| Craig S. Keener The passion. 18:1–19:42 THE «HOUR» JESUS ANNOUNCED as early as 2has arrived; Jesus is the paschal lamb that John announced in 1:29. Peter Ellis suggests that John " s Passion Narrative fits a chiastic structure, as follows: 9506 A Arrested in a garden, bound and led to trial (18:1–12) Β True high priest tried; beloved disciple present (18:13–27) C Jesus, king of Israel, judged by Pilate, rejected by his people (18:28–19:16) B» True high priest carries wood of his own sacrifice (like Isaac); beloved disciple present (19:17–30) Á Bound with burial clothes, buried in a garden (19:31–42) Because many of the features on which he focuses to achieve this structure are so secondary and because the units may be adapted to suit the proposed structure, the suggested chiasmus ultimately proves less than persuasive. It does, however, evidence some patterns that point to the narrative artistry of their designer. More persuasive is the observation by Ellis and others that irony pervades the narrative. Thus Judas who went forth into «the night» in 13now returns in darkness to arrest the light of the world; Pilate the governor questions if Jesus is a king when the readers know that he is; Pilate demands, «What is truth?» when the readers know that Jesus is (14:6); the soldiers hail Jesus as «king of the Jews» in mockery, unaware that Jesus truly is the king of Israel (1:49), whose lifting up on the cross must introduce his reign. 9507 Historical Tradition in the Passion Narrative We must address some preliminary issues concerning John " s narratives and the history behind them (especially as preserved in the Synoptics) before examining the specific texts in John 18–19 . 9508 Where John diverges from the traditions reported in the Synoptics, we do think likely that John adapts rather than contradicts the passion sequence on which they are based, probably at least sometimes on the basis of other traditions and probably at least sometimes for a measure of theological symbolism. Although, on the whole, we think John essentially independent from the Synoptics, the Passion Narrative is different; John " s audience probably already knows the basic passion story from other sources (cf. 1Cor 11:23–25 ). Their prior knowledge would not render John " s version of the story any less intriguing to his audience, however: stories were told repeatedly in the ancient Mediterranean, and a good story could build suspense even if one knew the final outcome. 9509 John " s very adaptations, at least wherever they might diverge from the traditions commonly known among his ideal audience, invite his audiencés special attention. Where theological symbolism guides his adaptations, it is generally in the service of Christology: Jesus is the Passover lamb (cf. 1:29), who lays down his life freely (10:17–18). 1. The Genre of the Passion Narratives |
| 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) |
| D. Oliver Herbel BIBLIOGRAPHY Introduction Agadjanian, Alexander and Victor Roudometof, «Introduction: Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global Age – Preliminary Considerations.» In Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global Age: Tradition Faces the Twenty-First Century, edited by Victor Roudometof, Alexander Agadjanian, and Jerry Pankhurst, 1–26. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press, 2005. Behr, John. The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 2006. Berger, Peter L. «Orthodoxy and the Pluralistic Challenge.» In The Orthodox Parish in America: Faithfulness to the Past and Responsibility for the Future, edited by Anton C. Vrame, 33–42. Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2003. Bicha, Karel D. «Hunkies: Stereotyping the Slavic Immigrants, 1890–1920.» Journal of American Ethnic History 2:1 (1982), 16–38. Bjerring, Nicholas. «Which the True Church: A Roman Catholic Savant Renounces Rome.» The Sun, January 12, 1870. Bozeman, Theodore Dwight. To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension in Puritanism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988. Breck, John. Scripture in Tradition: the Bible and its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 2000. Brookline, Massachusetts. «Some Further Thoughts on Religion and Modernity.» Sociology 49(2012), 313–316. Calhoun, Craig, Mark Jurgensmeyer, and Jonathan VanAntwerpen. Rethinking Secularization. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Cherry, Conrad ed. God " s New Israel: Religious Interpretation of American Destiny. Revised edition, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998. Ferencz, Nicholas. American Orthodoxy and Parish Congregationalism. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2006. Fisch, Thomas, ed. Liturgy and Tradition: Theological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 1990. Gallaher, Brandon. « " Waiting for the Barbarians»: Identity and Polemicism in the Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Georges Florovsky.» Modern Theology 27:4 (2011), 659–691. |
