| Не раз делались попытки выделить из числа этих сочинений те, к-рые изначально не имели с христианством ничего общего (т. е. возникли или в дохрист. эпоху, или, хотя и в христианскую, но за пределами христ. традиции) и лишь в ходе своего бытования подверглись в той или иной мере христианизации. К ним относили и Apocr. Jn., и Apoc. Adam., и Eugn., и Paraphr. Sem., и Trimorph. Prot., не говоря уже о таких платонизирующих трактатах, как Stel. Seth., Zostr., Allog., Mars. М. Краузе, стоящий у истоков издания текстов из Наг-Хаммади, выделял целую группу сочинений, «первоначально нехристианско-гностические, но позднее переработанные христианами писания», и к ним относил Apocr. Jn., Hypost. arch. и даже Thom. Cont. и Act. Petr. XII Ap. ( Krause. 1975. S. 82-83; Idem. 1983. S. 189). Шенке, рассматривая группу сифианских (по его обозначению) сочинений, был уверен в их «не- или даже дохристианском происхождении» на том основании, что большинство сочинений этой группы не содержат элементов христ. представлений (Stel. Seth., Allog., Mars., Nor.), в других же встречаются лишь скудные христ. мотивы (Zostr., Apoc. Adam.) и только неск. текстов близко подходят к тому, что называют христ. гносисом; он был убежден в том, что не христианское по самой своей природе сифианство позднее подверглось христианизации (secondary Christianisation), но что даже «наиболее «христианское» из всех сифианских писаний, Апокриф Иоанна», было изначально нехристианским ( Schenke. 1981. P. 607-608). Подобное утверждает и Виссе: «...собрание из Наг-Хаммади доказало без сомнений, что существовали такие формы гностицизма, которые были, если не до-христианскими, то однозначно не-христианскими», и к таким нехрист. сочинениям он относит Intel. perfect., Stel. Seth., Zostr., Mars., Allog.; целый ряд сочинений, по его словам, содержит «немногие или лишь сомнительно христианские элементы» (Evang. Aeg., Eugn., Apoc. Adam., Paraphr. Sem., Nor.), и т. о., их также следует в основном отнести к «не-христианскому гнозису»; в др. |
| 29 заключить завет с Господом. См. ком. к 15,12. да отвратит от нас пламень гнева Своего. Бог должен был отвратить Свой гнев от народа в случае, если тот покается в грехах и снова станет оказывать подобающее почтение храму. 29:12–14 Летописец называет потомков трех родов Левия (29,12) и трех семейств певцов (29,13.14), подчеркивая, что предприятие Езекии пользовалось поддержкой со стороны всех левитов и имело задачей восстановить порядок богослужения, установленный некогда Давидом и Соломоном (см. ком. к 1Пар. 6,1–81 ). 29 из сыновей Елицафановых. Елицафан был видным начальником из числа потомков Каафы ( Чис. 3,30 ). 29 вошли священники внутрь дома Господня... левиты. Сообщая эти подробности, летописец подчеркивает, что все, совершаемое Езекией, находилось в строгом соответствии с требованиями закона Моисеева. к потоку Кедрону. Ср. 15,16; 30,14; 4Цар. 23,4.6.12 . 29:20–36 Рассказ об освящении Езекией храма делится на три части: жертвы, принесенные начальниками народа (29,20–24), организация музыки и пения в храме (29,25–30), жертвы, принесенные народом (29,31–36). 29 на жертву о грехе. См. Лев. 4,1 5,13. за царство и за святилище и за Иудею. Жертвы приносились от лица представителей царского рода, священников и левитов, а также от простого народа. Все эти социальные группы запятнали себя отступничеством в годы царствования Ахаза ( 4Цар. 16,1–20 ). 29 всего Израиля... всего Израиля. В повествовании об эпохе воссоединенного царства (29,1 36,23) этим выражением обозначается весь народ, без разделения на северян и южан (30,1; 31,1; 35,3; см. ком. к 10,1; 1Пар. 11,1 ). Езекия повелел, чтобы всесожжение было принесено не только за одну Иудею (29,21), но и за северную и южную части страны вместе. Озабоченность царя судьбами обоих царств уподобляла его Давиду и Соломону (см. ком. к 1Пар. 11,1 ), а также предваряла его желание сплотить народ воедино в праздновании Пасхи (30,1–6). 29:27–30 пение Господу. См. ком. к 1Пар. 15,16–24 . 29 это сделалось неожиданно. Очищение и возобновление храма заняло меньше трех недель (29,3.17); народ увидел в этом неоспоримое свидетельство сопутствовавшей ему Божией помощи. Глава 30 |
