| 5024 Explicit references to Moses appear far more widely in the Gospel (1:17, 45; 3:14; 5:45–46; 6:32; 7:19, 22–23; 9:28–29) than references to Jacob (only in 4:5, 12) or Abraham (8:39–40, 52–53, 56–58) or David (7:42). The Johannine audiencés opponents seem to appeal heavily to Moses» law to support their position (cf. esp. 5:45–46; 9:28–29). 5027 Odeberg, Gospel, 72 (on 1 En. 70:2; 71:1; 2 En. 1–24; 3 En. passim; Γ. Levi 2; 2 Bar. passim; Ascen. Isa. passim), 73–88 (Hermetic and Mandean texts), 89–94 (rabbinic literature). See also Borgen, «Agent,» 146 n. 4, following Odeberg; cf. Grese, «Born Again»; Kanagaraj, «Mysticism»; idem, «Mysticism» in John; DeConick, Mystics, 67. Talbert, John, 101, thinks 3may counter Christian mystics (as in 1 John 4:1 ). 5028 Borgen, «Agent,» 146; idem, «Hellenism,» 104–5, citing Philo QE 2.46 (on Exod 24:16), which is probably authentic. Borgen, «Agent,» 146, connects John " s «Son of Man» with Philós «Man after God " s image» (Confusion 146; Alleg. Interp. 1.43). 5030 E.g., m. Roš Haš. 3:8; p. Roš Haš 3:9, §§1–6. Cf. deliverance from serpents in response to Jeremiah " s prayer in Liv. Pro. 2.3 (OTP 2:386; Greek, ed. Schermann, 81–82). 5031 Philo Creation 157; Agriculture 108; Alleg. Interp. 3.159; Migration 66. The «belly» frequently refers to pleasure in ancient texts (Euripides Cyc1. 334–335; Longus 4.11; Plutarch Pleas. L. 3, Mor. 1087D; Epictetus Diatr. 2.9.4; Achilles Tatius 2.23.1; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 1.7; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 60.4; 3Macc 7:10–11; 4 Macc 1:3; Syr. Men. Epit. 6–8; Phil 3:19 ; Apoc. E1. 1:13), including in Philo (Spec. Laws 1.148–150, 192; 4.91). 5032 Exod. Rab. 3:12; Tg. Neof. 1 on Num 21:6 . Were the tradition earlier, one might appeal here to the messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15 , attested in the Targumim (McNamara, Targum, 121) and perhaps as early as the LXX (Martin, «Interpretation»). For texts identifying the serpent with the devil, see comment on 8:44. 5033 The identification of the Jewish lawgiver with «the lawless serpent» in Acts John 94 resembles gnostic anti-Judaism and not first-century tradition. Pace some, the source of Epiphanius Haer. 64.29.6 is probably not pre-Christian (Jacobson, «Serpent»). |
| Editio Basileensis. II. 1539. Editio Parisiensis I per Gagnaejum. 1545. Ed. Basileensis. III. 1550 (curavit Sigism. Gelenius). Ed. Basileensis. IV. 1562 (повторение предыдущего). Ed. Basileo-Parisiensis. 1566. (Excud. Andr. Wechelus). Ed. Pameliana-Antverpensis. I, cum Jacobi Pamelii argumento et adnot. 1579. Ed. Barraeana. 1580, studio et labore Renati Laurentii de la Barre. Parisiis apud Mich. Julianum. Ed. Pameliana-Parisiensis. I. 1583. Ed. Pameliana-Parisiensis. 1584 (per Jo. Mercerinm). Ed. Pameliana-Parisiensis. III. 1585. Ed. Heidelbergensis. I. 1596. Ed. Pameliana-Franeckerae. I, cum notis Francisci Junii. 1597. Ed. Pameliana-Genevensis. I. 1597. Ed. Pameliana-Parisiensis. IV. 1598. Ed. Pameliana-Heidelbergensis. II. 1599. Ed. Pameliana-Heidelbergensis. III. 1601. Ed. Pameliana-Franeckerae. II. 1607. Ed. Pameliana-Parisiensis. V. 1608. Ed. Pameliana-Antwerpensis. II. 1609. Ed. Pameliana-Parisiensis. VI. 1610. Ed. Pameliana-Parisiensis. VII. 1616. Ed. Pameliana-Coloniae. L 1617. Ed. La Cerdae imperfecta. Parisiis. 1624, 1630. Libri IX ex codice Agobardi, ed. Rigaltius. 1626 и 1628. (Typis Rob. Stephani). Ed. Rigaltiana. I. Lutetiae. 1634. Nicolai Rigaltii observationibus et notis illustrata. Ed. Rigaltiana. II. 1641. Tertullianus redivivus auct. P. Georgio. Paristis. 1646 – 50. Tertulliani opera omnia, op. Caroli Moreau. Parisiis. 1658. Editio Pameliana-Rothomagensis. 1662. Ed. Pamelio-Rigaltiana Priorii. Lutet. 1664. Ed. Pamelio-Rigaltiana Priorii. II. 1675. Ed. Pamelio-Rigaltiana Priorii. III. 1695. Ed. Pameliana-Franeckerae. III. 1697 (y Migne не упомянуто). Ed. Veneta. I. 1701. Ed. Veneta. II. 1744. Ed. Halensis, recensuit Jo. Sal. Semler 1769–76. Ed. Veneta III. 1776. (у Migne не упомянуто). Ed. Wirceburgensis, -ed Oberthür. 1780–1781. Ed. Halensis. II. 1827–29. Tertulliani opera, ed. E F. Leopold. Lips. 1839–41. Cur. E G. Gersdorf. в Bibliotheca patr. eccles, latin. selecta, IV–VII. (не приведено у Migne). Editio Parisiensis, ed. Migne (Patrologiac: Cursus Completus. Tom I, II, III). Parisiis. 1843, переиздано 1878. |
