| Совр. исследователи отрицают достоверность предания об основании епископской кафедры, изложенного в источниках 2-й пол. VIII в. О христианах в Меттисе ранее IV в. точных сведений нет; хронологические указания Павла Диакона и др. поздних авторов ненадежны. Вероятно, христ. община была основана на рубеже III и IV вв. ( Duchesne. Fastes. T. 3. P. 50-52; Gauthier. 1980. P. 17-23, 447-453; Br ü hl. 1990. S. 53-55; см. также: Claussen. 2004. P. 39-40). В Меттисе могли останавливаться христ. проповедники, следовавшие из Лугдуна (ныне Лион), где община христиан существовала уже во II в., в Треверы (ныне Трир), центр пров. Первая Белгика (Les origines du christianisme dans l " ancien évêché de Metz du IVe au XIIe siècle. Metz, 1966. P. 3-5; Hermann H. W. Zum Stande der Erforschung der früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Geschichte des Bistums Metz//Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter. Bonn, 1963. Bd. 28. S. 149-153). К югу от амфитеатра, в районе совр. квартала Саблон (здесь находился рим. некрополь), располагалась базилика св. Феликса, построенная скорее всего в кон. V в. ( Gauthier. 1980. P. 20-21). Согласно Павлу Диакону, здесь были похоронены Руф и Адельф, 9-й и 10-й епископы Меттиса. Из более поздних источников известно, что в базилике св. Феликса находились гробницы 2-го еп. Целестия, 7-го еп. Симеона и 13-го еп. Ауктора; впосл. их мощи были перенесены в Мармутье, Нёвиллер (ныне Нёвиллер-ле-Саверн) и др. монастыри Лотарингии ( Glansdorff S. L " évêque de Metz et archichapelain Drogon (801/802-855)//Rev. belge de philologie et d " histoire. Brux., 2003. T. 81. N 4. P. 1006-1008; Hari. 2010. Vol. 1. P. 292-295). Вероятно, базилика была усыпальницей ранних епископов Меттиса. Павел Диакон не упоминал о месте погребения К. Сведения о его гробнице в базилике св. Феликса, именовавшейся также в честь К., относятся к IX в. В т. н. Бернской рукописи Иеронимова Мартиролога (кон. VIII в.- Bern. Burgerbibl. 289), выполненной в монастыре Сент-Авольд и впосл. хранившейся в кафедральном соборе в Меце, содержатся дополнения IX в. с указанием местных праздников и памятных дат. Под 20 марта говорится о «перенесении тела св. Климента в Меце» (Mettis translatio corporis sancti Clementis - MartHieron. P. 34; см.: Tribout de Morembert H. Manuscrits de l " abbaye de Saint-Avold (VIIIe-XIe siècle)//Saint Chrodegang. Metz, 1967. P. 185-187). О гробнице К. упоминается также в добавлении ко 2-му перечню Мецских епископов в Сакраментарии Дрогона: согласно заметке на поле рукописи, К. построил ц. св. Петра в амфитеатре и «церковь св. Климента, где он покоится» (Ipse construxit ecclesiam beati Petri in amfiteatrum et ecclesiam sancti Clementis ubi ipse requiescit - Paris. lat. 9428. Fol. 127v). Считается, что мощи К. были обретены при архиеп. Дрогоне ( Picard. 1998. P. 369; Chazan. 2004. P. 17), но точных сведений об этом нет. |
| 116 Acta primorum martyrum, ed. Ruinard, p.294–302. 117 Anal.Boll, IX, p. 116. 118 Decennalia — празднования в честь десятилетия. 119 Acta sanct., VI.661; An.Boll., XXI, p.268. 120 Апостольское Предание, XVI. 121 H.Achelis, Die Canones Hippolyti, Leipzig, 1891 (can.13,71–75). 122 Евсевий Кесарийский, Церковная история, VIII, IV. (Русск. пер., с.432–433.) 123 В Римской империи государственные чиновники носили на одежде знаки отличия, нанесенные пурпурной краской. 124 2–е, 4–е, 55–е и 56–е правила Эльвирского собора. 125 De institution divina, V, 18. 126 1–oe правило Афанасия Великого из его послания к Аммуну–монаху. 127 Апостольские постановления, VIII.32,10. 128 Ср. 3–е правило Арльского собора: «qui in pace arma proiciunt». 129 130–ое правило Василия Великого из его послания к Амфилохию, епископу Иконийскому. 130 Толкование 24–го правила Трулльского собора. 131 Толкование 51–го правила Трулльского собора. 132 Apol. 8,1,61. (Русск. пер., с. 101.) 133 Vis. 111,7,3. 134 Praescrip. с.41. 135 Smrom.,I.VII,c.11. 136 Апостольское Предание, XX. 137 См. Funk. Die Katechumensklasse.b.Theol. — Quartel–Schrift., 1881, S.41. 138 3 года: Апостольские Постановления, VIII.32; Testamentum, p.l 17; Египетские Апостольские Постановления, с.