| 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. |
| – 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. |
| The Synodal Residence in New York hosts the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Source: ROCOR Photo: synod.com On Tuesday, 13 September, 2022, the members of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, led by His Eminence Metropolitan Mark of Berlin and Germany, celebrated Divine Liturgy at the Synodal Cathedral of Our Lady “of the Sign” in New York City. At the end of divine services, the archpastors performed a moleben for the opening of the Council, invoking the Holy Spirit to help in their work. Attending the Council of Bishops were Metropolitan Mark; His Eminence Archbishop Kyrill of Western America and New York; His Eminence Archbishop Gabriel of Montreal and Canada; His Eminence Archbishop Peter of Chicago and Mid-America; His Grace Bishop John of Caracas and South America; His Grace Bishop Irenei of London and Western Europe; His Grace Bishop Nicholas of Manhattan; His Grace Bishop Theodosius of Seattle; His Grace Bishop Luke of Syracuse; His Grace Bishop Alexander of Vevey and His Grace Bishop Job of Stuttgart. His Grace Bishop George of Canberra participated electronically. After a trapeza luncheon in the large hall of the Synodal Residence, the Council of Bishops opened. During his keynote address, Metropolitan Mark noted: “In very difficult circumstances, we must proceed to elect a new First Hierarch. We are in need of a calm hand to steer the ship of our Church in a storm-tossed sea. For this we require first of all genuine collegiality, through which, after exhaustive deliberation, we will make decisions in the spirit of conciliarity.” Archbishop Kyrill was then elected Vice Chairman, and elected as Secretaries of the Council were Bishop Nicholas, Bishop Theodosius and Bishop Job. Elected as members of the Counting Committee were Bishop Irenei and Bishop Luke. Then, after commemorating the reposed Primates of the Russian Church Abroad in the Cathedral, the hierarchs commenced electing a new First Hierarch. First to vote was Metropolitan Mark, followed by the other members of the Council of Bishops. Having heard the second round of voting, the archpastors exclaimed “Axios” [“he is worthy”] for Bishop Nicholas, after which litanies “for our Master Bishop Nicholas, Elected Primate of the Russian Church Abroad,” followed by the singing of “Many Years.” |
| So far, by confining discussion to the synoptic account, the most contentious issue concerning the trial of Christ has been avoided. This is the question of the charge. Lietzmann, in his well-known paper Der Prozeß Jesu, 97 more cogently than any other scholar put the view that the only charge before Pilate was that of insurrection. Lietzmann, of course, rejected as unhistorical the version of John, in which the offence against the Jewish law is twice made the principal charge, 98 Pilate is represented as finding Christ innocent of any political crime, 99 and authorizes the Jews to execute the judgment of the Sanhedrin for the religious offence. John 18:31 is the crux: ‘Pilate said, «Take him and judge him according to your law.» The Jews replied, «We are not allowed to put any man to death».’ This puts firmly what is only implicit in two of the three synoptic narratives, and absent from the third – the notion that the Sanhedrin, having condemned Christ for blasphemy, then sought the fiat of Pilate for the execution. In Mark and Matthew, whose narratives cohere very closely, there is no doubt that the Sanhedrin passes sentence for blasphemy: ‘кατкριναν ατν νοχον εναι θαντου’. Then, in Matthew, ‘they take counsel to put him to death [θανατσαι], bound him and took him before Pilate’. 100 The Judas narrative is inserted at this point in Matthew, beginning with the significant words ‘Judas, seeing that Jesus was condemned.’ 101 This interpretation is anticipated by Matthew in the prophetic passage set before the journey to Jerusalem: ‘The son of man shall be handed over to the high priests and scribes, who will condemn him and hand him over to foreigners to scourge and crucify him.’ 102 This interpretation, according to Lietzmann, is lacking in Mark’s account of the arrest and trial. Mark certainly gives no clear explanation of the connection between the Sanhedrin session and the trial before Pilate. In the otherwise practically identical sentence – Mark 15:1 – linking the two scenes, Mark has the phrase συμβολιον ποισαντες, corresponding to Matthew’s σ. λαβον, but he omits the vital words στε θανατσαι. |
| – How can monasteries preserve a prayerful atmosphere when it must perform a great deal of social work? – The most important thing in monasticism is serving God in the form it is practiced in a given monastery. It can be more liturgical or more practical. There are different approaches. There are monasteries in which monastics devote most of their lives to external service, while at others they limit such work. Our monastery of St Job is established on a liturgical order. – What are the relations between monastics and the government in Germany? – On the whole I would say that in Germany, both the government and society have preserved respect for monasticism. Unfortunately, it is fading, because there is almost no Orthodox monasticism, there are very few of us. Imagine, of all the Local Orthodox Churches, only the Russian Church has monasteries here! The Catholics only have a handful of monks, who live in enormous, ancient monasteries and strive to preserve them, in fact they have become little more than custodians [in June, the building of a Catholic monastery from the 12-15th centuries was put on the market—editors]. Monasticism is rarely seen, so consequently, it is difficult to preserve respect for the vocation. Children don’t even understand what these odd figures in long black clothing passing by them are. Archbishop Mark’s background: Archbishop Mark was born Michael Arndt on January 29, 1941, in Saxony, where the first Russian bishop of German extraction, Metropolitan Seraphim (Lade) of blessed memory, was born. 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.” |
