| Classifying the Gospels as ancient biography is helpful only if we define some of the characteristics of ancient biography, particularly with respect to its historiographie character. As noted above, although biographies could serve a wide range of literary functions, 112 ancient biographers intended their works to be more historical than novelistic. 113 First-century historiography often focused on notable individuals. 114 The central difference between biography and history was that the former focused on a single character whereas the latter included a broader range of events. 115 History thus contained many biographical elements but normally lacked the focus on a single person and the emphasis on characterization. 116 Biographies were less exhaustive, focusing more on the models of character they provided (Plutarch Alex. 1.1–3). Ancient biography differed from modern biography in some historiographie respects. For instance, ancient biographies sometimes differed from their modern namesakes by beginning in the protagonists adulthood, as in many political biographies (e.g., Plutarch Caesar 1.1–4), the first-century Life of Aesop, 117 and in Mark. In contrast to modern historical biography, ancient biographers also did not need to follow a chronological sequence; most felt free to rearrange their material topically. 118 Some scholars maintain that Peripatetic biographies were literary biographies ordered chronologically, insofar as was possible; 119 Alexandrian biographies were arranged more systematically or topically. 120 Although these types were never followed exactly, and chronological biographies appear to have been rare, 121 Luke seems to fall into the former category (following the order of Mark almost exactly except for several very significant exceptions), whereas Matthew (who is influenced more by Jewish encomium conventions) follows the more common topical format (compare his five topical discourse sections). Many Jewish interpreters doubted that the biblical accounts of Moses at Sinai were arranged chronologically (cf. 4Q158). 122 Nor did early Christians expect the Gospels to reflect chronological sequence; Augustine suggested the evangelists wrote their Gospels as God recalled the accounts to their memory (Cons. 21.51; for Mark, see Papias in Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.39). 123 |
| 9-njy bap Isa ysmazy sagaldýar (Mark 2:1-12;Luka 5:17-26) 1 Onso Isa gaýyga mündi-de, beýleki kenara geçip, Öz äherine geldi. 2 Birnäçe adam Onu ýanyna düekde ýatan bir ysmazy getirdi. Isa olary imanyny görende, ysmaza: «Oglum, dogumly bol, seni günäleri ötüldi» diýdi. 3 onda käbir Töwrat mugallymlary içinden: «Bu adam Hudaýa dil ýetirýär» diýdiler. 4 Emma Isa olary pikirlerini bilip: «Näme üçin göwnüize erbet pikirler getirýärsiiz? 5 Haýsyny aýtmak asat: „Günäleri ötüldi“ diýmekmi ýa-da: „Tur-da, ýöre“ diýmek? 6 Emma siz Ynsan Ogluny ýer ýüzünde günäleri ötmäge-de ygtyýaryny bardygyny bilip goýu» diýdi. Onso Ol ysmaza: «Saa diýýärin, tur, düegii al-da, öýüe gaýt» diýdi. 7 Ol hem ýerinden turdy-da, öýüne gitdi. 8 Muny gören mähelläni gorky gaplap aldy . Olar ynsanlara eýle ygtyýary beren Hudaýy öhratlandyrdylar. Matta ägirtlere goulýar (Mark 2:13-17;Luka 5:27-32) 9 Isa ol ýerden geçip barýarka, salgyt ýygnap oturan Mattany görüp, oa: «Meni yzyma dü!» diýdi. Ol hem turup, Onu yzyna düdi. 10 Isa Mattany öýünde saçak baynda otyrka, köp salgytçylar, günäkärler gelip, Isa we Onu ägirtleri bilen bile iýip-içdiler. 11 Fariseýler muny görüp, Onu ägirtlerinden: «Näme üçin sizi Mugallymyyz salgytçylardyr günäkärler bilen bile nahar iýýär?» diýip soradylar. 12 Isa muny eidip: «Lukman saglara däl-de, hassalara gerekdir. 13 Ýöne siz gidi-de, „Men gurbanlyk däl-de, rehim-epagat isleýärin“ diýen sözü manysyny öwreni, sebäbi Men dogrulary däl-de, günäkärleri çagyrmaga geldim» diýdi. Agyz beklemek barada sorag (Mark 2:18-22;Luka 5:33-39) 14 Onso Ýahýany ägirtleri Isany ýanyna gelip: «Näme üçin biz we fariseýler agyz bekleýäris-de, Seni ägirtleri agyz beklänoklar?» diýip soradylar. 15 Isa olara: «Giýew ýanlaryndaka, heý-de, toýu myhmanlary ýas tutarmy? Emma giýewi olardan alynjak günleri geler, onda olar agyz beklärler. 16 Hiç kim köne eige täze matadan ýama salmaz, sebäbi salnan ýama köne eikden gopup, ýyrtyk ýeri has beter bolar. 17 Hiç kim täze eraby köne meiklere guýmaz. Beýtse, meikler ýarylyp, erap döküler we meikler hem zaýalanar. Täze erap täze meiklere guýulýandyr, eýdip, ikisi hem abat saklanýandyr» diýip jogap berdi. |
