| 4 . Albright W.F. Further Light on the History of Israel from Lachish and Megiddo//BASOR. 1937. 68. P. 22–26. 5 . Albright W.F. The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology//BASOR. 1939. 74. P. 11–23. 6 . Ben-Tor A. Hazor//The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Vol. 3. P. 1–5. 7 . Cooley R.E. Ai//The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Vol. 1. Oxford, 1996. P. 32–33. 8 . Finegan J. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Rev. ed. 1998. 9 . Hoffmeier J.K. What Is the Biblical Date for Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood//Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 2007. 50–2. P. 225–247. 10 . Hawkins R.K. The Date of the Exodus-Conquest Is Still an Open Question: A Response to Roger Young and Bryant Wood//Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 2008. 51–2. P. 245–266. 11 . Livingston D.P. Further Considerations on the Location of Bethel at El-Bireh//Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 1994. 126–2. P. 154–159. 12 . Urgen M. Archeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1954. 13 . Ussishkin D. Lachish//The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Vol. 3. Oxford, 1997. P. 317–323. 14 . Wood B.G. The Search for Joshuas Ai//Critical Issues on Early Israelite History. Winona Lake, Indiana, 2008. P. 205–240. 15 . Wood B.G. From Ramesses to Shilo. Archaeological Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus-Judges Period//Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts. P. 256–282. 16 . Wood B.G. The Biblical Date for the Exodus Is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeier//Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 2007. June. 50–2. P. 249–258. 17 . Wood B.G. The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory//Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 2005, September. 48–3. P. 475–489. 1 Клейн Л.С. Введение в теоретическую археологию. Кн. 1. Метаархеология/Учеб. пособие. СПб., 2004. С. 12–16. 2 Клейн Л.С. Введение в теоретическую археологию. Кн. 1. Метаархеология/Учеб. пособие. СПб., 2004. С. 16. |
| On the occasion of the anniversary of his enthronement, Patriarch Kirill and Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev) sent greetings to His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch. Greeting from His Holiness Patriarch Kirill: Your Beatitude, beloved brother in the Lord and Concelebrant: I wholeheartedly congratulate you on the day of your enthronement. Standing at the helm of the holy Church of Antioch under difficult circumstances in a great trial of affliction (2 Cor. 8:2) you have been doing the courageous and selfless responsible work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). I assure you that the Russian Orthodox Church will always support people of the same faith in keeping with the Apostle’s words whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it (1 Cor. 12:26). I prayerfully wish Your Beatitude the inexhaustible God’s help in your primatial ministry, spiritual and physical health and many blessings from the Lord, holy and true (Rev. 6:10). With brotherly love in the Lord, + Kirill Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Greetings from His Beatitude Metropolian Hilarion of Volokalamsk: Your Beatitude: I respectfully greet you with the anniversary of your election to the see of primates of the Church of Antioch. Your are proclaiming the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19) and strengthening your flock in spirit during hard times of persecution carried out by the forces seeking to uproot the Christian faith in the ancient Biblical land of the Middle East. You are encouraging the people of God to rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, contine constant in prayer, rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep (cf. Rom. 12:12-15). This appeal finds a cordial response in the hearts of the faithful. I