| 4068 A bat qol was, of course, open to challenge, particularly on halakah: p. Móed Qat. 3:1, §6; Kadushin, Mind, 261–63; texts in Hill, Prophecy, 34 (though cf. p. Sotah 7:5, §5). 4070 Theon Progymn. 5.52–56. This embarrassment is often held as one guarantee of its historicity; see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11; Jeremias, Theology, 45; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:100–5; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 164–66; pace Bultmann, Tradition, 251. 4071 Satterthwaite, «Acts,» 345, cites in this respect Lucian Hist. 56–57; Cicero De or. 3.27.104–105; 3.53.202–203; Quintilian 8.4; Longinus Subi 11–12; cf. Lucian Hist. 6. 4073 Ancient cosmologies differed considerably from our own; many Greeks held the upper heavens to be purer than lower regions (e.g., Plato Phaedrus 248AB; Diogenes Laertius 8.1.27, 31; Philo Flight 62; cf. Aristotle Heav. 1.2, 268bl l-269al9), Romans located gods there (Ovid Metam. 1.168–176), and Jewish apocalypses report God " s throne there (2 En. 20:1–3; 3 En. 1:2; T. Levi 2–3; b. Hag. 12b-13a; Rev 4:2–5; see esp. Lincoln, Paradise). 4074 For their function in Neo-Assyrian treaty making, see Begg, «Doves»; for peace and harmlessness, see, e.g., Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 6.12.2. 4075 Πελες in Aelian 11.27, perhaps referring to the oracle at Dodona (cf. Dodonás doves in Herodotus Hist. 2.57). A dove functions as a decoy in Aelian 13.17; birds often functioned as omens (e.g., Homer II 10.274–275). Doves could also function as carriers (Homer Od. 12.62–63). 4076 Doves often appear with grapes in Jewish art (Goodenough, Symbols, 1:156–57), but an implicit link with 15on this basis would be extremely improbable. 4077 The dove could represent Aphrodite (Plutarch Isis, Mor. 379D; Ovid Metam. 13.673–674; Statius Thebaid 5.58,63; Helen or her daughters in Lycophron Alex. 86–87,103; for Athene disguising herself as a bird, see Homer Od. 3.371–372; 22.239–240), was sacred in some Syrian religion (Lucian Syr. d. 54, in Grant, Religions, 119), and in artwork often symbolized the realm of a goddess, which was transferred to wisdom and hence to the Spirit in later Christian art (Schroer, «Geist»). For a survey of uses in pagan art, see Goodenough, Symbols, 8:27–37; for Christian material, 8:37–41, and other Jewish material, 8:41–46. |
| Aphraate le Sage Persan. Les exposés. VI, 14. Ibid. VI, 17. Ibid. VI, 15. Éphrem de Nisibe. Hymnes sur le Paradis. XI, 4. Graffin F. Introduction. P. 19. Ibid. P. 14. Éphrem de Nisibe. Hymnes sur le Paradis. XI, 14. Murray R. Symbols of Church and Kingdom. P. 312-320. Возможно, аллюзия на семь даров Духа (Ис. 11, 2). Ср. также семь столпов дома Премудрости (Притч. 9, 1). Деяния Иуды Фомы апостола. II. С. 170. Aphraate le Sage Persan. Les exposés. XVIII, 10. Murray R. Symbols of Church and Kingdom. P. 154-158. Лосский В. Спор о Софии. С. 34. Фокин А.Р. Формирование тринитарной доктрины в латинской патристике. С. 125-188. Деяния Иуды Фомы апостола. V. С. 186-187. Murray R. Symbols of Church and Kingdom. P. 281-292. Афанасьев Н., прот. Церковь Духа Святого. С. 29-47. Murray R. Symbols of Church and Kingdom. P. 41-68. Ibid. P. 69-82. Ibid. P. 86-94. Евдокимов П. Православие. С. 211-218. Murray R. Symbols of Church and Kingdom. P. 142-150. Iren. Adv. haer. V, 19, 1. Leloir L. Introduction. P. 25. Ефрем Сирин, прп. Толкование на Четвероевангелие. II. С. 35. Там же. XXI. С. 332. Ioan. Chrys. Hom. in Mat. 88, 2-3. Theod. Quaest. et resp. ad orthod. 48. Leloir L. Note 3//SC 121. P. 75. Murray R. Symbols of Church and Kingdom. P. 239-246. Cyr. Alex. In Hebr. P. 415. Murray R. Symbols of Church and Kingdom. P. 262-276. Макарий Египетский, прп. (Симеон Месопотамский). Духовные слова и послания. LII. С. 120. Источник : Никулин М., свящ. Символическое богословие раннесирийской патристики//Труды кафедры богословия Санкт-Петербургской Духовной Академии. 2022. (15). С.46–64 Комментарии ( 0): Написать комментарий: Правила о комментариях Все комментарии премодерируются. Не допускаются комментарии бессодержательные, оскорбительного тона, не имеющие своей целью плодотворное развитие дискуссии. Обьём комментария не должен превышать 2000 знаков. Републикация материалов в комментариях не допускается. Просим читателей обратить внимание на то, что редакция, будучи ограничена по составу, не имеет возможности сканировать и рассылать статьи, библиограммы которых размещены в росписи статей. Более того, большинство этих статей защищены авторским правом. На просьбу выслать ту или иную статью редакция отвечать не будет. |
