| The priestly aristocracy might act, however, even on Passover to preserve public order; Pilate would care little for calendrical matters; and an execution on the day on which the lamb had been eaten would deter crowds no less than the day on which they were being slaughtered if the site of execution were not far outside Jerusalem " s walls. The minor details «behind» Mark " s Passion Narrative could also be explained in other ways that fit the narrative equally wel1. Mark could simply be correct that the preparation was for the Sabbath; 9806 Simon could come «from the fields» because he has spent the night in a suburb like Bethphage. 9807 The main argument against the Johannine chronology in a conflict between John and the Synoptics is that on most points Mark " s narrative seems more dependable for historical detail, John " s more expository (although many hold John " s chronology to be an exception, especially regarding the duration of Jesus» ministry). Thus many scholars suggest that the Synoptics are correct; the Synoptics certainly portray the Last Supper as a Passover meal, even on details that their audiences would no longer have recognized as relevant. 9808 Those favoring the Johannine dating respond that whereas the Synoptics regard the meal as a Passover meal (this is «challenged by no one»), this does not decide the historical question. 9809 But then how do Mark and Paul, writing for Gentile audiences, conform the narrative so closely to Passover traditions? And if the Synoptics report the disciples actually keeping the Passover but on a «sectarian» date, would sectarians have observed so many other paschal customs as the text suggests? Jeremias admittedly depends on later Passover traditions for his parallels with the Last Supper, but what evidence we do have fits the Gospel narratives and Jewish traditions can hardly have derived from the Gospels. As scholars commonly note, 9810 John certainly had theological reasons to place the death of God " s lamb ( John 1:29 ) on Passover (19:36). |
| This announcement signals to us that the Fourth Gospel " s passion chronology differs from that of the Synoptic tradition, probably already popular in John " s day ( Mark 15:25 ). We could read John " s «sixth hour» in terms of the rare reckoning of civil days from midnight, so that Jesus» condemnation would be at 6 a.m.; 10054 but this reckoning also contradicts the Synoptics, allows too little time from sunrise (near 18:28) for the events preceding the condemnation, relies on a rare calculation of time that would have been in no way obvious to most ancient readers, and confuses the other references to specific hours in the Gospe1. Others have tried to harmonize Mark and John by claiming that Mark " s «third hour» refers to the quarter day from ca. 9 a.m. to noon whereas John " s «sixth hour» means «about» noon; 10055 but such «approximations» invite us to suppose a margin of factual error so great as to render the approximations effectively worthless. Brown thus notes that one may regard either Mark (9 a.m.) or John (noon) as theological symbolism but one cannot reconcile them both as literally accurate chronologically. 10056 Given John " s Jiterary method elsewhere, we incline toward reading John symbolically rather than Mark. 10057 Members of John " s audience familiar with the traditional passion story presumably behind the Synoptics and Paul would have already noticed the difference at 18:28, a difference linking Jesus more directly with Passover. No longer do the symbolic bread and wine of the Last Supper represent Passover, but the death of Jesus itself does so directly (6:51–58). Biographies could exercise a degree of chronological freedom (see introduction, ch. 1), and John may adapt the chronology to infuse it with his symbolic message. In this Gospel Jesus is delivered over for crucifixion on the day the Passover lambs are being slaughtered (18:28). Many scholars also explain the «sixth hour» in light of Passover, though the case, while intriguing, is difficult to prove. |