wholeheartedly wish Your Beatitude abundant mercies from Christ the Saviour, spiritual and physical fortitude in the Lord, and I wish a just and lasting peace and prosperity to your beloved flock. With respectful love in the Lord, + Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk Chairma of the Department for External Church Relations Moscow Patriarchate His Holiness Patriarch Kirill , Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) 13 февраля 2016 г. Рейтинг: 8.5 Голосов: 2 Оценка: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Смотри также Комментарии Новые материалы Выбор читателей Мы в соцсетях Подпишитесь на нашу рассылку |
| 7 Там же, стр. 100 и 101. См. франц. оригин. стр. 237–238. Почему Христос не называл Себя «Сыном Давида», понятно каждому: объявить Себя «Сыном Давида» – это значило объявить Себя Мессией, Христом, и вызвать в народе ложный энтузиазм, который легко перешел бы в слепой фанатизм: Ин. 6:14–15 . 8 Е. Renan. Vie de Jesus. Paris. 1864. 10 edit. p. 19–20, n. 4. A почему Римская власть могла в то время знать, что указ о переписи вызовет родителей Иисуса в Вифлеем из Назарета в то время, когда Христу надлежало родиться? Родившийся в Вифлеемской пещере от Девы Марии стал известен Римской власти, как Мессия, post hoc, а не ante hoc, когда факт рождения уже был занесен в списки римских чиновников. 9 Antiq. XVII, XIII, 5; II, 1; XVIII, I, 1; XXII, V, 2; Bell Iud. II, VIII, 1. См. А. Ревиль. «Иисус Назарянин». Перев. Зелинского. СПБ. 1909. Том 1, стр. 290–291. 10 И. Т. Сандерлэнд. «Библия, ее происхождение, развитие и отличительные свойства». Перев. с английского. Под ред. Черникова. Москва. 1908. стр. 132. Автор опустил самые важные слова, которыми Ев. Марк начинает свое Евангелие, называя Иисуса Христа «Сыном Божиим». 12 И. Густав Френсен. «Рукописи из романа «Hilligenlei» (жизнь Иисуса)». С. Петербург. 1907. стр. 36 – 37. 13 Л. Н. Толстой. «Соединение и перевод четырех евангелий» Изд. Элпидина. Geneve. 1892. Т, I, стр. 43–44. 16 Проф. Гр. Э. Зенгер. «Еврейский вопрос в древнем Риме». при «Варшавских Университетских Извеетиях» 6 за 1889 г. и отдельно, Варшава 1889, стр. 126 прим, 17 См, Rev. Septimus Buss, Roman Law and History Hn the New Testament (London 1901), p. 18, 21. Глубоковский. стр. 1 18 Это высказывает проф. Emil Schurer в Theologische Literaturre, Hung 1883, Nr. 21, Sp. 481. Глубок., там же. 20 Известный христианский деятель, обращенный из язычников, писатель и апологет христианства, основавший в Риме училище. Он боролся с язычниками и еретиками и написал две апологии, «Разговор с Трифоном» и «Увещание Еллинам о воскресении». 21 Apol. I. Dial. с. Ii. Скворцов. «Жизнь Иисуса Христа по Евангелиям и народн. преданиям». Киев. 1876, стр. 24. Прим. 1. |
| Однако последовали резонные возражения: имена Иаков, Иосиф, Иисус были в те времена весьма распространены среди иудеев, так что можно говорить и о простом ономастическом совпадении. А. Лемер в ответ на эти возражения привел статистические подсчеты: в древнем Иерусалиме в то время проживало не более двадцати человек по имени Иаков, чьи отцы носили имя Иосиф, а братья – Иисус. По мнению ученого, заслуживает внимания и сам факт указания на погребальной урне имени брата усопшего: обычно это не было принято, но в данном случае имя брата служило важным признаком идентификации. По обычаю, того времени, тела умерших хоронили в пещерах; через год, когда истлевала плоть, кости перекладывали в урны из известняка – именно такие, как урна из Иерусалима, о которой идет речь. Святой апостол Иаков, брат Господень по плоти, принял мученическую кончину около 63 г. по Р. X. Следовательно, современные аналитические методы датировки должны подтвердить принадлежность захоронения этому времени. Только тогда может рассматриваться вопрос о его подлинности. 1 См.: Cobern С. М. The New Archaeological Discoveries arid Their Bearing upon te N. Testament. N. Y., Funk and Wagnalls, 1929. P. 413,414. JaunceyJ. Science Returns to God. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1966. P. 89. Vos H. F. An Introduction to Bible Archaeology. Moody Press, Chicago, 1959. P. 10. 3 Albright W.F. The Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Rev. ed. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1955. P. 176. 5 Цифры в квадратных скобках обозначают порядковый номер примечаний редактора в конце главы. – Прим. ред. 13 Meek T.J. The Present State of Mesopotamian Studies//Haverford Symposium on Ar¬chaeology and the Bible. N. Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1938. P. 158. 15 Short A. R. Archaeology Gives Evidence. IVF, L, 1966. P. 9, 14; Dye D. L. Faith and the Physical World; A Comprehensive View. The Paternoster Press, 1966. P. 113–114. 18 FreeJ.P. Op. cit. Р. 41. По мнению других ученых, древнееврейский локоть равняется 49,5 ем, или 55,6 см, или 52 см. |
| The soteriology of both reflects that of early Christianity in general, but they have special nuances in common, some overlapping more with those found in other early Christian sources than others do. Jesus loves his own (Rev 1:5,3:9; John 13:1,34,15:9–10 ), holds believers» fate in his hands (Rev 1and passim; John 10:28–29 ), and declares who are genuinely his people (Rev 3:7–8; John 10 ). Jesus» death and resurrection have cosmic significance (Rev 1:18; 2:8; cf. 3:1; John 12:31; 16:11; 17:4–5 ). Jesus» blood frees his followers (Rev 1:5; 5:9; 12:11), and cleanses them (Rev 7:14, cf. 22:14; 1 John 1:7 ), and is related to a river of life ( John 19:34 ; cf. Rev 22:1). Both have references to piercing dependent on the same Zechariah testimonium (Rev 1:7; John 19:37 ). Both include the vision of God through Jesus (Rev 22:4; John 1:18; 1 John 3:6 ), although Revelation retains the apocalyptic orientation of divine vision from Judaism. The apparent elect may apostatize ( John 6:70 ; Dan in Rev 7:4–8), 1093 wrath is emphasized (Rev 6:16–17; 11:18; 14:10, 15–16; 19:15; John 3:36 ), 1094 and «death» has a spiritual orientation (Rev 2:11, 20:14; 1 John 3:14, 5:16–17 ). 1095 Both apparently transform Jesus» cross into a throne (Rev 5, 22:1; John 12:32–33; 19:2–3,15,19 ). Both works emphasize that salvation (and damnation) are available to all nations (Rev 5:9–10; 7vs. 13:7; 14:6; κσμος in John, esp. 4:42). «Repentance» (Rev 2:5; etc.) is not found in John, but appears in early Christian literature most commonly in conjunction with future eschatology (e.g., Matt 3:2; 4:17), 1096 and John implies it by other terms (his faith and decision dualisms). 1097 They also exhibit parallels in Christology. 1098 Jesus is Lord of history but subordinate to the Father. He is the beginning and the end (Rev 1:17; 2:8; 3:14; 22:13; cf. 1:8; 4vs. 17:8; John 1:1–18 ); this identifies him as deity (Isa 44:6; Rev 1:8; 21:6). He may be the Son of Man of Dan 7 (Rev 1:13, but cf. 14:14), as often in John (esp. 5:27). As in John, Revelation " s Jesus is the divine Son of God (Rev 2:18, although this may strike especially at the imperial cult). 1099 His name is significant (e.g., Rev 2:3, 3:8, 12). Jesus has a supernatural knowledge of the human heart (Rev 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:3, 8, 15, especially with ργα; John 2:24–25; 6:15, 64 ), searching the minds and hearts (Rev 2:23; John 2:25 ). Jesus is explicitly called creator only in the Gospel, but there acts as the agent of the Father (1:3), which does not conflict with Revelation (4:11; cf. 3:14). |
