| 363 A. M. Farrer in Muddiman, «John " s Use»; cf. Gundry, Matthew, 2. Although the case for Matthew is not certain, it is often affirmed: e.g., Goppelt, «Church in History,» 198; Zumstein, «Antioche»; Gundry, Matthew, 609; Ellis, Matthew, 6; Hengel, Acts, 98; some opt for Palestine, e.g., Viviano, «Matthew.» For the suggestion of Matthew " s Sitz im Leben as conflict with Yavneh or neo-Pharisaic authorities, resembling the scenario often proposed for John, cf. Davies, Setting, and Tilborg, Leaders. 364 See the thorough treatment of scholars» perspectives on the relationship between John and Luke in Smith, John Among Gospels, 85–110. For agreements with Acts, see Cribbs, «Agreements.» 366 Eller, Disciple, 47. For the thesis that Luke may have used John in his Passion Narrative, see Maison, Dialogue. 367 See Myllykoski, «Luke and John,» esp. 152; for the thesis of a common document on which they depend, see Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 1:15. 368 E.g., Streeter, Gospels, 393–426 (plus Lukés Passion Narrative). MacGregor, John, x, thinks this «can hardly be questioned,» though he does not presume that John had Mark directly in front of him. 369 Vogler, «Johannes als Kritiker.» Some writers did critique predecessors (see, e.g., Diodorus Siculus 1.3.1–2; Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 67); others, however, sought merely to supplement them (cf. Xenophon Apo1. 1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.1.1). 370 Stein, «Agreements.» Cf. Smith, Johannine Christianity, 12: though Bent Noack has overstated the case, the parallels may indicate oral traditions that the Johannine and Synoptic communities held in common. 371 Cf. Borgen, «Passion Narrative,» 259. But much of their redaction could also depend on prior common tradition. 372 Barrett, «Synoptic Gospels,» allows that John had something akin to Mark, but that he only alluded to the material rather than depending on it as Matthew and Luke did. But John " s use of Mark may have been even less significant than this, given other available sources (cf. Luke 1:1) and above all his own independent tradition. |
| Culpepper R. A. Mark. Macon (Ga.): Smyth and Helwys Publishing, 2007. (SCHBC). Ellis Е. Е. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Eerdmans, 1974. (New Century Bible). Fitzmyer, J. A. The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV). Garden City (N.Y.): Doubleday, 1985. (Anchor Bible; vol. 28a). France R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Eerdmans, 2007. (NICNT). Geddert T. J. Mark. Scottdale (Pa.): Herald Press, 2001. (BCBC). Geddert T. J. Watchwords. Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Gentry K. L . The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. Brentwood (Tenn.): Apologetics Group, 2010. Green J. B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Eerdmans, 1997. (NICNT). Hagner D. A. Matthew 14–28. Dallas (Tex.): Word Books Publisher, 1995. (WBC; vol. 33b). Johnson L. T. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Eerdmans, 1997. Lane W. L. The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Eerdmans, 1974. (NICNT). Liddell H. G. , Scott R . A Greek-English Lexicon. With a Revised Supplement. New York (N.Y.): Oxford University Press, 1996. Lohmeyer E. Das Evangelium des Markus. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1957. McKelvey R. J. The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament. London: Oxford University Press, 1969. Moloney F. J. The Gospel of Mark. Peabody (Mass.): Hendrickson, 2002. Porter S. E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Biblical Languages: Greek 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Parkhurst J. A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament. London: Gilbert and Rivington, 1845. Ridderbos H. The Coming of the Kingdom. Philadelphia (Pa.): Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962. Russell J. S. The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming. London: Forgotten Books, 2018. Sproul R. C. Mark: An Expositional Commentary. Orlando (Fla.): Reformation Trust Publishing, 2019. Stein R. H. Luke. Nashville (Tenn.): Broadman, 1992. (NAC; vol. 24). |