| The Greek immigrants did not follow the pattern that others did. Throughout the period of great immigration, there was very little contact between the Greek parishes and the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese. Although some authors have maintained that all Orthodox in America accepted the authority of the Russian bishop prior to 1921, there is not sufficient evidence to support this claim. 107 The vast majority of the Greek parishes were organized without any contact with the Russian bishops in America. When a parish of Greek immigrants needed a priest, the parish leaders generally appealed to the ecclesiastical authorities, either Athens or Constantinople. 108 Even the marriages of Greek immigrants in America often had to be approved by bishops in the homeland. 109 Having said this, however, it must also be stated that there is evidence of limited cooperation between some Greek priests and the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese. In the years prior to World War I, at least three priests of Greek background appear to have served under the jurisdiction of the Russian bishop. These priests were Father Michael Andreades, Father Kallinikos Kanellos, and Father Theoklitos Triantafilidis. Each of these had studied in Russia and spoke Russian as well as Greek. In the early part of the twentieth century, these priests served parishes in the western part of the United States that were composed of both Greeks and Slavs. 110 Some evidence also shows that a small number of Greek parishes turned to the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese for assistance prior to 1921. Specifically, the archives of the Russian Archdiocese contain letters from six Greek parishes that requested antimencia (altar cloths). Only one undated letter from this period was sent to the Russian Archdiocese from a Greek parish that was seeking a priest. These limited examples of Greek parishes that sought assistance from the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese are exceptions and not the norm. 111 Indeed, evidence indicates that the Russian Orthodox diocese recognized that the Greek priests and Greek Orthodox parishes were not part of its jurisdiction. On the parish listings of the Russian Orthodox diocese for 1906, the Greek Orthodox parishes are not included. Furthermore, the document notes that in addition to the listed clergymen, «there are several Greek priests who are under the Metropolitan of Athens but who, so far as Episcopal Ministrations are concerned, call upon the Orthodox Archbishop of North America.» 112 While this statement is ambiguous, it does indicate that the Russian Orthodox diocese recognized that the Greek priests in America were not fully under its jurisdiction. In this regard, it should also be noted that the Greek parishes were not listed among those belonging to the Russian Orthodox jurisdiction in lists published in 1911 and 1918. 113 |
