| 1 John 2:6 ). Adoptive ties held significant legal force in Roman culture, but intimate friendships could also create functional kinship ties; in a famous Roman epic, a friend promises that if Euryalus dies, the friend will make Euryalus " s mother a mother to himself just like his very own. 10188 In one novel popular in late antiquity, Darius entrusted his mother to Alexander " s care «as though she were your mother.» 10189 A childless man facing death might also adopt a son to tend to his last days and burial and to carry on after him; 10190 and given the relation between teachers and disciples, a prized disciple might do (cf. comment on 13:33; Mark 6:29 ; Iamblichus V.P. 30.184; 35.252). Thus an ancient audience could readily recognize the intimate bonds between individuals such as Jesus and the beloved disciple that would lead the latter to readily adopt Jesus» mother. Perhaps the passage also provides a model for caring for widows in the community (cf. Acts 6:1–3; 1Tim 5:5–10 ) who have been cut off from family support because of their faith in Jesus, 10191 although this proposal would be at best a guess. John appears concerned about discipleship creating familial alienation (7:5), but this passage might address primarily familial reconciliation (cf. 2:4). It may also suggest the simplicity of Jesus» earthly lifestyle (cf. 4:31–34); his only earthly inheritance to his disciples is his responsibility to care for his mother. 10192 (If 19implies the gift of his spirit, that larger spiritual legacy appears a few verses after this one.) Most important, because Jesus» brothers did not believe (7:5), Jesus entrusted his believing mother to a disciple (19:26–27). Later chuch tradition suggests that Jesus» siblings were older, children of Joseph by a marriage before his marriage to Mary; but 19simply suggests that Jesus was responsible for his mother because he was the eldest son; other references to «the Lord " s brothers» ( 1Cor 9:5 ) suggest a direct relationship, 10193 and literary cues in this Gospel link Jesus» mother and brothers (see comment on 7:4–5). |
| John apparently declares that Jesus lays down his life 7443 «in order that» he might take it again (10:17); on this reading the resurrection «is not a circumstance that follows the death of Jesus but the essential completion of the death of Jesus.» 7444 The term tva could connote result rather than purpose here, 7445 and appears in some unusual senses in John (e.g., 17:3); but given John " s usual practice, it most likely connotes purpose here. 7446 The cross is necessary in part as a precursor to the resurrection. It is also part of Jesus» obedient relationship with his Father (10:17–18; cf. 14:31; 15:10). Even more explicitly than in the Synoptics, in this Gospel Jesus» cross is his choice and not that of his enemies (10:15,17–18; 15:13; 19:30);he acts on behalf of his sheep (10:15),to save them (11:50; cf. 1:29). Divided Response to Jesus (10:19–21) On the division (10:19), see comment on 7:43; 9:16. The unity of the new flock (10:16) would come at the expense of division in the first-century synagogues (cf. Acts 13:42–50; 18:6–8; 19:8–9). Even to listen to Jesus was offensive to some (10:20), just as some of John " s contemporaries probably felt that it was wrong to listen to the Jewish Christians. 7447 Certainly some early second-century rabbis considered even listening to schismatics a dangerous exercise. 7448 (On the charge of demonization, see comment on 7:20; 8:48.) Others, however, were impressed by the miracle (10:21) which had started the current debate (9:1–38). John closes this section by pointedly referring his audience back to the sign on which the following debate commented. 7010 On the relation between vision and epistemology in the chapter, see also Marconi, «Struttura di Gv 9,1–41»; for the language in general, see introduction, ch. 6. 7013 Witherington, Christology, 170–71, cites, e.g., Tob 11:10–14; SIG 2 807.15–18; 1173.15–18; SIG 3 1168. 7016 Witherington, Christology, 170, citing Mark, John, and Q (the Matthean summary and uniquely Markan examples he cites do not add to these). |