| The nihilism of Heidegger, as respect for the unrestricted limits of questioning thought – as refusal to subject God and Being to conceptual constructors – seems provisionally to fit in with what we have here called, in reliance on the Areopagitical writings, apophatic abandonment. It differs crucially from the apophaticism of the Areopagite both in its presuppositions and in its consequences, presuppositions and consequences that make up the ontology of the person, the linking of apophaticism to the existential principle of freedom and otherness. Chapter 5. The ‘Nihilism’ of Theological Apophaticism 109 Theological apophaticism, as the abandonment of every conceptual necessity, defines the annihilation of all conceptual idols of God. 110 Definitions, positive as well as negative, are only symbols of the divine existential event, unable to define the ‘nature’ or ‘essence’ of the God. The replacement of God’s personal presence with conceptual definition and deduction from analogical procedures, the absolutization of the language of symbols, is treated in the Areopagitical Corpus as one of the causes of unbelief, as an essential denial of the divinity of God. That is why so many continue to be unbelieving in the presence of the explanation of the divine mysteries, for we contemplate them solely by way of the perceptible symbols attached to them. What is necessary s to uncover them, to see them in their naked purity. 111 Unbelief in the revealed word of God (which is unavoidably a symbolic word, a word of ana-logical sketches in sensible images) is constructed in the above passage as doubt or rejection not of the reality of God, but of that account which sees the knowledge of God only in terms of types, myth and symbols. Consequently, we could repeat here the declaration of Heidegger and say that position of ‘many unbelievers’ represent ‘a more divine conception of God’ than that defined by conceptual constructs and analogical symbolism. Accordingly, the event of faith is shown to be not a problem of the acceptance of syllogistic conclusions and mythical symbols – that is to say, analogical ascents – but a readiness to be freed from any conceptual absolutization, an annihilation of conceptual idols, an acceptance of unknowing as the sole category of ‘knowledge’. |
| Vie 37, 8—14 Vie 111, 1—10 Vie 134, 37—38 B.Krivocheine. SC 96, 57 J.Koder. SC 156, 76 Ibid J.Koder. SC 156, 75 Ibid, 77 H. 19, 1—2 H. 19, 64—67 См. H. 33, 70; H. 33, 45; H. 27, 84, и др. H. 35, 27—28. Никита Стифат. Предисловие 67. SC 156, 112. Там же 1—18. SC 156, 106. Там же 301—304. SC 156, 134 См. PG 3, 713 AD H. 57 H. 17 H. 21 Vie 111, 3—4. Иеромонах Пантелеимон (Успенский). Предисловие к книге: Преподобного отца нашего Симеона Нового Богослова Божественные гимны. Сергиев Посад, 1917. С.111. J.Koder. SC 156, 82 См. H. 20, 97; 21, 474; 45, 24 J.Koder. SC 156, 78 Vie 37, 12 J.Koder. SC 156, 82 Ibid., 84 См., например, P.Maas. Der Byzantinische Zwolfsilber//Byzantinische Zeitschrift 12. Munchen, 1903. S.278 J.Koder. SC 156, 85 Ibid., 82. Ibid., 87. Император Константин VII Багрянородный (913—959) — третий представитель Македонской династии на византийском престоле. Годы его правления ознаменованы подъемом культуры, расцветом изобразительного искусства (т.н. македонский ренессанс). В.Асмус. Гимны преп. Симеона Нового Богослова в богослужебных книгах Русской Православной Церкви//Доклад на 3-й международной научной конференции, посвященной 1000-летию Крещения Руси. Л., 1988. J.Koder. SC 156, 92—93 См., в особенности, H. 30, 450—462. С.Аверинцев. Христианская апофатика у греков и сирийцев: два подхода к литературной разработке духовной темы//XVIII Международный конгресс византинистов. Резюме сообщений. Т.1. М., 1991. С.87. H. 3, 7. H. 14, 1. H. 19, 1—2. H. 1, 2—3. Ср. Деян. 2:1—11. J.Koder. SC 156, 79 См. H. 44, 232; H. 23, 485 и др. H. 15, 193. H. 15, 165. H. 30, 9. H. 30, 542. H. 30, 503—504. H. 44, 232. H. 21, 118. H. 19, 41—44. H. 28, 76. H. 30, 11—15. Славянский текст см. в: Триодь постная. Т.1. М., 1974. С.92. H. 48, 73—108. H. 30, 62—110. H. 47, 12—14. А.Каждан. Византийская культура (X-XII вв.). М., 1968. С.190. |
