| 6761 E.g., Phaedrus 1.2.1–3, 11–31. 6762 E.g., 4 Macc 3:2; 13:1–2; T. Ash. 3:2; 6:5; T. Jos. 7:8; T. Jud. 18:6; Josephus Ant. 1.74; 4.133; 15.88; War 1.243; Philo Abraham 241; Alleg. Interp. 2.49; Creation 165; Good Person 17; Heir 269; Unchangeable 111; cf. Decharneux, «Interdits»; Let. Arts. 211,221–223; T. Jud. 15:2,5; Sim. 3:4; Rom 6:6; 16:18 ; Phil 3:19 . 6763 Odeberg, Gospel 297–301; idem, Pharisaism, 50–52,56; cf. Gen. Rab. 94:8; Wis 1:4. Cf. freedom from the hostile angel in CD 16.4–6; from the Angel of Death in late material in Exod. Rab. 41:7; 51:8; Num. Rab. 16:24; Song Rab. 8:6, §1; from astrological powers in t. Sukkah 2:6; b. Ned. 32a; Šabb. 156a; Sukkah 29a; Gen. Rab. 44:10; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2. 6764 Odeberg, Gospel 296–97; Whitacre, Polemic, 69,75–76; but cf. Schnackenburg, John, 2:208. 6765 Black, Approach, 171, comparing «abed and »abd. 6766 Also, e.g., Num 5:6–7 LXX; 2Cor 11:7 ; Jas 5:15; 1Pet 2:22 . 6767 Cf. the two spirits and ways in Qumran and elsewhere ( Deut 30:15 ; Ps 1:1 ; m. " Abot 2:9; T. Ash. 1:3, 5; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 8.3; 27.4; Diogenes Ep. 30; see further Keener, Matthew, 250, on 7:13–14). Barrett, John, 345, appeals especially to Greek thought here, but he cites for it only Philo and Corp. herm. 10.8. 6768 CPJ 1:249–50, §135; p. Ter. 8:1; Rawson, «Family,» 7; Dixon, Mother, 16; Safrai, «Home,» 750. 6769 They could be divided at inheritance (P.S.I. 903, 47 C.E.). 6770 Cf. abundant references to freedpersons, e.g., P.Oxy. 722 (ca. 100 C.E.); CIL 2.4332; 6.8583; ILS 1578. Such freedom sometimes had strings attached (see, e.g., Horsley, Documents, 4:102–3); cf. the freedwoman who inherited half her master " s debt (CPJ 2:20–22, §148). 6771 E.g., BGL/5.65.164; 5.66–67.165–70. 6772 E.g., P.Cair.Zen. 59003.11–22; P.Oxy. 95; Terence Self-Tormentor 142–144. 6773 For rare examples of disownment, see, e.g., P.Cair.Masp. 67353 (569 C.E.); Isaeus Estate of Menecles 35; 43; especially in hypothetical declamations, e.g., Seneca Controv. 1.1.intr.; 1.6.intr.; 1.8.7; 2.1.intr.; 2.4.intr.; 3.3; Hermogenes Issues 33; 40.20; 41.1–13; Berry and Heath, «Declamation»; in Roman law, see Garnsey and Sailer, Empire, 137; for the revocation of wills, e.g., P.Oxy. 106 (135 C.E.); for the usual (but not certain) presumption of disinherited sons» guilt, see Hermogenes Issues 47.1–6; the disinheritance could be challenged at times if the grounds were inadequate (Hermogenes Issues 38.12–17; Valerius Maximus 7.7.3). For the son being greater than the servant in this Gospel, cf., e.g., John 1:27 . |
| 5899 E.g., 2 Bar. 51:1–2; cf. t. Ber. 6:6. For distinction after death, see 1 En. 22:9–11; cf. sources in Keener, Matthew, 129, on Gehinnom, and 710–11, on the resurrection of the dead. 5900 It appears in most streams of NT tradition and is denied in none: Acts 24:15; 2Cor 5:10 ; Rev 20:4–6; Matt 25:46; cf. Matt 5:29–30; 10:28; Luke 11:32; Bernard, John, 1:245. 5901 1QS 4.13–14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in t. Sanh. 13:3,4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5; cf. 2Macc 12:43–45. By contrast, the souls of the wicked will remain in hell on the day of judgment in 1 En. 22:13; 61:5; 108:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanh. 13:5; probably L.A.B. 38:4; Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; t. Ber. 5:31. 5902 Ps 62:12 ; Prov 24:12 ; Sir 16:12,14 ; Matt 16:27; Rom 2:6 ; 2Cor 11:15 ; Rev 22:12; Pesiq. Rab. 8:2; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.2.3. 5903 It continued in widespread use (Josephus Life 256; Ant. 4.219; b. Sanh. 37b, bar.; p. Git. 4:1, §2; cf. m. Roš Haš. 1:7; 2:6); see further the comment under 8:13. Early Christians also employed this rule; see 2Cor 13:1 ; 1Tim 5:19 ; Matt 18:16. 5904 Boring et al, Commentary, 270–71, cites Cicero Rose. Amer. 36.103. Witnesses confirmed a matter (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 26), and a claim offered without them might be scathingly contested (Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111). 5905 E.g., Lysias Or. 4.5–6, §101; 7.12–18, §§109–110; 12.27–28, §122; 19.24, §154; 29.7, §182; Cicero Quinct. 24.76. Establishing a credible motive was standard procedure for the prosecution (Cicero Rose. Amer. 22.61–62). 5906 E.g., Isaeus Estate of Cleonymus 31–32, §37; Estate of Hagnias 6; Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111; 7.43, §112. Cf. the preference for multiple and diverse testimonies, e.g., in Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 61, §19D; for challenging the credibility of opposing witnesses, see, e.g., Hermogenes Issues 45.5–10. 5907 Cicero Quinct. 23.75. 5908 The witness of one person was inadequate in many kinds of cases (Boice, Witness, 47, cites m. Ketub. 2:9; Roè Haï. 3:1); self-accusation, by contrast, could invite condemnation (Achilles Tatius 7.11.1; though in early Judaism cf. Cohn, Trial, 98). In some matters, however, onés self-testimony was held reliable (e.g., m. Ketub. 2:10), even against two witnesses (m. Tehar. 5:9). |
