| Following the death of Archbishop Theodosius of Australia and New Zealand, the Synod of Bishops appointed Bishop Paul, Vicar of the German Diocese, to replace him. Archimandrite Mark was then elevated to the episcopacy and appointed Bishop of Munich and Southern Germany. The hierarchal consecration was performed on November 30, 1980 at the Synodal Cathedral of Our Lady of the Sign in New York. In accordance with ecclesiastical law, during the nomination, Archimandrite Mark read a sermon through which he threaded his concern for how he was to lead his flock. Warm words were spoken about his spiritual proximity to the great Serbian ascetic and theologian Archimandrite Justin (Popovic, +1979) and affinity for the Holy Mt Athos. His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky, +1985) officiated at the consecration, along with Archbishop Vitaly (Oustinov, +2006) of Montreal and Canada; Archbishop Anthony (Medvedev, +2000) of San Francisco and Western America; Bishop Laurus (Shkurla, +2008) of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery; Bishop Paul and Bishop Gregore (Grabbe, +1995) of Manhattan. After the consecration, Vladyka Mark moved with a small group of monks to the Monastery of St Job of Pochaev in Munich. The monastery underwent reconstruction and renovation. Since 1981, it has published the Vestnik Germanskoj Eparkhii [Messenger of the German Diocese], a publishing house was set up for Russian- and German-language materials, as well as a candle and incense factory. The monastery follows the Mt Athos rule. In the fall of 1982, Bishop Mark, due to the serious illness of Archbishop Thilophius (Narko), became Bishop of Berlin and Germany, continuing to live at St Job Monastery, whence he rules the Diocese. In the mid-1980’s, Vladyka Mark was appointed Administrator of the Diocese of Great Britain as well as St Alexander Nevsky Parish in Copenhagen. In 1991, the Synod of Bishops elevated Vladyka Mark to the rank of Archbishop. In 1997, he was appointed Overseer of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. |
| 590 О Евангелии от Марка как кластере небольших повествований, включенных в общую структуру сверхповествования, обладающего собственным сюжетом, см.: С. Breytenbach, The Gospel of Mark as an Episodic Nanativë Reflections on the «Composition» of the Second Gospel=Scriptura, special issue 4 (1989) 1–26. 591 Здесь я расхожусь во мнениях с В. Orchard, «Mark and the Fusion of Traditions,» in F.van Segbroeck, C. M.Tuckett, G.van Belle, and J.Verheyden, eds., The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, vol. 2 (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1992) 779–800, который полагает, что это Евангелие – транскрипция публичных проповедей Петра, дословно записанных скорописью. 592 «Жизнь философа Секунда» (вторая половина II века н.э.); см. B.E.Perry, Secundus the Silent Philosopher (Philological Monographs 22; New York: American Philological Association, 1964) 595 Burridge, What, 227: «Четвертое Евангелие в литературном отношении намного более целостно, чем синоптические Евангелия, несмотря на один случайный разрыв или шов в повествовании». 596 J.Dewey, «Oral Methods of Structuring Narrative in Mark,» Int 53 (1989) 32–44; она же, «Mark as Interwoven Tapestry: Forecasts and Echoes for a Listening Audience,» CBQ.53 (1991) 221–236; она же, «The Gospel of Mark as Oral/Aural Event: Implications for Interpretation,» in E. Struthers Malbon and E.V.McKnight, eds., The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament (JSNTSup 109; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 145–163; она же, «The Survival of Mark " " s Gospel: A Good Story?» JBL 123 (2004) 495–507. См. также Bryan, A Preface, Part II. Witherington, Mark, 15–16, который, соглашаясь, что риторика Марка носит устный характер, отрицает, что Евангелие от Марка было предназначено для устного исполнения, прежде всего на основе стиха 13:14, который он относит к частному читателю Евангелия. Однако неясно, относятся ли эти слова к читателю Евангелия или к читателю Книги пророка Даниила. Dewey, «Oral Methods,» 35–36, придерживается последнего мнения. |
