| Within the ecclesiastical sphere, he committed great effort to reorganize his province. He preached God's word in the churches. People ran to hear him speak and were deeply affected. Authorities were alarmed. They recognized his enormous scientific, social and patriotic contribution, but they could not accept his preaching and pastoral contribution. Often he was invited to scientific conferences or to the university, with the requirement not to walk in his religious cassock and bishop's pendant. He did not give in to these demands, and it seems he was no longer afraid. Within two years, Tabof's people grew to extremely love him. And here, the traces he left endure. Today, the city's general hospital bares his name. His bust has been placed in the front courtyard, while close by, in the Medical History museum, a large section is dedicated to St. Luke. Despite his great work load, he took part in the Moscow Patriarchate's Councils. In 1946, he was finally recognized. Some partisans slandered the saint to Stalin and demanded his execution. Stalin angrily swore at them vulgarly and concluded: " We cannot execute those people any longer, but we need to honor them. " And indeed, St. Luke was honored with the state's greatest public award, the 1st Stalin award out of fifteen scientists. The ceremony took place in Moscow. Everyone was present. The only one missing was St. Luke, as he could not afford the train ticket. The prize was accompanied by 200,000 rubles. He then sent a telegraph to Stalin, asking that this money be given to the war orphans. That same year, by order of Stalin, they constructed the saint's bust, that up to this day exists in the Klenofsky Museum in Moscow, among other great scientists' busts. Many foreign journalists arrived to interview him and special broadcasts were made. But his health was deteriorating and in 1946 he lost his sight in one eye. The Church transfered him to the Archdiocese of Simferopol and Crimea. Crimea is a beautiful area, with intense Greek colors, but also hardship. The catastrophes left by the war were numerous there too, the Church ruined. And St. Luke fought a titanic battle to revive it. In this effort he faced the reactions of the local authorities, who continuously created difficulties and undermined him. The poor were many so he organized administering food rations in his house. Many times he remained unfed, so as not to deprive the poor from food. There too, he was invited to conferences and to teach lessons in the Medical School. At times, authorities demanded that he did not show up in his cassock. He refused, hence some conferences were cancelled. |
| 661 E.g., Townsend, «Speeches»; Schweizer, «Speeches»; Dibelius, Studies, 138–85; idem, Paul, 11; idem, Tradition, 16–18. 665 Cf. Dodd, Preaching, 17–19; Martin, «Evidence,» 59; Payne, «Semitisms»; Ehrhardt, Acts, 1. Torrey, Composition, first argued for Aramaic sources throughout the first half of the book, especially in the speeches, but he may have underestimated the extent to which Koine, Semitic or «Jewish Greek,» and translation Greek overlap (cf. LXX; Jos. Asen.; «Jewish Greek» in Turner, «Thoughts,» 46; Nock, «Vocabulary,» 138–39; though for Rome contrast Leon, Jews, 92); further, an intentional Septuagintalizing (Hengel, Acts, 62; De Zwaan, «Language») or Semitizing to fit the character of his speakers, and perhaps the character of Acts 1–12 as a whole, is plausible. (Aune, Environment, 117, regards it as equivalent to Lukés contemporaries» Atticizing style; by contrast, Most, «Luke,» protests that this form of translation Greek differs from the LXX and reflects Luke following Hebrew sources.) 668 Hengel, Acts, 61. With regard to Paul " s speeches, an interested traveling companion could have learned from Paul " s recollections the gist of those speeches he missed (Robertson, Luke, 228). 669 Nor do even most conservative biblical apologists today, including in the words of the Johannine Jesus; cf. Wenham, Bible, 92–95; Feinberg, «Meaning,» 299–301 (the exact voice, but not words, of Jesus); Bock, «Words,» 75–77; cf. Edersheim, Life, 203. 671 Bauckham, ««Midrash,»» 68; thus L.A.BI:s careful treatment of the Decalogue may provide a closer analogy than his composition of speeches. 673 Ridderbos, John, 382–83, cites Luke 19as implying that the Synoptics also recognize a fuller ministry outside Galilee, but the verse may refer simply to Galilean pilgrims present for the festiva1. 