| John Anthony McGuckin Yannaras, Christos (b. 1935) see Contemporary Orthodox Theology Appendix Foundational Documents of Orthodox Theology Contents 1 Creed of Nicea 650–1 2 Creed of Constantinople 651–2 3 Documents of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 652–9 4 The Definition of Faith of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon 659–60 5 The Definition of Faith of the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople 660–70 6 The Definition of Faith of the Sixth Ecumenical Council 671–3 7 The Definition of Faith of the Seventh Ecumenical Council 674–6 8 The Five Theological Orations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian) 676–734 9 Excerpts from the “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by St. John of Damascus 734–71 These documents are adapted from the source collections presented in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church (series 2), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids; and T&T Clark, Edinburgh. Especially NPNF: vol. 7, 1893 (St. Gregory of Nazianzus), vol. 9, 1899 (St. John of Damascus), and vol. 14, 1900 (Seven Ecumenical Councils). Texts modernized and clarified by the editor. Original text and all secondary references related to it can be accessed from www.ccel.org/fathers.html. Introduction The range of the Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodoxy is immense in both geographical and temporal terms. Its topical coverage, from the front of the alphabet to the end, allows for easy access for a researcher on any major theme that they may wish to follow up. This appendix tries to offer more. It is attached to the main body of the articles, in a sense as if it were the words of the ancients themselves (indeed, that is chiefly in what it consists) telling of the Orthodox faith directly, viva voce, rather than having it presented by contemporary commentators and exegeted in historical context. Both things, of course, are useful and necessary, and should complement one another invaluably. But if someone were to ask, “What are the essential primary texts of the Orthodox faith?” it might be easy enough to answer that here in this appendix one will meet with a good collection of them. Not all of them, by any means, but a representative sample of what the major theologians and dogmatic bishops (fathers) of the early church thought were essential architectural elements of the building. |
| 391 Examples of the former are 1:32–33; 6:10–13; 19:38; examples of the latter, 13:26; 18:28; 19:17; see comments on each. 395 Wright, People of God, 410–11. John is distinctive but more like the Synoptics than like other documents (see Smith, John 21–22; Schnelle, Christology, 229). 396 Burridge, Gospels, 220. The second-century Christians who titled the Gospel (κατ ωννην) classified it with the Synoptics (Burridge, Gospeh, 222; cf. Stanton, Gospel Truth, 16–18,98). 397 See Tenney, «Parallels,» although his parallels between 1 Peter and John by themselves cannot carry the case. 399 Culpepper, Anatomy, 222–23. Davies, Rhetoric, 255–59, thinks Johns audience may have known the Synoptic accounts, but some material John presupposes is absent from the Synoptics. 400 Culpepper, Anatomy, 216–18. This would not, however, be significant for our present purposes if we posited an original Galilean audience for the Gospel (see on provenance, below). 402 E.g., Westcott, John, liii-lxiii; for the last discourses, cf. ibid., lxiii-lxvi; Morris, Studies, ch. 2, «History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel,» 65–138; Lea, «Reliability»; Blomberg, «Reliable»; Wenham, «Enigma»; idem, «View»; Moloney, «Jesus of History.» 403 Albright, «Discoveries,» 170–71. Scholars today generally recognize early and Palestinian traditions in John (Brown, Essays, 188–90). 407 Our sources suggesting that pre-70 tradition explains these «rivers» are themselves post-70, but the tradition would probably not be known to most members of John " s audience unless they had visited Jerusalem before 70. 408 Despite corrections on some points, Dunn, «John,» 299, thinks that «its main findings» will endure. 410 On Jesus» birth before 4 B.C.E., see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 102; discipleship could continue for many years (e.g., Eunapius Lives 461). Streeter, Gospels, 419–24, suggests that John " s chronology, while perhaps imperfect, is all we have, since Mark does not offer one. 412 He argues against the gnostics that Christ was over fifty when he died, though baptized around the age of thirty (2, ch. 22); although this exceeds John " s chronology considerably, it is probably rooted in the Fourth Gospel (8:56–57, with Lk 3:23 ). |