| Приложение 1. Сведения о клириках Иркутской епархии на апрель 1937 г. и их судьбе Храм Дальнейшая судьба Архиепископ Павел (Павловский) 09.1937 Умер в тюрьме 24.11.37 Г. Иркутск Преображенская церковь, Иркутск (штатные клирики) Прот. Феодор Верномудров 28.10.37 Расстрел 27.02.38 Прот. Иннокентий Попов 12.10.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Прот. Михаил Концевич 12.10.37 Расстрел 27.02.38 Прот. Николай Ильенко 28.10.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Прот. Сергий Пономарев нет данных Протодиак. Иннокентий Анисимов Расстрел 14.02.38 Диак. Алексий Пинчук Расстрел 14.02.38 Диак. Алексий Акулов 18.02.38 Расстрел 27.02.38 Преображенская церковь, Иркутск (заштатные клирики) Прот. Симеон Телятьев Данных нет, видимо, скончался своей смертью в 1937 г. Прот. Василий Самсонов нет данных Прот. Иннокентий Шабалин 16.12.38 Расстрел 16.03.39 Иером. Варфоломей (Житков) 16.02.38 Расстрел 27.02.38 Диакон Иоанн Шабуров нет данных Диакон Михаил Пляскин(?) нет данных Нагорная Никольская церковь, Иркутск (штатные клирики) Свящ. Петр Коренев (Корнеев) 26.10.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Свящ. Владимир Алякринский 12.01.38 Расстрел 27.02.38 Архидиак. Варфоломей (Гребнев) 12.12.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Нагорная Никольская церковь, Иркутск (заштатные клирики) Прот. Иннокентий Брянских 17.02.38 Расстрел 27.02.38 Архим. Герман (Богданов) (позже принял схиму) Скончался своей смертью 03.11.38 Иг. Иоанникий (Тараненко) 18.12.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 г. Прот. Стефан Попов В 1943 г. продолжил служение Свящ. Терентий Шикунов нет данных Прот. Алеский Гусев нет данных Прот. Григорий Левагин 04.02.38 Расстрел 27.02.38 Иннокентьевская церковь в Свердлово, Иркутск (штатные клирики) Прот. Феодор Шмаков 25.12.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Прот. Вениамин Ларев 15.12.37 Расстрел 14.02.38 Прот. Емилиан Збироковецкий нет данных Диак. Георгий Соснин 17.02.38 Расстрел 27.02.38 Иннокентьевская церковь в Свердлово, Иркутск (заштатные клирики) Свящ. Иннокентий Могилев 04.04.38? Расстрел 14.06.38? Свящ. Феодорит Сизых или Феофил Сизой ? нет данных в 1943 г. вернулся к служению |
| Following the death of Archbishop Theodosius of Australia and New Zealand, the Synod of Bishops appointed Bishop Paul, Vicar of the German Diocese, to replace him. Archimandrite Mark was then elevated to the episcopacy and appointed Bishop of Munich and Southern Germany. The hierarchal consecration was performed on November 30, 1980 at the Synodal Cathedral of Our Lady of the Sign in New York. In accordance with ecclesiastical law, during the nomination, Archimandrite Mark read a sermon through which he threaded his concern for how he was to lead his flock. Warm words were spoken about his spiritual proximity to the great Serbian ascetic and theologian Archimandrite Justin (Popovic, +1979) and affinity for Holy Mt. Athos. His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky, +1985) officiated at the consecration, along with Archbishop Vitaly (Oustinov, +2006) of Montreal and Canada; Archbishop Anthony (Medvedev, +2000) of San Francisco and Western America; Bishop Laurus (Shkurla, +2008) of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery; Bishop Paul, and Bishop Gregore (Grabbe, +1995) of Manhattan. After the consecration, Vladyka Mark moved with a small group of monks to the Monastery of St. Job of Pochaev in Munich. The monastery underwent reconstruction and renovation. Since 1981, it has published the Vestnik Germanskoj Eparkhii [Messenger of the German Diocese], a publishing house was set up for Russian—and German-language materials, as well as a candle and incense factory. The monastery follows the Mt. Athos rule. In the fall of 1982, Bishop Mark, due to the serious illness of Archbishop Thilophius (Narko), became Bishop of Berlin and Germany, continuing to live at St. Job Monastery, from which he rules the Diocese. In the mid-1980’s, Vladyka Mark was appointed Administrator of the Diocese of Great Britain as well as the St. Alexander Nevsky Parish in Copenhagen. In 1991, the Synod of Bishops elevated Vladyka Mark to the rank of Archbishop. In 1997, he was appointed Overseer of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. |
| 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). |
| Mark Eugenikos (1392–1444) was made Metropolitan of Ephesus in the year before the council (1437). In theology, he had studied with Joseph Bryennios, and in philosophy, with Gemistos Pletho; under Pletho, he had received a much more elaborate philosophical training than was customary in monastic circles. Mark " " s view of the Latin West coincided with that of the circle of Cantacuzenos in the preceding century; and he had been willing to recognize the council as ecumenical until he lost hope that what he considered to be the truth would prevail at the assembly. At the beginning of the sessions in Ferrara, prompted by Cardinal Cesarini, Mark delivered to Pope Eugenius a preliminary address in which he called upon the «most holy Father» to receive «his children coming from the East» and «seeking his embrace.» But he also stressed the minimum condition for true unity: the removal of the interpolation introduced unilaterally by the Latins into the common creed. 