| Craig S. Keener The Witness of the First Disciples. 1:19–51 ALTHOUGH THE GOSPEL " S NARRATIVE opens with 1:19, the implied reader knows Jesus» origin from 1:1–18 (and most of John " s earliest audience probably were already Christians; see introduction). That the narrative can open abruptly after the prologue (especially the preparation of 1:6–8,15) is to be expected, and a Diaspora audience conditioned by Mediterranean dramatic culture would feel at home here. Greek dramas often started by informing the viewer of what had happened prior to the opening of the play. The Odyssey opens abruptly and afterwards explains more of Odysseus " s travels through flashbacks, but its hearers could also presuppose what they knew of Odysseus from stories about him in the Iliad (if they knew that work first; probably they heard both repeatedly). The prologue introduces John the Baptist as a model witness for Jesus, leading immediately into a section (1:19–51) about the nature of witness and disciple-making for Jesus, which John the Baptist (1:19–28) opens. 3790 Apart from the prologue, the evangelist starts his Gospel essentially where Mark did and early Christian evangelists often did (Acts 1:22; 10:37; 13:24). 3791 This witness also fits the Gospel " s specifically Jewish framework by opening with a witness to Israel (1:31,49) embraced by true Israelites (1:47). 3792 The writer of the Fourth Gospel wishes his audience not only to continue in the faith themselves (20:31), but to join him in openly confessing Christ (12:42–43), proclaiming him in a hostile world (15:26–27). The Witness of the Forerunner to Israel (1:19–28) In 1:19–34, as in 3:27–36, John the Baptist models the activity of a «witness» (1:8) by deferring all honor to Jesus. This model may counter the tendency of some to exalt John unduly at Jesus» expense (see comment on 1:6–8); it may also respond to some leaders in the Johannine circle who have proved too ambitious for personal honor (3 John 9). This context explains who John is not (1:20–21), his function as a witness to another (1:22–27), and his testimony for the other (1:29–34). |
| Craig S. Keener Revelation of Jesus. 16:5–33 ALTHOUGH A GRADUAL SHIFT takes place from the emphasis on persecution in 16:1–4, there is no decisive break here with the preceding context. When Jesus was with the disciples, they did not need warning about future sufferings (16:5), presumably because he would protect them (18:8–9). But now that he was going and their hearts were burdened with sorrow (16:6), he had to assure them that the Paraclete would continue to reveal him to them and through them (16:7–15). He had warned them of coming sufferings (15:18–16:4), but they could not bear further revelation of such matters now (16:12); when the Paraclete would come, however, he would prepare them for the rest, telling them more things to come (16:13), presumably including events such as those narrated in the book of Revelation (if, as we have argued, John and Revelation reflect the same community). The coming of the Paraclete would enable the disciples to go on the offensive (15:26–27) because through him Jesus would remain among them (16:13–15). In him they would have victory over the world, despite their tribulation (16:33). His Departure for Their Good (16:5–7) In the context of the disciples» discouragement due to the world " s hostility (16:1–6), the Paraclete would come to prosecute the world (16:8–11). The disciples could be strong in the face of persecution, despite Jesus» absence, because the Paraclete would be with them (v. 7); this suggests that the Paracletés prosecution of the world is on their behalf and through their testimony. 9191 They grieved that Jesus was «going» (16:5–6), but resurrection joy would soon swallow their grief concerning the cross (16:22; cf. 1Pet 1:6 ). 9192 Jesus» return would provide them the Spirit, who would continue Jesus» presence with them. Because of their grief (16:6), Jesus assures them emphatically («I tell you the truth») 9193 that they will be better off with him departing to send them the other advocate he has mentioned (14:16). 