| Although tribulation is occasionally a punishment for errorists (Rev 2:22), it usually applies to believers (Rev 1:9; 2:9–10; 7:14; John 16:21, 33 ). Perseverance (Rev 2:3,19; 3:10; 13:10; 14:12) and endurance (Rev 2:3, 25), are at least implied for both. In Revelation believers are overcomes (2:7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21; 12:11; 17:14; 21:7; cf. 11:7; 13:7; cf. «make war» in 2:16; 11:7; 12:11, 17; 17:14; 19:11, 19; 20:8); in 1 John, believers are overcomers (5:4–5) through a decided event (2:14; 4:4), the finished work of Christ (also John 16:33 ). Both documents have «descent» language (Rev 3:12; John passim) and are permeated by an overriding vertical dualism. Opened heavens signify revelation (Rev 4:1; 11:19; 19:11; cf. 3:20; 5:2–3; 15:5; 20:12; John 1:51 ). Jesus wipes away tears (Rev 7:17; 21:4; 1107 cf. John 20:15–16 ); his followers «go out» (Rev 3:12; John 10:9 ); the righteous eat eschatological food (Rev 2:7, 17; 3:20, 19; cf. John 2, 6, 21 ). The true rest (Rev 14vs. 14:11) of the eschatological Sabbath (Rev 20:2–6; 1108 cf. 1:10; 1109 John 5 ), the eschatological hour (Rev 3:3,10; 14:7, 15; 17:12; 18:10,17, 19; ; vs. Jesus» hour in John, e.g., 2:4), 1110 and the eschatological inversion of the true and false (Rev 2:9, 3:17–18; John 9:39, 41 ) are developed in different directions but found in both. The wilderness motif of the new exodus is also common to both works and seems to cover the entire period between Jesus» first and second comings (Rev 12:5–6; John 1:23; 3:14; 6:31 ; cf. 11:54). Glasson notes the wilderness parallels, and lists the tabernacle, water and light, manna (Rev 2:17; John 6:31–33 ), and palms (Rev 7:9; John 12:13 ); but he also observes that these motifs are present in John but future in Revelation. 1111 While the wilderness itself certainly refers to the present rather than the future age in Revelation (12:6,14), and his contrast between John " s past antichrist (17:12) and Revelation " s future one (Rev 13) is questionable, 1112 Glasson is not mistaken about the different orientation; as he points out, Zech 12applies to the cross in John 19:37 , but to the second coming in Rev 1:7. 1113 The two books are relatively consistent in their different orientations, despite the presence of some future es-chatology in John; but as we have argued above, these differences of orientation need not be (though could be) a decisive argument for separate authors. |
| Revelation " s syntax reflects more traditional Semitic rhythms 1057 because it imitates the style of Ezekiel, 1058 revelatory parts of Daniel, and other prophetic syntax. 1059 Punctuated with such common phrases as «I looked, and behold, I saw,» it is visionary language, 1060 and hence utterly different from the style of a gospel (though John also emphasizes seeing and hearing the eschatological revelation of Jesus in the present). 1061 But the nature of this book so permeates its language that, once this is taken into account, differences in language between the two books are hardly decisive. As Caird point out, «because a man writes in Hebraic Greek, it does not inevitably follow that this is the only Greek he is capable of writing.» He may deliberately adopt such a style, as Luke apparently did with Septuagintal idiom in his infancy narrative. 1062 There is evidence that the writer of Revelation was also capable of writing more sophisticated and less Semitic Greek. 1063 Common Language in Both. Revelation and the other Johannine documents exhibit many common features of vocabulary and sometimes, despite the distinct syntactical characteristics of the respective genres, style as wel1. 1064 «Witness» is prominent in both (Rev 1:2, 5,9, 3:14,6:9,11:3, 7,12:11,15:5,19:10, 20:4); 1065 it is often associated with faithfulness, sometimes to the death (Rev 1:5, 2:10,13, 3:14,12:11, 17:14,19:20; cf. the Semitic sense of «true» in the Fourth Gospel, e.g., 1:14). The «word,» as in the rest of the NT, is normally the prophetic witness of the gospel (cf. Rev 3:10, 6:9, 17:17, 20:4). God or Jesus is true (Rev 3:14,19:11; John 3:33 ), righteous (Rev 16:5; John 17:25 ), and holy (Rev 4:6; John 17:11 ), and his works are «manifested» (Rev 15:4; John 1:21, 3:21, 5 [δεικνω, cf. 2:11, 10:32], 7:3, 9:3, 14:21, 17:6, 21:1). «Works» play a major role in both, referring to human deeds but also to divine acts (Rev 2:2, 5–6, 19, 22–23, 26, 3:1–2, 8, 15, 15:3, 16:11, 18:6, 20:12–13, 22:12; John passim). «Glory» in Revelation is often praise ascribed to God (4:9, 11,5:12,11:13,14:7,15:4,19:7,21:24,26; vs. 16:9,18:7), but is also equivalent to the Jewish idea of the divine yekara or shekinah (15:8,21:11,23). Its semantic range is thus similar to that of «glory» in the Fourth Gospel, although the revelatory Christological sense is lacking in Revelation. |