| In his address to the Pope at the opening of the Council, St. Mark explained how ardently he desired this union with the Latins- but a genuine union, he explained, based upon unity of faith and ancient Liturgical practice. He also informed the Pope that he and the other Orthodox bishops had come to the Council not to sign a capitulation, and not to sell Orthodoxy for the benefit of their government, but in order to confirm true and pure doctrine. Many of the Greek delegates, however, thought that the salvation of Byzantium could be attained only through union with Rome. More and more became willing to compromise the eternal Truth for the sake of preserving a temporal kingdom. Furthermore, the negotiations were of such unexpectedly long duration that the Greek delegates no longer had means to support themselves; they began to suffer from hunger and were anxious to return home. The Pope, however, refused to give them any support until a “Union” had been concluded. Taking advantage of the Situation and realizing the futility of further debates, the Latins used their economic and political advantage to bring pressure on the Orthodox delegation, demanding that they capitulate to the Roman Church and accept all her doctrines and administrative control. St. Mark stood alone against the rising tide which threatened to overturn the ark of the true Church. He was pressured on all sides, not only by the Latins, but by his fellow Greeks and the Patriarch of Constantinople himself. Seeing his persistent and stouthearted refusal to sign any kind of accord with Rome under the given conditions, the Emperor dismissed him from all further debates with the Latins and placed him under house arrest. By this time St. Mark had fallen very ill (apparently suffering from cancer of the intestine). But this exhausted, fatally ill man, who found himself persecuted and in disgrace, represented in his person the Orthodox Church; he was a spiritual giant with whom there is none to compare. Events followed in rapid succession. The aged Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople died; a forged document of submission to Rome was produced; Emperor John Paleologos took the direction of the Church into his own hands, and the Orthodox were obliged. to renounce their Orthodoxy and to accept all of the Latin errors, novelties, and innovations on all counts, including complete acceptance of the Pope as having “a primacy over the whole earth.” During a triumphant service following the signing of the Union on July 5, 1439, the Greek delegates solemnly kissed the Pope’s knee. Orthodoxy had been sold, and not merely betrayed, for in return for submission, the Pope agreed to provide money and soldiers for the defense of Constantinople against the Turks. But one bishop still had not signed. When Pope Eugenius saw that St. Mark’s signature was not on the Act of Union, he exclaimed, “And so, we have accomplished nothing!” |
| Studying the Russian language led the young student to the Russian emigre community in Frankfurt. As a student of Prof. Dimitri Chizhevsky in Heidelberg , he would visit the ROCOR church in Mannheim dedicated to St Alexander Nevsky, where he converted to Holy Orthodoxy in 1964, soon being ordained a reader. Trips to Mt Athos, friendship with the Athos elders at Karoulia (Schemahieromonk Seraphim and Schemahieromonk Seraphim, Schemahieromonk Nikolaos, Schemamonk Nikodim), visits to St Elias Skete and St Panteleimon Monastery, where he came to know Schemahieromonk Abel (now Archimandrite of St John the Theologian Monastery in Ryazan’) determined the spiritual path of this Doctor of Slavic Studies. His future scholarly work was then devoted to the glorified St Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. In the fall of 1973, the future hierarch began studying theology in Belgrade University, which he graduated with a theology degree in 1979. His personal friendship with then-disfavored Archimandrite Justin (Popovic) in Celije Monastery led him to the inner circle of the students of this Serbian Abbot, who were then hieromonks and now hierarchs of the Serbian Orthodox Church—Metropolitan Amphilohije,Bishop Atanasije, Bishop Artemije, Metropolitan Irinej. Ordained to the deaconate in 1975, the future Vladyka Mark soon ceased teaching Church Slavonic and ancient Russian language and literature in Erlangen, and halted his scholarly work, in favor of being tonsured to the monkhood, which occurred in the summer of 1975 at Lesna Convent in France. Three days later, Fr Mark was ordained a hieromonk and assigned as Deputy Rector of the Russian church in Wiesbaden. In the summer of 1976, by decision of the Synod of Bishops, he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite. Archbishop Paul (Pavlov, +1995), who was then Bishop of Stuttgart and Southern Germany, tonsured and ordained him. Archimandrite Mark ministered to three parishes—Wiesbaden, Darmstadt and Saarbrucken. He devoted himself to preserving the tsarist churches of Germany and the renovation and expansion of the Russian cemetery near the Wiesbaden church, where he conducted the full cycle of monastic divine services, and began to gather and teach the local youth, while continuing to study theology and passing examinations in Belgrade. |
