| Dodd regards the vision of God as Greek, contending that the motif has little importance in the OT and Judaism. 2147 He is partly right: Johns language in this case reflects Greek motifs, albeit especially by way of hellenized Judaism. But on another level, the Greek motif is insufficient by itself to explain Johns usage, expecially given his biblical allusions (e.g., 12:40). John never means abstract contemplation of a metaphysical reality; 2148 if anything, the frequency with which he employs vision on the literal level suggests encounter with the incarnate Jesus of history. 2149 Although John does not draw the vision analogy explicitly, his comparison of Jesus with Moses» serpent in John 3may identify faith in the historical Jesus with God " s promise: «Whoever looks will live» ( Num 21:8–9 ). Further, the motif of spiritual sight and blindness in the Jesus tradition (e.g., Mark 4:12; 8:18 ; Matt 13:13–16; 15:14; 23:16; cf. Acts 28:27; Eph 4:18 ) was rooted in the OT images. 2150 The motifs of eschatological vision, 2151 spiritual blindness and sight representing straying from or following God " s way, 2152 and spiritual sight representing spiritual insight into God " s character and mysteries, 2153 persisted in «intertestamental» Palestinian Judaism. Most strands of Judaism continued to apply this language, 2154 often even to revelations of God himself. The rabbis had to explain biblical passages referring to Israel seeing God; 2155 they commented on the rare persons who in some sense «beheld» his presence in the present time 2156 but especially focused on the eschatological vision of God. 2157 According to some later rabbis, obedience to the Law produced nearness to, and in some sense vision of, God; 2158 Merkabah literature stressed the mystical vision of God. 2159 John may use the imagery of heavenly ascents (cf. comment on 3:3, 13; cf. Rev 1:10), but usually he uses the term more figuratively: spiritual perception of the true character of Jesus and the realm «above,» insight which enabled an intimate relationship with (not merely a mystical experience of) God. Given John " s predominantly realized eschatology, it is also possible that he implies a realization of the eschatological vision of God in Jesus (cf. 3:3, 36; 8:51, 56; 12:41; Heb 11:13; 12:14; 1 John 3:2 ; Rev 1:7). 2160 4. Vision of God in the Fourth Gospel |
| 48 As Prof. I.Karmiris puts it (Orthodox Doctrine of the Church, 1964, p.16), the Divine Eucharist constitutes “as it were the very mystery of the Church”. Cf. G.Florovsky’s comment (in Ways of Worship, ed.P.Edwall et al., 1951, p.58): “The Church lives in the Eucharist and by the Eucharist” 49 Cf. P.Trembelas, “Unacceptable Theories concerning the Una Sancta” in Ekklesia 41 (1964), p.167f 53 Thus a).on faith, the confession of faith and Holy Scripture see examples in K.Federer, Liturgie und Glaube. Eine theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung, 1950, p.59f.; C.F.D.Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 1962, and C.Peifer, “Primitive Liturgy in the Formation of the New Testament” in Bible Today, 1 (1962), pp.14–21; b).on love and the works of mercy inspired by it, see Acts 2:42, 4:32, Heb. 13:10–16, Jn. 13:29 , and also the institution of the agape or “love-feast” which was initially connected with the Eucharist. Cf. G.Williams, “The Role of the Layman in the Ancient Church” in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 1 (1958), p.33f.; O.Cullmann, Urchristentum und Gottesdienst, 1950, pp.102–106 and B.O.Beicke, Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos in Verbindung mit der altchristlichen Agapenfeier, 1961, p.24; c).on the connection between martyrdom and Eucharist see J.Betz, Die Eucharistie..., p.184f.; d).on the connection of worship as a whole with the Eucharist, see P.Trembelas, “The Divine Eucharist in its Connection with the Other Mysteries and Sacramental Rites” (in Greek) in Efcharisterion, Essays in Honor of Professor H.Alivizatos, 1958. pp.462–472 54 See N.Nissiotis, “Worship, Eucharist and Intercommunion: An Orthodox Reflection” in Studia Liturgica, 2 (1963), p.197f 55 The more general question of Church unity, and the consciousness of it, in the context of the formation of the early Catholic Church, was first posed in Prof. G.Konidaris’ study The Formation... p.32, n.1. The present work appears as part of this broader subject, other aspects of which have been addressed in other works by this author |
