| Jean//Le Muséon. 1959. Vol. 72. P. 101-151, 277-299; Wiles M. F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Forth Gospel in the Early Church. Camb., 1960; Pagels E. H. The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon " s Commentary on John. Nashville, 1973. (SBL.MS; 17); Blanc C. Le Commentaire d " Héracléon sur Jean 4 et 8//Augustinianum. 1975. Vol. 15. N 1/2. P. 81-124; M ü hlenberg E. Wieviel Erlösungen kennt der Gnostiker Herakleon?//ZNW. 1975. Bd. 66. N 3/4. S. 170-193; Orbe A. Cristología gnóstica. Madrid, 1976. 2 vol.; Aland B. Erwählungstheologie und Menschenklassenlehre: Die Theologie des Herakleon als Schlüssel zum Verständnis der christlichen Gnosis?//Gnosis and Gnosticism/Ed. M. Krause. Leiden, 1977. P. 148-181. (NHS; 8); Devoti D. Remarques sur l " anthropologie d " Héracléon: Les psychiques//StPatr. 1985. Vol. 16/2. P. 143-151; Poffet J.-M. La méthode exégétique d " Héracléon et d " Origène: Соттепт. de Jn 4: Jésus, la Samaritaine et les Samaritains. Fribourg, 1985. (Paradosis; 28); Bammel C. Herakleon//TRE. 1986. Bd. 15. S. 54-57; Trumbower J. A. Origen " s Exegesis of John 8. 19-53: The Struggle with Heracleon over the Idea of Fixed Natures//VChr. 1989. Vol. 43. N 2. P. 138-154; Kaestli J.-D. L " exégèse valentinienne du quatrième évangile//La communauté johannique et son histoire: La trajectoire de l " Évangile de Jean aux deux premiers siècles/Ed. J.-D. Kaestli et al. Gen., 1990. P. 323-350; Ehrman B. D. Heracleon, Origen, and the Text of the Fourth Gospel//VChr. 1993. Vol. 47. N 2. P. 105-118; idem. Heracleon and the «Western» Textual Tradition//NTS. 1994. Vol. 40. N 2. P. 161-179; Castellano A. La exégesis de Orígenes y de Heracleón a los testimonios del Bautista. Santiago, 1998; Nagel T. Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jh. Lpz., 2000; Wucherpfennig A. Heracleon Philologus. Tüb., 2002. (WUNT; 142); L ö hr W. Valentinian Variations on Lk 12. 8-9/Mt 10.32//VChr. 2003. Vol. 57. N 4. P. 437-455; Il Commento a Giovanni di Origene: Il testo e i suoi contesti: Atti dell " VIII Convegno di Studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina (Roma, 28-30 settembre 2004)/Ed. |
| Tentative possession of Canaan (ca. 1210; described in Josh) Judges (ca. 1200–1025) Deborah (ca. 1125) Philistine victory at Aphek (ca. 1050) Samuel and Saul (described in 1 Sam) David (ca. 1010–970; described in 2 Sam) Solomon (970–931) and the monarchy to ca. 850 (described in 1 Kings) 1st Temple built (4th yr. of Solomon) Ahab (853; year of Battle at Qarqar) Elijah-Elisha and the monarchies through to their destructions (described in 1 & 2 Kings) Amos and Hosea (ca. 750) Fall of Samaria (721) Hezekiah Byzantium founded (660) Josiah (640–609) and Reform Deut Zeph, Nahum, Hab Jeremiah Ezekiel Fall of Jerusalem and Exile (587) Exilic codification of Scripture Cyrus establishes Persian Empire (539–333) Return (538 f.) Hag, Zech 1–8 2nd Temple built (519–515) Zech 9–14, Mal Ezra and the Torah (458) Neh (445/444) 1, 2 Chr, Ruth Joel, Jon Plato (347) Greek Period (333–63 B.C.) Alexander conquers Palestine (333–330) Let Jer (317?) LXX Translation begins Tob (225–175) Bar (200–60?) Sir (before 180) I Enoch (date unknown) Dan (167–164) 1 Esd, Esth (after 164) Jdt (135–105) Qumran founded Additions to Dan: Song of Thr, Sus, Bel (2nd c) Add Esth (114 f.) 1Macc (104) 2Macc (104–63) Letter of Aristeas, 3Macc (ca. 100) Wis, Pr Man (late 1st c.) Roman Period (63-A.D. 135) Birth of Jesus (6 B.C.?) Judaizers Docetists Dualists Jesus’ ministry (ca. 30) Paul’s Letters: 1 Thess, Gal, 1 & 2 Cor, Philp, Rom, Philm Martyrdom of Peter and Paul (64) Jewish Revolt and Destruction of Jerusalem (66–70), Mk Completion of Pauline corpus: 2 Thess, Col, Eph. Lk-Acts Jn, 1–3 Jn 2 Esd, 4 Macc (dates uncertain) Rev (ca. 95) 1 Clement (95/96) Gnostics Montanists Modalists Advent of Rabbinic Pharisaism Roman persecutions Epistle to Barnabas, Didache (ca. 100) Jas, 1 Pet, Jude Ignatius of Antioch (115) Pastoral Letters; 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus Bar Cochba Revolt (132–135); Aelia Capitolina f. 2 Pet (ca. 140) Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 148) Protoevangelium of James (ca. 150) 2 Clement (date unknown, possibly ca. 150) |