| Это опасность, с которой мы можем столкнуться сегодня в упоении повторного открытия Святого Духа и Его даров. Нам следует помнить, что дело Святого Духа – свидетельствовать о Христе. Имея в виду вышесказанное, мы поймем логику построения Евангелия, хотя, конечно, мы не должны пытаться обнаружить полное соответствие некоему умозрительному образцу. Действительно, если Евангелие было задумано как миссионерская книга и учебное руководство для христиан языческого мира, то, возможно, Марк создавал его постепенно в течение какого–то периода. Не исключена вероятность, что до появления окончательного варианта, которым мы сегодня располагаем, существовало несколько более ранних вариантов. Такую ситуацию ученые называют «изменчивой». Кроме того, не следует думать, что Евангелие от Марка было издано в современном смысле этого слова. Вероятно, сначала это Евангелие или его более ранние варианты существовали в единственном экземпляре. Затем Евангелие переписывалось от руки, и эти списки рассылались нуждающимся в них церквам. Таким образом, происходило постепенное распространение Евангелия. Думается, именно так Матфей и Лука (а может быть даже Иоанн) получили возможность познакомиться с Евангелием от Марка и позднее использовать его при создании своих Евангелий. Заказать экземпляр Евангелия для собственных нужд могли позволить себе только богатые христиане, хотя в последнее время христиане Китая доказали, что даже простые люди в состоянии переписать для себя Писание в условиях дефицита печатных изданий. Как сказано выше, мы условно разделили Евангелие на три части, а именно: гл. 1–8, гл. 9,10 и гл. 11–16. Однако следует помнить, что Марк не разбивал текст на главы и стихи, а просто писал подряд, и прочитать Евангелие таким образом иногда полезно. Дополнительная литература English D. The Message of Mark, BST (1VP, 1992). Cole R. A. Mark, TNTC (IVP/UK/Eerdmans, 1989). Lane W. L. The Gospel according to Mark, N1CNT (Eerdmans, 1974). Hooker M. D. The Gospel according to St Mark, BNTC (A. and C. Black, 1991). Содержание 1:1 – 8:26 Возвещение Царства Божьего 1:1–20 Основы Царства Божьего 1:21 – 3:35 Знамения Царства Божьего 4:1–34 Притчи о Царстве Божьем 4:35 – 8:26 Силы Царства Божьего |
| N. Y., 1965; Bultmann R. Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Gött., 19677; Wright A. G. The Literary Genre Midrash. N. Y., 1967; Fischel H. Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: The Transformation of a Chria//Religions in Antiquity/Ed. J. Neusner. Leiden, 1968. P. 372-411; Koester H. One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels//HarvTR. 1968. Vol. 61. N 2. P. 203-247; Achtemeier P. Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae//JBL. 1970. Vol. 89. N 3. P. 265-291; idem. The Origin and Function of the Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae//Ibid. 1972. Vol. 91. N 2. P. 198-221; G ü ttgemanns E. Offene Fragen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. Münch., 1970; Robinson J. M. On the Gattung of Mark (and John)//Jesus and Man " s Hope/Ed. D. Buttrick. Pittsburgh, 1970. Vol. 1. P. 99-129; Smith M. Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the Gospels and Jesus//JBL. 1971. Vol. 90. N 2. P. 174-199; Tiede D. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker: Diss. Missoula, 1972; Goulder M. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. L., 1974; idem. The Evangelists " Calendar: A Lectionary Explanation of the Development of Scripture. L., 1978; Gundry R. Recent Investigations into the Literary Genre «Gospel»//New Dimensions in NT Study/Ed. R. Longenecker, M. C. Tenney. Grand Rapids, 1974. P. 97-114; Kelber W. The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and Time. Phil., 1974; Perrin N. A Modern Pilgrimage in NT Christology. Phil., 1974; Theissen G. Urchristliche Wundergeschichten: Ein Beitr. zur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien. Gütersloh, 1974; Baltzer K. Die Biographie des Propheten. Neukirchen, 1975; Drury J. Tradition and Design in Luke " s Gospel. L., 1976; Bilezikian G. The Liberated Gospel: A Comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Greek Tragedy. Grand Rapids, 1977; Brown R. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City (N. Y.), 1977; Holladay C. R. Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism. Missoula, 1977; Kee H. Community of the New Age: Stud. in Mark " s Gospel. Phil., 1977; K ü rzinger J. |