674 As plain as Mark " s Messianic Secret has been since Wrede, its interpretation is no more obvious today than John " s. Wrede, Secret, 228, explains it as a Markan cover for the fact that Jesus did not claim messiahship before the resurrection. Burkill, Light, 1–38, argues that it is pre-Markan and may go back to Jesus (Ellis, «Composition,» shows that Q also contained the motif). Longenecker, Christology, 70–73, argues that messiahship could be publicly confirmed only at the resurrection. Cullmann, State, 26, thinks Jesus avoided the title because of its political overtones. Theissen, Stories, 64,68–69, 141–42, compares the secrecy commands to prohibitions against revealing formulas in magical texts. Hooker, Message of Mark, 61, explains the secret as hiding Jesus» identity from those who will not believe. Jesus» danger from the authorities (see Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 87) could also explain the secret on a literary leve1. The Johannine version of the theme is addressed in more detail on John 3:4 , below. |
| Mark announces that the whole narrative of Jesus’ ministry is gospel (euangelion, Mark 1.1 ). Luke chooses the verb euangelizesthai for the good news of the Savior’s birth (Luke 1.10–11). In Matthew and Mark, and also Luke but without the same terminology, Jesus begins his public ministry with the announcement that the dawn of the awaited age of salvation is fulfilled in him (Matt. 4.17; Mark 1.14–15 ; Luke 4.16–21). John presents Christ as the incarnation of the eternal Logos or Word of God who mediates the very presence and power of God as grace, glory, truth, light, bread, life, and love ( John 1.1–18; 3.16; 8.12; 17.24–26 ). The witness of the four gospels confirms that the entire ministry of Jesus is good news for humanity, which is the very reason why these documents themselves were eventually named gospels. Their titles “Gospel according to Matthew,” “Gospel according to Mark,” and so forth, derive from the 2nd century, and signify both the essential unity of the gospel message and the freedom of the evangelists to narrate Jesus’ ministry from their own perspective. The heart of the gospel, distinguishable by content, blessings, and demands, is Christ and his saving work. The content is the person of Christ himself in whom God’s rule or kingdom is inaugurated. Jesus not only announced but also enacted the good news of the dawn of God’s rule, bestowing blessings in forgiving sinners, healing the sick, eating with the outcast, instructing the ways of God’s righteousness, anticipating his death and resurrection as the cosmic defeat of evil, and gathering around him followers who formed the nucleus of the church. Jesus’ gospel, proclaimed as the “word of God,” included radical demands most notably recorded in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7). Jesus challenged his followers to take up their cross, pray for persecutors, freely forgive others, tend to the needy, and love enemies, to be worthy of him and not risk being cast out of the kingdom (Matt. 7.21–23; 16.24–26; 25.11–12, 46). |
| 7542 It is even possible that Mark may have suppressed the story to protect Lazarus and his sisters, who still lived near Jerusalem. 7543 If the story was originally part of the passion narrative, one might expect protective anonymity, as in the case of some other disciples who figured prominently in it (e.g., Mark 14:51–52 ); 7544 but in this instance the story was well-known enough that drawing attention to it, even anonymously, could have caused trouble for the family ( John 12:10–11 ). By contrast, if the story was not originally part of the passion narrative, Mark is no more obligated to report this event than the resuscitation at Nain (Luke 7:11–17; Q mentioned multiple raisings, Matt 11:5/Luke 7:22) or dramatic healings such as the centurion " s servant (Matt 8:5–13/Luke 7:1–10). If the early passion narrative or, alternatively, Mark, suppressed or simply omitted the story, Matthew and Luke may not have known of it or may not have understood it as critical to the movement of the story in the way John does. John " s community does seem to have already known of Mary " s involvement in the final anointing of Jesus (see comment on 11:2). A number of scholars have concluded that the story probably has a historical core. 7545 As difficult as it is to distinguish tradition