| Él enseñaba en sus sinagogas y todos lo alababan» ( Lk. 4:14–15 ). En estas palabras, así como del relato de este evento, se advierte que Nuestro Señor no vino a Nazareth en el comienzo mismo de Su ministerio público como podría pensarse, sino mucho mas tarde, luego de realizar numerosos milagros en Cafarnaum referidos con anterioridad. Por otro lado, los Evangelios de Mateo y Marcos parecen asignar este hecho a un período mucho mas tardío. Un versado intérprete del Evangelio, el Obispo (ahora santo) Teófanes el Recluso, considera que la visita del Señor a Nazareth, relatada por san Mateo ( Mt. 13:53–58 ) y san Marcos (6:1–6) difiere de lo relatado por san Lucas. Es cierto que, a pesar de todas las similitudes, hay en estas descripciones diferencias muy substanciales. Hay que decir que es casi imposible establecer una precisa e indiscutible sucesión cronológica de los hechos de los Evangelios, pues cada Evangelista tenía su propio sistema narrativo acorde con la finalidad propuesta, sin que la cronología exacta fuese un objetivo primordial. Llegado a Nazareth, Jesús entró en la sinagoga y comenzó con la lectura del libro de Isaías, en cuyo texto el profeta se refiere figurativamente al Mesías y al propósito de Su Venida. Hablando a través de los labios del profeta, el Mesías afirma que Él fue enviado por Dios para dar la buena nueva a los pobres y miserables, anunciándoles que el Reino de Dios, el Reino de amor y misericordia está muy cerca de ellos. Los judíos no dudaron que la profecía se refería al Mesías y por ello cuando el Señor Jesucristo dijo: «Hoy se cumple ante vuestros ojos este pasaje de la escritura,» no les quedó otra alternativa que reconocerlo como el Mesías. Muchos en verdad estaban dispuestos a reconocerlo como Mesías, conociendo y recordando los milagros obrados por Él. Sin embargo, entre los asistentes a la sinagoga, también había escribas y fariseos, cuya predisposición era hostil hacia Él, pues tenían una falsa concepción sobre el Mesías aguardado por ellos. |
| Pity the child whose mother did not teach him to pray, and pity the mother who left this sacred duty to others. It is remarkable that children never doubt the existence of God. Their barely sparkling consciousness is nevertheless somehow capable of grasping the idea of Divinity. The Savior’s words, Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes (Mt. 11:25, Lk. 10:21) opens a lawful field for drawing very necessary conclusions. Having begun his religious life early, the infant soul can advance very far in his religious development while yet in infancy. He can contemplate the mysteries in which, for example, the two famous cherubim in the painting, “The Sistine Madonna” by Raphael are engulfed, placed as they are on the boundary between two worlds. There were incidents in the earlier years of persecution against Christians when babes at the breast were eager to go to torments for Christ together with their parents, and thus they became conscious confessors and martyrs. Whoever has had the chance to observe the facial expressions of infants who have just received Communion can catch in these basically inexpressive faces an extraordinary mark of holy purity, joy, and concentration… This feeling that the soul itself has, what it turns itself toward like a sunflower to the sun—all this must be strengthened, cultivated, and deepened in children. From the very earliest, most tender age, children should be given Holy Communion as often as possible, even