| Jesus is from the Father and returning to the Father (16:28), and so can bring them direct access to, and relationship with, the Father in his name (14:6). Now Jesus, who had «come into the world» (cf. 1:9; 3:17; 18:37), was «leaving the world» (16:28), and the disciples finally understand what he means by «going» from them (13:33, 36; 14:2–4, 12, 28; 16:5, 7, 10); although still potentially ambiguous (cf. 1Cor 5:10 ), «leaving the world» was more explicit from their perspective than going to the Father. 9362 2. Limited Faith (16:29–33) Now that Jesus has finally answered his disciples» question and they understand that he is going to the Father and returning, they affirm their faith in him (16:29–30). But like signs-faith elsewhere in the Gospel, this initial profession of faith will prove inadequate to withstand the coming testing unless it proceeds to full discipleship–which it will do only later. As in 13:36–38, Jesus warns his disciples that they will indeed grow weak in faith and abandon him (16:31–32); yet Jesus is not totally abandoned, for, as the Fourth Gospel repeatedly emphasizes, he is inseparable from the Father " s presence (16:33). Jesus» power demonstrated his divine origin, recognized even by Nicodemus from the start (3:2); the recognition that he knew «all things» (16:30; 18:4; 21:17), 9363 however, should have pointed the disciples not only to Jesus» origin but to his deity (see 1 John 3:20 ; comment on 2:23–25). Jesus further demonstrates this superhuman knowledge by predicting their betrayals (16:31–32). 9364 That an «hour was coming and already had come» may reflect Johannine language for realized eschatology (4:23; 5:25); the hour of suffering about to come upon them was of a piece with the eschatological tribulation they would suffer. They would be scattered; this was the usual fate of troops whose leader had fallen, 9365 but in biblical tradition, it was especially the fate of sheep without a shepherd, the condition of Israel when lacking faithful shepherds (1 Kgs 22:17; 2 Chr 18:16; Ezek 34:5 ; Zech 11:16; 13:7; 1Macc 12:53) or scattered in the exile ( Jer 31:10 ; Bar 2:13 ; 1 En. 89:75). (On scattering, see more fully the comment on 10:12.) The saying in this case probably reflects the saying from the passion tradition also cited in Mark 14:27–28 , based on Zech 13:7. 9366 Being abandoned, left «alone,» was normally viewed as a great hardship; 9367 to be abandoned by onés disciples was a mark of great shame. 9368 (Each returning «to his own home» 9369 may recall biblical language for defeated soldiers fleeing the battle after losing their leader–1 Kgs 22:17.) |
| 5842 Though ργον is a common term (over 130 occurrences in the LXX of the Pentateuch alone) it is significant here that it can apply to God " s act of creation ( Gen 2:2–3 LXX; Wis 13:1; Sib. Or. 1.22; cf. the verb in Philostratus Hrk. 25.8). Less likely is the proposal of Manns, «Oeuvres,» that Jesus carries out Jewish tradition " s «works of mercy.» 5843 For a probable implicit traditional link between Gen 2and Ezek 37 , see comment on John 20:22 . 5844 E.g., L.A.E. 51:1–2; 2 En. 33:1–2 J; Barn. 15.8; possibly T. Ab. 19:7A; 7:16B; see further the comment on John 5:25–30 . 5845 It may be associated with the feast in 7and perhaps identified as the (partly realized) eschatological «day» in John 8:56; 9:4; 11:9; 14:20; 16:23,26 ), perhaps partly associated with the cross (12:7; 19:31) and/or resurrection (the first day, 20:1,19). 