| 3642 For various suggested OT associations, see Olsson, Structure, 70–71. Israel " s «beholding» God in Exod 24could be applied to the Shekinah (Lev. Rab. 20:10, citing a third-century Palestinian source). 3645 See comments on the transfiguration in Keener, Matthew, 437, and sources cited there, esp. Moses, Transfiguration Story, passim. 3654 Cf., e.g., Manson, Paul and John, 133; Du Plessis, « Only Begotten«»; Morris, John, 105; Roberts, «Only Begotten»»; Pendrick, «Μονογενς»; cf. Westcott, Epistles, 169–72. 3656 Cf. Dahms, «Monogens» (also arguing from the LXX that the «unique» view has less support than its proponents claim); cf. Athenagoras 10. The phrase also appears in late apocryphal works such as Apoc. Sedr. 9(ed. Wahl, 42). 1 Clem. 25.2 applies it to the phoenix as unique (Bernard, John, 1:23). 3657 The Syriac, ca. 170 C.E.; Coptic, ca. 200 C.E.; Old Latin, late second century C.E. (Roberts, «Only Begotten, " » 3). 3658 Coverdale (1535) and Tyndale (1525), as against «only begotten» in Wycliffe, Rheims, Genevan, Bishops, KJV, etc. (Roberts, «Only Begotten, " » 2). 3660 E.g., Plutarch Ε at Delphi 11, Mor. 389F (LCL 5:226–27); cf. Mor. 423AB, cited by Wicker, «Defectu,» 165. 3662 Heb 1(in the context of 1:3–9); 5:5 (in the context of 5:6); on exaltation and sonship Christology, cf. Longenecker, Christology, 93–98. 3663 Stevens, Theology, 124. Kysar suggests that John fuses the themes of filial obedience (although this is not merely Jewish, as his words could imply) and a Hellenistic ontological conception (Maverick Gospel, 40). 3664 Against Bulman, «Son.» But Bulman, like proponents of the «unique» view, is right to look elsewhere for the term " s source than to Jesus» birth in the Fourth Gospel, which does not mention it (cf. Roberts, «Only Begotten, " » 5). 3665 E.g., Philo Confusion 63 (πρωτγονον, γεννηθες); the title could also apply to pagan deities (Fortuna as Primigeniae, Livy 43.13.5). Scott, Gospel, 201–2, thinks John " s picture of Jesus» sonship derives from Philós portrayal of the Logos; Borgen, «Agent,» 146, compares the two. Ps 89is probably the background for «firstborn» in Heb 1(Lindars, Apologetic, 211) and Col 1(e.g., Ladd, Theology, 418–19). |
| 3897 Philo Dreams 2.242–243; Worse 117 (the «fountain of divine wisdom»); Flight 166; see Knox, Gentiles, 87–88; Argyle, «Philo,» 386. Cf. 1QS 10.12, in a hymn that speaks of God as the , the «fountain of knowledge and the spring of holiness»; rabbinic Hebrew uses «fountain» and «spring» also with reference to issuing from the womb, but the image here is more likely for the source of water; cf. further 1QS 3.19; 11.3, 5, 6–7; probably CD 3.16–17. Arabic and Syriac A Ahiqar 1(ed. Charles, 2:726–27) compares a father " s instruction to bread and water. 3900 M. «Abot 1(attributed to a pre-Tannaitic sage); 2(attributed to ben Zakkai, though the form is heavily redacted); Mek. Vay. l:74ff.; Bah. 5(allegorizing OT on water); Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; 306.19.1; 306.22–25; »Abot R. Nat. 18 A; cf. b. Ta c an. 7a; B. Qam. 17a, 82a; Gen. Rab. 41:9; 54:1; 69:5; 70:8–9; 84:16; 97:3; Exod. Rab. 47(and bread); Song Rab. 1:2, §3; Origen Comm. Jo., 13.26–29. 3901 R. Akiba in Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Tg. Neof. on Num 21:18–20 ; cf. Belleville, «Born,» 130, arguing that the rabbis used a well as a symbol of Torah more than they used water in general, to bolster her argument that the water of John 3is not Torah. 3903 E.g., Gen. Rab. 71:8; see further Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 163ff. Nevertheless, Jesus the Word never appears as «water» in the Fourth Gospel, but only as its source (so also Culpepper, Anatomy, 196; cf. Lee, Thought, 218). 3905 E.g., Smalley, «Relationship,» 97, although he sees it as less developed than Paul " s. Brown, John, l:cxi, cites Cullmann, Vawter, Hoskyns, Lightfoot, and Barrett as tending toward the sacramental view. 3906 Brown, John, l:cxi, cites Bornkamm, Bultmann, Lohse, and Schweizer as holding a non-sacramental or antisacramental understanding of John. For a summary of the major views before 1945, see esp. Howard, Gospel, 206–14. 3908 MacGregor, «Eucharist,» 118. Ottós parallel with pagan magical sacramentalism depends on Western sources geographically removed from Christian baptism " s origins in the Baptist (see Kraeling, John, 120). |