every week. Like grafting a wild branch onto a good tree, nothing more readily transforms a soul into a cluster on Christ’s vine than its frequent immersion in Christ’s holiness at His table. The famous spiritual father and preacher, Archpriest Alexei Petrovich Kolokolov, once told how his spiritual daughter was given in marriage to a titled man who later manifested signs of mental illness. The doctors were afraid that the children would be abnormal. For his own part, Fr. Alexei offered what he had in his own hands—spiritual medicine. He advised the mother to commune her three boys from that marriage as often as possible from the earliest months of their lives. They all grew up to be healthy and normal men. |
| Die Vergebung der Sünden . Man kann seinen spirituellen Zustand nicht verbessern, ohne sich von den Sünden befreit zu haben. Und da die Sünden von ihrem Wesen her unsere Schuld vor Gott begründen, so kann auch nur Er uns von ihnen reinigen, indem er sie uns verzeiht. Der Herr Jesus Christus, als gleichzeitig vollkommener Gott und vollkommener Mensch Seiender, hat die Macht der Sündenvergebung: „ Damit ihr aber wisst, dass der Sohn des Menschen Vollmacht hat, auf der Erde Sünden zu vergeben , …“ (Lk 5,24). Diese Vollmacht übertrug Er der Kirche über die Apostel, als Er ihnen nach Seiner Auferstehung erschien ist: „ Jesus sprach nun wieder zu ihnen: Friede euch! Wie der Vater Mich gesandt hat, so sende Ich euch. Und als Er dies gesagt hatte, hauchte Er sie und spricht zu ihnen: Empfangt Heiligen Geist. Wenn ihr jemandem die Sünden vergebt, dem sind sie vergeben, wenn ihr sie jemandem behaltet, sind sie ihm behalten “ (Jo 20, 21-23). In der Kirche haben nunmehr die Bischöfe und Priester als Nachfolger der Apostel die Macht der Sündenvergebung. Sie werden für diesen Dienst durch ein Gebet unter Handauflegung durch andere Bischöfe geweiht, die selbst Glieder der über die Jahrhunderte auf den Herrn Jesus und die Apostel zurückführenden ununterbrochenen Kette der Handauflegungen sind. Deshalb beruht die Sündenvergebung nicht auf einer besonderen Heiligkeit oder einem gebeterfülltem Leben dieses oder jenes Klerikers, sondern auf der ihm von Gott verliehenen Vollmacht. Die Voraussetzung für die Vergebung der Sünden in der Kirche ist ihr bußfertiges Bekennen in der Beichte, vor Gott und der Kirche. Das heißt vor der Person des Priesters. Nach dem Absolutionsgebet [dem Gebet zur Vergebung der Sünden] des Priesters verzeiht der Herr Jesus Christus dem Sünder, der in der Beichte unsichtbar und geheimnisvoll zugegen ist. Die Vergebung erfolgt im Sakrament der Buße, dem Bußsakrament . Der Herr bewirkt durch Seine Gnade die Reinigung der Seele des Beichtenden. Das alles geschieht nicht von selbst, nicht gegen den Willen des Menschen, sondern durch seine Mitwirkung, die sich in dem Vorsatz ausdrückt, in Zukunft keine neuen schweren Sünden mehr zu begehen sowie sein ganzes Leben zu überdenken und umzugestalten. Das erfordert große Anstrengungen, denn es heißt: „Aber von den Tagen Johannes des Täufers an bis jetzt wird dem Königtum der Himmel Gewalt angetan, und Gewalttätige reißen es an sich“ (Mt 11,12). Aber mit der Hilfe Gottes ist alles möglich. |
| In the light of Christ, in the light of the Holy Spirit, looking into the depth of the human heart and seeing there an image of the workings of various passions, the holy fathers and teachers of the Church call vainglory a multiform passion, the most subtle and difficult to fathom. All other passions disturb a person's peace and are quickly reproached by the conscience, while the passion of vainglory, to the contrary, flatters the fallen son of Adam, brings him supposed delight, and appears to be a spiritual consolation—a reward for his good deed. All other passions can be directly counteracted by their opposite virtues: gluttony is counteracted by abstinence, anger