| Seminary. Louisville, 1949. 15. Deissmann, Adolf. «Hellenistic Greek with Special Consideration of the Greek Bible». In The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. JSNT supp. series # 60. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, 39–59. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. 16. Durie, D. Greek Grammar: A Concise Grammar of New Testament Greek. Canberra, Australia: privately printed, 1981. 17. Elliott, Wm. E. «Conditional Sentences in the Greek New Testament». Th.D. diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1981. 18. Fanning, Buist. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. 19. Fitzmyer J.A. A Wandering Aramean: Coll. Aramaic Essays. Missoula (Mont.), 1979. 20. Friberg, Timothy. «New Testament Greek Word Order in Light of Discourse Considerations». Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1982 21. Gingrich F. W. The Greek New Testament as a Landmark in the Course of Semantic Change//JBL. 1954. Vol. 73. P. 189–196. 22. Hill D. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. Camb., 1967. 23. Horsley, G. H. R. «The Linguistic and Historical Context of the Greek of the NT: The Evidence of Contemporary Documents». Ph.D. diss., Macquarrie Univ., Australia, 1985. 24. Louw J.P., Semantics of New Testament Greek, Society of Biblical Literature, 1982. 25. Lund N. W. Chiasmus in the New Testament. Chapel Hill, 1942. 26. McKay K. L. A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach. Studies in Biblical Greek, 5. New York: Peter Lang, 1994. 27. Morgenthaler R. Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes. Zurich, 1958. 28. Moule C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Camb., 1963. 29. Moulton J. H., Milligan G. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. L., 1930. 30. Mussies, Gerald. «Greek as the Vehicle of Early Chris-tianity». New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 356–69. 31. Palmer, Micheal. Levels of Constituent Structure in New Testament Greek. New York: Peter Lang, 1995. |
| Photo: orthodoxcityhermit.com Every religious tradition in the United States is seeing its membership decline. But according to the most recent Pew Study , few Christian traditions are seeing their members head for the doors as quickly as the Orthodox—only 53% of adults who were raised in the Orthodox Church still identify as Orthodox. Professional statisticians will note that the sample size of Orthodox in the Pew study is small, but the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese’s own published statistics on marriages and baptisms over the past forty years suggests that the retention of its younger members is falling dramatically. Is our parochial use of Liturgical Greek part of the problem? As someone who has studied Ancient and Byzantine Greek for the past 25 years, I will be the first to affirm that Greek enables a level of theological nuance unmatched by other languages, especially English. But very few Orthodox in America have the training to navigate the complexity and sophistication of our Liturgical poetry in its original form. Across the United States, GOA parishes vary in their use of language: some are Greek only, some are English only, and most employ some combination of the two, often repeating key elements (biblical readings, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer) in both languages. But apart from the sermon, the Greek used is not Modern Greek, it is a form of medieval Greek, composed between the fourth and twelfth centuries.The vocabulary is similar to Modern Greek, but many words are obscure. The grammar and syntactical structure are completely different. To be sure, some aspects of the Divine Liturgy, like the Petitions, are repeated every week, which allows those who attend regularly to follow whether they know any medieval Greek or not. But many hymns and the scripture readings change daily, making them largely incomprehensible, even for fluent Greek speakers. In short, the vast majority of communicants in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese do not understand what is being said or sung at several points in the course of any given service. And it’s not because quality translations do not exist. They do. But for a variety of reasons, priests across the Archdiocese are not using the translations as often as they should. |