| The Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles was established by the Orthodox Church to indicate the equal honor of each of the Seventy. They were sent two by two by the Lord Jesus Christ to go before Him into the cities He would visit (Luke 10:1). Besides the celebration of the Synaxis of the Holy Disciples, the Church celebrates the memory of each of them during the course of the year: St. James the Brother of the Lord (October 23); Mark the Evangelist (April 25); Luke the Evangelist (October 18); Cleopas (October 30), brother of St. Joseph the Betrothed , and Simeon his son (April 27); Barnabas (June 11); Joses, or Joseph, named Barsabas or Justus (October 30); Thaddeus (August 21); Ananias (October 1); Protomartyr Stephen the Archdeacon (December 27); Philip the Deacon (October 11); Prochorus the Deacon (28 July); Nicanor the Deacon (July 28 and December 28); Timon the Deacon (July 28 and December 30); Parmenas the Deacon (July 28); Timothy (January 22); Titus (August 25); Philemon (November 22 and February 19); Onesimus (February 15); Epaphras and Archippus (November 22 and February 19); Silas, Silvanus, Crescens or Criscus (July 30); Crispus and Epaenetos (July 30); Andronicus (May 17 and July 30); Stachys, Amplias, Urban, Narcissus, Apelles (October 31); Aristobulus (October 31 and March 16); Herodion or Rodion (April 8 and November 10); Agabus, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon (April 8); Hermas (November 5, November 30 and May 31); Patrobas (November 5); Hermes (April 8); Linus, Gaius, Philologus (November 5); Lucius (September 10); Jason (April 28); Sosipater (April 28 and November 10); Olympas or Olympanus (November 10 ); Tertius (October 30 and November 10); Erastos (November 30), Quartus (November 10); Euodius (September 7); Onesiphorus (September 7 and December 8); Clement (November 25); Sosthenes (December 8); Apollos (March 30 and December 8); Tychicus, Epaphroditus (December 8); Carpus (May 26); Quadratus (September 21); Mark (September 27), called John, Zeno (September 27); Aristarchus (April 15 and September 27); Pudens and Trophimus (April 15); Mark nephew of Barnabas, Artemas (October 30); Aquila (July 14); Fortunatus (June 15) and Achaicus (January 4). |
| Craig S. Keener Conflict Over the Healing of a Blind Man. 9:1–10:21 This narrative demonstrates Jesus» claims in the previous context and chronologically follows directly on Jesus» departure from the temple on the last day of the festival (7:37; 8:59). It probably begins not far from the temple (cf. 9:7). This section opens with the healing of a blind man (9:1–7) and closes with the recognition that this miracle was not what one expected from a demon (10:21). The narrative between includes Pharisaic charges that Jesus» healing cannot be from God (9:16,22,24), a response from the formerly blind man that challenges the logic of their paradigm (9:25, 27, 31–33), and a response from Jesus, who reverses the charge and shows that it is his opponents who are not from God (9:40–10:18). 7009 Jesus» claim in this section to be the good shepherd (10:11) implicitly advances his previous claim to deity (8:58). Blindness and Sin (9:1–34) Contrary to what the elite supposed (9:34), the man was not born blind due to a sin (9:2–3), nor was his healer a sinner (9:16, 24); by contrast, the elite themselves are sinful and spiritually blind (9:39–41). The true connection between blindness and sin links together the entire section 9:1–41. But because 9:40–41 begin the response to the Pharisees which is continued in 10:1–18 and 9:35–39 begins Jesus» defense of the healed man, we have limited the first section to the material directly related to the healing and responses to it (9:1–34). The following section (9:35–10:18) traces Jesus» own response to the varied responses to his act, especially the responses of the healed man and the Jerusalem elite. Moreover, the contrast between physical and spiritual blindness (dependence on Christ and opposition to him) of 9:39–41 is already implicit at the beginning of this section. Jesus became invisible in some sense to his enemies in 8:59, so they could not see him; but here Jesus cures a man physically blind and so despised by his enemies (9:2, 34). (Indeed, worldly evaluations of the reasons for blindness form an inclusio around Jesus» healing and the man " s fidelity to him; 9:2, 34.) Epistemological terms («know») dominate the dialogue scenes and probably provide the metaphoric meaning of «sight» language also prominent in the chapter. 7010 |