ХХП. 2 года: 44–ое правило Эльвирского собора; 144 новелла Юстиниана и др. 139 Апостольское Предание, XVII. 140 Там же, XVI. 141 Там же, XXII. 142 Там же, XX. 143 G.Dix. The Apostolic Tradition, ар. XVI, p.81. 144 См. статью J.Danielou La catechese eucharistique chez les Peres de l’Eglise. — La messe et sa catechese, Paris, 1947. 145 Кирилл Иерусалимский, Огласительное слово XVIII, 33. (Русск. пер., с.234.) 146 Апостольское Предание, XXIII. 147 Это видно из 39–го правила Эльвирского собора (ср. с 59–м правилом того же собора, из которого ясно, что христиане не считаются верными). Поэтому в некоторых литургических сборниках чин поставления оглашенных носил название Ad christianum faciendum (Duchesne, Origines, p.292). В Александрии во время Сократа чтецами бывали и оглашенные, и верные. |
| Ист.: Le Liber Mozarabicus Sacramentorum/Ed. M. Férotin. P., 1912. P. 395-465; Burkitt F. С. Euphemia and the Goth, with the Acts of Martyrdom of the Confessors of Edessa. L., 1913; Musurillo H. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxf., 1972; Dolbeau F. Actus et visio martyrum Luci Montani et ceterorum comitum. La Passion des saints Lucius et Montanus: Histoire et édition du texte//REAug. 1983. Vol. 29. P. 67-82; Лит.: Cureton W., ed. History of the Martyrs in Palestine by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea. L., 1861; Rossi G. B., de. Dei sepolcreti cristiani non sotterranei durante l " èra delle persecuzioni//BACr. 1864. Vol. 2. P. 25-32; idem. I primitivi monumenti cristiani di Corneto-Tarquinia//Ibid. Ser. 2. 1874. Vol. 5. P. 81-118; Bruzza L. Iscrizioni antiche Vercellesi. R., 1874. P. 292-301; Ramsay W. M. Topography and Epigraphy of Nova Isaura//JHS. 1905. Vol. 25. P. 163-180; Marucchi O. Osservazioni sull " iscrizione del papa Ponziano//NBAC. 1909. Vol. 15. P. 35-50; Labriolle P., de. Martyr et confesseur//BALAC. 1911. Vol. 1. P. 50-53; Кекелидзе К., прот. Сведения грузинских источников о прп. Максиме Исповеднике//ТКДА. 1912. Т. 3. 9. С. 1-41; 11. С. 451-486; Morin G. Que faut-il entendre par les confessores auxquels était adressé le traité de Macrobe le Donatiste?//RBen. 1912. Vol. 29. P. 82-84; Leclercq H. Confessor//DACL. 1914. T. 3. Pars 2. Col. 2508-2515; Duchesne L. Les origines du culte chrétien. P., 19205; Delehaye H. Martyr et Confesseur//AnBoll. 1921. Vol. 39. P. 20-49; idem. Sanctus. Brux., 1927; Peeters P. Les traductions orientales du mot Martyr//AnBoll. 1921. Vol. 39. P. 50-64; D ö lger F. J. Das Martyrium als Kampf mit dem Teufel//Antike und Christentum. Münster, 1932. Bd. 3. 177-188; Botte B. Le rituel d " ordination des Statuta Ecclesiae antiqua//RTAM. 1939. Vol. 11. P. 223-241; idem. Confessor//Archivum latinitatis medii aevi. Gen., 1941. Vol. 16. P. 137-148; Ferrua A. Epigrammata Damasiana. Vat., 1942; Rheinfelder H. Confiteri, confessio, confessor im Kirchenlatein und in den romanischen Sprachen//Die Sprache. |
| 4 . God is not a being either in the general or in any specific sense of the word, and so He cannot be an origin. Nor is He a potentiality either in the general or in any specific sense, and so He is not an intermediary state. Nor is He an actualization in the general or in any specific sense, and so He cannot be the consummation of that activity which proceeds from a being in which it is perceived to pre-exist as a potentiality. On the contrary, He is the author of being and simultaneously an entity transcending being; He is the author of potentiality and simultaneously the ground transcending potentiality; and He is the active and inexhaustible state of all actualization. In short, He is the author of all being, potentiality and actualization, and of every origin, intermediary state and consummation. 