| 78 Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius I.270, III.6.62 (Jaeger 1960 , 1. 105, 2.66) and frequently elsewhere in Gregory of Nyssa. 79 Cf. Luke 10:30–7. 80 Cf. Gen. 2:17 . 81 Eriugena distinguishes between speculatio and theoria–translated here ‘contemplation’ and ‘spiritual interpretation’. Theoria could well be translated ‘contemplation’, but it is the regular word in the Antiochene tradition for spiritual interpretation, and is used in that sense here. The eighteen spiritual interpretations seem to consist of ten numbered ones (in 31a), and the seven sections that follow (31b-h) plus the introduction to 31a. 82 Cf. 4 Kgd 2:11. 83 For time as number, see Aristotle, Physics 4.11. 84 Cf. Psa. 94:11; Heb. 3:16–4:1. 85 For this understanding of the relationship of time to eternity (derived from Plato’s metaphor of time as a ‘moving image of eternity’), see Plato, Timaeus 37D; Plotinus, Enneads III.7.2; Denys the Areopagite, Divine Names X.3. 86 Cf. Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals I.5. 87 This introduces the theme of the two modes of theology – apophatic and cataphatic – which continues through to section 31e (cf. above section 17, and also below Amb. 71) 88 Theourgiai: to be taken in the Christian sense, found in Denys the Areopagite, of ‘divine works’, rather than in its pagan meaning of ‘ritual ceremonies’. See Louth (1986). 89 The oneness and threeness of the Godhead: discussed below in section 43, and in Amb. 1. 90 Presumably the account of the Transfiguration. 91 Cf. Luke 9:31. 92 Cf. Luke 16:19–31. 93 This is borrowed, more or less word for word, from Nemesius, On human nature 43 (Morani 1987 , 129, ll. 6–14). 94 Omitting the two sections, 1173B-1176B, which are identical with Amb. 53 and Amb. 63. They are not found in this Difficulty in Eriugena nor are they found in Vat. gr. 1502 and other MSS: they are clearly out of place here. See Sherwood (1955a), 32. Sections 35–40 have many parallels with the early chapters of John Damascene’s Exposition of the Faith (chapters 3–5, 9, 11–13). |
| 9389 Even generally conservative commentators usually will not claim that the chapter was intended as a verbatim recollection (Ridderbos, John, 546–47). 9390 E.g., Smalley, John, 189; Bürge, Community, 116 n. 9. On the antiquity of the tradition, see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 633; Witherington, Christology, 219. Supposed parallels between John 17 and Matt 6:9–13 (Walker, «Prayer»; cf. Dodd, Tradition, 333) are possible but not impressive. Motifs such as «Father,» «Name,» «glorify» or «hallow,» «keep» from «testing,» and «deliver» or «protect» from «the evil one» (Carson, Discourse, 174) were relatively standard fare in early Jewish prayers (Jeremias, Prayers, 104–5; h. Ber. 60b; Sanh. 64a). At most, the sequential parallels may suggest coherence with extant Jesus tradition (Blomberg, Reliability, 219), which adapts many elements of contemporary Jewish prayer (Keener, Matthew, 215–16). 9391 The aorist implies the perspective of completion, although this need not require the speaker in the story world to speak after the events (Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 171–72). The και νυν of 17may reflect a temporal transition (cf. Laurentin, «Wéattah,» on the OT and Lukan usage for reversal) but need not do so (e.g., 1 John 2:28). 9392 As Smith notes (John 327), John may know the Gethsemane tradition (12:27; Heb 5:7–8), but John emphasizes Jesus dying intentionally (10:17–18). For distinctives of various early Christian writers on the final prayer, see more fully Dodd, Tradition, 71. 9393 cf. Gordon, «Prayer» (consecrating disciples as priests). 9394 Schulz, Evangelium, 213. 9395 See Aune, Prophecy, 124, citing 2Macc 15:14; cf. 1Sam 7:8; 12:23; 15:11 ; Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:11; 15:1; 37:3; 42:2,4, 20 . 9396 Schnackenburg, John, 3:198, cites the use of parting prayers in Gen 49 ; Deut 32 ; Jub. 1:19–21; 10:3–6,20–22; 36:17; cf. 1 En. 91; 4 Ezra 8:20–36,45; 2 Bar. 48:1–24; 84–85. 9397 See Minear, «Audience,» 343. 9398 See Schnackenburg, John, 3:198, on their «form and function.» |
