| XIV. With Luke be inspired as you study the Acts of the Apostles. Why do you range yourself with Ananias and Sapphira, those vain embezzlers (if indeed the theft of one " s own property be a vain thing) and that by appropriating, not silver nor any other cheap and worthless thing, like a wedge of gold, Joshua 7:21 or a didrachma, as did of old a rapacious soldier; but stealing the Godhead Itself, and lying, not to men but to God, as you have heard. What? Will you not reverence even the authority of the Spirit Who breathes upon whom, and when, and as He wills? He comes upon Cornelius and his companions before Baptism, to others after Baptism, by the hands of the Apostles; so that from both sides, both from the fact that He comes in the guise of a Master and not of a Servant, and from the fact of His being sought to make perfect, the Godhead of the Spirit is testified. XV. Speak of God with Paul, who was caught up to the third Heaven, 2Corinthians 12:2 and who sometimes counts up the Three Persons, and that in varied order, not keeping the same order, but reckoning one and the same Person now first, now second, now third; and for what purpose? Why, to show the equality of the Nature. And sometimes he mentions Three, sometimes Two or One, became That which is not mentioned is included. And sometimes he attributes the operation of God to the Spirit, as in no respect different from Him, and sometimes instead of the Spirit he brings in Christ; and at times he separates the Persons saying, One God, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him; 1Corinthians 8:6 at other times he brings together the one Godhead, For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things; Romans 11:36 that is, through the Holy Ghost, as is shown by many places in Scripture. To Him be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Oration 37 On the Words of the Gospel, When Jesus Had Finished These Sayings, Etc.– Matthew 19:1 I. Jesus Who Chose The Fishermen, Himself also uses a net, and changes place for place. |
| It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are, for, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds [cf. Ezek. 37.9 ], while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the ‘pillar and ground’ of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, ‘Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth’ ( Ps. 80.1 ). For, [as the Scripture] says, ‘The first living creature was like a lion’ (Rev. 4.7), symbolizing His effectual working, his leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but ‘the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,’ – an evident description of His advent as a human being; ‘the fourth was like a flying eagle,’ pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with his wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. (AH 3.11.8) Irenaeus then, with a touch of artistry, goes on to remark on how the character of each of the four cherubim, fittingly, ‘is in accord with’ the way one of the four Gospel writers commences his Gospel: John’s, for instance, is like a Hon, relating Jesus’ ‘original [or ‘ruling’], effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” ’. So established are these four Gospels in the mind of Irenaeus that they may be compared to the angelic quartet which surround the very throne in heaven, according to the prophetic books of Ezekiel (chs. 1 and 10) and John (Revelation 4). Moreover, just as there are four winds, four comers of the earth, and four major biblical covenants, so there must be four Gospels. It is with such confidence that Irenaeus writes about the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. |
| F. J. Klijn, An Introduction to the New Testament, ET Leiden 1967; D.J. Selby, Introduction to the New Testament, New York 1971. Вот, например, спектр датировки, представленный в работах Кюммеля: 50–1 I and II Thessalonians 53–6 Galatians, Philippians, I and II Corinthians, Romans 56–8 Colossians, Philemon c.70 Mark 70–90 Luke 80–90 Acts, Hebrews 80–100 Matthew, Ephesians 90–5 I Peter, Revelation 90–100 John 90–110 I-III John –100 James c.100 Jude 100 I and II Timothy, Titus 125–50 II Peter Самый большой диапазон возможных датировок был представлен в работах Норманна Перрина, представляющего направление критики форм и критики редакций: 50–60 I Thessalonians, Galatians, I and II Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Romans 70–90 II Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts, Hebrews 80–100 John, I-III John 90–100 Revelation 90–140 I Peter, James, Pastoral Epistles, Jude, II Peter Более того, в последнее время наметилась серьезная тенденция в результате полученного консенсуса вообще просто представлять диапазон датировки не особенно заботясь о тщательном анализе внешних и внутренних свидетельств каждой новозаветной книги, что было так характерно для работ Лайтфута, Гарнака и Цана”. 