| Kieffer, «L " arrière-fond juif» Kieffer, René. «L " arrière-fond juif du lavement des pieds.» RB 105, no. 4 (1998): 546–55. Kieffer, «Fottvagningens» Kieffer, René. «Fottvagningens tolkning mot dess judiska bakgrund.» Svensk exegetisk ârsbok 63 (1998): 217–23. Kiev, Magic Kiev, Ari, ed. Magic, Faith, and Healing: Studies in Primitive Psychiatry Today. Foreword by Jerome D. Frank. New York: Free Press, Macmillan, 1964. Kiley, «Geography» Kiley, Mark. «The Geography of Famine: John 6:22–25 .» RB 102 (1995): 226–30. Kilpatrick, «Background» Kilpatrick, G. D. «The Religious Background of the Fourth Gospe1.» Pages 36–44 in Studies in the Fourth Gospe1. Edited by F. L. Cross. London: Mowbray, 1957. Kilpatrick, «Punctuation» Kilpatrick, G. D. «The Punctuation of John VII.37–38 .» JTS NS 11 (1960): 340–42. Kim, «Invitation» Kim, Chan-Hie. «The Papyrus Invitation.» JBL 94 (1975): 391–402. Kim, Letter Kim, Chan-Hie. Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation. SBLDS 4. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. Kim, «Mark» Kim, Deuk-Joong. «Mark–a Theologian of Resurrection.» Ph.D. diss., Drew University Graduate School, 1978. Kim, Origin Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul " s Gospe1. Tübingen: Mohr, 1981. Kimbrough, «Sabbath» Kimbrough, S. T. «The Concept of Sabbath at Qumran.» RevQ 5 (1964– 1966): 483–502. Kimelman, « «Amidah» Kimelman, Reuven. «The Daily »Amidah and the Rhetoric of Redemption.» JQR79 (1988–1989): 165–97. Kimelman, «Birkath» Kimelman, Reuven. »Birkath Ha-minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity.» Pages 226–44 in vo1. 2 of Meyer and Sanders, Self-Definition. Kimelman, «Note» Kimelman, Reuven. «A Note on Weinfeld " s " Grace after Meals in Qumran.» JBL 112 (1993): 695–96. King, «Brown» King, J. S. «R. E. Brown on the History of the Johannine Community.» Scripture Bulletin 13, no. 2 (1983): 26–30. King, «Sychar» King, J. S. «Sychar and Calvary: A Neglected Theory in the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospe1.» Theology 77 (1974): 417–22. |
| It is not impossible that the crowds in Mark followed Jesus because he was a wonderworker, and that Mark opposes reducing Jesus» ministry to such terms, insisting that the suffering aspect of his ministry must also be taken into account. While Mark is himself charismatic rather than anti-charismatic, 2338 it is possible that he opposes a Christology, or more likely, a pneumatology, that emphasizes Jesus» miracles above his passion. The term θεος νρ, however, is too broad to designate such a category helpfully. 2339 4B. A Charismatic Wonder-Worker A consensus seems to be emerging that Jesus was a charismatic wonder-worker, despite the lack of consensus on precisely what this means. E. P. Sanders summarizes the most significant recent positions: Jesus was «either (with Vermes) a charismatic healer like Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle-Drawer or (with Hengel, Theissen and others) a charismatic prophet.» Sanders himself inclines toward the latter position, and concludes that, on either model, «a charismatic does not set out to take a stance on a series of legal questions, though he may bump up against them now and then.» 2340 In my opinion, given the fluidity of the ancient categories, 2341 a rigid distinction among healers, prophets, and legal teachers need not have applied in every case; in view of the Gospel tradition, I doubt that it applied in Jesus» case, and observers probably approached him in terms of whichever role they needed him to fil1. Having noted this caveat, however, the most popular perception of him was probably that of a charismatic signs-prophet. Some biblical prophets like Elijah and Elisha were particularly healers; 2342 some others, like Isaiah, healed occasionally (Isa 38:21); 2343 Judaism continued to link miracles with many of the biblical prophets. 2344 Judaism also sometimes continued to link signs with its expectation for contemporary prophets. 