| 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. |
| Munich: Interview of Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany: " Attaining Church Unity is a Spiritual Podvig " Archbishop Mark of Berlin In late December 2005, an Orthodox Conference of the Diocese of Berlin and Germany of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was held. Sergei Chapnin, Editor-in-Chief of Tserkovnij Vestnik [ " Church Messenger " ], participated in the Conference at the invitation of Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany. His Eminence spoke to him of the attitudes in the Russian Church Abroad, and about the work of the Synodal Commission on talks with the Moscow Patriarchate in an interview with Tserkovnyj Vestnik: -Your Eminence, at what stage are the talks between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate? Which problems have been resolved and which remain before the Commissions during this period before the convening of the All-Diaspora Council? - The Commissions of each Church examined all the fundamental questions set before us at the meeting of His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus and the delegation of our Church with His Holiness Patriarch Alexy and several members of his Synod. The following problems were on the agenda for years: the glorification of the New Martyrs, the relationship between the Church and state, Orthodoxy and ecumenism. In these areas we managed to achieve a great deal of complicated work. The fundamental positions were often diametrically opposed, but we still found a common tongue. As a whole, the hierarchies of both sides accepted the documents we prepared. I will note: this does not mean that the documents have been adopted by the entire Church, but by the hierarchies. In this regard I can immediately state what the desired conclusion of this process is: we foresee that the All-Diaspora Council will examine these documents and summaries of the work that was done, and only after this will the Council of Bishops make its decisions. Whether they will be adopted in the form we propose or whether changes will be required I cannot predict. |
| De antiquissimis veterum quae ad Iesum Nazarenum spectant testimoniis. Giessen, 1913; Aufhauser J. B. Antike Jesus-Zeugnisse. Bonn, 19252; Eisler R. ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ. Hdlb., 1929-1930. 2 Bde; Windisch H. Das Problem der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu: Die ausserchristlichen Zeugnisse//ThRu. 1929. Bd. 1. S. 266-288; Bienert W. Der älteste nichtchristliche Jesusbericht Josephus über Jesus: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des altrussischen «Josephus». Halle, 1936; Jeremias J. Unbekannte Jesusworte. Zürich, 1948; Klausner J. Jesus von Nazareth. Jerusalem, 19523; Köster H. Synoptische Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vätern. B., 1957; idem. Dialog und Spruchüberlieferung in den gnostischen Texten von Nag Hammadi//EvTh. 1979. Bd. 39. S. 532-556; idem. Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels//HarvTR. 1980. Vol. 73. P. 105-130; idem. History and Development of Mark " s Gospel: From Mark to Secret Mark and «Canonical» Mark//Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches/Ed. B. Corley. Macon, 1983. P. 35-57; idem. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. L.; Phil., 1990; Conzelmann H. Jesus Christus//RGG. 19593. Bd. 3. S. 619-653; Brandon S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots. Manchester, 1967; K ö ster H., Robinson J. M. Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums. Tüb., 1971; Norden E. Josephus und Tacitus über Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophetie// Schalit A., Hrsg. Zur Josephusforschung. Darmstadt, 1973. S. 27-69; Sch ü rer E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C.-A. D. 135)/Ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar. Edinb., 1973. Vol. 1; 1979. Vol. 2; Winter P. Josephus on Jesus and James// Sch ü rer. 1973. P. 428-441; Bruce F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. L., 1974; Vielhauer Ph. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. B.; N. Y., 1975; Maier J. Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung. Darmstadt, 1978; idem. Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike. |