| 8939 For its spiritual significance in this Gospel, see, e.g., Potterie, «Demeurer» (stressing «mystic» interiority). 8942 Stoics and others applied it most frequently to the cosmos (e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.12.26; Marcus Aurelius 7.13; Diodorus Siculus 1.11.6; Long, «Soul») and to the state (e.g., Cicero Resp. 3.25.37; Sallust Letter to Caesar 10.6; originally from Menenius Agrippa, Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.83.2–6.86.5; Livy 2.32.9–12; Dio Cassius 4.17.10–13). 8944 Cf. the Stoic notion of allowing reason (λγον) to remain (μμνοντα) in onés soul (Musonius Rufus frg. 36, p. 134.11). 8946 For one model of «being in» yet also accommodating concrete «progress,» cf. Engberg-Pedersen " s depiction of Stoic conversion ideology in Paul and Stoics, passim; a Jewish boy " s maturation in Torah might be comparable. 8948 It is also possible, though far less likely, that the αληθιν vine (15:1) alludes back to those who were disciples ληθς (8:31). 8949 Niemand, «Taüferpredigt,» thinks the image may stem from tradition brought by John the Baptist " s disciples when they became Christians; but it is a natural image (though Jesus could have drawn directly from the Baptist). 8950 Interpreting this passage by comparison with the partial burning of saved ministers» works in 1Cor 3is thus inappropriate here; while branches might need to be pruned, those which do not abide in the vine are not saved but consumed (cf. Heb 6:4–8). 8952 To the extent the distinctions are clear, Koine apparently preferred αρω (261 times in the LXX; 97 times in the NT, including 23 in John); the term αρω appears clearly in the LXX only 12 times, in NT only 3 times, none of them in John, and often without the clear sense «take away.» Writers could, however, play on words sharing the same spelling (Rowe, «Style,» 132). 8954 Derickson, «Viticulture,» assigns all of 15to the spring pruning of fruitful branches and 15to the postharvest removal of dead branches in autumn. His distinction between seasons is helpful, but the activities of 15need not all occur at the same season; the metaphor of «unfruitful branches» probably bears the same meaning throughout the parable (15:2,4,6). |
| Just as John " s Passion Narrative concurs with early Christian tradition in regarding Jesus as the righteous sufferer (13:18; 19:24), so early Christian apologetic found traits of Jesus in various righteous characters in Scripture (e.g., Acts 7:25), especially where explicit connections could be made (e.g., Acts 7:37; Heb 5:6). A recurrent principle in the biblical narratives is that the righteous suffer but often (e.g., in the case of Joseph) God ultimately vindicates and exalts them to fulfill his cal1. Early Christians could then argue by means of an implicit qal vaomer (a «how-much-more» argument) 10531 that this principle of exaltation should be applied even more naturally to the ultimate righteous one, who will be exalted most highly as supreme king under God. Indeed, they could argue, he would be exalted first, before his other enemies would be subdued ( Ps 110:1 ); those who accepted the resurrection as the bodily experience of the eschatological hope and believed that the Messiah would reign eternally (e.g., Isa 9:7; cf. Dan 2:44; 7:14 ) could argue that Jesus» resurrection would commence his reign even before his full conquest of other enemies. In any case, Scripture had to be fulfilled (10:35), and Jesus «had» to rise from the dead. 10532 2. Appearance to Mary (20:11–18) Mary was not only the first to notice the tomb empty (or to at least infer this from the missing stone, 20:1–2) but the first to see her risen Lord (20:11–18). The text may imply a connection with her fidelity; though ancient custom expected women to express lamentation more freely than men 10533 (of whom they also generally expected it to some extent), it may be noteworthy that when the male disciples leave (20:10), Mary remains (20:11). 10534 Mary remains not out of faith in the resurrection but out of love and desire to perform the final acts available for those already dead (20:13,15). Yet the narrative emphasizes by repetition that she need not weep; both an angel and Jesus confront her weeping (20:11,13,15) not because her weeping is wrong (cf. 11:31, 33) but because it is about to become joy, as Jesus promised his disciples (16:20). |