| Granted, Matthew and Luke exercise freedom in arranging and editing Mark and other sources that they share in common; but this editing must be judged minimal by ancient standards, not affecting the content as substantially as those who cite this «freedom» often assume. 291 That the Gospel writers themselves saw such variation as within their permissible range may be suggested by Lukés triple recounting of Paul " s conversion with differences in details each time, though the core of the story remains the same. 292 Where Mark and «Q» overlap (e.g., Mark 1:7–13 with Matt 3:7–4:ll/Luke 3:7–17, 4:1–13; Mark 3:22–27 with Matt 12:24–30/Luke 11:15–23), one gains a similar impression of Mark " s faithfulness to the preexisting tradition. 293 Although the differences in the accounts may be more striking to a reader accustomed to harmonizing the Gospels, the points of comparison are generally far more striking when one takes into account that the first three gospels were written at different times, from different possible sources, and to different audiences. Furthermore, even at their latest possible date of composition, they derive from a period close to the events, when the influence of eyewitnesses of the events remained prominent in the early church. Some scholars may place the dates too early, but even on the consensus datings of the Gospels, they must stem from a period when eyewitness testimony remained central to the church, 294 and at least Luke seems to have had direct access to eyewitness corroboration for some of his traditional material (1:1–4). Ancient rhetoricians regularly attack the credibility of witnesses for a contrary position (e.g., Josephus Life 356), and courts sometimes dismissed the reliability of some kinds of witnesses on account of their gender or social status. 295 One would, however, be hard-pressed to view the earliest disciples» witness as fabrication, given the price they were prepared to pay for it. 296 Luke also claims to have investigated matters thoroughly (1:3). |
| 1451 Lucian Pereg. 11 (Loeb 5:12–13); but Tiede, Figure, 85, is all too accurate when he calls this passage «perplexing.» Wilken, «Christians,» 119–23, notes that outsiders recognized Christianity " s Jewish roots well into the third century. 1454 E.g., Smallwood, Rule, 539; Reinhold, Diaspora, 74; Selwyn, Peter, 51; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 6. 1455 Rome treated it as a collegium rather than a religio; see Rajak, «Charter»; Parkes, Conflict, 8; Koester, Introduction, 1:365. For general information on their status, cf. Rabello, «Condition»; Applebaum, «Status»; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 92–105. 1456 See Pucci Ben Zeev, «Position»; cf. Aune, Revelation, 169–72; Witherington, Acts, 541–44. Some cities had challenged these rights, but rarely in the preceding century (Trebilco, Communities, 13,183–84). 1460 Cf. Luke (Kent, Jerusalem, 17; Bruce, Commentary, 20–24); this may be why Acts 18omits mention of the reasons Suetonius later cites for Claudius " s expulsion. 1463 E.g., Borchert, John, 72; some suggest that Christians in Galatia may have accepted circumcision to escape the demands of the imperial cult (Winter, Welfare, 133–43). For persecution in John " s Sitz im Leben, see Minear, «Audience,» 340–41; cf. Kysar, Evangelist, 153. 1465 Foakes Jackson and Lake, «Evidence,» 183–84; Aune, Environment, 137. For this practice in antiquity in Judaism, cf., e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.1,58–59,103–105; Justin 1 Apo1. 44; Parke, Sibyls, 8; Mason, Josephus and NT, 196–98; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 349; Hengel, Judaism, 1:93. 1466 Some accuse Luke of anti-Judaism (Sandmel, Anti-Semitism, 100; Klausner, Paul, 229; Slingerland, «Jews»; cf. Hare, «Rejection,» 27). More likely, Luke-Acts merely emphasizes the veracity and Jewishness of Christianity, despite much of Judaism " s rejection (Brawley, Jews, 158–59); Lukés portrayal of the Pharisees (Brawley, Jews, 84–106) and the Jewish people (Brawley, Jews, 133–54; cf. Jervell, Luke, 44, 49; Stowers, «Synagogue»; Hengel, Acts, 63–64) is essentially positive (contrast Justin Martyr). The Christianity of Luke-Acts may have been sectarian like other early Jewish movements, but this hardly makes it anti-Semitic (see Donaldson, «Typology»). |
