| 5 Из литературы по Мк 1:1 можно выделить, в частности: W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (Nashville, 1969) 117–150; W. Feneberg, Der Markusprolog: Studien zur Form-bestimmung des Evangeliums (Munich, 1974); P. Lamarche, Révélation de Dieu chez Marc (Paris, 1976) 2946; M. Bouttier, «Commencement, force et fin de LÉvangile,» ETR 51 (1976) 465–493; G. Arnold, « Mk 1.1 und Eröffnungswendungen in griechischen und lateinischen Schriften,» ZNW 68 (1977) 123–127; P. Pokorny, «Anfang des Evangeliums,» Die Kirche des Anfangs, Festschr. H. Schürmann, ed. R. Schnackenburg (Freiburg, 1978) 115–132; A. Feuillet, «Le commencement de l’économie chrétienne d ’après He. 2.3–1. Mc. 1.1 et Ac. 1.2,» NTS 24 (1978) 163–174; C. R. Kazmierski, Jesus the Son of God (Würzburg, 1979) 1–26; A. Globe, «The Caesarean Omission of the Phrase ‘Son of God’ in Mk 1.1 ,» HTR 75 (1982) 209–218. 6 «Начальный стих – это марковское исповедание веры», – замечает Р. Мартин. См.: R. P. Martin, Mark the Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter, 1972) 127. Это исповедание является ещё более значимым, если титул «Сын Божий» принадлежит к оригиналу Евангелия. Последний тезис недавно отстаивался в работе: A. Globe, «The Caesarean Omission,» 218. 7 Словосочетание ησο Χιστο – это родительный объектный падеж. См.: Lagrange 2–3 ; Taylor 152; Pesch 1, 75; Gnilka 1, 43. Однако W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist 146–150, высказывает гипотезу, что перед нами одновременно родительный субъектный и родительный объектный, и что Христос проповедует Евангелие, которое проповедует Христа. 8 См.: W.H. Kelber, Mark’s Story of Jesus (Philadelphia, 1979) 16–17. Автор пишет: Прежде чем сам Иисус заговорит в евангельском повествовании, и прежде чем Его именует небесный голос, Марк уже представляет Его читателю как фигуру, наделённую необычайной властью». См. также: М. Bouttier, «Commencement,» 465–467; P. Lamarche, Révélation de Dieu, 42–43. Если пролог соотносится с последующей перикопой Мк 1:2–8 , то превосходство Мессии подчеркивается через Ветхий Завет . Это предположение высказывал ещё Ориген , Толкование на Евангелие от Иоанна, 1, 13, GCS Origen Vol. 4, 18. |
| 54 Anaphoras: of the Liturgy of Mark (Cuming G.J. (ed.) The Liturgy of St. Mark. (Roma, 1990: Orientalia Christiana Analecta; 234). P. 37), from the Euchologion of Sarapion (Johnson M.E. The Prayers of Sarapion of Thmuis: A Literary, Liturgical and Theological Analysis. (Roma, 1995: Orientalia Christiana Analecta; 249). P. 46), from the papyrus from Der-Balyzeh (van Haelst J. Une nouvelle reconstitution dupapyrus liturgique de DerBalizeh, in: Ephemerides Theologicae Louvanienses. Vol. 45 (1969). P. 444–455, here: p. 448). 57 On the sporadic interchange of α and η see: Ibid. P. 286; on simplification and gemination of liquids see: Ibid. P. 155–156. 61 In giving textual parallels I am adhering to the following principles. Biblical references are given always when an expression shows some proximity with a biblical phrase (OT citations are always taken from the Septuagint; when I cite deutero-canonical books or when the numbering differs from the Masoretic text, this is explicitly marked by an abbreviation: LXX). Patristic parallels are given from the 1–4 th century sources with a special attention paid to texts of Egyptian provenance. Parallels from purely liturgical sources (namely, from Greek Liturgies of Mark, James, Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus; from the Euchology of Sarapion; from some Egyptian liturgical papyri – i. e. only from the texts of the eucharistic rites preserved in Greek) are given (with a citation – because most of these have no common numbering) only when a particular expression of the anaphora or thanksgiving prayer resembles some particular expression in these sources. In other words, obvious parallels in such anaphoral commonplaces as: the νω τς καρδας μν and ξιον κα δκαιον in the initial dialogue of anaphora, the γιος, γιος, γιος... in the Sanctus, the words of Institution, the final «Amen», are totally omitted. In cases of verbal conformity of expressions an equal sign (=) is used. All parallels except biblical are accompanied by a reference to an edition of the text. |