by meekness, and love of money by generosity. Vainglory apparently cannot be counteracted by a single virtue. Like a thief, it steals from a person his remembrance of God, His unspeakable magnificence, His unspeakable sanctity, in Whose sight even the heavens are not clean (cf. Job 15:15), and draws fallen man into admiring himself with approval and pleasure. I am not as other men are (Lk. 18:11), it says. In its blindness, from its own self-satisfaction, vainglory thanks God, forgetting that fallen man can only be thankful to God when he sees the multitude of his own sins and weaknesses; a vision united with the vision of the Creator's inexpressible beneficence for His creation—perishing creation. Vainglory rejoices when it sees that a person is rich in virtues. It hopes to turn every virtue into a sin; it hopes to make every virtue a cause and reason for that person's condemnation at Christ's Judgment. It attempts to prophecy! It brazenly strives to work miracles, and dares to temp the Lord! Foreign to spiritual gifts, it seeks to represent itself as having them, or at least to induce the suspicion in other people that it possesses something supernatural. It deleteriously seeks to console itself through this deception. It is near the ascetic when he fasts, when he prays, when he gives alms, when he keeps vigil, and when he kneels, attempting to steal the sacrifice brought to God, and defiling it with man-pleasing, to render it useless. It stalks the slave of Christ in the solitude of his cell, in his reclusion. Not having an opportunity to bring the ascetic soul-destroying praise from onlookers, it brings him praise in his thoughts. It paints human glory delusively in his imagination. Often it acts without thought and fantasy; but it can be recognized only by the heart's absence of blessed contrition, blessed remembrance of and contrition over sins. " If you do not have heartfelt lamentation, " said one great father, " you have vainglory. " |
| Epist. 66 (69), 5: The Lord’s words to the Apostles ( Lk. 10:16 ) were addressed to all the Bishops. It should be noted how Cyprian refers to the Apostle Peter as the foundation of the Church’s unity: “God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and one is the throne (cathedra) which the Lord’s word founded upon Peter” (“Deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata”) (Epist. 43 (40), 5). The nature of this one Church founded upon Peter is made clear by a careful study of the passage immediately following: “no other altar can be instituted, no other priesthood can be established apart from the one single altar, the one single priesthood” (“Aliud altare constitui aut aliud sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum altare et unum sacerdotium non potest”) (ibid.). From this it is quite clear that Cyprian has in mind here the proliferation of altars within one and the same local Church because of schisms (besides, it is clear from the whole text of the letter that this is what it is talking about); and consequently the ecclesial unity founded on the one throne of Peter is to be found in the episcopal Church which does not admit a second altar. In consequence, each bishop sits on the one throne of Peter. Cf. also De Unit., 4. In view of this, one is justified in asking whether there is any ground, at least as far as the sources of the first three centuries go, for the view (see also in Archim. S.Harkianakis, op.cit, p.44f.) that the hierarchy “in its entirety” constitutes the successor of the Apostles in such a way that the college or “choir” of the Twelve is shared out in the succession to the particular Bishops. Such a collective unity of the episcopate, a unity by addition which easily permits the maintenance of a special office for the Pope as unifying in his person the College of the Apostles which is parcelled out