| Craig S. Keener The close of the Gospel. 21:24–25 MANY SCHOLARS THINK THAT the emphasis on the conditional nature of the questions (21:22–23) suggests that disappointment with the beloved disciplés death existed in the early church. 10963 That is, Jesus apparently said something about some disciples remaining until he returned, which the Synoptics already apply to the transfiguration ( Mark 9:1–2 ; Matt 16:28–17:2; Luke 9:27–29); the death of the last disciple could well provoke some confusion about the meaning of such a saying. In such a case, 21:24–25 would likely constitute a later addition to the text (especially if one accepts the rest of ch. 21 as part of the Gospel), which is the view of most scholars. It can read like a miniature letter of recommendation (cf. Rom 16:2 ; 1Cor 4:17; 16:10 ; Phil 2:19 ; Col 4:7; Phlm 17; 3 John 12 ). 10964 At the same time, the disciple himself could issue the same sort of warning as he was recognizing his age and impending death; the Lord might well not return in his lifetime. If the disciple remains alive at the time of the Gospel " s completion, this could help explain the present tense of μαρτρων in 21:24, 10965 although one could also interpret 21otherwise (e.g., the disciplés witness continues to live even if the disciple does not; see comment on 19:35). The community («we») may second the verdict of the singular voice in 19:35, which commends the truth of the beloved disciplés witness, unless this represents an editorial «we,» 10966 which many argue, on the basis of Johannine style in general, seems less likely. 10967 The concluding verse (21:25) harks back to 20:30, 10968 suggesting that it stems either from the author or from those close enough to the author to understand and articulate his mind. At least the plural in 21:24, however, would seem to represent others, 10969 perhaps the Johannine circle of disciples, 10970 confirming the veracity of the beloved disciplés witness. 10971 Ancient Mediterranean legal documents typically listed witnesses at the end of the document, 10972 just as the book (perhaps of life?) in Revelation is sealed with seven attesting seals. 10973 Nonlegal documents could also follow the legal pattern and cite a past figurés saying as if citing a closing legal testimony (Seneca Nat. 5.18.16). |
| The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America issues Statement, Petitions on the Holy and Great Council Source: OCA The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America Statement on the Holy and Great Council to be convened on the Island of Crete June 16-27, 2016 We greet you in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Way and the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). For many decades, the Orthodox Church has witnessed the efforts to assemble a Holy and Great Council as a contemporary witness to the Holy Orthodox Faith. The initiative in this modern endeavor belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras. The long pilgrimage toward the Holy and Great Council began in the 1960s. There were long pauses in this pilgrimage, followed by a renewed period of intense preparation at the initiative of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Through the decades, Pan-Orthodox conferences, consultations, and meetings of patriarchs and primates have revised the list of topics. During recent months, as the churches have reviewed draft documents and reflected on their formulations, new proposals have been brought forth and fresh disagreements have arisen. Even at this late stage, participation in the Holy and Great Council is uncertain, and its outcome is equally uncertain. In the midst of all this uncertainty, there is one certainty: the Orthodox Church in America, not being universally recognized as an autocephalous church, is not invited to be a participant. Our reaction to this is one of sadness, but not alienation. With gratitude to God, we affirm our identity as the Orthodox Church in America. We also affirm with gratitude to God our autocephaly, as granted to us by the Russian Orthodox Church, and as recognized by the Churches of Georgia, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia. We affirm with profound gratitude to God our Eucharistic communion with all Orthodox Churches, beginning with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. We therefore accept and affirm our right and duty to accompany the Holy and Great Council with love and reflection and prayer. |