| 127 Cameron A. M. The cult of the Theotokos in sixth century Constantinople//Journal of Theological Studies, 29 (1978); Ead. The Virgin’s robe. 128 Though neither icon nor relic is given a role in the sieges of 674–678 and 717–718, as Wortley, ‘Iconoclasm and leipsanoclasm’, 254, n. 5 also noted. 129 Life of St Symeon the Younger ch.l 18//La vie ancienne de S. Symeon Stylite le Jeune/Ed. P. Van den Ven. Brussells, 1962, and Mango, Art, 134. For Artemios, see the edition and translation, Crisafulli V. S. and J. W. Nesbitt. The Miracles of St Artemios. Leiden, 1997. 130 See Weyl Carr A. Court culture and cult icons in Middle Byzantine Constantinople//Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204/Ed. H. Maguire. Washington, 1997. 131 Antoninus Placentinus. Itinerarium, 22/Ed. P. Geyer//Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 175 (1965), p. 140–141; recensio altera, p. 165 (henceforth CCSL). English translation by Wilkinson J. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Warminster, 1977, p. 83–84 (henceforth Wilkinson, Pilgrims). 132 See text in Adamnanus. De Locis Sanctis I, 18/Ed. L. Bieler//CCSL 175 (1965), p. 197–198; trans. Wilkinson, Pilgrims, p. 100, and see various versions of the drawings in Plates 3–4, after p. 194. 133 For the tradition of the Dormition see, for example, Kreidl-Papadopulos K. Koimesis//Reallexikon zurbyzantischen Kunst IV, 1982, cols. 137–182. 135 For Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period see among others Vincent L. H., Abel F. M. Jérusalem – Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et de histoire, II: Jérusalem nouvelle, Paris 1914–1924 (henceforth: Vincent, Abel. JN.); Geva H. Jerusalem//The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem, 1993, p. 758–781; also recently, Tsafrir Y. The Topography and Archaeology of Aelia Capitolina, The Topography and Archaeology of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period//The History of Jerusalem – The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638)/Ed. Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai. Jerusalem, 1999, p. 115–166, 281–351 respectively (in Hebrew; henceforth, Tsafrir, Safrai [eds.] Jerusalem). |
| 5486 This affirmation surprises us, however, only if we assume that the Johannine community had broken completely with its Jewish heritage and regards that heritage in a negative manner; in our view, such an assumption stems from a misreading of John " s usual use of the title «Jews» (see in our introduction, ch. 5). «We» in this context can only mean the «Jews,» and Jesus remains a faithful Jew in the Fourth Gospel even if not acknowledged as such by the leaders of his people. 5487 Contrary to the usual Gentile Christian reading of the Gospels, the Synoptic Jesus likewise required Gentiles to recognize Israel " s priority and preeminence ( Mark 7:27–29 /Matt 15:24–28; Matt 8:7–8/Luke 7:6–7). 5488 Because the Samaritans accepted only Moses but rejected the Judean aspect of salvation history, including the Davidic messiah, they necessarily held an incomplete view of salvation and salvation history by Jewish and Christian standards. Some regard «salvation» in John as eschatological messianic deliverance; 5489 some suggest that it functions as a christological title here. 5490 In the context of the whole Fourth Gospel, it embraces Jesus» mission of transforming citizens of the world into people born from above, and locates Jesus himself, the bringer of salvation, squarely within the salvation history of Israel (see esp. 3in context; cf. 4:42). «Quite simply, Judea is conceived as the country of origin of Jesus the Messiah ( Jn. 1:41; 4:25 ) and as such the source of salvation.» 5491 In the end, however, Jesus challenges both Jewish and Samaritan tradition, calling for a higher worship that transcends geographical (hence also, in this context, ethnic) particularities (4:21). 7C. Worship in This Mountain (4:20) As in many cultures, 5492 ancient Near Eastern cultures often spoke of holy mountains, whether the Greeks» Olympus, Jerusalem " s Zion (the Temple Mount), or the Babylonians» artificial Ziggurat. 5493 A pre-Christian Jewish tradition accepted four holy mountains: two in the east, Sinai, and, with eschatological associations, Zion (Jub. |
| Burkert, «Craft» Burkert, Walter. «Craft versus Sect: The Problem of Orphies and Pythagoreans.» Pages 1–22 in vo1. 3 of Meyer and Sanders, Self-Definition. Burkert, Cults Burkert, Walter. Ancient Mystery Cults. Carl Newell Jackson Lectures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987. Burkert, Religion Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion. Translated by John Raffan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985. Burkhardt, «Inspirationslehre» Burkhardt, Helmut. «Inspiration der Schrift durch weisheitliche Personalinspiration: Zur Inspirationslehre Philos von Alexandrien.» Theologische Zeitschrift 47 (1991): 214–25. Burkiii, Light Burkiii, T. A. New Light on the Earliest Gospel: Seven Markan Studies. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1972. Burkitt, Gnosis Burkitt, F. Crawford. The Church and Gnosis: A Study of Christian Thought and Speculation in theSecond Century. Morse Lectures for 1931. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932. Burkitt, History Burkitt, F. Crawford. The Gospel History and Its Transmission. Edinburgh: T8cT Clark, 1907. Burkitt, Sources Burkitt, F. Crawford. The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1910. Burnett, «Immortality» Burnett, Fred W. «Philo on Immortality: A Thematic Study of Philós Concept of palingenesia? CBQ 46 (1984): 447–70. Burney, «Equivalent» Burney, C. F. «The Aramaic Equivalent of κ της κοιλας in Jn. VII 38.» JTS, first series 24 (1922–1923): 79–80. Burney, Origin Burney, C. F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospe1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922. Burrell, Gleason, and Netzer, «Palace» Burrell, Barbara, Kathryn Gleason, and Ehud Netzer. «Uncovering Herod " s Seaside Palace.» BAR 19, no. 3 (May/June 1993): 50–57, 76. Burridge, «Biography» Burridge, Richard A. «Biography.» Pages 371–91 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.-A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Burridge, «Biography, Ancient» Burridge, Richard A. «Biography, Ancient.» Pages 167–70 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 2000. |
| Theology is life and not archaeology. For us, the study of antiquity is but a starting point for discerning the interaction between God and humanity that leads to this very moment and continues into the future. In my experience as an instructor at this seminary and as a parish priest, one of the most dangerous reductions of a theological education that I have encountered has been its divorce from life. How easy it is to turn Orthodox theology into an academic discipline as an academic career without spiritual moorings. While our academies and seminaries must demand academic excellence, the curriculum each may offer must be based on the spiritual life. There is the need to instill in the professors and students the fundamental idea that the study of scripture, history, liturgy, patristics and dogmatics cannot be separated from seeking after the “kingdom of heaven and its righteousness.” Academic excellence cannot be allowed to stand apart from acquiring the Holy Spirit. Understanding theology or theological education as something parallel to the life in Christ inevitably generates its own dynamism that, in turn, manipulates the words proper to God into becoming a false theology. This false theology, resulting from an alien spirituality, abandons its evangelical thrust by replacing human salvation and transfiguration with the illusions of social and political utopias. The spiritual and intellectual formation of the Orthodox theologian is grounded in the ascetical discipline of the Church. Asceticism seeks to counter a self-centered and self-serving life with one that seeks to love and serve Christ and neighbor. The ascetic ordeal rooted in repentance, prayer, fasting and the reordering of the passions is best summed up by Saint John the Baptist: Christ “must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn. 3:30). These words capture so well the life of the ascetic theologian. They express a way of life that ultimately allows the mind and heart to participate in the creative activity of the Holy Spirit. The outcome of this creativity is a living and true theology that utilizes and responds to the new questions and challenges of the 21st century. Science, technology, globalization, local, national and world politics, the suffering and termination of the unprotected and the innocent, human sexuality and the abuse of the environment are beckoning the Orthodox Church and, therefore, Orthodox theology to enter the fray of modernity. |