9194 The Paraclete is better for them than Jesus in the flesh would have been (16:7) because he re-presents Jesus dynamically to the world in each hostile situation. Jesus had also challenged the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment, and the prophetic Spirit, proclaiming the same Jesus through his community, would continue the challenge. 9195 This continuity between the two should not be understood as identity, as in the docetic reading of John, 9196 nor even to imply that the Spirit cannot bring new teachings; 9197 the Spirit will say some new things (16:12–13) but in continuity with Jesus» revelation. 9198 But it does mean that Jesus himself is present in the Spirit, though only those in his community recognize his presence. 9199 The World " s Prosecutor (16:8–11) |
| John Anthony McGuckin Deaconess MARIA GWYN MCDOWELL An ordained female member of the priestly order, at the level of diaconate. The office reached its zenith in the early Byzantine period, though it has never been altogether abandoned. Phoebe, commemorated as “equal to the apostles,” is referred to by Paul as a deacon (diakonos, Rom. 16.1 ) and is the prototype of the later office of the deaconess. The church also commemorates as deacons Tabitha (or Dorcas, Acts 9.36), Lydia (Acts 16.14), Mary, Persis, Tryphosa and Tryphena, Priscilla and Junia ( Rom. 16.3–15 ), the daughters of Philip (Acts 21.9), Euodia and Syntyche ( Phil. 4.2–3 ), all of whom were fellow-workers with Paul and laborers in the gospel; 1 Timothy 3.8–11 presents the requirements for diaconal service. An array of early theologians such as Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis 3, 6, 53.3–4), Ori- gen (Commentary on Romans 10.17), John Chrysostom (Homily 11 on 1 Timothy), Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, all interpret 1 Timothy 3.11 as referring to female deacons. The 4th-7th centuries are rich in archeological, epi- graphical, and literary references in which diakonos with a feminine article and diakonissa are used interchangeably. There is no evidence of significantly different functions between male and female deacons in the earliest church, a time when the diaconate itself was rapidly evolving. By the 3rd century the liturgical function of ordained women mirrored the culturally normative public/private segregation of roles and functions. Early deaconesses assisted in the baptism and anointing of adult (naked) women, and engaged in catechetical, pastoral, social, and evangelistic work among women. Like the male deacon, they were liaison officers for the bishop, specifically with a ministry to the women among whom it would have been inappropriate for a man to venture. The rise of infant baptism reduced their baptismal role but they continued to supervise the liturgical roles of women, to lead them in liturgical prayer, to chant in the church, participate in liturgical processions, and like the other priestly orders, the deaconesses all received the Eucharist at the altar with their fellow clergy. The deaconess did not lead worship in the same manner as male deacons reciting the Ektenies. However, in absence of male clergy, monastic deaconesses read the gospel and scriptures among women, and evidently poured water and wine into the chalice (Madigan and Osiek 2005: 6–7). |
| Craig S. Keener Jerusalem and its King. 12:12–50 ONCE JESUS ARRIVES IN JERUSALEM (12:12–19), people respond to him in various ways. The Gentiles seek him (12:20–22), provoking his remark that the time for his death had come (12:23–33). His own people, however, whose king he is (12:13–15), remained blind (12:37–43; cf. 9:39–41), unable to see Jesus» glory which Isaiah saw, which is the light (Jesus» discussion of which frames the comment on their blindness–12:34–36,44–50). Yet Jesus remained God " s agent and standard for judgment (12:44–50). The Arrival of Zion " s King (12:12–19) Earlier passages had introduced Jesus as rightful king of Israel (1:49), but also warned that his «own» as a whole did not receive him (1:11; or that they misunderstood his kingship–6:15; cf. 18:36–37). Both themes are present here, but John is careful to emphasize that his people as a whole would have been more open to him (12:17–18), but that it was the leaders who were responsible for their people being led wrongly (12:19). 