| 5024 Explicit references to Moses appear far more widely in the Gospel (1:17, 45; 3:14; 5:45–46; 6:32; 7:19, 22–23; 9:28–29) than references to Jacob (only in 4:5, 12) or Abraham (8:39–40, 52–53, 56–58) or David (7:42). The Johannine audiencés opponents seem to appeal heavily to Moses» law to support their position (cf. esp. 5:45–46; 9:28–29). 5027 Odeberg, Gospel, 72 (on 1 En. 70:2; 71:1; 2 En. 1–24; 3 En. passim; Γ. Levi 2; 2 Bar. passim; Ascen. Isa. passim), 73–88 (Hermetic and Mandean texts), 89–94 (rabbinic literature). See also Borgen, «Agent,» 146 n. 4, following Odeberg; cf. Grese, «Born Again»; Kanagaraj, «Mysticism»; idem, «Mysticism» in John; DeConick, Mystics, 67. Talbert, John, 101, thinks 3may counter Christian mystics (as in 1 John 4:1 ). 5028 Borgen, «Agent,» 146; idem, «Hellenism,» 104–5, citing Philo QE 2.46 (on Exod 24:16), which is probably authentic. Borgen, «Agent,» 146, connects John " s «Son of Man» with Philós «Man after God " s image» (Confusion 146; Alleg. Interp. 1.43). 5030 E.g., m. Roš Haš. 3:8; p. Roš Haš 3:9, §§1–6. Cf. deliverance from serpents in response to Jeremiah " s prayer in Liv. Pro. 2.3 (OTP 2:386; Greek, ed. Schermann, 81–82). 5031 Philo Creation 157; Agriculture 108; Alleg. Interp. 3.159; Migration 66. The «belly» frequently refers to pleasure in ancient texts (Euripides Cyc1. 334–335; Longus 4.11; Plutarch Pleas. L. 3, Mor. 1087D; Epictetus Diatr. 2.9.4; Achilles Tatius 2.23.1; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 1.7; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 60.4; 3Macc 7:10–11; 4 Macc 1:3; Syr. Men. Epit. 6–8; Phil 3:19 ; Apoc. E1. 1:13), including in Philo (Spec. Laws 1.148–150, 192; 4.91). 5032 Exod. Rab. 3:12; Tg. Neof. 1 on Num 21:6 . Were the tradition earlier, one might appeal here to the messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15 , attested in the Targumim (McNamara, Targum, 121) and perhaps as early as the LXX (Martin, «Interpretation»). For texts identifying the serpent with the devil, see comment on 8:44. 5033 The identification of the Jewish lawgiver with «the lawless serpent» in Acts John 94 resembles gnostic anti-Judaism and not first-century tradition. Pace some, the source of Epiphanius Haer. 64.29.6 is probably not pre-Christian (Jacobson, «Serpent»). |
| 9442 Dodd, Interpretation, 96. 9443 Cf. Enz, «Exodus,» 213; Dowd, «Theology,» 334 (comparing Moses and Jesus). Moses declares God " s name, glorifying it, in Deut 32 (Glasson, Moses, 77). 9444 Glasson, Moses, 77. 9445 Cf. " holy Lord» (J En. 91:7); «holy God» (Sib. Or. 3.478). «Holy Father» became more popular in early Christian circles (Did. 10.2; Odes So1. 31:5). 9446 Westcott, John, 243. On Jesus» holiness, see 6:69; 10:36; 17:19. 9447 With, e.g., Brown, John, 2:759. 9448 Robinson, «Destination,» 122, suggests that John parallels Jesus with Jerusalem, where God " s name would dwell ( Deut 12:11 ). While such an observation might fit Johannine theology had one put the question to the author (cf. Rev 21:22), there is no direct indication of such a specific allusion in this text. 9449 See comments in Vellanickal, Sonship, 280–81. 9450 Kysarjohn, 258–59. 9451 Rhetoricians classified such substitution of descriptive titles as antonomasia (Rowe, «Style,» 128, citing Cicero Consi1. 4.9; Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 579, citing Rom 5:14 ; Anderson, Glossary, 23, citing Quintilian 8.6.29–30). 9452 Jub. 10:3; 15:26. Greeks and Romans recognized that some offenses, including betrayal (here, of onés people), could merit punishment in the afterlife (Sallust Speech of Gaius Cotta 3). 9453 For discussion of this figure, see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 573–75. 9454 Many commentators suspect that John adapted this figure to realized eschatology (e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 301; Glasson, Moses, 109; Freed, Quotations, 97; Best, Thessalonians, 285), though cf. the correct caution of Quast, Reading, 115. 9455 Pace Freed, Quotations, 97, who therefore cites Prov 24 :22a, though (p. 96) he thinks an allusion back to Jesus» own words in 6:70–71 is more likely (despite γραφ). 9456 E.g., Carson, Discourse, 192, favors this position, but only very tentatively. 9457 We leave aside uses of τατα in the discourse that refer to others (15:21; 16:3). 9458 Cf. similarly 1 John 5:18 ; Rev 3:10. Prayers for protection from demons (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 6:24 ) became common, especially as popular demonological speculation grew. |