| 277 Ср. Мф. 23:27—28. 278 Ср. Гал. 6:3. 279 Ср. 1 Ин. 2:16. 280 Изречение “познай себя” было написано на храме Аполлона в Дельфах: см. Платон. Протагор 343ab. В византийскую эпоху это изречение было поговоркой. 281 Выражение “остаток жизни” заимствовано из языка св. Григория Богослова (ср. Слово 40,17: “будучи остатком жизни”). 282 Так в оригинале: слово “аминь” стоит не в конце фразы, а в середине. 283 Vie 37, 8—14 284 Vie 111, 1—10 285 Vie 134, 37—38 286 B.Krivocheine. SC 96, 57 287 J.Koder. SC 156, 76 288 Ibid 289 J.Koder. SC 156, 75 290 Ibid, 77 291 H. 19, 1—2 292 H. 19, 64—67 293 См. H. 33, 70; H. 33, 45; H. 27, 84, и др. 294 H. 35, 27—28. 295 Никита Стифат. Предисловие 67. SC 156, 112. 296 Там же 1—18. SC 156, 106. 297 Там же 301—304. SC 156, 134 298 См. PG 3, 713 AD 299 H. 57 300 H. 17 301 H. 21 302 Vie 111, 3—4. 303 Иеромонах Пантелеимон (Успенский). Предисловие к книге: Преподобного отца нашего Симеона Нового Богослова Божественные гимны. Сергиев Посад, 1917. С.111. 304 J.Koder. SC 156, 82 305 См. H. 20, 97; 21, 474; 45, 24 306 J.Koder. SC 156, 78 307 Vie 37, 12 308 J.Koder. SC 156, 82 309 Ibid., 84 310 См., например, P.Maas. Der Byzantinische Zwolfsilber//Byzantinische Zeitschrift 12. Munchen, 1903. S.278 311 J.Koder. SC 156, 85 312 Ibid., 82. 313 Ibid., 87. 314 Император Константин VII Багрянородный (913—959) — третий представитель Македонской династии на византийском престоле. Годы его правления ознаменованы подъемом культуры, расцветом изобразительного искусства (т.н. македонский ренессанс). 315 В.Асмус. Гимны преп. Симеона Нового Богослова в богослужебных книгах Русской Православной Церкви//Доклад на 3-й международной научной конференции, посвященной 1000-летию Крещения Руси. Л., 1988. 316 J.Koder. SC 156, 92—93 317 См., в особенности, H. 30, 450—462. 318 С.Аверинцев. Христианская апофатика у греков и сирийцев: два подхода к литературной разработке духовной темы//XVIII Международный конгресс византинистов. Резюме сообщений. Т.1. М., 1991. С.87. 319 H. 3, 7. |
| 10341 Unlike the immortals» ambrosia in Greek myth (Homer 17. 19.37–39; 23.184–187; another temporary expedient in 23.188–191). 10342 Spices would diminish the stench and could be sprinkled on the bier or burned during the funeral procession (Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 97–98), but were not used as preservatives. For the use of spices at funerals, see Josephus Ant. 17.199; War 1.673; m. Ber. 8:6; Safrai, «Home,» 776. 10343 Cf. m. Sanh. 6:6; m. Pesah. 8:8; Móed Qat. 1:5; Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 28. For a possible contrast between ossuaries and Christian reliquaries, see McCane, «Bones.» 10352 Pace ibid., 1252. To bury Jesus in his own tomb fits the situation of haste and location but also suggests a special love normally reserved for family members or those equally esteemed (1 Kgs 13:30–31; cf. Gen 23 ). 10355 For rabbinic regulations for new tombs, see b. Sanh. 47b. Καινς can often indicate «unused» (Barclay, «Man,» 76). 10356 Brown, Death, 1268–70. See also Josephus Ant. 9.227; 10.46, following 2 Kgs 21:18, 26 (κπος). 10360 Reicke, Era, 187; Yamauchi, Stones, 112; Anderson, Mark, 351; cf. m. c Erub. 1:7; Naz. 7:3; " Oha1. 2:4. So commonly did Judeans use caves that Jewish immigrants in Rome probably adapted this idea in carving their subterranean catacombs (Leon, Jews, 54–55). That John can mention the stone in 20without prior introduction may suggest his audiencés familiarity with the resurrection story (Blomberg, Reliability, 260); but it was also common on at least Judean tombs, though it might be less familiar in urban Asia Minor. 10363 Some later rabbis opined that this decomposition effected atonement (b. Sanh. 47b). The «year» period for mourning also appears in some probably unrelated cultures (Mbiti, Religions, 197–98). 10364 Hachlili, «Necropolis,» 239; idem, «Art and Architecture,» 127; Hachlili and Killebrew, «Customs,» suggest a window perhaps as narrow as 10–70 C.E. (cf. this older custom mentioned in p. Mo " ed Qat. 1:5, §§4–5). It is rare outside the Herodian and, irrelevant here, Chalcolithic periods (Silberman, «Ossuary»; Carmon, Inscriptions, 121); a major change occurred after the fall of Jerusalem (Goodenough, Symbols, 1:84–89; Safrai, «Home,» 780). But some evidence suggests a less significant use for more than a century later (Goodenough, Symbols, 1:114; cf. Rahmani, «Customs»; idem, «Remarks»). Palestinian Judaism in the Hasmonean period may have already borrowed the custom of ossuaries from Roman secondary burial (of ashes in urns or boxes; Levine, Hellenism, 67; McCane, «Burial Practices,» 174). For Jewish loculi in Rome, cf. Leon, Jews, 59; for a broader sweep of archaeological data on Jewish burial customs, cf. Puech, «Nécropoles»; Goodenough, Symbols, 12:22–39. |