1. Authenticity of the Core Tradition That someone would go out to meet with respect an important teacher (11:20), signs worker (12:18) or king (12:13) is not unlikely (see comment on 11:20); that crowds already present loudly welcomed many incoming pilgrims is virtually certain. Yet because Jesus» claim to kingship is often doubted, some are doubtful that the triumphal entry happened. If people hailed Jesus as king, why did the Romans not intervene suddenly? But the Gospels present the grandness of the event in the light of their theology about Jesus» identity; most of the accounts do not require us to suppose an originally large-scale notice. 7803 In the bustle of a city milling with pilgrims, more of whom were arriving throughout the day, the Romans need not have noticed this relatively obscure event. 7804 The Roman garrison was concentrated on the Temple Mount, and Jesus was hardly the only Passover pilgrim welcomed by the crowds already present. More importantly, leaders of the municipal aristocracy, normally charged with keeping peace for the Romans, were also concentrated on the Temple Mount at this season (being mainly priests) and had they been notified of the entry in time to stop it–which assumes a much longer period of acclamation than is likely–they preferred not to act in front of the crowd anyway ( Mark 11:32; 14:2 ). In John the leaders, who are now Pharisees, continue to be concerned about the opinions of the crowd (12:19). |
| Title 130 Q. What is the Orthodox position on the indissolubility of marriage, divorce and remarriage, and why? The Orthodox Church views marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman that is established and blessed by God. Marriage therefore is “a bond of a covenant that may not be broken,” according to the words of the sacrament. And yet the Church, for certain grave reasons, permits divorce and remarriage. This seemingly paradoxical position arises out of, on the one hand, respect for biblical teaching and, on the other, compassionate concern for human weakness. The authority for the unbreakable character of marriage is Christ himself. In Mark 10:6-8, Jesus rejects divorce allowed by the Mosaic Law (Dt 24-14) and appeals to God’s order of creation: “God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Gn 1:27; 2:24). Then he commands: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mk 10:9). The same teaching is found among the radical standards of conduct proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:31-33). These principles are intended for all those who accept Christ’s saving message and commit themselves to live by the reality of God’s kingdom revealed by Christ. The Orthodox tradition has always fostered the ideal of the permanency of marriage on the basis of Christ’s teaching. For example, the great Church Father, John Chrysostom (fourth century), writes, “Both by the manner of creation and by the manner of [new] lawgiving, Christ showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually and never break off from her.” In his book “Against Remarriage,” Chrysostom goes as far as to counsel widows and widowers themselves not to remarry but to remain faithful to their deceased spouses and honor their memory. However, because of human frailty, not all people can uphold the ideal of the permanency of marriage. And the radical principles of the Sermon on the Mount must ultimately be interpreted in the light of the Gospel, not law. In cases of moral failure, the Gospel requires that we respond to people with compassion and forgiveness, not judgment and condemnation. According to the Gospel of Matthew, divorce can occur for reasons of “unchastity” (porneia, literally “fornication”), probably referring to sexual misconduct (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Similarly, though St. Paul mentions the standard of Christ’s strict teaching about marriage, nevertheless he accommodates his pastoral instructions to human weakness, including the possibility of separation and divorce (1 Cor 7:10-15). |