| LaMarche, «Prologue» LaMarche, Pau1. «The Prologue of John (1964).» Pages 36–52 in The Interpretation of John. Edited by John Ashton. Issues in Religion and Theology 9. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Lampe, Lexicon Lampe, G. W. H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Lampe, «Petrusnamen» Lampe, Peter. «Das Spiel mit dem Petrusnamen–Matt, xvi.18.» NTS 25 (1978–1979): 227–45. Lampe, Seal Lampe, G. W. H. The Seal of the Spirit. New York: Longmans, Green, 1951. Lampe, «Zeltmacher» Lampe, Peter. «Paulus–Zeltmacher.» ÄZ31 (1987): 256–61. Lampe and Luz, «Overview» Lampe, Peter, and Ulrich Luz. «Overview of the Discussion.» Pages 387–404 in The Gospel and the Gospels. Edited by Peter Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Landes, «Tradition» Landes, George M. «Creation Tradition in Proverbs 8:22–31 and Genesis 1 .» Pages 279–93 in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers. Edited by Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim, Carey A. Moore. Gettysburg Theological Studies 4. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974. Landman, «Aspects» Landman, Leo. «Some Aspects of Traditions Received from Moses at Sinai. Halakhah le-Mosheh mi-Sinai» JQR 67 (1976–1977): 111–28. Lane, Hebrews Lane, William L. Hebrews. 2 vols. WBC 47. Dallas: Word, 1991. Lane, Mark Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Lane, «Theios Aner» Lane, William L. «Theios Aner Christology and the Gospel of Mark.» Pages 144–161 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Lapide, Hebrew Lapide, Pinchas E. Hebrew in the Church: The Foundations of Jewish-Christian Dialogue. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Laroche, «Numbers» Laroche, Roland A. «Popular Symbolic/Mystical Numbers in Antiquity.» Latomus 54 (1995): 568–76. Larsen, «Boat» Larsen, Iver. «Did Peter Enter the Boat ( John 21:11 )?» Notes on Translation 2, no. 2 (1988): 34–41. |
| 122 См., например, Theissen, The Gospels, 176–177; R.E.Brown, The Death of the Messiah, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1994) 913–916; S.Légasse, The Trial of Jesus (tr. J.Bowden; London: SCM, 1997) 80–81; R.T.France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 641. 124 Любопытно, что ученые, рассматривающие имена (помимо Вартимея – единственного в синоптических Евангелиях просившего об исцелении или изгнании бесов, названного по имени) как указание на историчность, не приходят к выводу, что Иаир был хорошо известен в раннехристианском движении [см., например, Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, 629–630, 784–785; G. H. Twelftree, Jesus: The Miracle Worker (Downers Grovë InterVarsity, 1999) 305–306)]; однако это – самое вероятное объяснение тому, что его имя, в отличие от имен других героев рассказов о чудесах, сохранилось. Это признает R. Н. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 267. 128 О возможной идентификации его спутника и о том, что эта история является рассказом очевидца, см.: С. P. Tiede, The Emmaus Mystery (New York: Continuum, 2005) 93–98. 129 Определение Иоанна – «Мария Клеопова» – может означать, что она была женой, дочерью или даже матерью Клеопы. Возможно, это была его жена. Однако столь расплывчатое определение указывает нам на более важный факт: Мария была известной личностью, и предполагалось, что читатель знает, в каких родственных отношениях она находилась с Клеопой. 130 См.: R. Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), chapter 6: «Mary of Clopas». 131 См.: R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1990). 132 См.: R. Bauckham, Gospel Women, chapter 8: «The Women and the Resurrection: Credibility of Their Stories». 133 Ср. B. Gerhardsson, «Mark and the Female Witnesses,» in H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M.T.Roth, eds., Dumu-E2-Dub-BaA FS; Различные документы Самюэля Hoa Крамера, Фонд 11; Philadelphiä The University Museum, 1989) 219–220, 222–223; S. Byrskog, Story as History – History as Story (WUNT 123; Tübingen: Mohr, 2000; reprinted Leiden: Brill, 2002) 75–78. |
| His Eminence Archbishop Mark (Arndt), First Deputy Hierarch for His Eminence Hilarion, Metropolitan of Eastern America of the Russian Church Abroad and New York, is Overseer of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in the Holy Land and the head of the ROCOR parishes in the British Isles. In the 1990s, Vladyka Mark was the first bishop of the ROCOR who entered into a dialogue with the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate. His is the chairman of the committee on Church Law at the Inter-Conciliary Assembly. This article provides an overview of the conversation recorded for the portal “Bogoslov.Ru” Deacon Andrei: Your Eminence, to what historic period would you compare what the Russian Church is going though now? And on the same note, how do you think the faithful and especially the clergy should react to the military actions happening in Ukraine? What historic parallels