| Ист.: Scipione M. A. Elogia abbatum sacri monasterii Casinensis. Neapoli, 1643; Chronica Sacri Monasterii Casinensis/Ed. A. de Nuce. P., 1668; Annales Casinenses//MGH. SS. T. 19. P. 303-320; Bibliotheca Casinensis. Monte Cassino, 1873-1894. 5 t.; Erchempertus. Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum//MGH. Scr. Lang. P. 231-264; Chronica S. Benedicti Casinensis//Ibid. P. 467-489; Spicilegium Casinense. Monte Cassino, 1888. T. 1; Regesti Bernardi I abbatis Casinensis fragmenta/Ed. A. M. Caplet. R., 1890; Bernardi I abbatis Casinensis In regulam S. Benedicti expositio/Ed. A. M. Caplet. Montecassino, 1894; Bernardi I Speculum monachorum seu Quaestio/Ed. H. Walter. Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1901; Loew E. A. Die ältesten Kalendarien aus Monte Cassino. Münch., 1908; [Inguanez M.] Codicum Casinensium manuscriptorum catalogus. Montis Casini, 1915-1941. 3 vol. in 6; Chronicon Vulturnense del monaco Giovanni/Ed. V. Federici. R., 1925. Vol. 1-2; Regesto di S. Angelo in Formis/Ed. M. Inguanez. Montecassino, 1925; Mirra A. La Poesia di Montecassino. Napoli, 1929; I placiti cassinesi del sec. X con periodi in volgare/Ed. M. Inguanez. Montecassino, 19343; Amatus. Historia Normannorum= Amato di Montecassino. Storia de " Normanni/Ed. V. de Bartholomeis. R., 1935; Italia Pontificia/Ed. P. F. Kehr. B., 1935. Vol. 8. P. 109-198; Ryccardi de Sancto Germano notarii Chronica/Ed. C. A. Garufi. Bologna, 1937; I Necrologi Cassinesi. R., 1941. Vol. 1: Il Necrologio del cod. Cassinese 47/Ed. M. Inguanez; Abbazia di Montecassino: I Regesti dell " Archivio/Ed. T. Leccisotti, F. Avagliano. R., 1964-1977. 11 vol.; Petrus Diaconus. Ortus et vita iustorum Casinensis cenobii/Ed. R. H. Rodgers. Berkeley, 1972; I carmi di Alfano I, arcivescovo di Salerno/Ed. A. Lentini, F. Avagliano. Montecassino, 1974; Chronica monasterii Casinensis=Die Chronik von Montecassino/Hrsg. H. Hoffmann. Hannover, 1980. (MGH. SS; 34); The Codex Benedictus: An 11th-Cent. Lectionary from Monte Cassino/Ed. P. Meyvaert. N. Y.; Zürich, 1982; Il Registrum di Pietro Diacono: (Montecassino, Archivio dell " Abbazia, Reg. 3)/Ed. M. Dell " Omo. 2000. 2 vol.; Le carte di S. Liberatore alla Maiella conservate nell " archivio di Montecassino/Ed. M. Dell " Omo. Montecassino, 2003-2006. 2 t.; Kelly T. F. The Ordinal of Montecassino and Benevento: «Breviarium sive ordo officiorum», 11th Cent. Fribourg, 2008. |
| 104 . Routledge History of Philosophy. Vol. 2. From Aristotle to Augustine/Ed. D. Furley. London, N. Y., 1999. 105 . Routledge History of Philosophy. Vol. 3. Medieval Philosophy/Ed. J. Marenbon. London, N. Y., 1998. 106 . Saffrey H. D. Recherches sur le Neoplatonisme apres Plotin. Paris, 1990. 107 . Schenke H. M. The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism//The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Heaven, Conn., March 28–31, 1978, II, Sethian Gnosticism/Ed. B. Layton. Leiden, 1981. P. 588–616. 108 . Sheldon-Williams I. P. The Greek Christian Tradition from the Cappadocians to Maximus and Eriugena//The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy/Ed. A. H. Armstrong. Cambridge, 1967. P. 421–533. 109 . Sieber J. H. An Introduction to the Tractate Zostrianos//Nov. Test 15 (1972). P. 233–240. 110 . Idem. Introduction to Zostrianos//Nag Hammadi Codex VIII. Nag Hammadi Studies 31/Ed. J. H. Sieber. Leiden, 1991. P. 19–25. 111 . Smith A. Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition. A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism. The Hague, 1974. 112 . Studies on Porphyry. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, 98/Ed. G. Karamanolis, A. Sheppard. London, 2007. 113 . Tardieu M. Les trios steles Seth//RSPT 57 (1973). P. 545–575. 114 . Idem. Recherches sur la formation de l’apocalypse de Zostrien et les sources de Marius Victorinus//«Res Orientales» 1. Bures sur Yvette, 1996. 