5 Теперь еще несколько замечаний о внешних свидетельствах, прошу обратить внимание. Мы можем говорить о 1. текстуальной зависимости одного текста от другого при наличии повторяющихся вербальных совпадений. 2. знакомстве автора с другим текстом при наличии некоторых вербальных совпадений. 3. о концептуальном знакомстве автора с другим текстом при наличии концептуальных совпадений (совпадений идей). Отмечаем сразу, что в случае этапа христианской письменности, получившего в истории название «мужы апостольские» можно говорить только о пунктах 2 и 3, так как все цитаты приводилисьэтими авторами по памяти. Это происходило по следующим причинам: а) эти люди напрямую общались с апостолами и им не было необходимости наизусть заучивать их тексты. б) собственно говоря, еще не было канона Новозаветных книг в нашем понимании этого слова, а были тексты очевидцев жизни Христа и первоначального распространения христианства и близких к ним людей, которые имели авторитет, но еще не рассматривались как Писание. |
| Professor finds Ethiopian Queen " s Gospels/Православие.Ru Professor finds Ethiopian Queen " s Gospels July 20, 2011 Steve Delamarter, the George Fox University professor who digitizes Ethiopian religious manuscripts and returned one to Ethiopia last year, has found another prize: an illustrated copy of the four Christian Gospels that belonged to Queen Zewditu, who ruled Ethiopia from 1916 to 1930. Working through the manuscript, Delamarter was surprised to find an extensive colophon, or notation, that the book was created for the queen, who was the daughter of King Menilek II and was succeeded by her cousin and co-regent who became known as Haile Selassie. The colophon suggests the book was made during the 11th year of her reign. Two seals, made with ink-covered stamps, were stamped at the bottom of a right-hand page. Kesis Melaku Terefe, a priest in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, translated the words of each seal. The smaller one on the left is the seal of a government official, the Minister of the Pen, and includes the admonition, " Let the Hearer Hear. " The one on the right reads " Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Queen of Queens of Ethiopia, Zewditu, daughter of Menilek. " The text is handwritten in Ge " ez, the ancient liturgical language of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. A colorful illustration accompanies each Gospel. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rendered in rich shades of orange, green and blue. The manuscript is owned by Gerald Weiner, a collector who lives in Chicago who has decided to return the book to Ethiopia. Delamarter will take it with him this fall when he makes his 12th trip to Ethiopia. Zewditu " s book and a few other religious texts and artifacts are on display from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. weekdays and 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturdays through July 30 at George Fox University " s Portland Center, 12753 S.W. 68th Ave., and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays from Aug. 1-18 at the Murdock Learning Resource Center on the Newberg campus. Delamarter is founder and director of the Ethiopian Manuscript Imaging Project, which has digitized the contents of hundreds of rare books from collections outside of Ethiopia and created copies for Ethiopian libraries. Nancy Haught The Oregonian 22 июля 2011 г. ... Предыдущий Следующий Комментарии Войдите через FaceBook ВКонтакте Яндекс Mail.Ru Google или введите свои данные: © 1999-2015 Православие.Ru При перепечатке ссылка на Православие.Ru обязательна Контактная информация Мы в соцсетях Подпишитесь на нашу рассылку |
| В словах «исполнена хищения» Л. при глаголе γμω (быть наполненным, нагруженным) употребляет род. падеж, нормальный в этой позиции для классической греч. литературы, в то время как у ап. Матфея форма γμουσιν (наполняются) употреблена с предлогом ξ. М. Кейси интерпретировал эту конструкцию как арамеизм, отмечая, что предлог min (от, из) был не обязателен при глаголе (быть полным; наполнять собой) ( Casey M. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Camb., 2002. P. 79). Данная интерпретация вызывает вопросы, потому что предлог min не только «не обязателен» в этой позиции, но и, судя по всему, не засвидетельствован при формах в доступных памятниках галилейского арам. языка ( Sokoloff M. Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. P. 79). Объяснение непонятной формы греч. текста арам. адстратом не представляется надежным. Тем не менее по принципу lectio difficilior именно форма у Матфея признаётся оригинальной, т. е. восходящей к источнику логий, и в этом смысле считается, что Л. в ряде случаев подвергал источник логий стилистической правке. Можно также отметить, что Л. изменяет это изречение и более существенным образом, добавляя к словам «внутренность… наполнена хищения и лукавства», параллельным фразе «внешность чаши очищаете», определение «ваша», тем самым выводя речь Иисуса Христа за пределы спора о ритуальной чистоте. То, что у ап. Матфея только подразумевается («чаша», полная хищения и лукавства, безусловно, символизирует оппонентов Иисуса), у Л. говорится expressis verbis. Данная правка Л. выходит за пределы чисто стилистических вопросов, однако с очевидностью указывает на целевую аудиторию Л.- носителей эллинистической культуры, ориентация на к-рую определила и стилистические установки автора. Текст Евангелия от Марка, с к-рым, как считается, Л. обходился гораздо свободнее, чем с логиями, меняя местами нек-рые эпизоды и пропуская большие повествовательные блоки (прежде всего Мк 6. 45 - 8. 26), подвергался Л. и чисто языковой правке. Известное выражение Марка και εθς (и тотчас), которое считается арамеизмом и к-рое выполняет в тексте указательную функцию, без очевидного временного значения, Л. заменяет более ясным και δο («и вот»; ср.: Мк 9. 15 и Лк 9. 38) и перефразирует все предложение (ср.: Мк 9. 20: «и увидев его, дух тотчас (εθς) свел его судорогой»; по синодальному переводу: «как скоро [бесноватый] увидел его, дух сотряс его» - и Лк 9. 42: «когда тот еще шел (оборот genetivus absolutus.- Авт.), бес поверг его и стал бить»). |
| The problem of the different genealogies was recognized from early times.In his Church History the historian Eusebius (d. 340) explains the differences, but Christians may have disputed the issue much earlier. St. Paul wrote to Timothy, for example, to charge certain persons not to teach different doctrines nor to occupy themselves with “endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training which is the faith” (1 Timothy 1:3-4). Was this a reference to discussions about the genealogy of Jesus Christ? In any case, the simplest explanation is that Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph, while Luke traces Jesus’ family history through His mother, Mary. It is sometimes noted in commentaries that in Jewish practice, Mary’s genealogy would actually be in her husband’s name.This means that Mary’s genealogy begins with Joseph, her husband.He is called “the son of Heli,” which today would be expressed as “Heli’s son-in-law.” Joseph’s own father was Jacob (Matthew 1:16). Unfortunately, this explanation is not entirely satisfactory for a number of reasons (for example, tradition says that Mary’s father was named Joachim)–although the genealogies of some women are presented in the Old Testament (cf. Number 26:33, 1 Chronicles 2:16-17, 8:11). We note, however, that Matthew’s Gospel was probably composed in Aramaic, intended for Jews in Judea and Galiliee.It emphasizes Jesus’ fulfillment of the Mosaic Law; therefore, Matthew traces the genealogy to Abraham, Patriarch of the Jews, showing that Jesus is descended from the House of David. Luke, on the other hand, is writing in Greek for fellow Gentiles. His purpose is to show that Jesus is the Savior who has come for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews. Therefore he traces the ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” emphasizing that Jesus too had no earthly father. In the practice of the time, it would not have been necessary to name every generation. The intent, in both gospels, was to highlight the most important or significant names. |
| How historically likely is the crowd " s desire to make Jesus king, which the Synoptics do not report? Against its likelihood, one must consider that, if crowds did attach political connotations to Jesus» miracle in the wilderness, word might have eventually reached Antipas, who would have then viewed Jesus as a political threat. 6035 Yet in the whole context of Jesus» ministry, it is unlikely that he escaped political speculation in any case. Self-proclaimed prophets were ideal candidates for leaders of revolts in the pagan world, 6036 especially if they could claim to work miracles. 6037 Further, in first-century Palestine, wilderness prophets who promised signs like Moses usually gained large fallowings that lent themselves to political interpretations (Josephus War 2.261–263; Ant. 20.169–171 ); 6038 it is thus likely that at least some among the crowds understood Jesus in potentially political terms. Perhaps Jesus defused the crowd " s political aspirations by dispersing them quickly (6:15); perhaps Antipas was not fully aware (the reports that reached him seem to have focused on Jesus» miracles–Luke 23:8) or his enmity ( Mark 6:14–16 ; Luke 13:31–32) was not seriously enough aroused to take quick action. Titular acclamations after miracles were common in the Greco-Roman world, and not only in the NT. 6039 John certainly has reasons (such as the emperor cult) in his own milieu to emphasize 6:14–15, but the desire to make Jesus king fits what we know of Jesus» milieu. 