can we pinpoint at the present time regarding what the Russian Church is going through? Archbishop Mark: The Russian Church has always, for many centuries, been compassionate toward what’s been happening in Russian society. Be it internal civil conflicts that took place from the beginning of Kiev’s Rus’ and only calmed down after the Great Prince of Moscow, who appropriated this title, came to power and strengthened the State. Nowadays, as aftermath of the Soviet oppression, we see conflicts happening again. We can’t fully comprehend this, living outside of Russia. D.A.: What kind of attitude should we, living outside of Russia, have toward Russia’s internal and foreign affairs? A.M.: Of course, we should follow what’s going on in Russia, the Church and the society. But first and foremost, we should be concerned with matters of our own salvation and of the faithful around us. D.A.: In your interviews given in Russia you have mentioned that Russia is avoiding facing the reality of its own history of the XX century. It seems that the emigre community is doing well and is not very concerned about it. What common misconceptions among the Russian Church emigration have you noticed? What should we be doing differently? What internal conflicts with our common past do we avoid to talk about? |
| St Mark Eugenicus, Metropolitan of Ephesus (1399–1444), aware that there had been some controversy about the his teachings, nevertheless did not hesitate to call him “blessed Gregory of Nyssa.” The immediate occasion for eliciting this praise was during the debate with the Latins, who had appealed to the writings of St Gregory to support their doctrine of purgatory. Almost parenthetically, Mark observed that Gregory’s teachings had little in common with the heresy of the Origenists who, at one time, flourished in Egypt and Palestine. They were responsible, Mark said, for associating the name of “this great saint and light” with their impious doctrines. They were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553); St Gregory of Nyssa was not (De Ign, Purg. 1.11 PO 15 531. In her Menaion 186 , the attitude of the Orthodox Church towards St Gregory is unmistakable. In the Vespers, he is called “God-inspired,” “a canon of virtue,” “invincible champion” of the uncreated Trinity, “a revealer of things pertaining to God.” The Matins eulogizes St Gregory as “an abyss of wisdom and a treasury of gnosis,” “adornment of teachers,” he who “enlightens the minds of the faithful,” “a most faithful servant, a most wise teacher of doctrines, a friend and initiate... a steward of His (Christ’s) traditions, whose exposition thou didst excellently preserve unsullied, О supremely wise Gregory.” He is also praised for joining “divine vision (θεωρα) with praxis (πρξις).” Relative to these things, Gregory is venerated as “having received the grace of the Spirit (whereby) thou didst rend the paltry garment of the letter of the Law and didst reveal unto us the hidden beauty of the significance thereof.” “Thou didst prove, О wise one, the Law to be a shadow of grace for the Hebrews who by the Law had worshipped God; and that the good tidings of the divine manifestation are a mystery...” (4th Ode of Matins). As the result of his contributions to Christian worship, Gregory is described by the Church as a “hymnographer” and a “muse,” “expounding the words of prayer unto all... a minister of sacred rites” (Stichera of Vespers). |
| Димитрий Тракателлис Избранная библиография В предлагаемом читателю списке литературы перечислен ряд трудов, прямо связанных с темой и содержанием данной книги и болььшей частью изданных в последние десятилетия. Они отражают самые разные богословские и экзегетические школы. Дополнительный библиографический материал можно найти в примечаниях к основному тексту книги. В библиографии к русскому переводу добавлены некоторые работы, вышедшие в последнее время и отсутствующие в оригинальном издании. А. Комментарии Achtemeier, P. J., Invitation to Mark. A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Garden City, 1978). Beda Venerabilis, In Marci Evangelium Expositio,PL 92.131 302. Carrington, P., According to Mark: A Running Commentary on the Oldest Gospel (Cambridge, I960). Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge, 1959). Damalas, N. M., Ερμηνεα ες τν Καινν Διαθκην,Vols. 2 and 3 (Athens, 1892). Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2 vols. (Zürich, 1978–1979). Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu. Eine Erklärung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen (Berlin, 19682). Klostermann, E., Das Markusevangelium (Tübingen, 19494). Lagrange, M. J., L " Évangile selon Saint Mark (Paris, 1966 repr.), Lane, W. L., Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, 1974). Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen, 196717). Mann, C. S., Mark (Garden City, 1986). Montague, C. T., Mark: Good News for Hard Times (Ann Arbor, 1981). Nineham, D. E., Saint Mark (Baltimore, 1963). Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium. Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. 1 Teil (Freiburg, 1976), II Teil (Freiburg, 1977). Schmithals, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2 vols. (Gütersloh, 1979). Schweizer, E., The Good News accordingto Mark, English trans. D. H. Madvig (Richmond, 1970). Strack, H. L. und Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch I–VI (Munich, 19695). Swete, H. B., The Gospel accordingto St. Mark (London, 1898-repr. 1977). Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1963). |
|
|