5846 John 6does not count because «make» is properly attached to «sit down.» 5847 Elsewhere God «made» the human mouth, a synecdoche for God making people in various physical conditions (Exod 4:11). 5848 Such a relationship often invited reciprocity: Israel must love God ( ; Josh 22:5; 23:11; Neh 1:5; Dan 9:4 ). 5849 Possibly Ign. Magn. 7.1 (δι» εαυτο) alludes to John here (even in the shorter recension), especially in view of Ignatius " s νευ του πατρς οδν εποησεν. 5850 Meeks, «Agent,» 55. On the activity of the agent, see «agency» under Christology in our introduction, pp. 310–17. 5851 E.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.32, εξ εμαυτο (John consistently prefers π, as in, e.g., Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 396, §135D). In John 10it indicates Jesus» independence from those who want him dead, but explicitly not independence from the Father; cf. 18:34. 5852 Sipre Deut. 5.1.1; 19.1.1; 25.5.1. 5853 Talbert, John, 125–26, takes the language of honor here as cultic (citing Josephus Ant. 1.156; 6.21; 1Tim 1:17; 6:16 ; Rev 4:9, 11; 5:12). On the early Christian understanding of Jesus receiving worship within the identity of the one God, see Bauckham, God Crucified, 34–35. |
| 7638 Tears often moved authorities to action (e.g., Lysias Or. 32.10, §505; Cicero Sest. 11.26; Caesar Gallic W. 1.20). On male authorities being particularly moved by women " s pleas in the ancient Mediterranean world, see Luke 18:2–5; 2Sam 14:1–21; 20:16–22; 1 Kgs 1:11–16; 2:17; Matt 20:20; P.Sakaon 36; Lysias Or. 32.11–18, §§506–511; perhaps Valerius Maximus 8.3; comment on 2:4. 7640 «Come and see» is a familiar invitation formula (see comment on 1:39) but, apart from Johannine style, probably bears no other relation to 1:39, 46 and 4:29. 7642 Jesus presumably weeps in 11because he «shares the sadness of his friends and their neighbors» (Smith, John 225). By ancient Mediterranean standards, mere tears were hardly wildly demonstrative (Virgil Aen. 11.148–150; cf. especially women, e.g., Homer Il. 18.30–31; Aeschylus Cho. 22–31, 423–428). Jewish mourners did not, however, participate in the more masochistic mourning rites of their pagan neighbors (e.g., Deut 14:1 ). 7643 Malina, Windows, 24–25, citing Plutarch Caesar 5.2; 11.3; 41.1; 48.2; Cicero 47.2; Acts 20:37; Lightfoot, Gospel, 229, cites Juvenal Sat. 15.132–133. Cf. also 2 Kgs 8:11–12; Homer I1. 1.348–349, 413; Od. 4.113–119; 16.190–191; 23.231–232; Sophocles Ajax 819–820; Philostratus Hrk. 45.6. Note amplification in Josephus " s hellenized accounts: Moses» prayer with tears for God " s vindication against Korah (Josephus Ant. 4.51); David " s prayers with tears during Absalom " s revolt (Josephus Ant. 7.203; 2Sam 15:23, 30 ). 7644 E.g., Livy 1.26.12; 23.8.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 9.10.1; for rhetoric, see, e.g., Lysias Or. 32.10, §505; Cicero Mi1. 38.105; Rosc. Amer. 9.24; Rab.post. 17.47; Gae1. 24.60; Sest. 11.26; Seneca Controv. 4.pref.6; Menander Rhetor 2.13, 423.30; Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.19.512; 2.1.561; 2.5.574; 2.9.582; 2.10.586; Acts 20:19. Narrators used tears to stir pathos (e.g., Xenophon Eph. 1.11); Polybius 2.56.7 complains about historians who sensationalize with tragic scenes of women " s tears invented to arouse pathos; John may deliberately evoke pathos here. |