among the various Bishops, is the underlying basis for the theory which has recently appeared among Roman Catholic theologians concerning the “collegiality” of the Bishops. On this see inter alia the collections Le Concile et les Conciles, B.Botte et al., 1960; and L’Épiscopat de l’Église Universelle, ed. Y.Congar and B.Dupuy, 1962, esp. pp.17–28, 227–328, 481–535, and also J.Colson, L’Épiscopat Catholique: Collégialité et Primauté dans les Trois Premiers Siècles de L’Église, 1963; J.Hamer, op.cit., p.237f.; P.Stockmeier, “Bischofsamt und Kircheneinheit bei den apostolischen Vätern” in Trier Theologische Zeitschrift 73 (1964), 321/35; W.de Ries, “Die Kollegiale Struktur der Kirche in den ersten Jahrhunderten” in Una Sancta, 19 (1964), pp.296–317, and P.Rusch, “Bischof. Die Kollegiale Struktur des Bischofsamtes” in Zeitschrift für Kathol. Theologie, 89 (1964), pp.257–85. On this theory from the viewpoint of the conclusions of our research, see general remarks below (General Conclusions) |
| John Anthony McGuckin Paradise PETER C. BOUTENEFF The Greek Paradeisos (cf. the Persian Pardez, meaning “enclosure”) in the Septuagint refers to any enclosed garden (cf. Num. 24.6 ; Neh. 2.8; Eccl. 2.5 ; Jer. 29.5 ), but remains particularly associated with the Garden in Eden ( Gen. 2–3, 13.10 ; also Is. 51.3 ; Ezek. 28.13 ). In Second Temple Jewish literature (e.g., 1 Enoch 60.8, 23, 61.12; Apoc. Abraham 21.3, 6; 3 Baruch 4.10) as well as in the New Testament ( Lk. 23.43 ; Rev. 2.7), Paradise comes to refer also to the destination of the righteous, whether it is an earthly or heavenly topos. St. Paul’s mystical experience which associates Paradise with the Third Heaven ( 2Cor. 12.2–3 ) has deeply influenced the Greek patristic literature, and is frequently cited. PARADISE AS THE GARDEN OF HUMAN ORIGINS Paradise as the earthly garden in Eden, into which the first-created humans were placed, and which Genesis 2 locates on Earth (in what is modern-day Iraq), is treated variously in the Greek fathers. Theophilus of Antioch, almost unique among the early writers for the absence of a typological (christological) exegesis of the Paradise narrative, is concomitantly almost unique in attempting to pinpoint the chronological dating of the events narrated in Genesis 1–3 (as did Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Chronicle, no longer extant). Conversely, and possibly following Philo (cf. Laws of Allegory 1.43), Origen practically mocks anyone who would interpret Paradise as an actual place with physical trees and chewable fruit (On First Principles 4.3.1). Precisely this notion, however, featured strongly in Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise (Brock 1990). Gregory of Nazianzus is open and provisional in his interpretation: God placed the human person in Paradise, “Whatever this Paradise actually was,” and introduced him to trees which Gregory supposes might represent contemplation (theoria) (Oration 38.12). Contemporary Orthodox theologians tend to follow the fathers in paying scant attention to the question of the physical historicity of the Paradise of Genesis 2–3 , focusing rather on its existential significance or more often on its christological sense. |
| ‘Together we seek to draw the public attention to the suffering of our brothers in the Middle East and North Africa, in Kosovo and Metohija, and now in south-east Ukraine, where the blood of Orthodox Christians is spilt, churches of God are defiled and destroyed, scores of refugees with no roof are exposed to continued danger coming from radical forces motivated by the ideology of ethnic and religious intolerance’. Speaking about the situation in Ukraine, Patriarch Kirill said, ‘The Lord Jesus Christ says, He who does not gather with Me scatters (Lk. 11:23). Therefore we are not surprised to see that those who have renounced the unity