| The questions concerning the need to wear next-to-skin symbols of one’s religious affiliation and the extent to which it is obligatory belong exclusively to the jurisdiction of religious organizations themselves. Therefore, a secular state, because of imperative requirements defined by secularity, has no right to interfere in these processes (to dictate to believers whether they should or should not wear baptismal crosses) or even to make official public statements concerning the obligatory or not obligatory nature of wearing such underclothes symbols of religious affiliation or to assess the nature of such symbols by dividing them into religious and non-religious (as decoration or something else). Our approach stated here is consistent with the positions taken by the European Court of Human Rights and set forth in a number of its resolutions. The Court in its resolution on the case of Manoussakis and others v. Greece stated that “the Court has consistently left the Contracting States a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the existence and extent of the necessity of an interference, but this Margin is subject to European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it. The Court’s task is to determine whether the measures taken at national level were justified in principle and proportionate” (§ 44). In this decision the Court recognized as illegitimate any coercion into action and bearing the consequences because of one’s religious beliefs, specifically, the turning of “the apparently innocent requirement of action from a mere formality into a lethal weapon against the right to freedom of religion” (§ 41). As far as the manifestation (demonstration) on one’s religious and cultural identity is concerned, the resolution on the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece and some other cases, the European Court of Human Rights has been steadfast in advocating its position that “While religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implies, inter alia, freedom to “manifest [one’s] religion”. Bearing witness in words and deeds is bound up with the existence of religious convictions” (§ 31). The wording “bearing witness in words and deeds” quite clearly encompasses the wearing of a Christian baptismal cross. |
| The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols. They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion. The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9. Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights. They say that Christians are given less protection than members of other religions who have been granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab. Last year it emerged that Mrs Eweida, a British Airways worker, and Mrs Chaplin, a nurse, had taken their fight to the European Court in Strasbourg after both faced disciplinary action for wearing a cross at work. Mrs Eweida’s case dates from 2006 when she was suspended for refusing to take off the cross which her employers claimed breached BA’s uniform code. The 61 year-old, from Twickenham, is a Coptic Christian who argued that BA allowed members of other faiths to wear religious garments and symbols. BA later changed its uniform policy but Mrs Eweida lost her challenge against an earlier employment tribunal decision at the Court of Appeal and in May 2010 was refused permission to go to the Supreme Court. Mrs Chaplin, 56, from Exeter, was barred from working on wards by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust after she refused to hide the cross she wore on a necklace chain, ending 31 years of nursing. The Government claims the two women’s application to the Strasbourg court is “manifestly ill-founded”. Its response states: “The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants' wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.” |