115 . The Cambridge Companion to Plato/Ed. R. Kraut. Cambridge, 1992. 116 . The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle/Ed. J. Barnes. Cambridge, 1995. 117 . The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy/Ed. A. H. Armstrong. Cambridge, 1967, 1970 2 . 118 . The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy/Ed. K. Algra, J. Barnes, J. Mansfeld, M. Schofield. Cambridge, 1999. 119 . The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Forth Century/Ed. A. Momigliano. Oxford, 1963. 120 . The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28–31, 1978. Vol. 2: Sethian Gnosticism/Ed. B. Layton. Leiden, 1981. |
| AppBell C.Zuckerman, Chapitres peu connus de l’Apparatus Bellicus. TM 12 (1994) 359–389. AthanPG Athanasii Archiepiscopi Alexandrini opera omnia. PG 25–28. [s.IV] BasilEp Saint Basile, Lettres, ed. Y.Courtonne, I–III. Paris 1957–1966. [s.IV] BasilPG Basilii Caesareae Cappadociae Archiepiscopi opera omnia. PG 29–32. [s.IV] Bees N.A.Bees , τ χειργραφα τν Μετερων. Ι. Athen 1967. BenSbornPril V.N.Beneševi, Kanonieskij sbornik XIV titulov. St. Petersburg 1905. Priloenija. ConstPsalt I.D.Polemis, Constantine Psaltopoulos and his unpublished address to Michael Hagiotheodorites. BF 21 (1995) 159–165. [s.XII] DagPourp G.Dagron, Nés dans la Pourpre. TM 12 (1994) 105–142. DanApokr V.M.Istrin, Greeskie spiski apokrifieskago muenija Daniila i trech otrokov (Sbornik otd. russk. jazyka 70/1). St.Petersburg 1901. DarAs J.Darrouzès, Notes d’Asie Mineure. ρχεον Πντου 26 (1964) 28–40. [s.XII–XV] DeInsid, DeLeg, DeSent, DeVirt Excerpta historica iussu imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta. Vol.1–4. Berlin 1903–1910. Vol.1/1.2. Excerpta de legationibus, ed. С. de Boor. 1903; Vol.2/1.2. Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis, ed. Th.BüTTNER-Wobst – G.Roos. 1906–1910; Vol.3. Excerpta de insidiis, ed. С. de Boor. 1905; Vol.4. Excerpta de sententiis, ed. U.Ph. Boissevain. 1906. DidymEccl Didymos der Blinde, Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes, 1, ed. G.Binder – L.Liesenborghs. Bonn 1979; 2, ed. M.Gronewald. 1977; 3, ed. J.Kramer. 1970; 4, ed. J.Kramer – B.Krebber. 1972; 5, ed. M.Gronewald. 1979; 6, ed. G.Binder – L.Liesenborghs. 1969. [s.IV] DidymGen Didyme l’Aveugle, Sur la Genèse, ed. P.Nautin – L.Doutreleau. 2 Bde. Paris 1976–1978. [s.IV] DidymJob Didymos der Blinde, Kommentar zu Hiob, 1–2, ed. A.Henrichs. Bonn 1968; 3–4,1, ed. U.Hagedorn – D.Hagedorn – L.Koenen. Bonn 1968–1985. [s.IV] DidymPsalm L.Doutreleau – A.Gesché – M.Gronewald, Didymos der Blinde, Psalmenkommentar. 5 Bde. Bonn 1968–1970. [s.IV] DidymTrin Didymus der Blinde, De trinitate. 2 Bde. Buch 1, ed. J.Hönscheid; Buch 2, Kap. 1–7, ed. I.Seiler. Meisenheim 1975. [s.IV] |
| The general character of the codex is that of a scholar " s handbook or manual of scientific treatises, mostly astronomical in content. The primary hand is cramped, idiosyncratic and highly abbreviated. The original owner and primary copyist are probably identical. Among the treatises found in the manuscript are the following: Maximus Planudes, The so-called Great Calculus according to the Indians (fols. 3r–12v), ed. A. Allard, Maxime Planude. Le grand calcul selon les Indiens (Travaux de la faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’université catholique de Louvain 27; Centre d " histoire des sciences et des techniques, Sources et travaux 1; Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981); Barlaam the Calabrian, Logistica (fols. 13r–30r), ed. J. Chambers, Barlaami monachi Logistica (Paris, 1600); idem, Demonstratio arithmetica, excerpt (fols. 30v–32r), ed. J. L. Heiberg, Euclidis Elementa (Leipzig, 1888; repr. 1977) 5:351–362; ibid., Refutation of the three additional chapters (14–16) of Ptolemy " s Harmonics, Book 3 (fols. 