| Иоаннис Каравидопулос Часть I Текст, канон и язык Нового Завета 1. История текста Нового Завета Библиография Casson L. Ot βιβλιοθκες στον ρχαο κσμο. Греч. пер. Αντιγνη Φιλιπποπολου. 2006; Maas Ρ. Κριτικ των κειμνων. Греч. пер. Ν. Χιονδη. 1975; Mioni Ε. ΕΙσαγωγ στν Ελληνικ Παλαιογραφα. Пер. Ν. Παναγιωτκη 15 .1985; Σιγλα Α. Ιστορα τς λληνικς γραφς. 1974; Σιτη Μ. Εισαγωγ εις την κριτικν το κειμνου τς Κ. Διαθκης. 1951; Он же. At δογματικα παραλλαγα το κειμνου τς Κ. Διαθκης. Προλεγμενα. 1960; «Κριτικ τς Ββλου». ΘΗΕ 7. Σ. 1043–1049; Aland Κ. Aibeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung. 1963; Aland Κ., Aland В. Der Text des N. Testaments. 1982 (англ. пер. 4989); Gregory С. R. Textkritik des N. Testament. 1–3. 1900–1909; Metzger В. M. Der Text des N. Testaments. 1966 (англ. пер. 16 2006); Он же. The Early Versions of the N. Testament. 1977; Vaganay L., Amphoux C.B. An Introduction to Ν. T. Textual criticism. 1991. В данной главе даётся краткий обзор истории новозаветного текста со времени его написания до наших дней. Эта история делится на два больших периода: рукописного текста и печатного текста. Пограничной вехой между этими двумя периодами является изобретение Гуттенбергом книгопечатания и издание первой латинской Библии в 1456 году. Более подробные сведения по этой теме можно почерпнуть в двух книгах Брюса Мецгера и в книге Курта Аланда и Барбары Аланд, которые указаны здесь в библиографии. 1.1 История рукописного текста 1.1.1. Из чего изготавливались книги Наиболее древние рукописи Нового Завета, сохранившиеся до наших дней, выполнены на папирусе и на пергаменте, хотя от последующего византийского периода имеются и бумажные (χαρτα) списки. Прежде чем перейти к содержанию рукописей, расскажем несколько подробнее об этих писчих материалах. В древности материалом для письма служил папирус, который получали после соответствующей обработки из одноименного тростника, растущего по берегам реки Нил. Полоски обработанного тростника спрессовывались между собой таким образом, что получался один узкий (около 30 см в ширину) лист, обычно 9–10 м в длину. Этот лист скручивался в компактный и удобный для хранения свиток и последовательно разворачивался при чтении. Известна фраза Каллимаха, который в III веке до Рождества Христова при Птолемее II заведовал Александрийской библиотекой: «Большая книга – большое зло» («Μγα βιβλον μγα κακν»). Например, для Деяний апостольских, одной из самых больших книг Нового Завета, требовался папирус около 9 м длиной. Целиком на папирусе ни одна из книг Нового Завета не уцелела (те 115 папирусов, которые хранятся сейчас в различных библиотеках по всему миру, содержат отрывки из новозаветных книг). Наиболее древний отрывок относится к началу II века (120–125 гг. по Р. Х.): это Р 52 который содержит чтение из Евангелия от Иоанна 18,31–33; 37–38 и хранится в библиотеке «John Ryland» в английском Манчестере. |
| Азбука веры Православная библиотека Orthodox books Contemporary Non-Orthodox Biblical Studies The Gospel of John Пожертвовать Вход Craig S. Keener The Gospel of John Источник 6. Revelatory Motifs: Knowledge, Vision, Signs 1:1-18. The prologue 7. Christology and Other Theology OF ALL THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS of Johannine theology in the discourses, the most frequently noted is his Christology. 2413 As scholars regularly observe, Christology is central to this Gospe1. 2414 Prologues normally set the stage for major themes in the works that followed them, and John s prologue does not disappoint, framed by affirmations of Jesus» deity and relationship with the Father (1:1, 18). Most of the prologue addresses Jesus» identity (1:1–5,9,14,16–18) and the responses of various groups (the world, Israel, and the disciples, 1:10–13); it also offers a model for bold witness about Jesus» identity (1:6–8,15). The rest of the Gospel illustrates these responses to Jesus, especially to his signs (e.g., 1:49; 2:11, 23; 3:2; 4:19; 5:16–18; 6:30, 67–69; 7:30; 8:59; 9:16; 10:19–21; 11:45–46; 20:31), which function as the primary summons to recognize his identity (20:30–31; cf. 14:10–11). 