5 . Origin, the intermediary state and consummation characterize things divided by time, as indeed they characterize things existing in the aeon. For time, by which change is measured, is defined numerically; while the aeon, whose existence presupposes a ‘when’, possesses dimensionality, since its existence has an origin. And if time and the aeon have an origin, how much more so will those things that exist within them. 6 . God by nature is always one and alone, substantively and absolutely, containing in Himself all-inclusively the totality of substantive being, since He transcends even substantiveness itself. If this is so, there is nothing whatsoever among all the things to which we ascribe being that possess substantive being. Thus nothing whatsoever different in essence from God can be envisaged as coexisting with Him from eternity – neither the aeon, nor time, nor anything which exists within them. For substantive being and being which is not substantive never coincide. 7 . No origin, intermediary state or consummation can ever be altogether free from the category of relationship. God, being infinitely beyond every kind of relationship, is by nature neither an origin, nor an intermediary state, nor a consummation, nor any of those things to which it is possible to apply the category of relationship. |
| 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. |
| In Mediterranean antiquity, establishing someonés origin was one of the first steps to understanding that person " s identity, as reflected in the questions asked upon meeting strangers. 6448 The idea that no one would know the place of the Messiah " s origin (7:27) seems to contradict the tradition that he would derive from Bethlehem (7:42; Matt 2:5–6). Scholars here usually cite the rabbinic tradition of the hidden Messiah: it applies not to his original location but to his place of concealment just before making himself known publicly. 6449 The hidden Messiah tradition often connects the Messiah with Moses, who was also hidden before he was revealed. 6450 Much of the rabbinic attestation is late, 6451 but their basic tradition surely does not derive from inferences from John or from Justin " s Dialogue with Tryphol Presumably those who note that no one knows where the Messiah will come from thus refer to his immediate rather than his ultimate origin, but the seeming contradiction with the tradition of his birth in Bethlehem (7:42) plays well to Johannine irony: Jesus» critics occasionally disbelieve him on contradictory grounds (see also 9:29), united only in their opposition to him. In other words, people used whatever arguments necessary to achieve their predetermined conclusion. 6452 In 7Jesus may speak on two levels: although his opponents do not know that Jesus is from «above,» judging purely on the basis of appearance (7:24), 6453 they are correct concerning his earthly origin. Even their knowledge of his earthly origin may be partly incorrect, however (depending on what we may assume John believes and expected his audience to know; see comment on 7:42). Conversely, Jesus may say «you know» only in the sense that he had made the knowledge available to them (14:4). But whatever else they knew or did not know, tragically they did not know God (7:28). Jesus, by contrast, knew him, because (cf. 3:13; 6:46) God was where Jesus was really from, and Jesus was God " s agent or representative (7:29). |
| The knowledge of these laws would make humans the divine beings, for they would know the ultimate truth. Science itself, in its accomplished form, would probably also acquire nonhuman features, for it is through knowledge of the ultimate truth that mankind would deify itself in a fashion that was only dreamed of by Gnostics, who were fought by the early church fathers. But the ultimate truth is not a human product. According to A. Chalmers, truth is “preordained by the nature of the world before science is ever embarked on. Science… if it were ever to reach this end point, so conceived, would abruptly change from being a human, social product to being something that in the strong sense, is not a human product at all.” 326 It is conceivable from what we have just said that science, being a human, social enterprise (that is, not being a divine activity), is in a state of infinite advance, an endless unfolding of the rationality of nature, which points toward its contingency, whose necessary features are being caught by science. As the deification of man is not possible through knowledge (being a kind of intellectual heresy similar to the Gnosticism of the