| (Presented on April 2, 2013 at Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, NY at the annual Pastoral Retreat of the Eastern American Diocese of the Russian Church Abroad). 1. Renovationism – a schismatic movement that officially appeared after the February Revolution of 1917. Its declared goals were democratization of the administration and modernizations of Divine Services. It stood in opposition Patriarch Tikhon’s administration of the Church. From 1922 to 1926, the movement was the sole Orthodox Church organization officially recognized by the government authorities of the RSFSR. When the Renovationist Movement was at its most influential – during the mid-1920s – more than half of the Russian episcopate and parishes were subject to the Renovationist administrative structure. 2. In May 1923, the exiled Bishop Andrey (Ukhtomsky) of Ufa arrived in Tashkent, having recently met with Patriarch Tikhon, by whom he was appointed Bishop of Tomsk and given the right to elect candidates to the episcopacy and consecrate them in secret. Soon after, Valentin Felixovich was tonsured a monk in his own bedroom with the name Luke, and then named Bishop of Barnaul, vicar of the Tomsk Diocese. Inasmuch as two or three bishops are required for a valid episcopal consecration, Valentin Felixovitch traveled to the city of Panjakent, close to Samarkand, where two hierarchs lived in exile – Daniel (Troitsky), Bishop of Volkhovo, and the Bishop of Suzdal. The consecration of Archbishop Luke with the title Bishop of Barnaul took place on May 31, 1923, and, when informed of it, Patriarch Tikhon declared it valid. Literary sources: Popovsky, Mark. The Life and Vita of Voino-Yasenetsky, Archbishop and Surgeon. – Paris: YMCA-Press. 1979. Voino-Yasenetsky, V.F. (Archbishop Luke). I Came to Love Suffering… An Autobiography. – Moscow: Publication of the Sisterhood of Holy Hierarch St. Ignaty of Stavropol. 2008. Lisichkin, Vladimir. Luke, Beloved Physician. – Moscow: Publications Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2009. |
| Gött., 1970; Lohfink G. Die Himmelfahrt Jesu. Münch., 1971; idem. Die Sammlung Israels. Münch., 1975; Schramm T. Der Markus Stoff bei Lukas. Camb., 1971; Das Lukasevangelium/ Hrsg. G. Braumann. Darmstadt, 1974; März C. P. Das Wort Gottes bei Lukas. Lpz., 1974; Wilckens U. Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 19743; Busse U. Die Wunder des Propheten Jesus. Stuttg., 1977; Ernst J., Schmid J. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Regensburg, 1977; Gräser E. Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte. B.; N. Y., 19773; Schneider G. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Gütersloh, 1977, 19842. Bd. 3/2; idem. Lukas: Theologe der Heilsgeschichte. Königstein, 1985; Marshall I. H. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, 1978; Jeremias J. Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums. Gött., 1980; Nützel J. M. Jesus als Offenbarer nach den lukanischen Schriften. Würzburg, 1980; Schmithals W. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Zürich, 1980; Fitzmyer J. A. The Gospel according to Luke: Introd., transl. and notes. N. Y., 1981-1985. Vol. 1-2; Maddox R. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Gött., 1982; Schweizer E. Zur Frage der Quellenbenutzung durch Lukas// Idem. NT und Christologie im Werden. Gött., 1982. S. 33-85; idem. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Gött., 19862; Taeger J.-W. Der Mensch und sein Heil: Stud. z. Bild des Menschen und zur Sicht der Bekehrung bei Lukas. Gütersloh, 1982; Wilson S. G. Luke and the Law. Camb., 1983; Bovon F. Lukas in neuer Sicht. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1985; idem. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Zürich; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1989-2001. 3 Bde; idem. Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research (1950-2005). Waco (Tex.), 2005; Ernst J. Lukas: Ein theologisches Portrait. Düss., 1985; Rese M. Das Lukas Evangelium: Ein Forschungsbericht//ANRW. 1985. Ser. 2. Bd. 25/3. S. 2258-2328; Horn F. W. Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas. Gött., 19862; Klinghardt M. Gesetz und Volk Gottes. |