2415 That Jesus was rejected by the world just as they were would be relevant for marginalized Johannine Christians, 2416 and the story of divine Wisdom " s rejection provided a fitting backdrop for the experience of Jesus known to the community. 2417 The Gospel " s radical Christology enabled the Johannine Christians «to undertake their radical commitment to God in the face of dire risk.» 2418 As in other biographies, including the other gospels, the Fourth Gospel focuses on one central figure; over half the verbs in John have Jesus as their subject or are uttered by him. 2419 Unlike most biographies, which express the freedom to critique their heroes» shortcomings (e.g., Arrian Alex. 4.7.4; 4.8.1–4.9.6) and mix some measure of praise and blame (e.g., Cornelius Nepos 11 [Iphicrates], 3.2), John will nowhere critique or imply any shortcomings in Jesus. A discussion of the genre and discourses of the Fourth Gospel, undertaken at the beginning of this introduction, invites particular exploration of John " s Christology vis-à-vis that of the earliest Jesus tradition. Granted that John has represented Jesus in Johannine idiom and for his distinctive purposes, does he accurately reflect and interpret some prior tradition here, or does he simply create new material? |
| 1 Ср. для примера: Hoskyns Ε . С. The Fourth Gospel, London, 1958; Bultmann R.K.Das Evangelium des Johannes. Gottingen, 1941; Barrett С JSf.The Gospel according to St. John. An introduction with commentary and notes on the greek text. London 1955. 2 В первом издании 1941 г., на вкладном листе. 3 Ср., например, detached notes в посмертном комментарии Hoskyns " a. 4 Lagrange M.-J. Evangile selon Saint Jean. Paris 1925. 5 Bouyer L. Le quatrieme Evangile. Introduction a l " evangile de Jean, traduction et commentaire. Toumau, 1955. 6 Lock W. The Gospel according to St. John A New Commentary on Holy Scripture including the Apocrypha, ed. by Charles Core. London. 1928, Part III. The New Testament. 7 Temple W. Readings in St. John " " s Gospels (First and Second series). London 1945. 8 Dodd Ch. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge 1953. 9 Ср.: Bultmann, op. cit., p. 8. 10 Bernard J.Я. Асоттептагу on St. John/The International Critical Commentary, vol. II. Edinburg, 1928. 11 Ср.: Temple, op. cit., p. XXXIII. 12 Ср. особенно: Dodd, op. cit., p. 289. 13 Cp.: Dodd, op. cit., p. 431. 14 Cp. Hoskyns, op. cit., p. 550 и мои статьи, особенно John XXI in: New Testament Studies (vol. 3, n. 2, 1957). 15 В рукописи только знак сноски. 16 Burney С. F. The Aramaic Origine of the Fourth Gospel, 1922. 17 Последнее наблюдение дает перевес той форме стиха 27, которую он имеет в textus receptus и многих второстепенных рукописях. Без слов «который встал впереди Меня», отсутствующих в древнейших кодексах, он не оправдывал бы того ключевого положения, которое ему усваивается в построении Ин. I. 18 Ср. Кипп К. G. Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim/Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, herausgegeben von J. Jeremias und O. Michel, B. 1, Tubingen, 1950. 19 Cp. Lund. Chiasmus in the New Testament (Lund N. S. Chiasmus in the New Testament. A Study in Formgeschichte. Chapel Hill, 1942) и мою статью «К вопросу о построении Молитвы Господней» в «Православной Мысли» (Епископ Кассиан. К вопросу о построении Молитвы Господней |