| 7001 Given the narrative genre, the most likely direct allusion is to the book of Jeremiah, where God hid Jeremiah in the temple and so protected him from harm ( Jer 36:26 ); 7002 here, however, Jesus as God " s agent hides himself. Yet because Jesus is the «I am» (8:58), on a theological level, Jesus withdrawing from the temple may also evoke a state of Ichabod–God " s glory withdrawing from a polluted and rebellious sanctuary ( Ezek 5:11; 8:4; 9:3; 10:4, 18 ). 7003 Jewish teachers spoke of the withdrawal of God " s presence from the earth or from among groups of people (3 En. 5.14) 7004 and particularly from the temple (2 Bar. 8:1–2; 64:6) 7005 because of peoplés sins. 7006 Jewish people prayed for the return of God " s presence to Zion. 7007 One recalls accounts of divine Wisdom rejected on the earth, hence wandering and departing ( Sir 24:6–22 ; cf. comment on John 1:10–11 ). 7008 6302 Cf. Attridge, «Development,» on 7:1–36. 6303 Meeks, Prophet-King, 59, follows Dodd (Interpretation, 345–54) in arguing that the discourses of chs. 7–8 in John «form one cycle whose central theme is Jesus» open manifestation»; cf. Pancaro, Law, 57. 6304 Stauffer, Jesus, 174, connects the revelation of Jesus in the narrative with God " s manifestation of himself during the biblical feasts. 6305 See Meeks, Prophet-King, 42–43. Rochais, «Scénario,» argues that 7:1–52 is a unity with the sort of divided scenes and dialogues one expects in a Greek drama. 6306 E.g., Menander Rhetor 1.3, 365.27–29; for festivals as subjects of these speeches, 1.3, 365.30–366.10, 22–28. 6307 E.g., m. Ker. 1:7; " Abot R. Nat. 38A; 41, §114B. Greeks and Romans often taught outside temples (see Watson, «Education,» 310; cf. Iamblichus V.P. 9.50; 21.96), but the location did not constitute these lectures a distinctive genre (Siegert, «Homily,» 421 n. 1). 6308 Michaels, «Discourse.» 6309 M. Sukkah 5:1; see further the comment on 7:37–39. 6310 Later rabbis also emphasized (and probably exaggerated) the dutiful attendance (e.g., Ecc1. Rab. 1:7, §8); Diaspora pilgrims certainly could not attend all the pilgrimage festivals (Safrai, «Relations,» 191). In biblical times, see Josephus Ant. 8.225. 6311 Deissmann, Light, 115–16, noting the pagan association of the Jewish festival with Dionysus. |
| Особенное внимание ранних авторов к тексту Книги объяснялось также необходимостью противопоставить христ. понимание его пророчеств истолкованиям в среде еретиков. Так, свт. Ириней Лионский, излагая учение офитов, писал, что, согласно их доктрине, М. относился к пророкам Иао - 2-го бога священной Седмерицы и в то же время - к пророку Орея - 6-го бога ( Iren. Adv. haer. I 30. 10-11; возможно, речь идет о 2 Михеях, известных из Библии). У Оригена имеется свидетельство еретического прочтения Мих 1. 12: «...ибо сошло злое от Господа на врата Иерусалима» (по LXX). На основании этих слов гностики полагали, что Бог ВЗ - не совершенен и не благ, а Спаситель явил др. бога, который не является Творцом, известным из ВЗ ( Orig. De princip. IV 2. 8-9). Блж. Иероним Стридонский уточняет, что этот стих использовали маркиониты и манихеи для доказательства того, что Бог ВЗ - устроитель зла, и сам в ответ заявляет, что подобные козни еретиков не могут поколебать тех, кто живут в ограде Церкви, т. е. за вратами Иерусалима, установленными апостолами ( Hieron. In Mich. 1. 10-15). Свт. Василий Великий объясняет Мих 1. 12 в контексте Мих 1. 13, утверждая, что описание происшедшего зла - справедливое наказание посредством войны тех, кто заслуживали этой участи ( Basil. Magn. Hom. 9. 9-16). Подробное истолкование всего текста Книги прор. Михея появилось с кон. IV в., когда были составлены полные комментарии в рамках толкований на собрание книг 12 малых пророков. Самым ранним сохранившимся полным комментарием на греческом языке является Комментарий Феодора, еп. Мопсуестийского (Comment. in Michaeam prophetam// Theodori Mopsuesteni. Commentarius in XII prophetas/Ed. H. N. Sprenger. Wiesbaden, 1977. P. 191-235; CPG, N 3834), который был написал не позднее 381 г. ( Theodore of Mopsuestia. Comment. on the Twelve Prophets/Ed. R. Ch. Hill. Wash., 2004. P. 28). В отличие от остальных авторов еп. Феодор не обращает внимания на большую часть цитат из Книги прор. Михея в НЗ и не упоминает об основных прообразовательных истолкованиях текста пророчеств, принятых в экзегетической традиции древней Церкви (напр., Мих 4. 1-3). Его комментарий оказал существенное влияние на истолкования Феодорита Кирского и Ишодада Мервского. |