| since the Lord reveals things to it” (Palmer et al. I: 194; italics added). For Orthodox spirituality and theology, then, askesis (spiritual discipline, “asceticism” in the broadest sense) and a life that sees and understands creation in a divine light are inseparable. As put by Evagrius, and others afterwards, the practice of the virtues and the purification (katharsis) of mind or consciousness (nous) prepares the soul for a certain illumination (theoria) by means of divine grace, i.e., allows us to see nature differently, more truly – permits the “contemplation of the divine in nature” (Palmer et al. I: 57, 61f.). “The soul’s apprehension of the nature of things changes in accordance with its own inner state,” states 11th- century Byzantine monk and mystic Niketas Stethatos, and only if our cognitive faculties once again operate naturally, i.e., “according to nature,” will we grasp “the inner essence” of things “as they are according to nature”; only to the natural, ascetically purified soul will the “natural beauty [of things] exalt it to an understanding of their Maker” (Palmer et al. IV: 92; italics added). Only subsequently, then, does theological reflection emerge to articulate and clarify this noetic seeing. And the most important intellectual resource in Eastern Orthodoxy for understanding this kind of seeing (theoria) is the critical distinction between divine essence or substance (ousia) and divine energy or activity (energeia), since it elucidates how we can apprehend this divine light in nature at all. For does Scripture not enjoin that no one can see God and live? ( Ex. 33.20 ; Jn. 1.18 ). The Byzantine East, however, understands this inaccessibility as referring to the divine Essence, what God is in himself, God as God understands himself, the very substance or beingness (ousia) of God; and more emphatically than the Christian West, it affirms that no creature (human or angelic) can comprehend or apprehend the divine essence, either in this life or the next. |
| This problem that Europeans are encountering of course should be a different topic of conversation. Yet I cannot ignore the topic of the discrimination of the new Christians – the migrants from the Middle East and north Africa. They are under extreme pressure from their former countrymen who are Muslims and act aggressively against Christians as a result of the stereotypical thinking and propaganda of radical Islamists. Christians are kept in refugee camps alongside Muslims, which has become the reason why Christians there are assaulted, humiliated, raped and robbed. I call upon all of those who can influence the situation to intervene and show deep concern for the defense of Christians by offering them separate refuge. Christians in their own country have become a persecuted minority, have endured a terrible genocide from radical Islamists in Syria, Iraq, Sudan and other hot spots. And now, instead of being rescued, they continue to endure violence in refugee camps in the EU at the hands of modern-day barbarians who have also ended up as migrants. Aid to suffering brothers and sisters also bears a direct relation to the issue of the future of Christianity in Europe. We should be optimists and preserve hope that ahead of us will be a time of new opportunities for the testimony of faith. People of faith must continue their labours at all possible levels in European and international forums in vindicating the right to freedom of conscience and religion, in opposing the development of legal acts which directly or indirectly discriminate against Christians or touch upon the freedom of religion, and in fighting the imposed marginalization of Christianity and its expulsion to the borders of public life. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, who has created his Church in order to carry out his mission in the human world, will not desert us with his all-powerful aid and support: ‘In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!’ (Jn 16.33). Report for 2018 by the Observation committee of intolerance and discrimination of Christians in Europe. Page 5 The numbers of non-believers in Great Britain exceeds 50% for the first time. http://www.bbc.com/russian/news-41154931 Christianity as default is gone’: the rise of a non-Christian Europe. [iv] [v] [vi] 10 key findings about religion in Western Europe. [vii] [viii] Speech by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill at the opening of the XXV International Nativity Educational Readings. http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4789256.html |