2345 Although oracular prophets like those in the OT continued in new forms, the most widely popular prophets in first-century Jewish Palestine were the prophets of deliverance, leading messianic movements and modeling their ministries after Moses and Joshua. These were signs-prophets like Theudas, who tried to part the Jordan, and the Egyptian false prophet who expected Jerusalem " s walls to collapse before him, both seeking to anticipate eschatological deliverance by working Moses- or Joshua-like miracles. 2346 That they envisioned themselves as possible messiahs is a potential though not essential corollary. Josephus, who tells us of them, had good reasons to play down messianic claims, although he does fail to brand them «brigands» like other rebels. 2347 But some of their followers undoubtedly understood them in such terms, and they could not help but recognize that their followers did so. 2348 |
| 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. |
| At the same time, Johns view of Jesus» deity, like that of other first-century Christians, should not be exaggerated. Later Trinitarian doctrine, zealous to advocate the Father and Son " s equality in deity, sometimes neglected the earliest Christian emphasis on the Son " s voluntary subordination to the Father in role, a subordination which John emphasizes no less than Mark (see comment on 5:18–20). None of this requires us to suppose that John provides verbatim reports of Jesus» preresurrection claims to deity; it does allow for the possibility that Jesus made some claims which were only later understood as claims to deity by his followers. That some of Jesus» opponents pressed more significance into such statements than did the disciples, who in the gospel tradition had not yet understood Jesus» identity ( John 5:18; 8:59; 10:31–33 ), is also suggested by Mark (2:7; 14:63). John has reworked his narrative to speak to the events of his own day (e.g., making the Pharisees the primary opposition), and chosen to emphasize some points of the Jesus tradition to the exclusion or near exclusion of others. But in doing so John may nevertheless develop motifs already implicit in the Jesus tradition itself, reapplying Jesus to his generation rather than creating from whole cloth a new Jesus with great authority but no continuity with the earlier tradition (contrast 1 John 4:1–6 , which counters gnosticizing charismatics who have abandoned the Jesus of history for spiritual revelations from a different Jesus). 2660 Whereas the Fourth Gospel does include some protestations that Jesus has not revealed himself (10:24), and includes a Messianic Secret of its own based on the hardness of unbelieving hearts, it is clear that we must take account of the particular emphases of John, of Mark, or of both to understand why the Johannine Jesus reveals his glory (messiahship included) so early and so comparatively openly. It may be that John, «who had meditated for many years on the significance of the acts and words of Jesus, had learned to appreciate even the earliest stages of the ministry in the light of its consummation.» 2661 |
| Ecumenical means “belonging to or accepted by the Christian Church throughout the word; as such, this term reflects the rule of faith given by St. Vincent of Lérins: Christian truth is that “which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” Thus is the correct dictionary definition of the word and the only patristic definition of it. Unfortunately, ‘ecumenical” has come to mean something quite different in the latter part of the 20th century. Under the influence of the World Council of Churches and the policy of aggiornamento in the Church of Rome, “ecumenical” has come to mean the following: the unity of Christ’s Church has been shattered through the centuries; all Christian Churches are pretty much equal, and each has a “share” of the truth; therefore, all denominations must be united in order to recapture the “whole-ness” that once existed. This is modern-day ecumenism. A superb example of the first and original kind of ecumenist is St. Mark of Ephesus, a 15th century champion of orthodoxy, sometimes called “The conscience of Orthodoxy.” The following information is condensed from a series of three articles in “The Orthodox Word” (1967), written