second септигу), the ultimate theory of physics, whatever is meant by this, will never replace the theological doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, which affirms that the world is infinitely contingent on God, the presence of whose transcendent rationality can be revealed by human and social scientific discourse. Along the lines of this approach to the problem of creation, we will now analyze what model cosmology can offer toward understanding the meaning of creation as it is conceived from within the world. Creation in Classical Cosmology: Cosmological Evolution and Initial Conditions We should start by recalling that classical cosmology (nonquantum cosmology), being a part of classical physics, takes for granted that the description of physical processes in the universe is made in terms of preexisting space and time. Cosmology uses Einstein’s theory of general relativity to model the spatiotemporal continuum of the universe. Space and time in general relativity are relational upon matter content, so that spatiotemporal dynamics in the universe is linked to matter. This implies that if cosmology were to attempt to explain the origin of space and time, it would also explain the origin of matter in the universe. It becomes even more clear in the light of the geometrical interpretation of gravitational field developed in general relativity; to explain the origin of space-time would mean to explain the origin of all matter, including the gravitational field itself. |
| The response of confusion (6:40–41) stems from an inadequate hermeneutic; they knew Jesus according to the flesh but missed his genuine identity, which could be understood only by the Spirit ( John 3:3, 11–12 ; cf. 2Cor 5:16–17 ; Matt 11:25; 16:17; Luke 10:21). 6172 Their grumbling (6:41; cf. 6:61; 7:32) recalls the grumbling of Exod 16:2, 6173 but in that case Israel grumbled before receiving the manna, whereas these hearers complain after receiving bread and the invitation of the ultimate satiation for their hunger. 6174 Perhaps because of their attitude at this point, these Galileans finally receive the ironically pejorative title «Jews,» that is, «Judeans.» 6175 The rejection of Jesus based on familiarity with him (6:42) undoubtedly reflects historical tradition ( Mark 6:1–6 ; Matt 13:53–58), 6176 while also serving John " s particular emphasis (1:11). Johns readers probably know the virgin birth tradition, which is earlier than either Matthew or Luke (their testimonies appear in accounts independent from one another), and if John does know this tradition (see comment on 7:41–42), 6:42 may presuppose the reader " s knowledge that the crowd " s claim to knowledge reveals ignorance. 6177 But John is more interested in their ignorance of Jesus» ultimate place of origin. That other outsiders admit ignorance of his place of origin (7:27) makes the present inadequate claim to know his place of origin all the more ironic. Jesus notes that the Father draws some to him (6:43–44), using biblical language for God drawing Israel to himself in the wilderness or the exile ( Jer 31:3 ; Hos 11LXX); 6178 the reader later learns that the Father draws such adherents through the proclamation of the cross ( John 12:32–33 ). 6179 Only those whom the Father gives to Jesus «come» to him in faith (6:37, 44). Jewish prayers such as the fifth benediction of the Amidah recognized God " s sovereignty even in granting repentance (cf. Rom 2:4 ). 6180 Like most of his Jewish contemporaries, John felt no tension between predestination and free wil1. 6181 Antinomies were in any case standard fare both in Greco-Roman rhetoricians and in Jewish writings. 6182 Because of increasing cosmic fatalism in late antiquity, philosophers had to begin defending a doctrine of free will previously taken for granted, and early Christian commentators likewise proved careful to emphasize that Jesus» statements do not deny free wil1. 6183 |
