| Trocmé, Formation Trocmé, Etienne. The Formation of the Gospel according to Mark. Translated by Pamela Gaughan. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975. Troster, «Quest» Troster, Lawrence. «Journey to the Center of the Earth: Birkat Ha-Mazon and the Quest for Holiness.» Conservative Judaism 47, no. 2 (winter 1995): 3–16. Trudinger, «Fishes» Trudinger, Pau1. «The 153 Fishes: A Response and a Further Suggestion.» ExpTim 102 (1990–1991): 11–12. Trudinger, «Ironies» Trudinger, Pau1. «Subtle Ironies and Word-plays in John " s Gospel and the Problems of Chapter 21.» St Mark " s Review 162 (1995): 20–24. Trudinger, «Israelite» Trudinger, L. Pau1. «An Israelite in Whom There Is No Guile: An Interpretive Note on John 1:45–51 .» EvQ 54 (1982): 117–20. Trudinger, « John 3:16 » Trudinger, Pau1. «Jesus» " Comfortable Words» in John 3:16 : A Note of Disappointment to Some?» St Mark " s Review 147 (1991): 30–31. Trudinger, « John 21 » Trudinger, Pau1. « John 21 Revisited Once Again.» DRev 106 (1988): 145–48. Trudinger, «Non-deity» Trudinger, Pau1. «John " s Gospel as Testimony to the Non-deity of Jesus.» Faith and Freedom 48 (1995): 106–110. Trudinger, «Prologue» Trudinger, L. Pau1. «The Prologue of John " s Gospel: Its Extent, Content and Intent.» Reformed Theological Review 33 (1974): 11–17. Trudinger, «Prophet» Trudinger, Pau1. «A Prophet Like Me ( Deut. 18:15 ): Jesus and Moses in St. John " s Gospel, Once Again.» DRev 113 (1995): 193–95. Trudinger, «Text» Trudinger, L. Pau1. «Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation.» JTS NS 17 (1966): 82–88. Trudinger, «Women» Trudinger, Pau1. «Of Women, Weddings, Wells, Waterpots, and Wine! Reflections on Johannine Themes ( John 2:1–11 and 4:1–42).» St Mark " s Review 151 (1992): 10–16. Tsuchido, «Anti-Semitism» Tsuchido, K. «Is There Anti-Semitism in the Fourth Gospel? An Exegetical Study of John 11:45–54 .» Annual of the Japanese Biblical Instituten (1995): 57–72. Tuckett, History Tuckett, Christopher M. Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. |
| 4058 For the importance of the eyewitness component in «witness,» see, e.g., Aune, Environment, 81; Painter, John, 8; Trites, Witness, 4–19,136–39. 4059 Michaels, Servant, 36. Cranfield, «Baptism,» 58, argues that it was a vision but a real communication to Jesus; Bultmann, History, 248, thinks it describes an objective happening as in Matthew and Luke, but only because it is a faith legend. 4060 Pace Hill, Prophecy, 59; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 18; cf. Bürge, Community, 52; Borg, Vision, 41,53 η. 19; Anderson, Mark, 75; Kelber, Story, 18–19; Hooker, Message, 13; Robinson, Problem, 81; Kingsbury, Structure, 14. 4062 Cf. also the christological inclusio of 1:1,18; 20(elsewhere, e.g., the sympathetic, choruslike εκκλησα, or public assembly, at the opening and close of Chariton Chaereas and Callirhoe). 4063 Cf. also dramatic language for personal deliverances (e.g. Ps 18:7–16 in context and some Qumran hymns, perhaps including the controversial «messianic» text 1 QH 3, which depicts the psalmist " s sufferings in terms of eschatological messianic woes). Mark " s heaven rending corresponds with the temple curtain " s rending (Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 46), but John omits this scene for other reasons than his own omission of the veil (Mark " s connection is subtle anyway). 4065 Frequent in rabbinic texts, e.g., Sipre Deut. 357.10.3; b. B. Bat. 58a, 73b, 85b; c Erub. 54b; Mak. 23b; Pesah. 114a (=Hu1. 44a); Sanh. 104b; Šabb. 88a; p. c Abod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Hor. 3:5, §3; Sotah 9:16, §2; Ta c an. 4:5, §10; Lev. Rab. 19:5–6; Lam. Rab. 1:16, §50; Ruth Rab. 6:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:2, 11:16,17:5; reportedly Tannaitic sources in b. Hu1. 44a; Ketub. 104a; Šabb. 33b; Sotah 21a; Ecc1. Rab. 7:12, §1; Song Rab. 8:9, §3 (but many of the attributions are presumably part of later haggadah). For nonrabbinic parallels, see comment on 12:28. The connection cannot be limited to an Aqedah allusion (contrast Stegner, «Baptism»). 4067 B. Pesah. 94a; Hag. 13a, anachronistically attributed to ben Zakkai; similarly R. Isaac in b. Sanh. 39b. Although the evidence is quite late, it might be relevant that the bat qol could have eschatological ramifications in some very late rabbinic sources (Lev. Rab. 27:2). |