| Jesus intimately shares the secrets of his heart with his disciples, treating them as friends, as God treated Abraham and Moses by revealing himself to them. The parallels with John 16:13–15 indicate that the Spirit of truth would continue passing down the revelations from the Father and Jesus to the disciples. Jesus passed on what he heard from the Father (5:20; 8:26); the Spirit would pass on to disciples what he heard from Jesus (16:13). Just as Jesus heard and saw the Father (5:19–20; 8:38), his disciples would see and hear him. (It is doubtful that the Fourth Gospel restricts this relationship to the literal level of visionary experience, but at least in the Pauline apostolic circle, visions were probably part of such experience– 2Cor 12:1 ; cf. Acts 2:17.) 9099 John therefore portrays friendship with Jesus as an intimate relationship with God and his agent, one that John believed was continuing in his own community, and one that no doubt set them apart from the synagogue, which had a much more limited understanding of continuing pneumatic revelation. They are his friends, and therefore objects of his self-sacrifice (15:13), if they do what he commands them (15:14). The paradoxical image of «friends-not-slaves» who «obey» Jesus» commandments is meant to jar the hearer to attention; friendship means not freedom to disobey but an intimate relationship that continues to recognize distinctions in authority. (Authority distinctions remained in patron-client relationships; at the same time, Jesus» complete sharing with his disciples resembles the Greek notion of «equality» in friendships.) 9100 By obeying, they continue to make themselves more open recipients of God " s love, «abiding» and persevering in ever deeper intimacy with God. Disciples as Jesus» «friends» might stem from Jesus tradition 9101 and may have become a title for believers (3 John 15) as in some philosophical groups. 2G. Chosen and Appointed (15:16) Jesus several times refers to the chosenness of his disciples (6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19). It may be relevant that the choosing of apostles or other special groups of ministers appears elsewhere in early Christian tradition; 9102 normally disciples chose their own teachers, but according to the Synoptic tradition, Jesus had chosen these disciples. 9103 Yet John probably invites deeper theological reflection than that observation alone entails, fitting his theme elsewhere of Jesus» foreknowledge (e.g., 1:51; 2:19; 6:70–71). If one argued for an Abraham allusion in 15(I think a Moses allusion more likely), one might also see an Abraham allusion in the «chosen» of 15:16. Jewish teachers commented frequently on Israel " s «chosenness.» 9104 But both in the Bible ( Gen 18:19 ; Neh 9:7; Ps 105:6 ; Isa 41:8) and in some later Jewish traditions, 9105 this chosenness stemmed from God " s initial choice of Abraham. Nor could it be neglected that God had chosen Abraham and the other patriarchs because of grace ( Deut 26:5 ; cf. Deut 7:7–8 ). 9106 |
| 5213 Stauffer, Jesus, 70–71, thinks the parable of Luke 10 genuinely reflects Jesus» view toward Samaritans. 5215 Women " s support of movements tended to reflect negatively on those movements among their critics, including early Pharisaism (Sanders, Figure, 109; Ilan, «Attraction»); this potential for scandal militates against the invention of this tradition by later Christians (Witherington, Women, 117; Sanders, Figure, 109). 5217 See Keener, Matthew, 291; cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 174–75. God " s welcome to sinners does appear in early Judaism (e.g., Jos. Asen.; Dschulnigg, «Gleichnis»). 5219 E.g„ Bonneau, «Woman,» 1252; Glasson, Moses, 57; Nielsen, «M0det. " The editor of the three stories in the Pentateuch clearly intended them to be read together (e.g., briefly, Keener, «Interracial Marriage,» 8). 5220 The two wells were conflated in tradition (McNamara, Targum, 145–46). Brown, John, l:lxi, thinks John may cite Palestinian Targumim in 4:6, 12. 5223 Reportedly Tannaitic tradition in Exod. Rab. 1suggests that Moses rescued them from either rape or drowning. 5228 See our comments on authorship and redaction in the introduction, ch. 3; cf. esp. Johnson, Real Jesus, 100. 5229 Morris, Studies, 146–51; Witherington, Women, 58; Infante, «Samaritana»; cf. Fortnás comments on redaction of the pre-Johannine story («Locale,» 83). 5230 Witherington, Christology, 53–54, tentatively following Linnemann, «Taufer,» 226–33; cf. Stauffer, Jesus, 68–69. Jesus also withdrew from public opposition at various points in the Synoptic tradition (Matt 4:12; 12:15; 14:13; 15:21; Mark 3:7 ; Luke 9:10; 22:41; in John, 6:15). Because the transition in 4 " is very awkward,» it could indicate redaction at some stage (Perkins, Reading, 244). 5233 Freed, «Samaritan Converts»; idem, «Samaritan Influence»; Purvis, «Samaritans»; Buchanan, «Samaritan Origin.» Bowman, «Studies,» thinks John corrects Samaritan ideas. Pamment, «Samaritan Influence,» is right to question many of these arguments. 5234 Besides Lukés interest (Luke 10:33), later evidence may remain of the successes. |