| Moreover (wholly aside from the question of John " s relation to Mark), Jesus changing Peter " s name is attested independently in a special Matthean source (Matt 16:17–18) and, in less detail, Mark ( Mark 3:16 ). 4230 That such significant words do not appear in the parallel Markan narrative may be explained either by their absence from Mark " s source at that point or by Mark " s portrayal of the original disciples in an ambiguous light; 4231 at any rate, this may represent a floating tradition not directly connected with Peter " s confession. 4232 (John is not particularly concerned with maintaining the original context of the saying, however; he reports even the confession in a context very different from that of Mark; cf. John 6:67–70 , where also Judas, rather than Peter, is called a devi1. 4233 Peter " s «you are» the holy one in 6may respond to Jesus» «you are Simon» in 1:42, though an earlier «you are» confession appears in 1:49; cf. 4:19; 11:27.) Despite the undoubtedly independent confirmation of the saying in two divergent sources, many scholars regard the name change story as inauthentic. Some view it as a prophecy, probably from the Petrine party, 4234 or offer still more speculative proposals; 4235 others more objectively argue for an originally purely Matthean construction based on the parallelism, 4236 but parallelism need not indicate even a later structure (cf. the Q form of the beatitudes and Jeremias on Jesus» Aramaic rhythm). Against their position one may point to the particularly heavily Semitic construction in Matthew " s language in that passage. 4237 Evidence also allows that Jesus would have spoken, in some saying (if not this one), of a future community, since most teachers trained disciples for this purpose; 4238 dependence on the Hebrew Bible and contemporary Qumran usage indicates the plausibility of Jesus» use of a term that could translate as «church.» 4239 Although many view the pronouncement as a postresurrection saying, 4240 this premise is unnecessary given Jesus» preparation for a future community (providing ethics for a community; provoking his own death in Jerusalem but– on our reading–viewing himself as the eschatological Son of Man and Lord at God " s right hand who would reign in the kingdom after his enemies were subjected). |
| 3828 See comments on 1:6–8 above. One should not press too much the distinction between «confessed» and «denied not» (as Westcott, John, 18, endeavors to do). 3829 So many commentators, e.g., Hooker, Message, 9; Ladd, Theology, 35; Lane, Mark, 51. Nortjé, «John,» sees Jesus as a John, hence Elijah, redivivus. 3830 Hunter, John, 22, suggests that our author " s remark is difficult to explain if the author knew Mark. 3831 Martyn thinks that the Fourth Gospel suppressed a source identifying Jesus as Elijah to conform to the broader Christian tradition. Another proposal, that Jesus viewed himself as a new Elisha following John the new Elijah (Bostock, «Elisha»), is reasonable but lacks adequate supporting evidence. 3832 Taylor, Mark, 390 suggests that in the transfiguration Moses and Elijah represent the law and prophets; but probably they are just harbingers of the end; cf. Moule, Mark, 70. 3833 For the latter view, see Brown, Essays, 181–84. The evangelist may use rhetorically less favored historical presents here (1:21) and elsewhere for vividness (as, e.g., in the Latin of Caesar Gallic War, passim), though scholars could criticize inconsistency in verb tenses (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2 Amm. 12); on the importance of vividness, see Anderson, Glossary, 43,125 (cf. also 73). 3834 Diversity of perspectives on Elijah extended even to interpretations of biblical narratives; cf. Zeller, «Elija.» 3835 E.g., b. Móed Qat. 26a; Sanh. 113b, although such texts may reflect differing implications as to whether (perhaps " Abot R. Nat. 38, §103 B, till Messiah comes) or not (cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:4) he would die. Josephus " s words are more guarded (Ant. 9.28), probably accommodating Hellenistic skepticism. 3836 See Keener, Spirit, 20–22; Sipra Sh. M.D. 99.5.6; also Tg. Jon. on 1Sam 19and on 2 Kgs 6:1; 9:1,4. 3837 " Abot R. Nat. 2A; b. c Abod. Zar. 36a; Ber. 3a; Git. 42b; Hag. 9b; Qidd. 79a; Menah. 32a; p. Ber. 9:2, §3; Ter. 1(unclear here whether the activity in this text was in ancient Israel or the rabbinic period); Pesiq. |
| Having finished his final 13-year exams in Frankfurt am Main in 1960, the future Vladyka Mark joined the military services of West Germany, where he spent a year and a half. He then reenlisted several times and reached the rank of senior lieutenant. In 1962, he enrolled in the Frankfurt University’s history/philology department, transferring later to Heidelberg University. There he specialized in Slavic and English, studying, in addition to Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovak, Czech, and Macedonian language and literature. He wrote his doctoral thesis on the topic “Biographical Literature of the Tver Kingdom of the XIV and XV Centuries.” 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 (Hiero-Schemamonk Seraphim and Hiero-Schemamonk Seraphim, Hiero-Schemamonk Nikolaos, and Schemamonk Nikodim), visits to St. Elias Skete and St. Panteleimon Monastery, where he came to know Hiero-Schemamonk 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 St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. In the fall of 1973, the future hierarch began studying theology in Belgrade University, where he graduated with a theology degree in 1979. His personal friendship with then out of favor 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 into monasticim, 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-built 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. |