by Archimandrite Amvrossy Pogodin: When the foundations of Byzantium were crumbling, diplomats redoubled their efforts to find a possibility of union with Western powers for a battle against the common adversary of Christianity, Islam. Attempts were made to conclude treaties with the Turks, but these were unsuccessful. The only hope lay in the West. For this it was necessary above all to make peace with the Vatican. A Council was convened in 1437, which established a committee of Latin and Greek theologians with the Pope and the Byzantine Emperor acting as heads. The Pope, Eugenius IV, had a very exalted idea of the papacy and aimed at subjecting the Orthodox Church to himself. Prompted by the straitened circumstances of Byzantium, the Emperor pursued his aim: to conclude an agreement profitable for his country. Few gave thought to the spiritual consequences of such a union. Only one delegate, the Metropolitan of Ephesus, St. Mark, stood in firm opposition. |
| The Gospels» sources may well include collections of «memoirs» 41 (perhaps «Q» may be understood in such terms), 42 the sort that could constitute «folk» biographies. Some second-century Christian writers 43 viewed the Gospels–alongside other apostolic works– as «memoirs,» probably recalling Xenophon " s Memorabilia, a «life» of Socrates. Their use of this term provides attestation that, from an early period, some saw the Gospels as a form of biography. 44 A common general pattern does exist, but the canonical gospels may represent a different kind of biography from most collections of memoirs; they are complete literary narratives and not simply «folk» biographies, as most such collections would be. 45 In their present form the Gospels are relatively polished and intricate works, as literary critics have skillfully demonstrated. Such literary preparation is to be expected for writers in a Greco-Roman context. Ancient speechwriters, for instance, were expected to premeditate their works carefully, arranging the material in advance and fixing it in their memories, so that they needed add only finishing touches once they set out to write their speeches. 46 Similarly, writers of Greek and Latin narratives typically began with a rough draft before producing their final work; 47 Jewish writers in Greek could do the same. 48 The Gospels are thus undoubtedly polished products of much effort, carefully arranged to communicate their points most adequately. 49 The writers of the Synoptics, like writers of most ancient historical works, probably began with a basic draft of the material in chronological order, to which a topical outline, speeches, and other rhetorical adjustments would be added later. 50 It was not, however, usually appropriate to «publish» the work in an unfinished form; one would complete the book, check copyists» manuscripts when possible, and then give the first copy to the dedicatee when appropriate (Cicero Att. 13.21a, 23,48). 51 Aristotle recommended sketching the plot in outline, then expanding by inserting episodes, and illustrates this with the Odyssey. 52 Like other Greek writers, Luke follows one source at a time, incorporating a large block of Q material into Mark; 53 both Luke and Matthew make Mark the backbone, and supplement Mark from other sources. 54 John s adjustments toward rhetorical sophistication may in some respects be less elaborate than even those of Mark. Depending on the circumstances, some ancient observers could view incorporating preexisting lines as plagiarism, others (if the incorporation was obvious) as flattering the source (Seneca Suasoriae 3.7). The Gospels (especially if they were circulating anonymously, though this remains uncertain), however, functioned as common property of the apostolic church. |
