , 5). 6 Diastema: another key term of Maximus’. 7 Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, On human creation 16 (PG 44:181 AB). 8 It sounds odd to refer to the human person as ‘it’, but Maximus is talking about a human person transcending sexual differentiation, which would be obscured by the use of ‘he’ or ‘she’. 9 Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, On human creation 17 (PG 44and D), and frequently elsewhere. 10 Perichoresas: used also in the Greek tradition to express the interpenetration of the natures of Christ, and the Persons of the Trinity (cf. Latin: circumincessio). |
| γινσκω When each passage is investigated, parallels between passages using different terms become obvious, and it becomes clear that the terms are used interchangeably. Allowing for stronger psychological nuances of one term or the other that never become hard-and-fast rules, and ignoring chapters and artificial conceptual divisions, preponderance of one term or the other in random areas (esp. ch. 9) shows that Johns variation was mostly random and unintentiona1. 3B. Johns Emphasis on Knowledge Although Hellenistic knowledge could involve virtue, the moral sensibility of knowledge as defined in terms of keeping the commandments is a particularly Jewish concept, and is recurrent in the Johannine literature, 2103 especially in 1 John. One knows that one knows him because one keeps his commandments (1 John 2:3; 3:6; 5:2, 18), that is, walks in love (3:14; 4:7–8,13; 5:2) rather than hatred (3:15), and adheres to the truth (4:6; 5:13). One lives this way by the indwelling Spirit (3:24; 4:13), and through Johns message (5:13), which his hearers know to be true (3 John 12). Because of the polemical context of the Fourth Gospel, however, the most essential prerequisite for true knowledge is believing the claims of Jesus (e.g., John 14:7,17 ), which is tantamount to believing the Father (e.g., John 7:28–29; 8:19 ). For John, as in the OT and Judaism, God " s historical self-revelation is the basis for knowing him, in acts such as his signs (e.g., 2:11) and in his whole self-revelation, especially in the cross (see comments on 1:14). For John, true faith in and knowledge of God cannot be separated from the historical Jesus (cf. 1 John 4:1–6 ), as the very narrative format he employs suggests. 2104 But those who abide in «the world» responded to, and continue to respond to, the Jesus of history wrongly, because they do not have the Spirit to guide them. Only the person born from above can «see» the kingdom of God (3:3, 5). Knowledge in the Fourth Gospel includes a covenant relationship ( 10:4,14–15), but this relationship is expressed in intimate communication from the Spirit of truth (see comments on 15:13–15; 16:13–15). This is part of John " s polemic: an establishment that prides itself on knowing the Law consistently misinterprets it, but the believers, who do not demonstrate an academic proficiency equal to that of their accusers, nevertheless demonstrate a more direct knowledge of God that none of their opponents even claim for themselves. Thus, Whitacre notes that Jesus» opponents» claim of loyalty to the Law is a claim to knowledge of God; in the same way, John " s repudiation of their claim to interpret the Law faithfully contends that they do not know God. 2105 John " s community lays claim to an experience which it is difficult to criticize–or even acknowledge–from the standpoint of the more (albeit not totally) rationalistic epistemology common to many ancient elites. 2106 |
|
|