| 4690 Bammel, «Poor,» 125. Phinehas " s zeal becomes the model for the Maccabees in 1Macc 2(cf. also Philo Confusion 57; Moses 1.303–304; b. Sanh. 82b; Num. Rab. 21:3), as many scholars note (e.g., Eisenman, Maccabees, 7–9), but cf. also Elijah in 1Macc 1:58. 4693 Hunter, John, 34. Schuchard, Scripture, 17–32, thinks the textual tradition unclear. Suffering on account of zeal for good appears in Libanius Declamation 36.36, though this is late; on the Scripture introduction formula, see comment on 6:31. 4694 Ancient narratives regularly extol heroes who could face suffering or danger bravely (e.g., Livy 5.46.2–3; Plutarch Sayings of Spartans, Anonymous 35, Mor. 234AB; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.68.2–3; Josephus Ant. 3.208; 4.322; 6.126–127; see comment on John 12:27–30 ). But we also have good reason to affirm that the historical Jesus taught the popular Jewish views that sufferings precede the kingdom and that prophets are martyred (confirmed by John " s death); his repeated hostile encounters with members of the Jerusalem elite and multiple attestation of passion sayings further support their likelihood. Further on the passion predictions see Keener, Matthew, 431–33, on Matt 16:21. 4695 Josephus War 6.124–126; Ant. 15.417; Carmon, Inscriptions, 76, 167–68; cf. ÓRourke, «Law,» 174; Segal, «Death Penalty»; idem, «Inscription»; pace Rabello, «Condition,» 737–38. Trespassing on sacred precincts had long invited severe judgment in ancient Mediterranean thought (e.g., Hesiod Astron. frg. 3). 4696 Δεικνω can be understood in various ways (cf. the related δεκνυμι, which is more common in this Gospel) but can refer to divine revelation (Γ. Ab. 6:8; 15:12A), making known God " s greatness by praise (Tob 13:4–6). 4699 Paradox, based on the unexpected, was one striking method of gaining attention (see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 88). 4700 Bridges, «Aphorisms,» suggests that such aphorisms arrest the flow of narrative in the Fourth Gospel, inviting contemplation. 4703 The threat form supports authenticity, as it would not have been created by the later church (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 72–74; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 174; Theissen, Gospels, 113, 194). A threat against the temple would have been an adequate charge before Pilate (Blinzler, Trial, 170). |
| 30. 12–3 Архитектура Западных Церквей 30. 2 Мозаика, живопись (иконы, фрески, миниатюры, картины). 30. 21 Дохристианская мозаика, живопись 30. 22 Христианская мозаика, живопись 30. 221 Раннехристианская и византийская. Мозаика и живопись Поместных Православных Церквей. 30. 222 Мозаика, живопись Русской Православной Церкви 30. 222–1Иконописные школы 30. 222–2 Отдельные иконописцы, художники и скульпторы 30. 223 Мозаика и живопись Западных Церквей 30. 3 Христианская иконография 30. 31 Богословие иконы, символика 30. 32 Специальная иконография 30. 321 Изображения Святой Троицы 30. 322 Изображения Бога-Отца. 30. 323 Изображения Иисуса Христа. 30. 324 Изображения Святого Духа… 30. 325 Изображения Божией Матери 30. 326 Изображения Креста… 30. 327 Изображения святых небесных сил бесплотных 30. 328 Изображения святых 3. История религий Общие вопросы истории религий] Религии Древнего мира] Буддизм. Зороастризм. Индуизм. Ислам . Иудаизм. Конфуцианство. Сикхизм. Синтаизм] Другие религии] 4. Агиография 4. Общие вопросы 41 Жизнеописания святых неразделенной Церкви. 