| Johnson, «Adam» Johnson, M. D. Introduction to «Life of Adam and Eve.» OTP 2:249–57. Johnson, " Delatorum» Johnson, Gary J. «De conspiratione delatorum: Pliny and the Christians Revisited.» Latomus 47 (1988): 417–22. Johnson, Genealogies Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: With Special reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. 2d ed. SNTSMS 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Johnson, Possessions Johnson, Luke Timothy. Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Johnson, Prayer Johnson, Norman B. Prayer in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. SBLMS 2. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1948. Johnson, Real Jesus Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996. Johnson, «Slander» Johnson, Luke Timothy. «The New Testament " s Anti-Jewish Slander and Conventions of Ancient Rhetoric.» JBL 108 (1989): 419–41. Johnson, Writings Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Johnston, Ephesians Johnston, George. Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Century Bible. Greenwood, S.C.: Attic Press, 1967. Johnston, Parables Johnston, Robert M. «Parabolic Interpretations Attributed to Tannaim.» Ph.D. diss., Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1977. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International, 1978. Johnston, «Sabbath» Johnston, Robert M. «The Eschatological Sabbath in John " s Apocalypse: A Reconsideration.» Andrews University Seminary Studies 25 (1987): 39–50. Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete Johnston, George. The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. SNTSMS 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Johnston, «Version» Johnston, Edwin D. «The Johannine Version of the Feeding of the Five Thousand–an Independent Tradition?» NTS 8 (1961–1962): 151–54. Johnstone, «Paraclete» Johnstone, G. Patrick. «The Promise of the Paraclete.» BSac 127 (1970): 333–45. |
| Whatever their sources, writers would likely normally pay careful attention to how they arranged their material, especially given the importance of arrangement even in oral discourse. 55 Some ancient writers recommended connecting episodes to provide continuity, 56 a practice followed by Mark (cf. 1:14–39). Others like Polybius, however, allowed disjunctions in their narratives, although recognizing that some disagreed with their practice. 57 This may explain the breaks in John " s narrative, which is structured more chronologically (following Jerusalem festivals) than the Synoptics. 58 The basic plot of this Gospel includes increasing conflict, and its overarching structure moves from signs that reveal Jesus» identity (chs. 2–12) to instructions for his followers (chs. 13–17), the Passion Narrative (chs. 18–19), and resurrection appearances (chs. 20–21). Instead of strictly linear plot development, however, Johns plot often advances through the agency of repetition. 59 Once a writer had completed such a public work, he (in most cases the writer was «he») would «publish» it, that is, make it available to its intended readership. 60 Typically this process would begin through public readings. The well-to-do would have readings as entertainment following dinner at banquets, but the Gospels would be read in gatherings of believers in homes. 61 Readers of means who liked a work would then have copies made for themselves, preserving and further circulating the work. 62 Ancient as well as modern readers recognized the value of rereading a document or speech as often as necessary to catch the main themes and subtleties (Quintilian 10.1.20–21), but given the limited copies of the Gospel available and the general level of public literacy, 63 much of John " s audience may have depended on public readings. The Gospels seem to conform to the standards of length appropriate to the scrolls on which they were written, which supports the likelihood that their authors intended them to be published. By some estimates, Luke and Acts are roughly the same length; Matthew is within 1 percent of the length of either; John is