and redaction anywhere in this Gospel, including in this narrative, 7546 Meier provides convincing evidence that the Lazarus story goes back to John " s tradition, though it was originally a brief story unrelated to Jesus» passion. Hence he does not regard it as surprising that the Synoptics omit it. 7547 By all critical approaches other than a philosophical predisposition against it, traditions indicate a popular belief that at least on some occasions Jesus raised the dead. 7548 It may be significant that third-century rabbis acknowledged these raisings but attributed them to necromancy; 7549 they may, however, well be responding to later Christian claims from the Gospels rather than to the traditions behind the Gospels. |
| Gött., 2001; Barret C. K. Acts: Volume 1:1-14: A crit. and exeget. comment. on the Acts of the Apostles. L.; N. Y., 2004; Геккель У., Покорны П. Введение в НЗ: Обзор литературы и богословия НЗ. М., 2012; Oliver I. W. Torah Praxis after 70 CE: Reading Matthew and Luke-Acts as Jewish Texts. Tüb., 2013; Kloppenborg J. Synoptic Problems: Coll. Essays. Tüb., 2014; Uytanlet S. Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography: A Study on the Theology, Literature, and Ideology of Luke-Acts. Tüb., 2014; Gunkel H. Der Heilige Geist bei Lukas: Theologisches Profil, Grund und Intention der lukanischen Pneumatologie. Tüb., 2015. М. Г. Калинин Гробницы и мощи ап. Луки Эфес Согласно одной из редакций каталога апостолов от 70 Псевдо-Епифания, Л. умер в Эфесе (Vitae Ргорнетагит. 1907. P. 117). Это известие повторяет и Феофилакт Болгарский (PG. 123. Col. 685). Обнаруженная в 1865 г. в ходе раскопок ротонда в вост. части Эфеса была интерпретирована как «гробница ап. Луки». Это рим. сооружение II в. по Р. Х. (видимо, фонтан) было в V-VI вв. превращено в церковь, к ней пристроили апсиду и нартекс. В этой церкви была устроена крипта, 2 больших мраморных столба у входа в нее были украшены изображениями крестов и тельцов (символ Л.), в связи с чем это здание отождествили с местом захоронения Л. (The Supposed Tomb of St. Luke at Ephesus: Papers Read at the Society of Biblical Archaeology 1878-80 and Other Documents. L., 1881. P. 184-186; Foss C. Ephesus After Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine, and Turkish City. Camb., 1979. P. 64, 83). В наст. время эта гипотеза считается неверной ( Bellinati. 2003. P. 182). Гробница ап. Луки в ц. ап. Луки в Фивах По наиболее распространенному церковному преданию, Л. скончался в Фивах. В ряде визант. Синаксарей (напр., в Синаксаре из Лауренцианской б-ки во Флоренции, 1050 г.) уточняется, что он был крестообразно распят на оливковом дереве, из его гробницы вытекал целебный бальзам (κολλρια) (SynCP. Col. 147-148). Из Фив мощи апостола были перенесены в К-поль. В наст. время в Фивах в поствизант. |
| Evans C.A. Mark 8:27–16:20 . Nashville, 2001. Faccini B., Fanti G. New Image Processing of the Turin Shroud Scourge Marks//URL: http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/ FacciniWeb.pdf. Fanti G., Gaeta S. Il mistero della sindone. Milano, 2013. Farmer W.R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. Cambridge, 1974. Fitzmyer J.A. Luke (X-XXIV). New York, 1985. France R.T. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2002. Frenschkowski M. Traum and Traumdeutung in Matthäusevangelium: Einige Beobachten//Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. 1998. S.5–47. Gnilka J. Das Matthäusevangelium. Bd. I-II. Freiburg, 1992. Grassi J.A. The Secret Identity of the Beloved Disciple. New York, 1992. Green J.B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 1997. Gundry R.H. Mark. A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids, 1993. Gundry R.H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Leiden, 1975. Guscin M. The Tradition of the Image of Edessa. Cambridge, 2016. Haren M.J. The Naked Young Man: A Historian’s Hypothesis on Mark. 14, 51–52 //Biblica. 2003. P.525–531. Harrington J.M. The Lukan Passion Narrative. The Markan Material in Luke 22, 54–23, 25. A Historical Survey: 1891–1997. Leiden; Boston; Koln, 2000. Hemer C.J., Gempf C.H. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Tübingen, 1989. Hengel M. Crucifixion. Philadelphia, 1977. Hengel M. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London, 1985. Hoehner H.W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids, 1977. Holmas G.O. Prayer and Vindication in Luke-Acts. The Theme of Prayer within the Context of Legitimating and Edifying Objective of the Lukan Narrative. New York, 2011. Hooker M.D. Isaiah in Mark’s Gospel//Isaiah in the New Testament/ed. by S.Moyise, M.J.J.Menken. London; New York, 2005. P.35–49. Hopf Ch. Chroniques greco-romaines inédites ou peu connues. Paris, 1873. Horsley R.A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence : Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. San Francisco, 1987. |