| Schürmann H. Ursprung und Gestalt. Erörterungen und Besinnungen zum Neuen Testament. Düsseldorf, 1970. Schweitzer E. The Good News according to Mark. Atlanta, 1970. Seim T.K. Roles of Women in the Gospel of John//Aspects of the Johannine Literature. Papers Presented at a Conference of Scandinavian New Testament Exegetes at Uppsala, June 16–20, 1986/ed. by L.Hartman and B.Olsson. Uppsala, 1986. SeniorD. Matthey. Nashville, 1998. Setzer C. Resurrection of the Body in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Doctrine, Community, and Self-Definition. Boston; Leiden, 2004. Simoens Y. Évangile selon Jean. Paris, 2016. Stein R.H. Mark. Grand Rapids, 2008. Storkey A. Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers. Grand Rapids, 2005. Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. London, 1924. Talbert Ch.H. Matthew. Grand Rapids, 2010. Taylor V. The Gospel according to St.Mark. London, 1952. Taylor V. The Passion Narrative of St.Luke. A Critical and Historical Investigation. Cambridge, 1972. Testament spirituel de Christian de Chergé//URL:http://www. Theissen G. The Gospels in Context. London; New York, 2004. Thomas J.Ch. Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community. Sheffield, 1991. Thomas T. Greater than Ceasar. Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel. Minneapolis, 2009. Tilborg S., van, Counet P.C. Jesus’ Appearances and Disappearances in Luke 24. Leiden; Boston; Koln, 2000. Turner D.L. Matthew. Grand Rapids, 2008. Vermes G. Jesus. Nativity – Passion – Resurrection. London, 2008. Vermes G. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. London, 2004. Vermes G. The Changing Faces of Jesus. London, 2001. Weren W. Windows on Jesus. Methods in Gospel Exegesis. Harrisburg, PA, 1999. Western W. The Enigma of the Two Swords//Expository Times. 1939. P.377; Expository Times. 1941. P.357 Wilkinson Duran N. The Power of Disorder. Ritual Elements in Mark’s Passion Narrative. London; New York, 2008. Williams C.H. Isaiah in John’s Gospel//Isaiah in the New Testament/Ed. by S.Moyise and M.J.J.Menken. London; New York, 2005. P.101–116. |
| Anderson, Perry. 1974. Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism. London: Verso Press. Angas, Lawrence Lee Bazley. 1937. Slump Ahead in Bonds. New York: Somerset Pub. Co Arnaud, Daniel. 1973. “La prostitution sacree en Mesopotamie, un mythe historique?” Revue de l " histoire des religions 183:111–115. Arrighi, Giovanni. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. London: Verso. 2007. Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century. London: Verso. Arrighi, Giovanni, Po-Keung Hui, Ho-Fung Hung and Mark Selden. 2003. “Historical Capitalism, East and West”. In The Resurgence of East Asia: 500,150, and 50 year perspectives. (Giovanni Arrighi, Takeshi Hamashita and Mark Selden, eds.) London: Routledge, pp. 259–333. Asheri, David. 1969. “Leggi greche sul problema dei debiti.” Studii classici e orientali 18:5-122. Ashtor, Eliahu. 1972. “Banking instruments between the Muslim East and the Christian West.” Journal of European Economic History 1:559–573. 1976. A Social and Economic History of the Middle East. Berkeley: University of California Press. Assante, Julia. 2003. “From Whores to Hierodules: The Historiographic Invention of Mesopotamian Female Sex Professionals.” In Ancient Art and Its Historiography (edited A. A Donahue and Mark D. Fullerton), 13–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Atwood, Margaret. 2008. Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth. London: Bloomsbury. Auerbach, Erich. 1946 Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Aydan, Ertan. 2003. The Peculiarities ofTurkish Revolutionary Ideology in the 1930s: the Oluku version of Kemalism, 1933–1936. Ph.D. dissertation, Bilkent University, Ankara (http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu. tt70002416.pdf). Aylmer, G. E. 1980. “The Meaning of Property in Seventeenth-Century England.” Past and Present 86:87–97. Ayyar, P. V. Jagadisa. 1982. South Indian Shrines: Ilustrated. New Delhi: Apex. Bahrani, Zainab. 2001. Women of Babylon: Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia. London: Routledge. |