| 9738 For somewhat evasive answers, cf. also Luke 22:67–68. Jesus talks more in John than in Mark, but cf. the variant Socratic tradition in which Socrates remained silent instead of answering his accusers (Maximus of Tyre Or. 3.4, 7; cf. Xenophon Mem. 4.8.4). 9739 Diogenes Laertius 3.63; 8.1.15; Aulus Gellius 13.5.5–12; even some rhetorical teachings were inappropriate for the general public or novices (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lit. Comp. 25). Unwritten teachings provided «insiders» a superior status (see Botha, «Voice»). 9740 E.g., lQpHab 7.4–5, 13–14; 1QH 2.13–14; 9:23–24; 11:9–10, 16–17; 12:11–13; 1QS 8.1–2, 12; 9:13,17–19; cf. 1QS 5.11–12; 11.3–5; 1QM 3:9; 17.9; 4 Ezra 14:45–47. 9741 E.g., b. Pesah. 119a; Pesiq. Rab. 22:2; especially regarding the throne-chariot (t. Hag. 2:1; b. Hag. 13a, bar; 14b, bar; Sabb. 80b; p. Hag. 2:1, §§3–4; cf. 4Qsl40) and creation mysticism (m. Hag. 2:1; t. Hag. 2:1, 7; Nat. 39A; b. Hag. 15a, bar.; p. Hag. 2:1, §15; Gen. Rab. 1:5, 10; 2:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; 2 En. 24:3). 9742 Sandmel, Judaism, 476 n. 48, suggests a polemic against Gnosticism here, but this is improbable; see our introduction, pp. 168–69. More persuasive would be the possibility of apologetic against the charges of political subversion, as in Acts 26(see Malherbe, «Corner,» 203). 9743 See our introduction; in other periods Romans also expressed concern over associations (e.g., Livy 39.15.11; Dig. 47.22.1; Judge, Pattern, 47–48), and even some earlier Greeks mistrusted the morality of some cult associations (Foucart, Associations religieuses, 153–77). Stauffer, Jesus, 122, reads distrust of secret associations into the high priest " s interrogation. 9746 Cf. the alleged danger of contamination from even excess exposure to minuth a few decades after John (see, e.g., Herford, Christianity, 137–45,388; Moore, Judaism, 2:250; Dalman, Jesus, 36–37). 9747 «Hour» and «darkness» in Luke 22would have fit John " s usage but perhaps not his Christology (with Jesus controlling the passion). In some cases, «Why did you not take me then?» could suggest a rhetorical appeal to a statute of limitations (Hermogenes Issues 44.10–12) but here refers simply to their secretive behavior. |
| THE DECISION: October 8, 1998 The Minutes of the Meeting of the Holy Synod The session of Holy Synod of Georgian Orthodox Church was held in the conference hall of the residence of the Patriarchate of Georgia on the 8th of October, 1998. Twenty-four hierarchs (a full complement) of the Georgian Orthodox Church participated in the session. His Beatitude and Holiness, the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia, Ilia II acted as the chairman of the session. The bishop of the Poti Eparchy, Grigol (Berbichashvili) was appointed secretary of the session. The Holy Synod received the information provided by the Theological Commission which had been created with blessing of the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia, Ilia II, in July of 1997. The commission examined those issues which had become the reason for scandal for some members of the Church. The Theological Commission examined the following documents and issues: the so-called Chambésy and Balamand documents, the project for the agreement between the Orthodox Church of Antioch and Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental) churches, worked out in 1991, the celebration of Pascha by the Finnish Orthodox Church according to the Gregorian Paschalion, the teaching about the existence of saving grace beyond the limits of the Church's canonical boundaries, as well as the so-called “Branch Theory.” The Theological Commission contacted the Constantinopolitan, Antiochian and Russian Patriarchates and also inquired concerning the positions of different Churches with regard to the above-mentioned issues. It should be emphasized that a number of Autocephalous Churches, with the Georgian Church among them, had never made a definitive decision by means of a general gathering, regarding the above-mentioned issues. Moreover, some of the Churches have indeed evaluated them negatively, with a special decision by the Holy Synod. As these issues serve as the ground for doubt on the part of our believers, the Theological Commission of the Patriarchate of Georgia examined the relevant materials and published its conclusions in 3 issues of Information Bulletins. |