| In addition, archeology reveals that soon, the culture, which had been universally identical, changing only by epochs, begins to separate into individual local cultures. In this phenomenon, the division of mankind into different races soon after the Flood is revealed. We shall not go into the very unclear and questionable topic of the origin of human races. This question is clarified neither scientifically, nor Biblically. From the Bible one can clearly see only what the Bible Itself wants to establish, that the God’s chosen nation originates from Noah’s eldest son – Seth (from which the word «Semites» is derived). Ancient tradition assigns the origin of the Slavs and co-tribal nations to Noah’s youngest son – Japheth, and our holy Chronicler writes: «The generation of Japheth are Varyags, Murmans (Normans), Goths, Ruses, Angles, Galls, Lyachs (Poles), Volski, Romans, Germans, Venedizi (Venetians), Fryazi (Italian merchants) and others.» Who the descendants of Ham are, we cannot say even approximately. The Bible speaks of this very indistinctly: first Babylon and Assur are called the descendants of Ham, then Assur and Aram (the Aramaic) are called the descendants of Seth, as ethnography considers them to be. From the other descendants of Ham we shall note Nimrod, about whom the Holy Bible says that he was «a mighty hunter before the Lord.» On this basis we can guess that wild, hunting tribes belonged to the descendants of Ham, who long remained wild before our time. Of course, no nation, no tribe, that is familiar with the Biblical narration, would lay claim to being the descendants of Ham. The 10 th chapter of the Bible, which is devoted to the question, touched upon here, of the origin of human races, ends with the words: «These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these the nations were divided upon the earth after the flood.» The Discovery of the Stella With the Name of Pontius Pilate In Russian circles, an interesting discovery, made in 1961 by Italian archeologists in Palestine, went completely unnoticed. While excavating the staircase of an ancient theatre of Palestinian Caesarea, archeologists, led by Professor Anthony Frova, found a stone with chiseled letters on it. Carefully removing the dirt and dust from this stone, the archeologists read: |
| 96 The Fourth Gospel, ed. by F.N. Davey. London, 1947, p. 158f. W.F. Albright suggests that the Dead Sea Scrolls show remarkable parallels with the Gospel of John and probably account for the increased emphasis recently placed on the Palestinian-Jewish milieu of Johannine thought and the Palestinian Jewish tradition” (“Recent Discoveries in Palestine and the Gospel of John,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology, ed. by W.D. Davies & O. Daube. Cambridge [Eng.], 1956, p. 153f.). Of course, John was living in Palestine and was part of Christ’s public ministry, an eye-witness to His Crucifixion in Jerusalem. He “looked upon” the Risen Lord, “the Word of life” (I John 1:1–2). As a disciple, he was taught theology directly by Jesus, and, in this sense, we may speak of a “Palestinian-Jewish milieu.” This opinion differs with C. Bigg who is virtually certain “that St John acquired from Alexandria that conception of the Word, which first brought Christian theology within the sphere of metaphysics,” albeit “not necessarily from Philo” (The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 50). 97 The Fourth Gospel, p. 159. Pollard writes that the purpose of the Gospel is ( John 20:31 ) “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (Johannine Christology and the Early Church, p. 64). 98 In the preface (vii) to The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Wolfson argues that “Philonic problems” developed into “Patristic problems.” Thus, with regard to the Logos in the New Testament Scriptures, he maintains that “when the Pauline conception of the preexistent Christ, which is of non-Philonic origin, was given by John the name of Logos, which has a Philonic origin, the development of the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation was either in accordance with the Philonic conception of the Logos or in departure from the Philonic conception of the Logos.” Even denying the divine origin of Christianity, as Wolfson does, his thesis would be open to serious objection. |
|
|