| 1 H. Brakmann, Zur Bedeutung des Sinaiticus Graecus 2148 für die Geschichte der melchitischen Markos-Liturgie, in: JÖB 30 (1981), 239–248. 3 The first reports of this discovery were presented in the following publications: L. Politis, Nouveaux manuscits grecs découverts au Mont Sinaï: rapport preliminaire, in: Scriptorium 34 (1980), 5–17; Αρχιεπ. Δαμιανος, Εσγησις π τν νεωστ ερεθντων παλαιν χειρογρφων ν τ ερ Μον Σιν, in: JÖB 32,4 (1982), 105–116. 4 The English version: Holy Monastery and Archdiocese of Sinai. The New Finds. Athens 1999. The original Greek edition: Αρχιεπ. Δαμιανος, Αρχιμ. Σωφρονιος, Β. Πελτικογλου, Π. Νικολοπουλος, Τ να ερματα το Σιν. Athens 1998. See also an important review of this catalogue: P. Géhin, S. Frøyshov, Nouvelles découvertes sinaïtiques: à propos de la parution de l’inventaire des manuscrits grecs, in: REByz 58 (2000), 167–184. 5 The New Finds (see fn. 4), 221, 256, 258, 261; Cf.H. Brakmann, Neue Funde und Forschungen zur Liturgie der Kopten (1996–2000), in: ICCoptS 7 (2004), 575–606, here 586. 9 See G. Cuming (posthumously), The Liturgy of St. Mark, edited from the manuscripts with a commentary (OCA 234). Roma 1990, 5–6, 89–90. 11 See A. Jacob, Histoire du formulaire grec de la liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostome (Thèse présentée pour l’obtention du grade de docteur en philosophie). Louvain 1968 (mscr.). 18 I am grateful to Dr. Gregory Kessel who helped me with reading the Arabic notes in this and the other manuscripts. 19 On this litany, the presence of which is just one of many signs of «Constantinopolization» of the Liturgy of Mark in mediaeval times, see Taft, History V, 74–103. 20 Brightman 135:11–135:24, 135:31–136:2, 136:19–136:20; Cuming, The Liturgy of St Mark (see fn. 9), 50:3–50:20, 51:30. 23 B.-Ch. Mercier, La liturgie de Saint Jacques: édition critique du texte grec avec traduction latine (PO 26,2). Paris 1946, 226 Α. Καζαμιας, Θεα Λειτουργα το γου ακβου το δελφοθου κα τ να σινατικ χειργραφα. Thessaloniki 2006, 214. |
| Kurz J., 1955: Evangeliá Assemanv: Codex Vaticánský 3. slovanský. Praha. Kwilecka I., 1979: Šrednowieczna Biblia francuska a najstarsze zachodnioslowianskie przekady biblijne//Studia z filologii polskiej i sowiaskiej. Warszawa. T. 18. S. 209–231. Kyas VI., 1953: Dobrovského tídní eských biblických rukopisu ve svétle pramen//Josef Dobrovský. 1753–1953. Praha. S. 227–300. Kyas VI., 1963: Starozákonní citáty v ivote Konstantinové a Metodéjové ve srevnáni se staroslovénskim parimejníkem//Slavia. T. 32. S. 367–374. Kyas VI., 1971: První eský peklad Bible. Praha. Kyas VI. a . Šaropatková, 1971 : Pehled starozákonních lekci staroslovnského parimijniku//Palaeoslovenica. Praha. S. 95–108. Lagarde, P. de., 1863: Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien. Leipzig. Lagarde, P. de., 1883: Librorum veteris testamenti canonicorum pars prior graece. Gottinguae. Lake 1928: Lake K., Blake R. P. and S. New. The Caesarean text of the Gospel of Mark//HTR. Vol. 21/4. Lake S., 1937: Family П and the Codex Alexandrinus: The text according to Mark. London. Lake, New 1932: Six collations of New Testament manuscripts/Ed. by K. Lake and S. New. Cambridge, Mass.; London. Lake K. and Lake S., 1933: The text of Mark in some dated lectionaries//Amicitiae corollä A volume of essays presented to J. R. Harris/Ed. by H. G. Wood. London. P. 147–183. Lake K. and Lake S., 1941: Family 13 (The Ferrar group): The text according to Mark with a collation of codex 28 of the Gospels. London. Langerbeck 1960: Gregoru Nysseni in Canticum canticorum/Ed. H. Langerbeck. Leiden (Gregorii Nysseni opera. Ed. W. Jaeger. Vol. 6). Laureník J., 1948: Nelukianovská tení v Sinajském altái//Slovanské studie/Sbírka stati, vnovaných dr. J. Vajsovi. V Praze. S. 66–83. Lindë Sownik jzyka polskiego przez S. В. Linde. Lwów, 1854–1860. T. 1–6. Löfstrand Ε., 1984: Slavonic parchment fragments in Sweden: 1. Paroimiarion, Triodion, Psalter. Stockholm. Lucian« " s Recension 1901: Lucian» " s Recension of the Septuagint//The Church Quarterly Review. |