| 3 . Cum imperator reliquias veneratus esset, 473–8. 4 . De agonibus S. Jobi, adversus eos qui non adfuerunt, 477–86. 5 . De studio præsentium, 485–92. 6 . Contra Catharos, 491–94. 7 . In templo S. Anastasiæ, 493–500. 8 . – S. Pauli; 499–510. 9 . Contra circum et theatra (Joan. V., 17), 511–16. 10 . In illud Messis quidem multa, 515–24. 11 . De Eleazaro et septem pueris, 523–30. Monitum in has homilias, 63, 455–60; 59, 21–24. Eclogæ S. J. Chrysostomi, 1–48, 567–902. Præfatio, 557–62. Synopsis editionum, 563–66. Spuria, 531–56; 927–54. Liturgia S. J. C, 901–22. Precationes duæ, 923–24; 923–28; Aliæ 1–4 (Goar), 64, 1061–68. Encomium S. Gregorii Illuminatoris, latine, 943–54. 64 (XIII). Supplementum ad editionem Montfaucon, 417–1068. Homiliæ: 1. In S. Pentecosten (M.), 417–24. 2 . In pænitentiam Ninivitarum (M.), 423–34. 3. De eleemosyna et Lazaro (G.), 433–44. " 4 . In decem millia talentorum (Matthæi), 443–52. 5. Ad cos qui magni æstimant opes (Becher, ut etiam 6–9), 453–62. 6. De precatione, 461–66. 7. In illud Omne peccatum extra corpus (1 Cor., VI, 18), 465–74 (est Greg. Nysseni,45, 489–98). 8. De virtute animi, 473–80. 9. In illud Intueamini (Heb., III, 1), 479–92. Nestorii. Homiliæ fg. (Iriarte), 491–92. Ceteræ partes supplementi ad Epistolas (493–500), ad Commentaria in Scripturas (499–1062), ad Liturgiam «(1061–68), vide in locis propriis. Editoris monitum, 493–4. Testimonia veterum, 89–118. Synopsis eorum quæ in operibus S. J. C. observantur, 51–88. Editoris Patrologiæ monitum, 47, 1–11. Montfaucon. Præfatio, III-XXII (in qua de antiquioribus editionibus Ducæi, Savilii). Montfaucon. De Scriptoribus vitæ S. J. C. prætermissis, XXII-IV. Savilii de Scriptoribus rerum S, J. C. et pæsertim de Georgio, XXV-XL. Martyrii Antiocheni, Theodori Trimunthini, elogia, Epitome antiqua, Georgii Idiomelon , Palladii dialogus, XLI-LXXXVII et 5–82. Montfaucon. Vita S. J. C., 83–264. Stillingi Compendium chronologicum, 263–72. Catalogus Augustanus operum S. J. C., græce,64, 141–46. |
| Древнейшие масоретские рукописи Книги прор. Михея датируются IX-XI вв. по Р. Х. Важнейшими из них являются Ленинградский (B19a; 1009 г.) и Алеппский (925 г.) кодексы, к-рые содержали полный текст Библии, а также кодексы пророческих книг, в т. ч. Каирский (896 г.), Петербургский (Heb B 3, ок. 916 г.), Нью-Йоркский (ENA 346=JTS 232, X в., текст с отрывком Мих 1. 1 - 5. 5 не сохр.). В качестве основы для совр. критических изданий (BHS, BHQ) избран Ленинградский кодекс (см. в статьях Библия (разд. «Издания ВЗ»); Масоретский текст (разд. «Издания евр. Библии»)). Критические издания древнеевр. текста Книги прор. Михея: BHS. P. 1034-1044; Gelston. 2010. P. 65-83, Синопсис важнейших свидетельств текста из Кумрана, Вади-Мураббаат, Нахаль-Хевер, МТ и LXX: Ego. 2005. P. 89-112. II. Греческие переводы. Наряду с текстами на древнееврейском языке важнейшим свидетельством текста Книги прор. Михея является древнегреческий перевод Септуагинты (LXX). Он был осуществлен, по мнению большинства исследователей, в нач. или сер. II в. до Р. Х. в Египте (скорее всего, в Александрии) тем же переводчиком, который перевел др. книги малых пророков (подробнее см.: Dines. 2015. P. 438-455; Glenny. 2015. P. 1-15). Важнейшие списки - Вашингтонский папирус (W; III в. по Р. Х.) и неск. кодексов: Ватиканский (B; IV в. по Р. Х.), Александрийский (A; V в. по Р. Х.), Венецианский (V; VIII в. по Р. Х.). Свидетельством текста LXX являются также минускулы - древние переводы, осуществленные с греч. языка (старолатинский, коптский, армянский и др.), и цитаты в трудах раннехрист. авторов и отцов Церкви (Критическое изд.: Ziegler. 1984. S. 205-227). Прор. Михей. Мозаика ц. Богородицы Паммакаристос (Фетхие-джами) в К-поле. Ок. 1315 г Прор. Михей. Мозаика ц. Богородицы Паммакаристос (Фетхие-джами) в К-поле. Ок. 1315 г Текст древнегреч. перевода Книги прор. Михея существенно отличается от МТ. Наиболее заметные разночтения - в Мих 1. 10-2. 13; 4. 8-10; 5. 3-6; 6. 8-16; 7. 1-5, 11-12. В некоторых случаях причинами разночтений могло служить наличие особых вариантов в древнеевр. |