| The DECR chairman also spoke about the relations between Local Orthodox Churches and preparations for a Pan-Orthodox Council which began over 50 years ago. The 1976 Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference formulated ten basic issues to be considered by the Council, namely, Orthodox diaspora, autocephaly and ways of proclaiming it, autonomy and ways of proclaiming it, diptychs, calendar issues, marriage obstacles, conformity of church resolutions on fasting, Orthodox Churches’ attitude to the rest of Christendom, Orthodoxy and the ecumenical movements, contribution of Local Orthodox Churches to the triumph of Christian ideal of peace, freedom, brotherhood and love among nations and elimination of racial discrimination. These issues continue to be discussed on the inter-Orthodox level. In recent years, agreement has been achieved on eight out of ten issues. Metropolitan Hilarion stated an opinion that some of the already prepared documents concerning ecumenism and the assertion of Christian ideas of peace, freedom, brotherhood and love among nations had to be re-written in the light of new problems, such as the persecution of Christians in North Africa and South-East Asia. He emphasized that the Council should be thoroughly prepared not only with regard to its content but also procedure so that the position of each Local Church might be taken into account. Therefore, the decisions should be made strictly by consensus. Speaking about the inter-Christian relations, Metropolitan Hilarion said that important in the relations with the Catholics was not only theological dialogue but also cooperation in social service and efforts to preserve the moral foundations in people’s life. “Here we have a very vast field for cooperation because in today’s secular world, both the Orthodox and the Catholics encounter the same challenges. First of all, it is the challenge of secular ideology which does not recognize at all absolute moral values. As a result, we see in the West the propagation of homosexuality, laws on same-sex unions, the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, etc. And in spite of the fact that there is no agreement today with the Catholic Church on a number of theological and ecclesiological issues, we can work together to protect traditional moral values – the area of our cooperation we have actively developed today”. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Bioethics, Orthodoxy and PERRY T. HAMALIS The term “bioethics” refers to a subset of the discipline of “ethics” that assesses and develops normative responses to issues at the intersection of health, medicine, and the life sciences. Bioethics emerged as a discrete academic discipline in the 1960s and has since developed into the most specialized field within applied ethics. While bioethics tends to focus on moral issues faced by single human persons and their families within a medical context (e.g., organ transplantation, reproductive technologies, abortion, and end-of-life care), it may also be understood in a broader sense that includes moral reflection upon communal dimensions of health (e.g., the provision of healthcare and the funding of stem cell research) as well as upon issues pertaining to non-human species and the environment (e.g., animal testing, genetic modification of plants, and climate change). Throughout its history the Eastern Orthodox Church has engaged bioethical issues by articulating a vision for humanity’s proper relationship toward non-human creation and by offering pastoral guidance and care to physicians, nurses, and Orthodox Christian patients who are making decisions about appropriate medical treatments. As the field of bioethics has grown over the past several decades, Orthodox thinkers have drawn from the church’s tradition to develop guidelines and ethical principles with which to critique problematic tendencies in secular bioethics and construct more authentically Orthodox stances on specific issues confronted by the faithful (Breck 1998,2005; Engelhardt 2000; Harakas 1990, 1992). In addition, representatives of Orthodoxy have worked collaboratively, through synodal statements (e.g., the “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” 2000), ecclesial institutions (e.g., the Bioethics Committee of the Church of Greece, established 1998), and ecumenical efforts (e.g., the National Council of Churches’ document on biotechnologies, “Fearfully and Wonderfully Made,” 2006), in order to provide faithful responses to bioethical challenges. |