| Apostle and Evangelist Matthew Commemorated on November 16 The Holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew, was also named Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27); he was one of the Twelve Apostles (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:45; Acts 1:13), and was brother of the Apostle James Alphaeus (Mark 2:14). He was a publican, or tax-collector for Rome, in a time when the Jews were under the rule of the Roman Empire. He lived in the Galilean city of Capernaum. When Matthew heard the voice of Jesus Christ: “Come, follow Me” (Mt. 9:9), left everything and followed the Savior. Christ and His disciples did not refuse Matthew’s invitation and they visited his house, where they shared table with the publican’s friends and acquaintances. Like the host, they were also publicans and known sinners. This event disturbed the pharisees and scribes a great deal. Publicans who collected taxes from their countrymen did this with great profit for themselves. Usually greedy and cruel people, the Jews considered them pernicious betrayers of their country and religion. The word “publican” for the Jews had the connotation of “public sinner” and “idol-worshipper.” To even speak with a tax-collector was considered a sin, and to associate with one was defilement. But the Jewish teachers were not able to comprehend that the Lord had “come to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Mt. 9:13). Matthew, acknowledging his sinfulness, repaid fourfold anyone he had cheated, and he distributed his remaining possessions to the poor, and he followed after Christ with the other apostles. St Matthew was attentive to the instructions of the Divine Teacher, he beheld His innumerable miracles, he went together with the Twelve Apostles preaching to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 10:6). He was a witness to the suffering, death, and Resurrection of the Savior, and of His glorious Ascension into Heaven. Having received the grace of the Holy Spirit, which descended upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, St Matthew preached in Palestine for several years. At the request of the Jewish converts at Jerusalem, the holy Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel describing the earthly life of the Savior, before leaving to preach the Gospel in faraway lands. |
| 2613 Glasson, Advent, 161–79; followed also by Robinson, Coming, 140–41. 2614 Reim, «Jesus as God,» goes too far in seeing a shared background between the Christology of John and that of Hebrews in Ps 45:7–8 . For Jesus» deity in Revelation, where it is emphasized perhaps even more than in the Fourth Gospel, see my discussion in Keener, Revelation, 42. 2615 Cf. McGrath, Apologetic Christology (much was pre-Johannine but developed in the polemical setting). 2616 For these categories, see above on signs. Mark " s signs may have an aretalogical function (Theissen, Stories, 212), and are certainly positive (Kümmel, Introduction, 93; Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 105; Kingsbury, Christology, 76; Vander Broek, «Sitz,» 131–89; against Weeden, Mark, 52–69), but as in John and Acts, peoplés response is varied. 2617 E.g., Manson, Servant-Messiah, 72–73; Longenecker, Christology, 82–92. Although some views of the Son of Man reject its eschatological sense because the phrase could bear a non-eschatological sense (e.g., Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 160–91; Leivestad, «Exit,» 266–67; cf. Cullmann, Christology, 138; contrast Lindars, «Re-Enter»), most scholars recognize a specific eschatological title, whether from an interpretation of Daniel or from the Similitudes of Enoch (Burkitt, Sources, 66–68; Tödt, Son of Man; Ladd, Theology, 145–58; Boccaccini, Judaism, 219; Brown, Death, 509–14). Scholars still dispute whether the Similitudes are Christian (e.g., Agouridis, «Son of Man») or earlier (e.g., Thompson, «Son of Man»); they could prove irrelevant in either case (see Casey, «Son of Man»; Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 18, 88–89; compare Knibb and Isaac in their renderings of J En. 71:14). 