| When the problem of the idols was no longer present, however, as in the case of the instructions for Temple worship in the Old Testament, or in the case of the illumined church celebrating the incarnation of the Lord, then the divine attitude toward icono- graphic representations has to be seen as completely different. God not only does not stop them, but on the contrary, he commands and commends them. The Orthodox Church thus considered the Old Testament-based interdiction of the image as being a provisional, pedagogical measure. The difference between icon and idol becomes evident since the idol pertains to polytheism while the icon pertains to the divine economy which has overthrown idolatry from (Christian) society. The Old Testament interdiction of images was disputed by the iconodules through the comparison that they made between the two testaments; using the parallel between law and grace as it is found in the Pauline theology. They invoked the text of St. Paul ( Gal. 3.23 ) from which one sees the inferiority of the law compared to the time of faith (grace); thus, as the Old Testament could not be compared in authority to the New, the character of this commandment (circumstantial, contextual, and transitory) needed also to be seen in the light of the new principles of monotheistic worship established in and by the incarnation. The iconodules also invoked the assertion of St. Paul (Heb. 10.1) regarding the law as being a shadow, and the Christians as living in the era of grace, not of law. If the law still held literal validity in all respects, they argued, Christians would also need to keep its other imperatives, such as the Sabbath or circumcision. But this would clearly be to deny the radical new element of the religion of the incarnation, which the icon celebrates. According to St. John of Damascus, if, in the Old Testament, the direct revelation of God was manifested only through the word, then now, in the New Testament, it has been manifested through word and image alike, because the divine unseen has become the seen, and what was non-representable has now been truly represented. |
| 2 Cor. 4:13/Psalm 116:10 – I believed and so I spoke (past tense). Hebrew – I believe, for I will speak (future tense). 2 Cor. 6:2/Isaiah 49:8 – I have “listened” to you. Hebrew – I have “answered” you. Gal. 3:10/Deut. 27:26 – cursed be every one who does not “abide” by all things. Hebrew – does not “confirm” the words. Gal. 3:13/Deut. 21:23 – cursed is everyone who hangs on a “tree.” Hebrew – a hanged man is accursed. The word “tree” does not follow. Gal. 4:27/Isaiah 54:1 – “rejoice” and “break forth and shout.” Hebrew – “sing” and “break forth into singing.” 2 Tim. 2:19/Num. 16:5 – The Lord “knows” those who are His. Hebrew – God will “show” who are His. Heb. 1:6/Deut. 32:43 – let all the angels of God worship Him. Hebrew – the Masoretic text omits this phrase from Deut. 32:43. Heb. 1:12/Psalm 102:25 – like a “mantle” … “roll them”… “will be changed.” Hebrew – “raiment”… “change”…”pass away.” Heb. 2:7/Psalm 8:5 – thou has made Him a little “lower than angels.” Hebrew – made Him but a little “lower than God.” Heb. 2:12/Psalm 22:22 – I will ” sing” thy praise. Hebrew – I will praise thee. The LXX and most NTs (but not the RSV) have “sing.” Heb. 2:13/Isaiah 8:17 – I will “put my trust in Him.” Hebrew – I will “look for Him.” Heb. 3:15/Psalm 95:8 – do not harden your hearts as “in the rebellion.” Hebrew – harden not your hearts “as at Meribah.” Heb. 3:15; 4:7/Psalm 95:7 – when you hear His voice do not harden not your hearts. Hebrew – oh that you would hear His voice! Heb. 8:9-10/Jer. 31:32-33 – (nothing about husband); laws into their mind. Hebrew – I was a husband; law in their inward parts. Heb. 9:28/Isaiah 10:22 – “to save those” who are eagerly awaiting for Him. Hebrew – a remnant of them “shall return.” Heb. 10:5/Psalm 40:6 – “but a body hast thou prepared for me.” Hebrew – “mine ears hast thou opened.” Heb. 10:38/Hab. 2:3-4 – if he shrinks (or draws) back, my soul shall have no pleasure. Hebrew – his soul is puffed up, not upright. Heb. 11:5/Gen. 5:24 – Enoch was not “found.” Hebrew – Enoch was “not.” |
|
|