| Erdogan and his ministers must understand these intricacies, since these issues have been sore spots between Turkey, Greece, the EU and the international community for decades. Why does Erdogan reignite the flames of “minorities” and “religious freedoms” as a public bargaining tool with the Greek government? In response to Erdogan, Greek Foreign Minister and Deputy Premier Evangelos Venizelos stated “any further public discussion of these issues would be counterproductive.” Venizelos’ concern for costs on both sides of the border should not be ignored. Achilles Hekimoglou, a journalist with the newspaper “TO VIMA” told Al-Monitor , “I think that Erdogan is trying to appear as a defender of Faith in the Muslim world and as a successor of the Ottoman legacy. We call that in Greek politics “Micromegalism.” Erdogan’s next condition is the permission to renovate the two Ottoman-era mosques in Athens. This is a sensitive matter. Chrysi Avgi, or Golden Dawn, is an ultra-nationalist party that has been extreme in its anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic narratives. Currently, its leadership is going through a rough time due to allegations of criminal activity. Chrysi Avgi-affiliated groups have attacked several Muslim residents praying in makeshift mosques or open-air public squares on major holidays. The Greek government has already agreed to build a taxpayer-funded mega-mosque in Athens in 2010, yet pundits fear Erdogan’s conditions would only fan the flames of ultra-nationalist rhetoric. Hekimoglu told Al-Monitor , “Turkey's interventions always feed nationalism. There is an empirical proof that says that whenever Ankara faces internal problems, it exports some distraction to Greece.” Now, coming back to why Erdogan rehashed these long-debated issues for Turkish audiences is a contested question. Although AKP pundits contend Erdogan only assumes a tall responsibility to protect the “Turkish” minority in Thrace, one cannot wonder why Erdogan chose the mosque and imam issues while keeping quiet about other issues, such as Turkish language education. |
| My Suggestions Step #1. Once you review my response, if you’re interested in trying what I’ve suggested, inform your husband that you wrote to me for a second opinion, and let him review my e-mail. If he finds what I’ve written of value, and is willing to try these ideas, make an appointment with one another. You’ll need around an hour to begin taking advantage of these suggestions. Step #2. Formerly commit yourselves to finding some mutually satisfying Christ -centered resolutions. This step is important because it helps you form a partnership that begins to dissolve the- him-versus-her standoff that likely exists between the two of you whenever the issues you’ve described arise. Step #3. Once you’ve formed a partnership, pray together for guidance and assistance. Your prayers should come from the heart. If possible, each of you should take turns praying. Whoever feels the most comfortable with this suggestion should begin. If you’re not certain how to begin this step, begin by reciting prayers from each partner’s tradition. Once you’ve read several prayers, end by speaking to God from your heart just as you might speak to a trusted mentor or parent figure. Step #4. After you pray together, start defining and articulating the issues and problems in respectful language that you both understand. During this step, each of you should take turns speaking. One of you should write down the issues in objective language on a piece of paper entitled, “Our Christ-centered Partnership.” You should also avoid becoming critical and contemptuous. Blame, criticism and contempt will quickly put one or both of you on the defensive and back into gridlock. Step #5. Assuming you complete step four, this next step will require you to clearly and respectfully talk about what you’ve done to loosen the gridlock. Often, partners have different opinions about what’s been done. You should take turns speaking and listening when attempting to complete this step. Both partner’s perspectives are important here and through- out this exercise. As you proceed through this step a common understanding of the issues and problems should emerge, along with a better understanding of the reasons that have caused the gridlock. Warning: Do not proceed to the next step until you both believe steps four and five have been completed. |