| 1 закон молитвы (лат.). 2 здесь и далее, если не оговорено иное, цитаты даются в переводе с английского, с того текста, который имеется в оригинале. 3 Epanagoge fou nomou, 9th С., III, 8, ed. С. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, in J.Zepos, P.Zepos, Jus Craecoromanum, 2 (Athens, 1931), p. 242. 4 John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa, IV, 17; PG 94:1180bc. 5 Cyril of Jerusalem, Horn, cat., 4, 36; PG 33:500bc. 6 Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit, 27; ed. B. Pruche, Sources Chretiennes 17 (Paris, 1945), p. 234. 7 Chalcedon, Definitio fidei, Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta (Bolognä Istituto per le Scienze Religiose, 1973), p. 84. 8 Gregory of Nyssa, In Cant. or. VI, ed. W. Jaeger (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 6:182; PG 44:893b. 9 PG 3:1045d-1048b. 10 Origen, De princ., I, 1, 6. Ed. B. Koetschau, GCS, 22. 11 Pseudo-Dionysius, Mystical Theology, PG 3:1048A. 12 Barlaam the Calabrian. Second Letter to Palamas, ed. G. Schiro, Barlaam Calabrö epistole (Palermo, 1954), p. 298—299. 13 Gregory Palamas, Triads, II, 3, 67; ed. J. Meyendorff (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1959), p. 527. 14 Ibid., 53; p.493. 15 Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on EC., sermon 7; PG 44:732d; ed. W. Jaeger (Leiden: Brill, 1962) 5:415—416; trans. H. Musurillo in From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa " s Mystical Writings (New York: Scribner, 1961), p. 129. 16 Цепи (греч.) 17 Согласие отцов (лат.). 18 Ин. 1:14. 19 Цитируется по русскому синодальному переводу. В англоязычном оригинале: «Господь сотворил меня в начале трудов Своих» или «Господь создал меня перед началом трудов Своих». 20 Origen, De principiis, Praefatio 8; ed. В. Koetschau, GCS 22 (1913), 14,6—13; trans. G.W.Butterworth, On the First Principles (London: SPCK, 1936), p. 5. 21 John Chrysostom, De paenitentia, horn. 6,4; PG 49:320. 22 Emile Brehier, Histoire de la philosophic (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1931), II, 494. 23 H.A.Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers (Cambridgë Harvard University Press, 1956), I, vi. |
| ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТЬ РЕЛИГИИ И НАУКИВ СОВРЕМЕННОМ МИРЕ июня 2005 Библейско-Богословский Институт св. апостола Андрея при поддержке John Templeton Foundation проводит конкурс научно-исследовательских и публицистических работ... Библейско-Богословский Институт св. апостола Андрея при поддержке John Templeton Foundation проводит конкурс научно-исследовательских и публицистических работ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТЬ РЕЛИГИИ И НАУКИ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ МИРЕ Цели конкурса Конкурс продолжает традицию, заложенную двумя предыдущими конкурсами ББИ ( " Религия, философия, наука - единство ради культуры " , 2003 и " Богословие, философия и наука: различие путей и единство цели " , 2005). Цель конкурса - привлечь внимание ученых, философов, богословов и священнослужителей к проблемам, вызванным бурным развитием науки и техники в современную эпоху, а также стимулировать поиск новых оснований для установления и развития плодотворного диалога религии и науки в быстро меняющемся мире. Кроме того, конкурс предваряет конференцию " Ответственность религии и науки: современные технологии, окружающая среда, биоэтика " , проводимую ББИ 9-13 ноября 2005 г. в Москве. В этом отношении, предлагаемые участникам конкурса проблемы предполагают последующее систематическое обсуждение в рамках указанной конференции. Порядок и условия конкурса Начало конкурса - 1 июня 2005 г. Для участия в конкурсе необходимо: а) до 1 октября 2005 г. подать заявку, содержащую: Заявка может быть прислана в конкурсную комиссию по обычной или электронной почте. З аявки, содержащие неполную информацию о подателе, Жюри конкурса не рассматривает. б) до 15 октября 2005 г. прислать полный текст работы (объем - не более 40000 знаков в электронном наборе, включая список цитируемой и используемой литературы, не считая иллюстраций, таблиц, графиков; текст работы - в формате MS Word на русском языке, кегль - 12, интервал - 1,5, без переносов). Текст работы должен быть прислан как в печатном, так и в электронном виде. Автор должен подписать печатный текст работы и указать одну из номинаций конкурса (допускается участие одного автора в обеих номинациях - по одной работе в каждой). |
|
|