of the Church by going into schism are now destroying the unity of their people and country through aggressive propaganda of war, encouraging violence and slurring the canonical Church in Ukraine accusing her of a lack of patriotism only because she calls to peace and people’s accord’. His Holiness also spoke about the unity of the Orthodox Church which should be manifested at the Great Council of the Orthodox Church under preparation. ‘We expect from the forthcoming Council the adoption of documents addressed to our contemporaries – all those for whom the voice of the Orthodox Church has authority and power… We expect the documents to deal with pressing problems of the day, not problem which have become irrelevant things of the past’. The preparations of the Pan-Orthodox Council, he said, should be carried out in the spirit of unanimity ‘so that the Council could have an opportunity to address the whole world with a bright and strong prophetic message. It is such a message that the world expect from us today’. In conclusion of his remarks, His Holiness thanked all the bishops, priests and lay people for having undertaken to come to Moscow for the St. Vladimir celebrations. Metropolitan Apostolos of Mileta greeted Patriarch Kirill on behalf of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and all the representatives of Local Orthodox Churches. He spoke in detail about the historical journey made by the Kiev principality and its rulers to the adoption of Christianity and the significance of the personality of St. Vladimir, who ‘not only asserted Christian faith in the Russian land but also became a reformer who brought in culture, playing the same role as Constantine the Great did for Byzantium’. |
| Juan, severo asceta, no pudo satisfacer con su llamado a la contrición y al arrepentimiento a fariseos y escribas, quienes aguardaban al Mesías como a un gran Rey-Conquistador. Tampoco Jesucristo, Quien a diferencia de Juan, no se rehusaba a compartir la mesa con pecadores para salvarlos, pudo complacerlos. «Mas la Sabiduría ha quedado justificada por sus hijos.» Estas palabras son explicadas por el Bienaventurado Teofilact: «Desde el momento, dice Cristo, en que ni Mi vida ni la de Juan los complace y ustedes rechazan todos los caminos hacia la salvación, entonces Yo – la Sabiduría Divina – estoy justificado ante Mis hijos pero no ante los fariseos.» Por «hijos de la Sabiduría» se entiende al simple pueblo judío, publicanos y pecadores arrepentidos, aquellos que creyeron de todo corazón en Cristo y recibieron Su Divina enseñanza: ellos «justificaron» a Dios y Su Sabiduría, son ejemplos demostrativos que el Señor, fiel y sabiamente, dispuso la salvación de la humanidad. Y a ellos les fue revelada la Sabiduría Divina, inaccesible a los orgullosos fariseos. Recriminación a las ciudades impías. ( Mt. 11:20–30 ; Lk. 10:13–16 y 21–22). Cristo, con gran pena en el corazón, pronuncia Su «lamento» por las ciudades de Corazaín y Betsaida, situadas respectivamente al norte y al sur de Cafarnaum, pues a pesar de haber visto muchos de Sus milagros, no se habían arrepentido. Nuestro Señor las compara con las ciudades paganas de Tiro y Sidón, en la vecina Fenicia, las que el día del Juicio serán tratadas con menos rigor que las ciudades judías. A estas últimas les fue dada la posibilidad de salvarse pero rehusaron arrepentirse, como sí lo hizo en su momento Nínive con cilicio (tosca vestimenta que ocasionaba dolor físico) y ceniza (era señal de profunda contrición permanecer sentado sobre ceniza cubriéndose la cabeza con ella), fruto de la predicación de Jonás. Nuestro Señor también anuncia la destrucción de Cafarnaum por su extrema altanería debida a su prosperidad material. Cristo compara la impiedad de Cafarnaum con la de Sodoma y Gomorra, castigadas por Dios y destruidas con una lluvia de azufre y fuego. |
|
|