| Today, we as the Orthodox and Catholics encounter similar problems in the world, and our positions on many issues coincide to a considerable extent. The Orthodox-Catholic dialogue has been carried out on various levels: pan-Orthodox in the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches, and in the bilateral format as the Moscow Patriarchate conducts dialogue with Catholic Bishops’ Conference in some countries. Theological dialogue has been held for thirty three years now, and its achievements are obvious, as is obvious the existence of certain differences in our doctrines. However, the most important, though not the only, issue dividing the Catholics and the Orthodox concerns the problem of primacy in the Universal Church. The difference in its understanding once was one of the reasons that led to a division between the Western and Eastern Churches. In the East, the Pope of Rome was recognized as the successor of St. Peter, and the See of Rome occupied the first place among patriarchal thrones in accordance with Ecumenical Council’s actions. However, at the same time the Eastern Church saw the bishop of Rome as “the first among equals” (primus inter pares) and never ascribed to him special powers as compared to those of Primates of other Churches. Along with theological differences proper, there is the so-called “non-theological factor of the division”. These are the historical memory of the past controversies and conflicts and a great deal of mutual prejudices and, unfortunately, some problems which have arisen in the modern period of history. Still, the Orthodox and the Catholics can work together on many issues. There is a mutual understanding between the Russian Church and the Roman Catholic Church in social and economic ethics, traditional morality and other problems of today’s society. Our position on the family, motherhood, population crisis, bioethical issues, on problems of euthanasia and many other issues basically coincide. |
| Andrew Tregubov ; iconographer; rector of Holy Resurrection Church, Claremont, New Hampshire and Fr. Luke Veronis , adjunct professor at Holy Cross Theological Seminary and St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary. Case Study 10: Orthodox Americans, the Orthodox Peace Fellowship, and Iraq By Michael G. Azar St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary Orthodoxy in America, December 2003 “Desires for international peace which do not comprehend a state of international justice… are nothing else but a participation in international crime.” – Alexander Tsirindanes The recent conflict in Iraq elucidates that Orthodox Americans have struggled deeply with the issues raised in these words. In general, Orthodox acquiesce that international peace and international justice remain necessities at the very core of Christian teaching, but, in the recent historical context of the war in Iraq, Orthodox Americans have diverged over what path remains best to take when pursuing a state of international justice and international peace. These diverging patterns warrant some reflection. Reason and Methodology Issues of politics and faith have always been of great interest to me; thus, when I began a research project concerning Orthodoxy in America, I eventually concluded, with the direction of Professor John Erickson, that I would study the Orthodox Peace Fellowship (OPF), their statement against the recent Iraq war last spring, and the reaction of Orthodox Americans. In this manner, I desired to explore how Orthodox Americans have expressed their faith in politics and politics in their faith. My research was shaped by the data I received and the data that were available to me. Most of my research was conducted over the Internet, where I found data about the OPF, their Iraq Appeal, and responses from Orthodox Americans. This perhaps is the weakness in my research: all opinions that I studied were expressed through writing over the Internet and not in person. This obviously affects the appearance of a position taken in any statement. The pattern of research that I followed has become the outline for the paper below: I explored the history of the OPF, issues of war and peace in the Orthodox tradition, and then I studied the OPF Iraq Appeal. Next, I researched three articles that were published in response to the statement together with responses to these articles from OPF members. Eventually, I decided to send a list of survey questions about the issues at hand to people I contacted personally and three discussion groups: the OPF’s email list, the Indiana listserve, and www.orthodoxchristianity.net. I intended to include a fuller summary of the responses I received in this final paper, but I came to focus mainly on one response, for reasons discussed below. |
|
|