| Сл. 39, 1, 1–12; 3, 3–4, 14; SC 358, 150–154=1.532–534. 628 Мр. 1:10. 629 Сл. 39, 14, 1–13; 15, 1–3; 16, 1–4; SC 358, 178–184=1.539–541. 630 Ср. 1 Кор. 10:2. 631 Сл. 39, 17, 1–26; 186–188=1.541–542. 632 Карфагенский диакон Новат, отлученный от Церкви в 251 г., вместе с римским пресвитером Новацианом отвергал возможность прощения виновных в отступничестве, блуде и убийстве. 633 Сл. 39, 19, 9; 192=1.543. 634 Сл. 39, 19, 18–23; 194=1.543. 635 Ср. Ис. 1:16–18. 636 Сл. 39, 20, 1–9; SC 358, 194=1.543–544. 637 Это учение пришло в Восточную Церковь из латинской схоластики и начало входить в обиход не ранее XIII в. См. Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology, 191–192. 638 Ср. Bernardi. Predication, 215–216. 639 1 Пет. 3:21. 640 Сл. 40, 3, 4–4, 9; SC 358, 200–202=1.545. 641 Сл. 40, 8, 1–29; 212–214=1.547–548. 642 Сл. 40, 10, 34–36=1.549. 643 Сл. 40, 11–13; 218–226=1.550–551. 644 Сл. 40, 14, 10–21; 226=1.552. 645 Мф. 20:1–15. 646 Сл. 40, 20, 4–20; 240–242=1.555–556. 647 Сл. 40, 23, 17–21; 248=1.558. Григорий, таким образом, не согласился бы с мнением о том, что все некрещеные по необходимости попадают в ад. В сочинении Григория Нисского " " О младенцах, преждевременно похищаемых смертью " " содержится сходная точка зрения на посмертную участь некрещеных младенцев. 648 Сл. 40, 4, 13–26, 17; 250–256=1.558–560. 649 Т. е. рождает к новой жизни. 650 Фил. 2:7. 651 Сл. 40, 26, 22–27, 6; 258=1.560–561. 652 Сл. 40, 17, 15–16; 232=1.554. 653 Сл. 40, 28, 4–21; 262–264=1.562. 654 Сл. 40, 38, 1–3; 284=1.569. 655 Сл. 40, 38, 3–40, 26; 284–292=1.569–570. 656 Ср. Мф.15:22. 657 Ср. Лк. 13:11. 658 Ср. Ин. 5:7. 659 Ин. 11:43. 660 Aphtistos — непросвещен. 661 Ср. Пс. 12:4. 662 Ср. Пс. 35:10. 663 Сл. 40, 33, 1–34, 23; 272–276=1.565–566. 664 Т. е. таинственный прообраз. 665 Сл. 40, 46, 1–7; 308=1.574. Ср. Мф. 25:1–13. 666 Сл. 45, 30; PG 36, 664=1.680. 667 " Вчера " " , т. е. в ночь с субботы на воскресение. Проповедь Григория, очевидно, предназначалась для произнесения за Литургией в самый день Пасхи. 668 Сл. 45, 2; PG 36, 624–625=1.662. 669 |
| 1027 Главы о знании I,19. 1028 II/8,2. 1029 I/80 (394)=B40 (304). 1030 I/18 (76)=B27 (201). 1031 Главы о знании III,46. 1032 Исаак пользуется терминологией Евагрия. 1033 Ср. 1 Кор. 7:31. 1034 Т. е. мира сего. 1035 Главы о знании III,9. 1036 II/10,20. 1037 I/66 (346)=B12 (123). 1038 Ср. Ин. 14:2. 1039 I/58 (311)=B6 (86—87). 1040 В Царстве Небесном. 1041 Мф. 25:31—33. 1042 I/58 (311—312)=B6 (88). 1043 1 Кор. 2:9. 1044 Ин. 6:33. 1045 I/83 (397)=B43 (316—317). 1046 I/18 (76)=B27 (201—202). 1047 B26 (189). Т. е. не на то, что его естество было изначально порочным. 1048 1 Кор. 15:55. 1049 1 Кор. 15:28. 1050 Ср. 1 Кор.15:53—55. 1051 I/91 (431—432)=B50 (358—359). 1052 См. цитату в Главе I. 1053 II/39,2. 1054 II/39,2. 1055 II/39,3. 1056 Букв. «дом Адама». 1057 II/39,4. 1058 Фрагменты на Книгу Бытия (PG 66,637). 1059 II/39,5. 1060 II/39,6. 1061 Феодор Мопсуестийский. Против говорящих, что грех свойственен природе. 1062 Диодор Тарсийский. О Промысле 5—6. 1063 Мнения Феодора и Диодора. 1064 II/39,14. 1065 II/39,15—16. 1066 II/39,17. 1067 II/39,20. 1068 II/39,21—22. 1069 II/40,1. 1070 II/40,4. 1071 Т. е. геенна. 1072 II/40,5. 1073 Геенна. 1074 II/40,7. Ср. Лк. 15:7; 10. 1075 II/40,8—11. 1076 Ср. Лк. 18:14. 1077 Ср. Мр. 12:42—43. 1078 Т.е. разбойником. Ср. Лк. 23:40—43. 1079 II/40,12. 1080 II/40,13—14. 1081 II/41,1. 1082 Ср. О началах 3,5,3. 1083 Характерна формулировка Константинопольского Собора 543 г.: «Кто утверждает предсуществование душ и находящийся с ним в связи апокатастасис…» См. Протоиерей Георгий Флоровский. Восточные Отцы IV века. Париж, 1937. С. 188. 1084 1 Тим. 2:4. 1085 1 Кор. 15:28. 1086 Напротив, VI Вселенский Собор включил его имя в число «святых и блаженных отцов», а VII Вселенский Собор назвал его «отцом отцов». Что же касается Константинопольского Собора 543 г. и V Вселенского Собора, на которых был осужден оригенизм, то весьма показательно, что, хотя учение Григория Нисского о всеобщем спасении было хорошо известно Отцам обоих Соборов, его не отождествили с оригенизмом. |