175 As discussions progressed in quite an opposite direction, his attitude, understandably, grew bitter. In the discussions, he and Bessarion were usually the main Greek spokesmen. His weakest point was a certain inability to go beyond the formal points under discussionpurgatory, Filioque, epiclesisand to reach real issues, such as the juridical Anselmian concept of «justification,» or the difference between the Cappadocian and Augustinian Trinitarian theologies. A lack of historical perspective on both sides and the conviction that all the Fathers must always agree with one another created an impasse: there were no alternatives but to accept or reject the Latin view. When Mark refused to sign, the pope is said to have declared: «We have accomplished nothing.» 176 Obviously, Eugenius IV was aware by then of the real situation in the East and knew that Mark represented much better the prevailing mentality of the East than did the other members of the Greek delegation. Until his death, Mark remained the head of the anti-unionists in Constantinople. He is a saint of the Orthodox Church. |
| Tüb., 1919; Schmidt K. L. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung. B., 1919; Bousset W. Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus. Gött., 19212; Bultmann R. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Gött., 1921; idem. Theologie des NT. Tüb., 1948; Dodd Ch. H. The Framework of the Gospel Narrative//The Expository Times. Edinb., 1932. Vol. 43. P. 396-400; Idem.// Idem. NT Studies. Manchester, 1953. P. 1-11; Holmes B. T. Luke " s Description of John Mark//JBL. 1935. Vol. 54. N 2. P. 63-72; Lightfoot R. H. Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels. L., 1938; Taylor V. The Gospel according to St. Mark. L., 1952; Parker P. The Gospel before Mark. Chicago, 1953; Riesenfeld H. Tradition und Redaktion im Markusevangelium//Neutestamentliche Studien für R. Bultmann zu seinem 70. Geburtstag/Hrsg. W. Eltester. B., 1954. S. 157-164 (англ. пер.: idem. On the Composition of the Gospel of Mark// Idem. The Gospel Tradition. Phil., 1970. P. 51-74); Marxsen W. Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums. Gött., 1956; Schreiber J. Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums//ZTK. 1961. Bd. 58. S. 154-183; Bruns J. E. John Mark: A Riddle within the Johannine Enigma//Scripture. L. etc., 1963. Vol. 15. N 31. P. 88-92; idem. The Confusion between John and John Mark in Antiquity//Ibid. 1965. Vol. 17. N 37. P. 23-26; Hahn F. Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum. Gött., 1963; Vielhauer Ph. Erwägungen zur Christologie des Markusevangeliums//Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an R. Bultmann. Tüb., 1964. S. 155-169; Brandon S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. Manchester, 1967; Lohmeyer E. Das Evangelium des Markus. Gött., 196717; Vermès G. The Use of bar nash/bar nasha in Jewish Aramaic// Black M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxf., 19673. P. 310-328; idem. Jesus the Jew: A Historian " s Reading of the Gospels. |
| Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany Issues an Open Letter to the German Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops Source: ROCOR Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, First Vice President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and ruling bishop of the German Diocese, appealed to his brother hierarchs of the German Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in which he objects to the one-sided coverage of events in Ukraine. Vladyka Mark points to the intolerable pressure being exerted upon the traditional Ukrainian Orthodox Church under its canonical leader, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onouphry of Kiev and All Ukraine. The letter also mentions the political pressure being placed on other Local Orthodox Churches. At the same time, the hierarch of the oldest Orthodox diocese in Germany urges open dialog between the members of the Assembly of Bishops in Germany, which has suffered serious harm, as has all of Orthodox Christianity throughout the world, from the unilateral actions of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Vladyka Mark stresses that the Church must not be drawn into the sphere of political conflict and division, which does not serve the matter of peace. Archbishop Mark also mentions the peace-making experience of his own diocese, which made an active contribution towards the overcoming of the old division within the Russian Orthodox Church, which directly contradicts the processes that are in play initiated by the enemies of the Church. Dialog must be held, in his opinion, in the proper way under today’s circumstances, a challenge to the President of the Assembly of Bishops, Metropolitan Augustine, whose signature under the “tomos” is mentioned critically and with sorrow: An open letter to all members of the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops in Germany Munich, January 30/February 12, 2019 The Feast of the Three Hierarchs: John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian and Basil the Great Your Eminences and Excellencies: It is with a saddened heart that I, as archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Berlin and Germany (ROCOR), take this opportunity to clarify our diocese’s position on the current developments among the Orthodox. |