| 5549 In the Pauline churches, worship empowered by God " s Spirit probably included songs in tongues and interpretation ( 1Cor 14:14–16 ), 5550 and perhaps other sorts of Spirit-inspired singing ( 1Cor 14:26 ; Eph 5:19–20 ; Col 3:16). 5551 Early Christians similarly affirmed Spirit-empowered prayer (Jude 20; Eph 6:18 ). 5552 If Revelation reveals anything about the Johannine circle of influence, it provides some insight into how Johannine Christians would have understood «worship in the Spirit.» John was caught up in visionary inspiration while «in the Spirit» 5553 on the Lord " s day, perhaps in worship (Rev 1:10). 5554 As in other circles, worship often included prostration (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 19:4; cf. 3:9; 19:10; 22:8). John " s visions of heaven are visions of a heavenly temple (Rev 7:15; 11:19; 13:6; 14:15, 17; 15:5–16:1; 16:17; 21:3), complete with ark of the covenant (11:19), altar of incense (5:8; 8:3–5; 9:13; 14:18), altar of sacrifice (6:9; 16:7), and even a sea as in 1 Kgs 7:23–25 (Rev 4:6; 15:2). But while the earth worships the beast and slaughters the saints (e.g., Rev 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4), the scenes of the heavenly temple are mostly scenes of worship toward God and the lamb (e.g., 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4), complete with biblically allusive songs (4:8, 11; 5:9–10, 12–14; 7:10, 12; 15:3–4; 16:7; 19:1–7). If John " s ecstasy in the Spirit allowed him to join the heavenly chorus, it is probable that he expected the Spirit to align the churches in which his revelation was being read with heavenly worship as wel1. This expectation appears elsewhere in early Judaism. 5555 While Revelation does not provide details on such practices as worship in tongues (though it might be inferred from the practice of the Lukan and Pauline circles of churches), it depicts a charismatic, heavenly worship against the backdrop of a life and death struggle. The earthly temple and Holy Land may be temporarily possessed by the world (Rev 11:2), but true worship is continuing in the heavenly temple, as noted above. |
| 7169 With Lightfoot, Gospel, 203. Some also find echoes of Wisdom seeking out disciples (Wis 6:16; Blomberg, Reliability, 156). 7174 Especially in the East, e.g., Valerius Maximus 7.3.ext.2; Chariton 5.2.2; often with connotations Jews would have avoided, Arrian Alex. 4.11.8; Cornelius Nepos 9 (Conon), 3.3; Greeks disliked it because they valued freedom (Plutarch Themistocles 27.3–4; Heliodorus Aeth. 7.19), Jews because they venerated only one God (Esth 3:2,5; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 19:1 ; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 26:35 ; though cf. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 18:2; 24:48; 33:3; 42:6; 43:26 ). 7175 E.g., 3Macc 5:50. The Gentile family of Pentephres προσεκνησαν before Joseph in Jos. Asen. 5:7/10, but Joseph recounts that he προσεκνησα before Pentephris in T. Jos. 13:5. Perhaps this was less complete prostration than Eastern monarchs required (and to which Greeks also objected). 7177 Josephus Life 138; Menander Rhetor 2.13,423.27; Herodian 7.5.4. One ancient Greek form of supplication involved clasping the knees of the person from whom one needed help (Homer il 1.427; Euripides Orest. 382). 7178 Also Hoskyns, Gospel, 359; cf., e.g., T. Ab. 9:1–2; 18:10A. Cf. Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:1, 16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4; such worship was emphatically due only God and the Lamb–not angels (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9) or anyone else (e.g., Rev 19:20; 20:4). 