2618 Barrett, Essays, 48. 2619 See below. It could not derive from gnosticism (see Schnackenburg, John, 1:529–42; Bordiert, John, 150). 2620 Holwerda, Spirit, 12–13. Cf. Borgens connection with Philós «Man after God " s image» (Confusion 146; Alleg. Interp. I A3; Borgen, «Agent,» 146). 2621 Witherington, Christology, 242. |
| 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. |
| Six days before the Passover (12:1) Jerusalem would already be filling, both for purification (11:55) and for Diaspora Jews making pilgrimage who could neither calculate the exact time of their arrival nor risk arriving late. In John " s story world (in which Passover begins Friday evening; see 18:28; 19:14), this timing apparently indicates Saturday evening after sundown, when Martha could serve at table. 7766 Yet Mark strongly implies that the anointing occurred two days before Passover ( Mark 14:1–3 ). Some think that John corrects Mark on the basis of independent tradition; 7767 whether the difference involves a deliberate correction or not, it does emphasize the independence of the tradition. Mark may have moved the anointing closer to Passover to clarify the connection or increase suspense, or to recount it after the fateful meeting of authorities, which he places two days before Passover ( Mark 14:1–2 ) but which John places earlier ( John 11:47–53 ). John may wish to begin passion week with the anointing; having recounted Jesus» conflicts in Jerusalem as early as 2:14–18, he now must bring the passion to an end quickly once Jesus enters the holy city. It is also possible, in view of an early Christian tradition concerning the transfiguration ( Mark 9:2 ; Matt 17:1), that John uses the six days to allude to the waiting period for the revelation of God " s glory at Sinai (Exod 24:16); at the Passover Jesus would be «glorified» (12:23–24), and his disciples would behold his glory as Moses had (1:14). 7768 Less likely (though reflecting the Pentateuch " s most frequent use of «six days») it refers to the period of work preceding a Sabbath (cf. John 19:14,31,42 ). The six days might also allow a careful interpreter to note the transition to the next day (12:12) and thus to suggest that Jesus entered Jerusalem on the day the Passover lambs were set aside (Exod 12:3), four days before their offering (Exod 12:6); but the lack of explicit chronological indication at the time of Jesus» entrance, when it would be most helpful to convey this point, renders unlikely the suggestion that John sought to communicate this impression. |
| 2050 . Politis N. G. Μρκου φσου το Εγενικο Εχ περιεκτικ ες τν Ζωοποιν Τριδα//EEBS 1966–1967. 35. 223–226. 2051 . Pétridès S. Le synaxaire de Marc d’Éphèse//ROC 1910. 2:5(15). 97–107. 2052 . Schmemann Α. γιος Μρκος Εγενικς//GP 1951. 24. 34–43, 230–241. 2053 . Tsirpanlis С. N. Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence. A historical re-evaluation of his personality (1391–1445). Diss. Ν. Y. 1973. Thessalonica; Ann Arbor 1974. 3 N. Y. 1986. Rexine J. E.//GOTR 1976 (Fall). 21:3. 313–315. 2054 . Tsirpanlis C. N. Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florencë a historical re-evaluation of his personality (1391–1455)//Dissertation Abstracts International – Ä The Humanities and Social Sciences. 1974. 34:8. 5044–5045. 2055 . Tsirpanlis C. N. The career and political views of Marcus Eugenicus//Byz 1974. 44. 449–457. 2056 . Tsirpanlis C. N. Mark Eugenicus on Purgatorium//BSI 1976. 37:2. 194–200. 2057 . Vasileiadis Ν. Μ ρκος Εγενικς κα νωσις τν κκλησιν. θναι 1972. Cavamos J.//GOTR 1984. 29:2. 209. 