| 2636 Lane, Mark, 236, cites for «passing by» only Exod 33:19,22; 1 Kgs 19:11; and Job 9:8,11 . 2637 Conjoined with the oft-recognized probable allusion to Christ " s deity in the «I am» of Mark 6 (Lane, Mark, 237–38; Hurtado, Mark, 91; cf. Argyle, Matthew, 115; Ellis, Genius, 110–11; Appold, Motif, 82), this allusion is very likely. But «I am» in Mark 13may simply mean «I am [messiah]» (Reim, Studien, 261 η. 20). 2638 Given the two Lords of Ps 110 , Peter argues, on which «Lord» should one call (Juel, «Dimensions,» 544–45; see Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 22; Knowling, «Acts,» 81; Ladd, Church, 50–51; idem, Theology, 338–41). That 2concludes an exposition of 2is clear from the fact that 2picks up the rest of the Joel passage where Peter left off in 2(the allusion is noted, e.g., by Zehnle, Discourse, 34; Dupont, Salvation, 22; Haenchen, Acts, 184 n. 5). 2639 See Abrahams, Studies, 1:45; De Ridder, Discipling, 107, for evidence that Jewish proselyte baptism could occasionally be described as «in God " s name»; cf. Longenecker, Christology, 42–46, 127–28; Urbach, Sages, 1:124–34, for a discussion of the «name.» 2640 For divine language, cf., e.g., Danker, «God With Us» (though it is not necessarily «Hellenistic»). Cf. the emphasis on Jesus» deity in Heb (1:8), also probably in ethnically Jewish (albeit very hellenized) circles. Longenecker, Christology, 139, also notes that the most strictly Jewish circles in early Christianity most emphasized Jesus» deity. 2641 See examples in Smith, Parallels, 152–54 (m. " Abot 3to Matt 18:20; Sipra on 25to Matt 10:25; Mekilta on 15and Matt 13/Luke 10:24; Mekilta on 18and Matt 10:40; Midrash Tannaim 15to Matt 25:35,40). 2642 For Wisdom Christology in Matthew, see Witherington, Sage, 339–40; Deutsch, «Wisdom.» 2643 E.g., Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 102; cf. T. Sol 6for what is probably the earliest extant non-Christian exegesis of this Matthean text or of its subsequent use. 2644 The language likely echoes Dan 7:13–14 (Meier, Matthew, 369; Ellis, Matthew, 22; Schaberg, Father, 335–36). |
| Some argue that by the mid-second century, apostolic authorship had become a criterion for acceptance, so that originally anonymous documents may have had names attached. 809 The profusion of pseudonymous early Christian works in the second century (in the early period especially among the gnostics) supports this claim, but one should note that being in the apostolic circle (like Mark or Luke) was sufficient without claiming that an author was an apostle. We should also note that literary works the length of the Gospels rarely circulated in antiquity without an attribution of authorship from the start, whether the attribution was genuine or pseudepigraphic. Because second-century thinking sought to reduce the source of all major traditions to the Twelve, Brown questions the tradition about John (the Elder) in Papias. He points out that Papias " s witness concerning Matthew " s «Hebrew» Gospel appears to be mistaken. 810 Brown is certainly correct to criticize the view, attributed to Papias, that our present First Gospel translates a Semitic original; but it is possible that Papias confused an Aramaic sayings source by Matthew with the Gospel subsequently circulating under his name, which had incorporated much of that materia1. 811 Papias» (or his interpreters») error need not discredit all the tradition behind Papias» comments on other gospels, or even on Matthew; it is unlikely that the entire tradition on which the report of Papias» words is based was mistaken or a later invention. Brown " s skeptical evaluation of Papias» report on Mark 812 could be either reversed or upheld, depending on onés inclination. 813 Mark " s negative presentation of Peter has been used by critical scholars to argue for an anti-Petrine Tendenz, 814 despite the problems with this position; 815 in contrast, the humble role for Peter in Mark (in contrast to Matthew) has been used by some conservatives to argue for Petrine influence (supposing that only Peter would dare have presented himself in such a self-effacing light), a position not much more problematic. 816 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Papias " s evidence should probably be allowed to figure in the argument. Although its reliability remains less than certain, it is more probable than purely modern hypotheses that have little possible recourse to alternative early tradition or other concrete data. |
|
|