7180 E.g., Sophocles Oed. tyr. 371, 375, 402–403, 419, 454, 747, 1266–1279; Ovid Metam. 3.336–338, 525; Apollodorus 3.6.7. Cf. Phineas in Apollonius of Rhodes 2.184; Apollodorus 1.9.21; M. Perperna in Valerius Maximus 8.13.5. Literal «blind guides» are better than ignoring the gods (Xenophon Mem. 1.3.4). 7182 E.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.18; Plato Rep. 6.484BD; Catullus 64.207–209; Iamblichus V.P. 6.31; 32.228; inferior thoughts about the divine in Porphyry Marc. 18.307. The impious cannot judge piety, for the blind would call seeing blindness (Heraclitus Ep. 4). Platós Socrates claimed to expose the ignorance of those who claimed knowledge (Apology of Socrates in Bruns, Art, 45); less relevant would be philosophers» teaching on the deceitfulness of the senses (Plato Phaedo 83A; see comment on John 8:15–16 ). Greeks usually viewed «sin» in stark moral terms less than most of Judaism did (Euripides Hipp. 615; Aristotle N.E. 4.3.35, 1125a; Nock, «Vocabulary,» 137; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 118). |
| 1 Прилагательное, которое Новоселов здесь использует, можно более точно перевести на английский как theurgic ( теургический). 11 Там же, 7. Новоселов был горячим и бескомпромиссным сторонником афонского движения имяславев (там же, lii – предисловие Полищука). 19 Хомяков не проводит такой параллели, хотя она могла бы подтвердить его интуицию, выраженную в следующей цитате. 21 Как показывает В.М. Лурье в своем комментарии (Хомяков, Сочинения, т.2, 352), даже столь близкий к Хомякову его единомышленник, как Гиляров-Платонов, не мог уверовать в то, что для Хомякова было ключевым, а именно: в небесную природу православной Церкви на земле, при том что во всех остальных пунктах он с Хомяковым соглашался. Различие между существующей в истории и несуществующей идеальной Церковью, проводившееся Гиляровым-Платоновым в пику Хомякову, позже, как считает Лурье, было подхвачено Вл. Соловьевым. 23 Как признается Новоселов, он смог принять и сделать собственной эту мысль только после долгого ее обдумывания и проверки на личном опыте, так как именно противоположный взгляд (который теперь казался ему странным, противоречащим интуиции и абсурдным) был «распространен в современном “христианском” человечестве» (там же, 9-10). 26 См., напр., Serge Bolshakoff, The doctrine of the unity of the church in the works of Khomyakov and Moehler (London : Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1946); Louis Bouyer, The Church of God: Body of Christ and Temple of the Spirit, Charles Underhill Quinn, trans. (Chicago, Ill.: Franciscan Herald Press, 1982), 96 27 Климент Александрийский, Педагог, ed. O. Stählin, rev. U. Treu,1.46.2-3. Климент так истолковывает Ин 6.32-33, 51 28 Именно это тело тождественно, с одной стороны, тому, которому причащаются в Евхаристии, а с другой – мистически понимаемой Церкви: «”Прилепляющийся к Господу есть один дух [с Ним]”(1 Кор 6.17), “тело духовное”», (1 Кор 15.44)» (Климент Александрийский, Строматы, ed. O.Stählin, rev. L. Früchtel and U. Treu [далее Строматы], 7.8 Строматы 8.3); то есть, “святая Церковь” ( τ δ σμα τοτο πνευματικν, τουτστιν γα κκλησα…[ Str 7.87.4]). Ибо «[Христос] есть хлеб небесный и духовная пища» (ср. 1 Кор 10.3).... “И хлеб, который Я дам, есть Моя плоть” (Ср. Ин 6.51), Он говорит -- конечно, тому, чья плоть питается Евхаристией. Или вернее сказать, эта “плоть” есть то самое “тело Его”, которое есть Церковь (Кол. 1.24), ... благословенное собрание» (Климент Александрийский, Извлечения из Фeoдoma,ed. O.Stählin, rev. L. Früchtel and U. Treu [далее Извлечения], 13.1-4, ср. англ. перевод Кэйси ( The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria, R.P. Casey, trans. and notes. London: Christopher, 1934). Я следую Франсуа Саньяру ( Extraits de Théodote,F. Sagnard, introduction, trans. and notes. Paris: Cerf, 1948) в атрибуции этого и других фрагментов, входящих в Извлечения, Клименту. |
|
|