| 41. Православный приход в Тегеране (Иран) 42. Свято-Георгиевский храм при Посольстве Российской Федерации в Праге (Чехия) 43. Православный приход на Кипре 23. 418 Статьи общей тематики о жизни прихода… 23. 419 Лавры, монастыри и храмы РПЦ 23. 419–1 Лавры 23. 419–2 Монастыри… 23. 419–3 Храмы 23. 419–4 Сельские Церкви 23. 419–5 Часовни. 23. 419–6 Передвижные церкви 23. 5 Духовное просвещение и образование, включая православные школы и гимназии 23. 51 Учебные заведения РПЦ. Общие вопросы 23. 51–1 Духовные академии и семинарии 23. 51–2 Аспирантура при Московской духовной академии 23. 51–3 Регентские классы (отделения). 23. 51–4 Духовные училища… 23. 51–5 Пастырские курсы 23. 51–6 Православные ВУЗы 23. 52 Защита магистерских и докторских диссертаций 23. 53 Приветственные слова и речи в учебных заведениях 23. 54 Правила приема в учебные заведения. 23. 55 Архиереи и другие видные деятели РПЦ 23. 55–1 Архиереи. 23. 55–2 Монашествующие 23. 55–3 Белое духовенство 23. 55–4 Миряне 23. 6 Церковь и общество 23. 61 Церковь и школа (детские сады, средние и высшие учебные заведения) 23. 62 Церковь и исправительные учреждения. 23. 63 Церковь и культура, включая СМИ 23. 64 Церковь и медицина; борьба с алкоголизмом и наркоманией. 23. 65 Благотворительная деятельность РПЦ 23. 66 Патриотическая деятельность РПЦ, включая все периоды истории, а также трагедию на ЧАЭС… 23. 67 Миротворческая деятельность РПЦ… 23. 68 Церковь и государство. 23. 7 Расколы в РПЦ 23. 71 Внутренние расколы 23. 72 Зарубежные расколы (Карловацкий и др. ); иерархия РПЦЗ. 23. 8 Другие стороны жизни РПЦ 23. 81 Молодежные организации и движения РПЦ; православные братства и сестричества 23. 82 Ордена и медали РПЦ 23. 83 Фонд премий памяти митрополита Московского и Коломенского Макария 23. 84 Участие РПЦ в различных приемах; хроника и др… История русского старообрядчества] История славянских церквей] 25. Общие вопросы истории Славянских Церквей 25. 1 Сербская Православная Церковь 25. 2 Болгарская Православная Церковь 25. 3 Польская Православная Церковь |
| Granted, Matthew and Luke exercise freedom in arranging and editing Mark and other sources that they share in common; but this editing must be judged minimal by ancient standards, not affecting the content as substantially as those who cite this «freedom» often assume. 291 That the Gospel writers themselves saw such variation as within their permissible range may be suggested by Lukés triple recounting of Paul " s conversion with differences in details each time, though the core of the story remains the same. 292 Where Mark and «Q» overlap (e.g., Mark 1:7–13 with Matt 3:7–4:ll/Luke 3:7–17, 4:1–13; Mark 3:22–27 with Matt 12:24–30/Luke 11:15–23), one gains a similar impression of Mark " s faithfulness to the preexisting tradition. 293 Although the differences in the accounts may be more striking to a reader accustomed to harmonizing the Gospels, the points of comparison are generally far more striking when one takes into account that the first three gospels were written at different times, from different possible sources, and to different audiences. Furthermore, even at their latest possible date of composition, they derive from a period close to the events, when the influence of eyewitnesses of the events remained prominent in the early church. Some scholars may place the dates too early, but even on the consensus datings of the Gospels, they must stem from a period when eyewitness testimony remained central to the church, 294 and at least Luke seems to have had direct access to eyewitness corroboration for some of his traditional material (1:1–4). Ancient rhetoricians regularly attack the credibility of witnesses for a contrary position (e.g., Josephus Life 356), and courts sometimes dismissed the reliability of some kinds of witnesses on account of their gender or social status. 295 One would, however, be hard-pressed to view the earliest disciples» witness as fabrication, given the price they were prepared to pay for it. 296 Luke also claims to have investigated matters thoroughly (1:3). |
|
|