| B., 1975; Pesch R. Das Markusevangelium. Freiburg im B., 1976-1977. 2 Tle; Holladay С. R. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of this Category in NT Christology. Missoula, 1977; Kee H. C. Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark " s Gospel. Phil., 1977; idem. Medicine, Miracle, and Magic in NT Times. Camb.; N. Y., 1986; Kürzinger J. Die Aussage des Papias von Hierapolis zur literarischen Form des Markusevangeliums//BiblZschr. N. F. 1977. Bd. 21. S. 245-264; North J. L. Μαρκος ο κολοβοδακτυλος: Hippolytus, Elenchus VII 30//JThSt. N. S. 1977. Vol. 28. N 2. P. 498-507; Watts R. E. Isaiah " s New Exodus and Mark. Tüb., 1977; Gnilka J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Zürich etc., 1978-1979. 2 Bde; Pryke E. J. Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel. Camb., 1978; Smith M. Jesus the Magician. San Francisco, 1978; Das Markus-Evangelium/Hrsg. R. Pesch. Darmstadt, 1979; Dunn J. D. G. Christology in the Making: A NT Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Phil., 1980; Nickelsburg G. W. E. The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative//HarvTR. 1980. Vol. 73. N 1/2. P. 153-184; Hurtado L. W. Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids, 1981; Kealy S. P. Mark " s Gospel: A History of Its Interpretation from the Beginning until 1979. N. Y., 1982; Matera F. J. The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15. Chico, 1982; Mohr T. A. Markus- und Johannespassion: Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Markanischen und Johanneischen Passionstradition. Zürich, 1982; Robinson J. M. The Problem of History in Mark and Other Markan Studies. Phil., 1982; Kim S. The «Son of Man» as the Son of God. Tüb., 1983; Brandenburger E. Markus 13. und die Apokalyptik. Gött., 1984; Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium/Hrsg. H. Cancik. Tüb., 1984; Wenham D. The Rediscovery of Jesus " Eschatological Discourse. |
| 4121 The arguments for this position are summarized in Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 327; Marshall argues (pp. 327–32) that υις is origina1. 4124 On Acts 13:32–33 (interpreting the psalm concerning Jesus» resurrection/enthronement), cf. Dahl, «Abraham,» 148; Goulder, Acts, 53; Hengel, Son, 23. Cf. Midr. Pss. 2, §9 (messianic, after the woes). 4125 See, e.g., Longenecker, Exegesis, 177. The emphasis of Lindars, Apologetic, 211, on the metaphysical as over against the resurrection interpretation of Heb 1:5, appears to me mistaken. Ps 2:7–8 and 110are also linked in 1 Clem. 36.3–5 (ANF 1:15), but Clement is probably dependent on Hebrews here, citing Heb 1:3–4 and also Ps 104 (Heb 1:7). 4126 E.g., Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 332–33; but this is also the view of nearly all the commentators below. 4127 See Bright, History, 225–26; Harrelson, Cult, 86–87; cf. De Vaux, Israel, 109, for comparison with ancient coronations. Later Judaism generally regarded the psalm as specifically messianic (e.g., b. Sukkah 52a; Longenecker, Christology, 113). 4130 Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 335; Jeremias, Theology, 53–54; Kingsbury, Christology, 40, 65; Bruce, History, 168; Hurtado, Mark, 6; Schweizer, Matthew, 37; Robinson, Studies, 162; Taylor, Mark, 162 (with Isa 44:2); Bürge, Community, 61. We do not here contest the possibility of influence by the language («echoes»; Robinson, Taylor), but doubt that the phrasing here is intended to evoke the picture of the Servant (in contrast to Matthew). 4137 Pace Rodd, «Spirit.» Matthew changes the more Semitic «finger» to fit his own context, perhaps as midrash on Isa 42 just cited; Luke includes the Spirit whenever he can, suggesting it was there missing from his source (cf. also Schweizer, Matthew, 287; Gundry, Matthew, 235). 4138 Best, Mark, 81. Others admit it as probable (e.g., Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 335; Kingsbury, Christology, 65) or find echoes (Taylor, Mark, 162). 4141 Matthew and Luke seem to have followed the standard biographical procedure of following one primary (Mark) and another secondary source (presumably Q) before weaving in material around it, whereas John goes his own way. See introduction. |
|
|