| 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 Revelation of Jesus. 16:5-33 18:1-20:31. The passion and resurrection Jesus» prayer for disciples. 17:1–26 HERE JESUS SHIFTS FROM ADDRESSING the disciples to addressing the Father (17:1–26); after he returns to bestow the Spirit in 20:19–23, the disciples will pray directly to the Father for themselves (16:23–26) because he will have given them a new relationship with the Father (16:27) based on his own (16:28). Nevertheless, this prayer undoubtedly provides a model for their own; disciples concerned with their Lord " s agendas ought to place a high priority on unity with other disciples. Just as such unity would have helped them through the crisis imminent during Jesus» prayer (cf. 16:31–32), it would give believers victory in their continuing conflict with the world (16:33; cf. 13:35; 15:18–27). For comments on ancient prayer and believers praying as Jesus» representatives, see 14:13–14; cf. also comment on Jesus» prayer in 11:41–42. Introductory Issues Käsemann emphasizes the testamentary character of ch. 17, 9382 but as we have remarked earlier, the testament as a whole begins in ch. 13. Where the testamentary genre is most relevant to ch. 17 is the frequency of blessings and wish-prayers in testaments (e.g., Gen 49 ; Deut 32–33 ). 9383 That John closes the previous section of the last discourse before opening this prayer (τατα λλησεν, 17:1) suggests the prayer " s special significance for John " s audience. 9384 Käsemann rightly notes that much of the Gospel " s theology climaxes in this concluding section of Jesus» final discourse in the Gospel, 9385 though one should note that many other passages also provide prisms that refract larger cross sections of Johannine theology. As Minear points out, this prayer represents «the decisive turning point between ministry and passion,» viewing the hour of Jesus» glorification «both proleptically and retrospectively.» 9386 |
| 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 |
| разделы рассылка распечатать Хронологическая библиография " Царского Дела " 1989-1998 годов Составители Л.Е.Болотин и В.В.Архипов 1989 Gray John. Queen accepts invitation to visit Moscow//Globe and Mail. 08.04.1989. Кабаков А. Земля выдала тайну. Интервью с Г.Рябовым//Московские новости. 12.04.1989, 16. Writer found czar’s body.//The Toronto Sun – Moscow (Reuter). 13.04.1989. Bodies of czar’s family found, Soviet says. Mutilated remains discovered in 1979, but writer was afraid to tell worid//Globe and Mail – Moscow (Reuter). 13.04.1989. Czar’s nephew wants shrine//The Toronto Sun. 20.04.1989. Killing of Romanovs described//Globe and Mail – London (Reuter). 24.04.1989. Рябов Гелий. " Принуждены вас расстрелять... " (начало)//Родина. 1989, апрель, 4. Иоффе Генрих. Дом особого назначения (начало)//Родина. 1989, апрель, 4. Ловелль Джеймс Блер//Нью-Йорк Таймс. 1989, апрель. Bertoldi Silvio. Anastasia non si salvó: le sue ossa lo dimostrano. Al giallo dei romanov si aggiunge un nuovo capitolo//Oggi. 10.05.1989. Bлaдuмipob К. (о находке Г.Т.Рябова)//Новое русское слово. 18.05.1989. Радзинский Э.С. Расстрел в Екатеринбурге//Неделя. 15.05.1989, 20. Радзинский Э.С. Расстрел в Екатеринбурге//Огонек. 20.05.1989, 21 (3226). Гришин Дмитрий, Подшивалов Иван. В подвалах Кремля лежит прах Софии Палеолог и еще пятидесяти одной царицы и царевны//Московские новости. 21.05.1989, 21. Рябов Гелий. " Принуждены вас расстрелять... " (окончание)//Родина. 1989, май, 5. Иоффе Генрих. Дом особого назначения (окончание)//Родина. 1989, май, 5. Очередная сенсация вокруг имени Царской Семьи//Церковные новости (Нью-Йорк). 1989, май, 2. Зиновьев Г.Е. Воспоминания//Известия ЦК КПСС. 1989, май, 5. Крылов А. Последний лейб-медик//Медицинская газета. 11.06.1989. Создана комиссия//Московский литератор. 23.06.1989, 27. Радзинский Э.С. По страницам советской печати. Расстрел в Екатеринбурге//Православная Русь. 28.06.1989, 12 (1393). Гришин Дмитрий, Подшивалов Иван. В подвалах Кремля лежит прах Софии Палеолог и еще пятидесяти одной царицы и царевны//Православная Русь. 14.07.1989, 13 (1394). |
|
|