within 1 percent of three-quarters this length and Mark is close to half. 64 As Metzger notes, a normal Greek literary roll rarely exceeds thirty-five feet, but «the two longest books in the NT–the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts–would each have filled an ordinary papyrus roll of 31 or 32 feet in length. Doubtless this is one of the reasons why Luke-Acts was issued in two volumes instead of one.» 65 Scrolls were not always completely filled, sometimes having a blank space at the end, 66 but the Gospels seem to have used all their space as wisely as possible; Matthew may condense and Luke expand at the end. (Likewise, Josephus seems to have been forced to end suddenly his first scroll of what is now called Against Apion, having run out of space; Ag. Ap. 1.320.) 67 |
| Manuscript Evidence for Ancient Writings Author Written Earliest Copy Time Span Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1,000 yrs Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25-50 yrs 24,000 Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 13:1-2 , Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32 no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, " In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D. " |
| Лит.: Никольский. Устав. Т. 2. С. 253-256; Скабалланович. Типикон. Вып. 2. С. 288-293; Gunkel H. Die Lieder in der Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu bei Lukas//Festgabe für A. von Harnack/Hrsg. K. Holl etc. Tüb., 1921. S. 43-60; Harnack A. Studien zur Geschichte des NT und der alten Kirche. B., 1931. Bd. 1. S. 62-85; Schneider H. Die bibl. Oden im christl. Altertum//Biblica. 1949. Vol. 30. P. 28-65, 239-272, 433-452, 479-500; Tannehill R. C. Magnificat as poem//J. of Biblical Literature. Middletown (Connecticut), 1974. Vol. 93. P. 263-275; Арранц М. Как молились Богу древние византийцы. Л., 1979; Buth R. Hebrew Poetic Tenses and the Magnificat//JSNT. Sheffield, 1984. Vol. 21. P. 67-83; Brown R. E. The Annunciation to Mary, the Visitation, and the Magnificat//Worship. 1988. Vol. 62. P. 249-259; Luzpraga J. Las versiones siriacas del Magníficat//Estudios Bíblicos. Madrid, 1992. Vol. 50. N 1-4. P. 103-122; Theotokos: Ricerche interdisciplinari di Mariologia. R., 1997. Vol. 5. N 2. P. 403-422, 463-485, 643-674; Marshall I. H. The New International Greek Testament Comment.: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, 19982; Niccacci A. Magnificat: Una ricerca sulle tonalità dominanti//Liber annuus. Jerusalem, 1999. Vol. 49. P. 65-78; Никодим Святогорец, прп. Толкование на 9-ю песнь Богородицы Марии/Пер. и комм. иером. Дионисия (Шленова)//Встреча. Серг. П., 2000. 3 (13). С. 40-43; Farris S. The Canticles of Luke " s Infancy Narrative: The Appropriation of a Biblical Tradition//Into God " s Presence: Prayer in the NT/Ed. R. N. Longenecker. Mich.; Camb., 2001. P. 91-112; Bovon F. Luke 1: Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1. 1-9. 50. Minneapolis, 2002. А. А. Ткаченко В современной русской певческой практике Известно неск. напевов «В.»: обиходный (Благослови душе моя Господа: Песнопения всенощного бдения. М., 1995. С. 118-121), знаменный распев (в 1-голосном изложении - Обиход. 1909. Л. 62-62 об., в гармонизации - Яичков. С. 23-27), т. н. киевский (Обиход церковного пения. М., 1997. С. 130-133) и его варианты (напевы Дивеевского мон-ря или Зосимовой пустыни (Октоих. М., 1981. С. 30), Яблочинского мон-ря (Нотный сб. С. 118-119), Ф. Мясникова (Всенощное бдение. М., 2000. Сб. 2. С. 35), киевский распев (Обиход нотный Киево-Печерской лавры. Всенощное бдение. М., 2001р. Ч. 1. С. 120-122) и др. В певч. практике РПЦ чаще используется обиходный или т. н. киевский напевы; иногда «В.» может распеваться на гласовый напев ирмосов или других жанров, если структура напева представляет чередование 2 мелодических строк (напр., на 6-й «болгарский»). В старообрядческой практике исполняется «по напевке» (вероятно, устная версия знаменного распева). Существуют также оригинальные муз. сочинения на текст «В.», принадлежащие А. А. Архангельскому , П. Г. Чеснокову , Г. И. Рютову и др. композиторам (Свод напевов. С. 56-59). Во время пения «В.» совершается благовест из 9 или большего количества ударов. |
|
|