2058 . Vlastos Κ. Δοκμιον στορικν περ το σχσματος τς δυτικς κκλησας π τς ρθοδξου νατολικς... το βου το ν γοις πατρς μν Μρκου ρχιεπισκπου φσου το Εγενικο. θναι 2 1896. [ 1 1887 под другим назв., переизд. в третий раз опять под новым титулом в Афинах после 1970 г.]. Виссарион Никейский (loannes Bessarion) CSGL 04491; PG 161; PMA; RF 2. 527–528; TLG 3229; Beck 767–769; DHGE 8, 1196–1199; PLP 2707 Ок. 1399–1472. Ученик Георгия Хрисококка, Иоанна Хортасмена и Георгия Гемиста Плифона, гуманист. Греческий митрополит Никейский (потом Фиванский), затем (с 1439) латинский кардинал и епископ. Адресат Геннадия Схолария , Феодора Газы, Георгия Амируци. Сторонник унии. Сочинения Риторические, религ.-богосл. (Опровержение на «Против Векка» Паламы, Об унии, О Св. Духе, Против Плануда, О Евхаристии и др.), филос. (Против Плифона, Против клеветника Платона, схолии к Аристотелю и др.), речи и письма на лат. 2059 . Quae hoc in volumine tractantur. Bessarionis cardinalis Niceni... in calumniatore Platonis libri quator ...: Eiusdem correctio librorum Platonis de legibus Georgio Trapezuntio interprete ... Eiusdem de natura & arte aduersus eundem Trapezuntium ... Eiusdem Metaphysicorum Aristotelis XIIII librorum translatio. Theophrasti Meta-physicorum lib. I.... – [S.I.]: [s.n.], (Venetiis: in aedibus Aldi Manutü, et Andreae soceri). – 116, 55, |
| – Already on the first day we felt that about a fourth of the Conferees were inclined to a tough debate, accusing us of “Sergianism” and ecumenism. The first report of Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany “The paths of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Past and Future” was well balanced and objective. Asking Archbishop Mark questions, these irreconcilable priests rebuked their Archpastor for his support of our dialogue. The roundtable “Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Today” was no less acute. Vladyka Mark had to listen to critical questions and comments concerning his support in developing of the dialogue between the Churches. Archimandrite Tikhon had a difficult task delivering his lecture “Monasteries and monastic life in Russia Today” in the afternoon of the first day. In a lecture with such a title he had to voice the position of the Moscow Patriarchate towards the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The topic of the lecture was only slightly touched upon. Fr. Tikhon focused mainly on the comprehension of the way traveled by our Church in the last century. He mentioned also adoption of “The Basics of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church”, namely in the part where it reads that in certain cases when the State demands from the members of the Church to fulfill certain requirements inadmissible to them according to the Christian doctrine or norms of Christian ethics, the Church can refuse to obey and call her flock to peaceful civil disobedience. Archimandrite Tikhon quoted also the words of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy said in 1991, in which the Primate of our Church testified: we neither renounce the personality nor call in question the feat of Patriarch Sergius, however we cannot accept his path of relationship of the Church and the State stated in the Declaration of 1927 as the only correct one, and today we do not regard the Declaration as a document to follow. Besides, Archimandrite Tikhon gave examples of the recent years that obviously demonstrated independent position of the Russian Orthodox Church (non-commemoration of the authorities by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy during Divine Liturgy in the Kremlin on the Feast of Transfiguration in 1991 (the putsch against Gorbachev – translator’s note), refusal of our Church to recognize the so called “Yekaterinburg remains” to be the relics of the murdered Royal Passion-bearers despite extreme pressure on the part of the secular state). Joining these and other facts together, Archimandrite Tikhon pointed out that in this way our Church in fact defined its independent position toward the state. |
|
|