42 Жизнеописания восточных святых 43 Жизнеописания западных святых 44 Жизнеописания святых Русской Православной Церкви 45 Канонизация святых и составление служб. 46 Сказания о земной жизни Божией Матери 47 История чудотворных икон и других святынь… 48 Паломничество по святым местам 5. Богословие Основное богословие] 51. 1 Бог , природа и человек 51. 2 Размышления о процессах, происходящих в человеческом обществе. 51. 3 История христианской апологетики 51. 4 Общее религиоведение 51. 41 Религия и наука. 51. 42 Религия и культура 51. 5 Апология религиозных истин 51. 51 Истина Воскресения Христова 51. 6 Апология Христианства. Догматическое богословие] 52. Общие вопросы 52. 1 Триадология (Учение о Святой Троице) 52. 2 Антропология (Учение о человеке) 52. 3 Амартология (Учение о грехопадении и его последствиях) 52. 4 Христология (Учение о Лице Богочеловека и двух естествах) 52. 5 Мариология (Учение о Божией Матери) 52. 6 Догмат воскресения Христова… |
| Под этой же датой память О. закрепилась в совр. календаре РПЦ, где время его служения обозначено как 820 г. до Р. Х. (ПЦК. 2018. С. 257), и в совр. календаре греч. церквей ( Σωφρνιος (Εστρατιδης). Αγιολγιον. Σ. 483). На Западе св. Адон, архиеп. Вьеннский (860-874/5), первым внес память О. в свой Мартиролог под 4 июля (MartAdon. P. 215), под этой же датой память О. сохранилась в Римском Мартирологе (MartRom. Comment. P. 268; ActaSS. Iul. T. 2. P. 5), однако в совр. Календаре Римско-католич. Церкви день его памяти перенесен на 17 окт. в соответствии с традициями восточных Церквей (MartRom. (Vat.). P. 544). В сир. Мартирологе Раббана Слибы (кон. XIII - нач. XIV в.) О. поминается 17 окт., как и в визант. традиции ( Peeters P. Le Martyrologe de Rabban Sliba//AnBoll. 1908. Vol. 27. P. 165). В копто-араб. Синаксаре XIII-XIV вв. память О. совершается 26 амшира (20 февр.) и в сказании, к-рое содержит краткий пересказ его библейских пророчеств, также говорится, что он пророчествовал 70 лет во времена правления иудейских царей Амасии, Озии, Иофама, Ахаза и Езекии (PO. T. 11. Fasc. 5. P. 849-850). Обзор комментариев на Книгу пророка Осии Поскольку эта книга является первой и самой большой в собрании книг малых пророков и, кроме того, ее слова цитируются в Евангелии, то обращения к ней в ранний период формирования христ. учения весьма многочисленны (особенно по сравнению с др. книгами малых пророков - см., напр., список, содержащий ок. 700 примеров обращения к ее тексту у авторов II-V вв.- Biblia patristica. Vol. 1. P. 170-172; Vol. 2. P. 169-170; Vol. 3. P. 144-146; Vol. 4. P. 130-131; Vol. 5. P. 197; Vol. 6. P. 92; Vol. 7. P. 74). Подробное истолкование всего текста Книги прор. Осии появляется с кон. IV в., когда были составлены полные комментарии на собрание книг малых пророков. Самый ранний полный комментарий на греч. языке принадлежит Феодору, еп. Мопсуестийскому ( Theod. Mops. In Os.// Idem. Commentarius in XII prophetas/Ed. H. N. Sprenger. Wiesbaden, 1977. S. 1-78 (Pag. 2); CPG, N 3834), создан не позднее 381 г. ( Idem. Comment. on the XII Prophets/Ed. R. Ch. Hill. Wash., 2004. P. 28). Комментарий представляет собой буквальный нравственный, зачастую назидательный парафраз пророчеств О., полностью лишенный символической интерпретации. Тем не менее Феодор обозначает общее направление духовного понимания пророчеств: согласно его концепции пророческого вдохновения, О. говорит о грядущих бедствиях, ожидавших Израиль, о к-рых уже издавна было предсказано прор. Давидом. Напоминание об этих несчастьях приготавливает явление Владыки Христа и Его пришествие, когда все, что было сказано о судьбах евр. народа втайне, получило исполнение ( Theod. Mops. In Os. Praef.). |
|
|