| Like the Baptist and all other witnesses, she must now decrease so Christ the object of faith may increase (cf. 3:30). 5604 This narrative fits a pattern that includes women " s testimony and faith (2:3–5; 11:27; 12:8; 20:18) and may suggest that John, like Paul ( Rom 16:1–7,12 ; Phil 4:2–3 ), 5605 affirmed the value of women " s testimony to Christ (cf. perhaps further 4:36–37), as much as that affirmation would have run against the grain of parts of their culture. 5606 Some doubt that John is interested in paradigmatic roles for women disciples pro or con, his overriding interest being Christology. 5607 While John " s overriding interest is Christology, that Christology has implications for discipleship that do appear to transcend boundaries of gender in this Gospe1. Many other scholars think that John presents positively the model of women in discipleship or ministry (although a number of the studies are geared more toward application or apologetic concerns). 5608 Some suggest that they provide positive discipleship models but not to the same extent as apostles, the official witnesses; 5609 but this proposal appears to read non-Johannine categories into the Gospel, which nowhere speaks of apostles. The women disciples may, indeed, prove more faithful in their discipleship than «the Twelve» (6:70–71); cf. 16:32; 19:25–27. 9. Fulfilling His Mission (4:31–38) Into the midst of the account of the conversion of the Samaritans (4:28–30, 39) the text interjects a theological interpretation of how this conversion occurred in God " s purposes. Jesus» food, his very life, was to fulfill the Father " s will, a mission he then portrays as an urgent harvest (cf. Matt 9:37–38). Despite his physical weakness (4:6), reaching the Samaritans was more important to him than eating physical food. The disciples urged Jesus to eat, which ancient readers would have judged appropriate behavior for them. 5610 Many stories recounted protagonists who, for grief or other reasons, stubbornly refused to eat and had to be urged by those who cared about them; 5611 the stories probably depict something of the reality of ancient Mediterranean mourning. |
| Eppstein, «Historicity» Eppstein, Victor. «The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple.» ZJVW 55 (1964): 42–58. Ernst, «Mystik» Ernst, Jozef. «Das Johannesevangelium–ein frühes Beispiel christlicher Mystik.» Theologie und Glaube 81 (1991): 323–38. Erskine, «Benefactors» Erskine, Andrew. «The Romans as Common Benefactors.» Historia 43 (1994): 70–87. Evans, «Action» Evans, Craig A. «Jesus» Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?» CBQ 51 (1989): 237–70. Evans, «Αγαπν» Evans, Ernest. «The Verb αγαπν in the Fourth Gospe1.» Pages 64–71 in Studies in the Fourth Gospe1. Edited by F. L. Cross. London: Mowbray, 1957. Evans, «Apollonius» Evans, Craig A. «Apollonius of Tyana.» Pages 80–81 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 2000. Evans, «Caiaphas Ossuary» Evans, Craig A. «Caiaphas Ossuary.» Pages 179–80 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, III: InterVarsity, 2000. Evans, «Friendship» Evans, Katherine G. «Friendship in Greek Documentary Papyri and Inscriptions: A Survey.» Pages 181–202 in Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. SBLRBS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Evans, «Isaiah 6:9–10» Evans, Craig A. «Isaiah 6:9–10 in Rabbinic and Patristic Writings.» Vigiliae christianae 36 (1982): 275–81. Evans, «Jesus» Evans, Craig A. «What Did Jesus Do?» Pages 101–15 in Jesus under Fire. Edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Evans, «Jesus ben Ananias» Evans, Craig A. «Jesus ben Ananias.» Pages 561–62 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 2000. Evans, John Evans, Owen E. The Gospel according to St John. Epworth Preacher " s Commentaries. London: Epworth, 1965. Evans, «Messianism» Evans, Craig A. «Messianism.» Pages 698–707 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 2000. |
|
|