32r–35r), ed. I. Düring, Die Harmonielehre des Klaudios Ptolemaios (Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 36.1; Göteborg, 1930), pp. 112–121; Cleomedes, De motu circulari corporum caelestium (fols. 37r–62r), ed. H. Ziegler (Leipzig, 1891); the Sphere of Empedocles (fol. 64r–v), ed. E. Maass, Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae (Berlin, 1898), pp. 154–170; Leontius Mechanicus, De sphaerae Arateae constructione and De zodiaco (fols. 64v–65v), ed. Maass, pp. 561–570 (De zodiaco, new edition by J. Martin, Scholia, pp. 529–532); preface to the Phaenomena of Aratus (fol. 66v), ed. Maass, pp. 102–122; extracts from John Lydus, De ostentis (fols. 70r–71v, 74r–75v), ed. K. Wachsmuth (Leipzig, 1897); Demetrius Triclinius, On Lunar Theory (fols. 78r–79v), ed. A. Wasserstein, «An Unpublished Treatise by Demetrius Triclinius On Lunar Theory,» jöbg 16 (1967) 153–174; Adamantius the Sophist, De ventis (fol. 80v), ed. V. Ross, Anecdota graeca et graecolatina (Berlin, 1864), 1:49–52; John Pediasimus, Epitome de mensura et divisione terrae (fols. 81r–86r), ed. G. Friedlein, Die Geometrie des Pediasmus (Programm der Studienanstalt Ansbach; Ansbach, 1866); Pseudo–Aristotle, De mundo (fols. 86r–88v), ed. W. L. Lorimer, Aristotelis qui fertur libellus De mundo (Paris, 1933); Pseudo-Alexander of Aphrodisias, Problemata physica, selections (fols. 93r–96v), ed. I. L. Ideler, Physici et medici graeci minores (Berlin, 1841) 1:3–80; Philo, De aeternitate mundi (fols. 96v–99r), ed. L. Cohn, P. Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, 6 vols. (Berlin, 1896–1915) 6:72–119; Theophylactus Simokattes, Quaestiones physicae, selections (fols. 99v, 102r–v), ed. Ideler 1:168–177. |
| Indeed, at many points the translators could not easily find in current Greek theological vocabulary exact equivalents of Latin terms. Hence inaccuracy of rendering was almost inevitable. But there was much more than that. There was an obvious desire to adjust the exposition to the traditional convictions of the Greek church. As Benz has suggested, the whole exposition is transposed from the dimension of the Rechtfertigungsreligion into the dimension of the Erlösungsreligion. Instead of the concept of justification, the dominant idea of the Greek version is that of healing. The question then arises, to what extent was this Greek interpretation of the confession congenial to the original intent of the Augustana? Indeed, the Greek version of 1559 was the only text of the Augsburg Confession which was put at the disposal of Greek authorities and theologians, when the group of Tubingen theologians approached the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1574 with the request to study and evaluate their doctrinal position. The patriarch was not informed about the actual status of the text submitted for his examination. What was behind this move? It is quite possible that Martin Crusius and his friends sent to Constantinople the version of 1559 simply because this was the only existing Greek text. It is interesting, however, that a second edition of this version appeared again in 1587, in Wittenberg – again, the Greek text only. For whom was this new edition intended? I have not examined this second edition personally. But it is obviously strange that it was issued after the final authorization of the main text of 1530 by its inclusion in the Book of Concord. It does not seem that this new edition was intended for Greek readers. The patriarch’s unfavorable response sorely discouraged any new negotiations between Lutherans and Orthodox. The strangest thing is (and this was not mentioned explicitly by Professor Benz) that the peculiarity of the Greek version was overlooked also by the Roman Catholic polemicists of the time, who could have exploited this fact for their own purposes – to estrange the Orthodox from the Lutherans. |
|
|