| Phillip Charles Lucas, «Protestant Christians Who Become Eastern Orthodoxy Converts: Variations on a Primitivist Theme» (документ, представленный на ежегодном собрании Американской Религиозной Академии, Сан-Франциско, Калифорния, ноябрь 1997 г.). Richard T. Hughes, C. Leonard Allen, Illusions of Innocence: Protestant Primitivism in America, 1630-1875 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988). Jon E. Braun, «Historical Sketch of the Evangelical Orthodox Church», (неопубликованная статья); Charles W. Moore, «The Strange Case of How 2000 Protestant Evangelicals Ended Up Joining the Orthodox Church», (опубликовано в феврале 1999 года). Письмо Джона Харденбрука и других священников митрополиту Филиппу от 12 февраля 1998 года; Father John Hardenbrook, «Phyletism or Freedom!», The Grapevine, еженедельный листок новостей православной церкви с вв. Петра и Павла, 29 августа 1997 года. Father John Hardenbrook, «Phyletism or Freedom!». ПЦА уходит своимим корнями в Русскую Православную Церковь и ее миссии на Аляске. ПЦА получила автокефалию в 1970 году. Сегодня в нее входят американские потомки русских, украинских, алеутских, эскимосских и тлинкитских общин, а также некоторые представители албанских, болгарских и румынских епископатов в США. Митрополит Филипп, Архипастырский Указ духовенству и мирянам Антиохийской Православной церкви свв. апостолов Петра и Павла, 14 февраля 1998 года; Mark Swearingen, « Anatomy of a Church Split», http ://www .BenLomondArchives .org (публикация от 29 марта 1998 года); Mark Swearingen, интервью с автором, Уотсонвилл, Калифорния, 19 сентября 1999 года. Электронное сообщение от Mark Swearingen academy@ ephesus. com ( St. Theophan Academy) от 28 августа 1998 г. Интервью с одним из бывших священников Бен-Ломондской церкви, пожелавшим остаться анонимным, от 8 июля 2002 года; сайт Братства св. Нектария http ://www . nektarios .org /sys -tmpl /door / (публикация от 12 ноября 2002 года). Согласно сайту, Братство Св. Нектария является «трансюрисдикционной, восточноправославной христианской организацией мирян, духовенства и монахов с мировым представительством. Цель Братства – давать беспристрастно точную информацию о критических ситуациях в американском православии с целью их разрешения». |
| 16-njy bap Ýolbaçylar alamat talap edýär (Mark 8:11-13;Luka 12:54-56) 1 Fariseýler bilen saddukeýler Isany ýanyna geldiler. Olar Isany synamak üçin, Onu özlerine gökden bir gudratly alamat görkezmegini islediler. 2 Ol eýle jogap berdi: «Agam düende: „Asmany ýüzi gyzaryp dur, howa gowy boljak“ diýýärsiiz. 3 Ertirine hem: „Asmany ýüzi garalypdyr hem tutuk, bu gün gaý turjak“ diýýärsiiz. Siz asmana seredip, howany ýagdaýyny saýgaryp bilýärsiiz-de, döwrü alamatlaryny saýgaryp bilmeýärsiizmi? 4 Bu erbet we biwepa nesil alamat talap edýär, emma oa Ýunus pygamberikiden baga alamat berilmez». eýlelikde, Isa olary talap gitdi. Fariseýleri we Hirody hamyrmaýasyndan hügär bolu! (Mark 8:14-21) 5 ägirtleri kölü beýleki tarapyna geçenlerinde, çörek almagy unudan ekenler. 6 Isa olara: «Hügär bolu, özüizi fariseýler bilen saddukeýleri hamyrmaýasyndan gora» diýdi. 7 Olar bolsa özara çekeleip: «Ol muny bizi çörek almandygymyz üçin eýle diýýändir» diýiýärdiler. 8 Emma Isa olary näme diýiýändiklerini bilip, eýle diýdi: «Eý, imany azlar! Çörek almandyrys diýip, nämä özara çekeleýärsiiz? 9 Entek hem düüneizokmy? Bä çörek bilen bä mü adamy doýandygy, artanyny näçe sebet bolandygy ýadyyza dümeýärmi? 10 Ýedi çörek bilen dört mü adamy doýandygy, artanyndan näçe sebedi dolduryp ýygnandygyyz hem ýadyyza düenokmy? 11 Siz nädip çörek barada gürrü etmeýändigime düünezok? Men size: „Özüizi fariseýler bilen saddukeýleri hamyrmaýasyndan gora“ diýýärin». 12 ägirtler Isany özlerine hamyrmaýa däl-de, fariseýler bilen saddukeýleri taglymatyndan gorany diýýändigine onda düündiler. Petrus Isany Mesihdigini ykrar edýär (Mark 8:27-30;Luka 9:18-21) 13 Isa Kaýsariýa-Filip äherini golaýyna gelende, ägirtlerinden: «Adamlar Ynsan Ogluna kim diýýärler?» diýip sorady. 14 ägirtleri Oa: «Käbirleri Ýahýa çümdüriji, käbirleri Ylýas, baga birleri Ýermeýa, käbirleri-de pygamberlerden biri diýýärler» diýip jogap berdiler. 15 Isa olardan: «Siz Maa kim diýýärsiiz?» diýip sorady. 16 Simun Petrus: «Sen diri Hudaýy Ogly Mesihsi» diýip jogap berdi. 17 Isa Oa eýle diýdi: «Eý, Ýunusy ogly Simun, sen nähili bagtly! Bu syry saa aýan eden ynsan däl-de, gökdäki Atamdyr. 18 Men saa uny aýdaýyn: Eý, Petrus! Sen gaýasy, Men ýygnagymy bu gaýany üstünde guraryn, hatda ölüm-de bu ýygnagymy ýeip bilmez. 19 Gögü alygyny açarlaryny saa bererin. Ýer ýüzünde rugsat berýän zadya gökde-de rugsat berler. Ýer ýüzünde gadagan edýän zady gökde-de gadagan ediler». 20 Onso ägirtlerine Özüni Isa Mesihdigini hiç kime aýtmazlygy tabyrdy. |
|
|