| The predicative «I am» christological images emphasize the relationship between Jesus and believers, but they remain more christological than ecclesiologica1. Granted, the latter was by this period a serious issue; but for John, ecclesiology is determined entirely by Christology, because the community is defined solely by allegiance to Christ, who is the only way to the Father (14:6). John " s vertical dualism (e.g., the man from heaven in 3:13, 31) and other contrasts such as «flesh» and «Spirit» (3:6; 6:63) repeatedly appear in the service of his emphasis that all humans are utterly inadequate before God apart from Christ and the Spirit. 2743 Like Mark, though to a lesser extent, he emphasizes some obduracy among the disciples (e.g., John 11:13 ; Mark 8:16–18 ); but «the world» is wholly blind and alienated from God ( John 9:39–41; 15:18–25 ; Mark 4:12 ). Some of the predicative «I am» images emphasize relationship in more familiar relational images. Jesus is the shepherd, and sheep must trust the guidance of their shepherd, heeding his voice and knowing that he will provide pasture and safety (10:9, 11, 14). The Synoptics support John " s association of this image with the Jesus tradition ( Mark 6:34; 14:37 ; cf. also Matt 25:32; Luke 15:4). A related image, though not directly relational, is Jesus as the light of the world; here Jesus is the guide who enables one to walk without falling in the darkness outside him ( John 1:4–5; 8:12; 9:4–5 ). Most of the predicative «I am» images, however, are more organic, taking relationship beyond the boundaries normally possible in human intimacy. Thus Jesus is living bread from heaven, the bread of life (6:35, 48, 51); people depend on bread as a basic staple of life, and Jesus summons his followers to depend on him the same way. Related images would be the Spirit (who mediates Jesus» presence) as living water (4:14; 7:37–38) and perhaps Jesus as the giver of wine (2:4–7; less clear) and the paschal lamb which would be eaten (1:29; 6:51–56; 19:36). The Synoptics do use metaphors of light (cf. Matt 5:14–16; 6:23; Luke 8:16; 11:33–35), bread (Matt 7:9; 13:33; Mark 8:15 ; Luke 11:5,11–13), drinking ( Mark 10:38–39 ), and so forth, though only occasionally are these metaphors explicitly christological ( Mark 14:22–24 ). |
| Tabor, «Divinity» Tabor, James D. « " Returning to the Divinity»: Josephus " s Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses.» JBL 108 (1989): 225–38. Tabor, «Messiah» Tabor, James D. «A Pierced or Piercing Messiah?–The Verdict Is Still Out.» BAR 18, no. 6 (November/December 1992): 58–59. Tabor, «Sons» Tabor, J. «Paul " s Notion of Many »Sons of God» and Its Hellenistic Contexts.» Helios 13 (1986): 87–97. Talbert, «Acts» Talbert, Charles H. «The Acts of the Apostles: Monograph or Bios?» Pages 58–72 in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts. Edited by Ben Witherington, III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Talbert, Apocalypse Talbert, Charles H. The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Talbert, «Chance» Talbert, Charles H. «Reading Chance, Moessner, and Parsons.» Pages 229–40 in Cadbury, Knox, and Talbert: American Contributions to the Study of Acts. Edited by Mikeal C. Parsons and Joseph B. Tyson. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Talbert, Gospel Talbert, Charles H. What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Talbert, «Immortals» Talbert, Charles H. «The Concept of Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity.» JBL 94 (1975): 419–36. Talbert, John Talbert, Charles H. Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Talbert, Luke Talbert, Charles H. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospe1. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Talbert, «Myth» Talbert, Charles H. «The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity.» NTS 22 (1975–1976): 418–40. Talbert, Patterns Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts. SBLMS 20. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974. Talbert, «Problem» Talbert, Charles H. «The Problem of Pre-existence in Philippians 2 6–11.» JBL 86 (1967): 141–53. Talbert, «Review» Talbert, Charles H. Review of Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? JBL 112 (1993): 714–15. |
|
|