| 152 “Everything historical was for him (Origen) but transitory and accidental,” wrote Fr Florovsky. “Therefore, the historical Incarnation had to be regarded as a moment in the continuous story of the permanent theophany of the divine Logos – a central moment, in a sense, but still no more than a central symbol. In the perspective of a continuous Divino-cosmic process, there was no room for a true historical uniqueness, for an ultimate decision, accomplished in time by one major event. No event in this perspective could have an ultimate meaning or value, by itself as an event. All events were to be interpreted as symbols or projections of some higher, super-temporal and super-historical reality. The historical was, as it were, dissolved into the symbolic. The whole system of symbols was something provisional, to be ultimately done away. One had to penetrate behind the screen of symbols. This was the major exegetical principle or postulate of Origen...” (“Origen, Eusebius and the Iconoclastic Controversy,” CH XIX (1950), 87–88). 153 Allegory and Event, p. 355. Origen assumed, Hanson writes elsewhere, “that the Incarnation was no more than a symbolic means of achieving our salvation, an enactment upon the stage of history of eternal truths the understanding of which brings us salvation” (ibid., p. 329). 154 E. DeFaye (Origéne, sa vie, son oeuvre, sa pensée [vol. 3]. Paris, 1928, p. 230) wrote that Origen believed the Cross to be “comme une sorte d " annexe de sa doctrine générale.” Hans Koch agrees, saying, “der Gedanke an eine Versöhnung kann in der theologie des Origenes kein organisches Glied gebildet haben” (Pronola und Paideusis. Berlin/Leipzig, 1932, 74). Koch is wrong to suggest, however, that Origen’s failure lay in his view of Christ’s victory over the devil and death (cf. In Matt, XVI, 8 PG 131397AB). DeFaye and Koch, like H. Rashdall (The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology. London, 1925), are disturbed by the absence of a “vicarious punishment” or “atonement.” They seem unprepared to accept the doctrine of man’s salvation by Christ’s “ransom” to (and, therefore, conquest of) the devil, keeper of the grave, despite the declarations of Hos. 13:14 ; Matt. 20:28; I Tim. 2:5–6; Heb. 2:14, etc. and the Fathers. |
| Among «unlike likenesses» – the principal and most general term for Dionysius» image-symbols – one can distinguish between two extremes. First of all, these are images that are literally completely «unlike» the sphere of the divine. They normally refer to indecent, shameful, and ugly phenomena of the created being. These words are designed to repel the recipient from their external shell by their very unseemliness and ugliness (an aesthetic reaction to the ugly), at the same time inspiring and directing his spirit towards something that is diametrically opposed to the form of the symbol–towards a sublime and enlightened understanding of the spiritual sphere. The other pole is occupied by the images that refer to neutral or even positive and beautiful phenomena of the created world, i.e., to some extent by «like» likenesses. However, even those images, according to Dionysius, as so far removed from the heavenly world that they also must be perceived as unlike likenesses, because they are symbols of sublime and supra-sensible things that are even higher than those symbols. The likenesses that are «alike» (similar) in the proper sense are constituted by the entirety of the kataphatic images that are formed on the basis of the lofty content of the principal positive divine names and are aimed at lifting the believer up to the highest levels of metaphysical reality. The other way of enhancing the emotional-aesthetic impact of the Areopagite " s texts on the recipients, which can be styled form-creating, consists in, I think, a conscious aesthetization of these texts, in orgnaiz-ing them according to the rhetorical-artistic principles. When he speaks of a certain divine name or a symbol of the spiritual space, he often employs a developed terminological apparatus of properly aesthetic terms, examples from the sphere of the arts, uses an elevated rhetorical style, antithetical imagery, powerful metaphors, long clauses with a great number of lofty epithets and comparisons, and ultimately envelopes his texts with a prominently espressed aesthetic aura. |
|
|