| On Tuesday, March 18, 2014, Bishop Mark was elected by the members of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America to fill the vacant Episcopal See of Philadelphia and Eastern Pennsylvania. The election took place on the opening day of the spring session of the Holy Synod, at which Metropolitan Tikhon presided. Delegates to the Assembly of the Diocese of Philadelphia and Eastern Pennsylvania, held at Saint Nicholas Church, Bethlehem, PA on January 17, 2014, had nominated Bishop Mark, who had served as the Diocese’s Administrator since 2012, to fill the vacant See. His name was subsequently presented to the Holy Synod for canonical election. Born on June 22, 1958 in New Albany, IN, Bishop Mark was baptized at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Roman Catholic Church and confirmed at the age of nine years. He attended elementary school at Our Lady of Perpetual Help School and graduated from New Albany High School in 1976. He completed his Bachelor of Arts degree at Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, OK in 1985. In 1987, he was awarded a Master of Arts degree in Biblical Literature from Oral Roberts University, where he accepted the position of Adjunct Professor of Old Testament. Having been introduced to the Orthodox Church by the Archpriest George Eber, Pastor of Saint Antony Antiochian Orthodox Church, Tulsa, and his professors Dr. Jerry Sandidge and Dr. Howard Ervin of Oral Roberts University, he was received into the Orthodox Church through Holy Chrismation on Great and Holy Wednesday 1989. He attended Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary, from which he received his Master of Divinity degree in 1991. From 1993 until 1997, he was employed as a mental health worker at Mercy Psychiatric on a dual-diagnosis unit. On August 17, 1997, he was ordained to the diaconate. He was ordained to the priesthood on September 7, 1997, after which he was assigned pastor of Saint John the Evangelist Antiochian Orthodox Church, Beaver Falls, PA. Concurrently, he was engaged as a crisis worker in the emergency room at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Aliquippa, PA. In January 2001, he was reassigned to Saint George Antiochian Orthodox Church, Grand Rapids, MI. |
| Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453 (London 1971), pp. 301-5 and p. 404 (bibliography). In his longing for detachment Gregory was, however, less uncompromising than his friend Maximus of Kapsokalyvia, who – to avoid all sense of personal ownership – regularly burnt down his cell and moved elsewhere. Note on the sources of St Gregory of Sinai. The author quoted or mentioned by name in Gregory’s works by far the most frequently is John Climacus (13 references). After Climacus comes Isaac the Syrian (4 references); Mark the Monk (or Hermit) and Maximus the Confessor (3 references each); Ephraim the Syrian, Diadochus of Photice, Varsanuphius of Gaza (2 references each); Symeon the New Theologian (two references, one definitely and the other probably to ps.-Symeon, On Holy Prayer and Attention); Basil the Great, Abba Isaias, Hesychius, Thalassius, Philotheus of Sinai and Nicetas Stethatos (one reference each). It is interesting that there are no explicit references to the Macarian Homilies or to ps.-Dionysius. On this distinction between grace present secretly and unconsciously and grace perceived with full awareness, see Kallistos Ware, ‘The Sacrament of Baptism and the Ascetic Life in the Teaching of Mark the Monk’, in F. L. Cross (ed.), Studia Patristica, vol. x ( Texte und Untersuchungen 107: Berlin 1970), especially pp. 445-7. Ibid., 3 (1308A-B). Gregory is here referring to Mark the Monk or Hermit (early 5th century). The quotation is not exact, but the general idea recurs frequently in Mark: see De his qui putant, 56 (MPG lxv, col. 937D), 85 (944A); De bapt. (1001B), etc.; and compare Ware, art. cit., pp. 441-52. The same teaching on Baptism and the spiritual life is found in the Century of Kal listos and Ignatios Xanthopoulos, 4 and 6 (MPG cxlvii, cols 637D and 641C). Psalmodia, prescribed by Gregory for the 3rd, 6th and 9th hours of the day, probably includes the recitation of the Lesser Hours of Terce, Sext and None. There is no mention of the Midnight Office ( Mesonyktikon): possibly this is regarded as part of Orthros. |
| 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. |
|
|