| 5. The bilateral theological dialogues that the Orthodox Church conducts today, as well as her participation in the movement for the restoration of Christian unity, are grounded in her Orthodox consciousness and the spirit of ecumenicity, and are aimed at seeking the lost Christian unity on the basis of the faith and tradition of the ancient Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. 6. The unity by which the Church is distinguished in her ontological nature is impossible to shatter. The Orthodox Church acknowledges the existence in history of other Christian Churches and confessions which are not in communion with her, and at the same time believes that her relationships with them should be based on a speedy and more accurate elucidation by them of all ecclesiological topics, especially the teaching on Sacraments, grace, priesthood, and apostolic succession as a whole. Accordingly, for theological and pastoral reasons, she has been favorably disposed to dialogue with various Christian Churches and confessions, and to participation in the present-day ecumenical movement in general, in the belief that she thus bears her active witness to the plenitude of Christ’s truth and her spiritual treasures before those who are external to her, and pursuing an objective goal – to tread the path to unity. 7. It is in this spirit that today all the Holy Local Orthodox Churches take an active part in official theological dialogues, and most of them participate in the work of various national, regional and international inter-Christian organizations, despite a serious crisis in the ecumenical movement. Such manifold activities of the Orthodox Church derive from the sense of responsibility and from the conviction that mutual understanding, cooperation and common efforts towards Christian unity are of fundamental importance, so as not to “ hinder the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor 9:12). 8. While conducting dialogue with other Christians, the Orthodox Church by no means underestimates the difficulties arising from it, but is aware of the obstacles lying on the path to a common understanding of the tradition of the ancient Church. It is her hope that the Holy Spirit Who “ welds together the whole institution of the Church ” (Stichera at Vespers of Pentecost) “ will heal what is infirm ” (a prayer during ordination). In this regard, the Orthodox Church, in her relations with the rest of the Christian world, relies not only on the human efforts of those involved in the dialogue, but, by the grace of God who prayed “t hat… all may be one” (Jn 17:21), first and foremost, on the help of the Holy Spirit. |
| 3. Well aware that unity is manifested in love of God and love of neighbour, we look forward in eager anticipation to the day in which we will finally partake together in the Eucharistic banquet. As Christians, we are called to prepare to receive this gift of Eucharistic communion, according to the teaching of Saint Irenaeus of through the confession of the one faith, persevering prayer, inner conversion, renewal of life and fraternal dialogue. By achieving this hoped for goal, we will manifest to the world the love of God by which we are recognized as true disciples of Jesus Christ (cf. Jn 13:35). 4. To this end, the theological dialogue undertaken by the Joint International Commission offers a fundamental contribution to the search for full communion among Catholics and Orthodox. Throughout the subsequent times of Popes John Paul II and Benedict the XVI, and Patriarch Dimitrios, the progress of our theological encounters has been substantial. Today we express heartfelt appreciation for the achievements to date, as well as for the current endeavours. This is no mere theoretical exercise, but an exercise in truth and love that demands an ever deeper knowledge of each other’s traditions in order to understand them and to learn from them. Thus we affirm once again that the theological dialogue does not seek a theological lowest common denominator on which to reach a compromise, but is rather about deepening one’s grasp of the whole truth that Christ has given to his Church, a truth that we never cease to understand better as we follow the Holy Spirit’s promptings. Hence, we affirm together that our faithfulness to the Lord demands fraternal encounter and true dialogue. Such a common pursuit does not lead us away from the truth; rather, through an exchange of gifts, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it will lead us into all truth (cf. Jn 16:13). 5. Yet even as we make this journey towards full communion we already have the duty to offer common witness to the love of God for all people by working together in the service of humanity, especially in defending the dignity of the human person at every stage of life and the sanctity of family based on marriage, in promoting peace and the common good, and in responding to the suffering that continues to afflict our world. We acknowledge that hunger, poverty, illiteracy, the inequitable distribution of resources must constantly be addressed. It is our duty to seek to build together a just and humane society in which no-one feels excluded or emarginated. |
|
|