6040 Writing closer to the time of the Judean-Roman war, Matthew and Luke, following Mark, may not have wished to emphasize how easily Jesus could have been misinterpreted by those with revolutionary sentiments. Jesus» knowledge of the crowd " s intentions (6:15) fits the Jesus tradition ( Mark 2:8 ), but also fits John " s picture of Jesus knowing the human heart (e.g., 2:25; 6:61). He was a prophet and coming one (6:14), a king (6:15; cf. 1:49; coming king in 12:13); but he was not the sort they expected, nor could he receive his kingship from merely human acclamation or support (18:36). Both those who wished to make him a king by «force» and those who forcibly arrested him on the charge of kingship (18:12, 33) misunderstood, failing to recognize that his kingdom was not «of this world» (18:36). He would be king only by continuing to be prophet–continuing to proclaim the truth (18:37), and ultimately by being lifted up on a cross (19:3, 12,14–19). |
| 1. Those Who Were Sent (1:19, 24) Sending an inquiry to a prophet could fit biblical tradition (2 Kgs 19:2; 22:15; Isa 37:2), but the messengers here seem to inquire more from suspicion of John than from desire to hear his message. What appears most striking, however, is the identity of the senders and their agents. Josephus (Life 1; cf. Ant 4.218), Philo (Spec. Laws 1.131–155, esp. 1.131; 4.190–192), 3804 and the Dead Sea Scrolls (the «wicked priest» in lQpHab 8.8–12; 9.4–7; 12.5; greedy priests in 4QpNah 1.11) indicate the prominence that priests retained in all parts of Judaism before the destruction of the temple. Josephus, who also praises their general piety (Ant. 14.65–68), attests that priests remained the main local rulers of Palestine in this period. 3805 Even the later Pharisees, who joined the Essenes and the Gospels in criticizing the high priesthood 3806 as corrupt (e.g., lQpHab 9.4–5), 3807 respected the high priests office (later, e.g., p. Sanh. 2:1, §2). While some priests seem to have followed Pharisaic practices, even the later rabbis admitted that many (we would say most) did not; 3808 most scholars concur that most of the priestly aristocracy were in fact Sadducees (see, e.g., Josephus Ant. 13.298; 18.17). 3809 Other aspects of this narrative also fail to fit the historical picture gleaned from a variety of other ancient sources. Rabbis who were mainly successors of the Pharisees later sent formal messengers to other dignitaries, 3810 but the practice is well attested in this period and earlier only of the high-priestly temple hierarchy–of those with official authority. 3811 The Levites appear rarely elsewhere in the NT but often appear together with priests in OT narratives and in passages such as Luke 10:31–32; they fill the same literary function as the priests here. 3812 John, who prefers to emphasize the authority of the «Pharisees» (more than Matthew, and far more than Mark or Luke, probably because he writes at a period when their authority was far more advanced and hostile to Palestinian Jewish Christians), nowhere else mentions «priests and Levites.» 3813 One might suggest that the Fourth Gospel generally transforms the priestly leaders in traditional sources into Pharisees (leaders whose role in repressing minority factions in John s day corresponded to aristocratic priests in Jesus» day), and here perhaps even transforms crowds into priests. |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation Encyclical of Archbishop Demetrios for Holy and Great Lent 2015 Source: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America Archbishop Demetrios of America 23 February 2015 Feb 20, 2015 Protocol 17/15 February 23, 2015 Holy and Great Lent Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance…. Matthew 3:8 To the Most Reverend Hierarchs, the Reverend Priests and Deacons, the Monks and Nuns, the Presidents and Members of the Parish Councils of the Greek Orthodox Communities, the Distinguished Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Day, Afternoon, and Church Schools, the Philoptochos Sisterhoods, the Youth, the Hellenic Organizations, and the entire Greek Orthodox Family in America Beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ, In the hymns and services of the Triodion period and at the entrance of this holy season of Great Lent, we are called to repentance. We are invited to come before God in the humility of the Publican. We are beckoned to return to His dwelling and His compassionate embrace as the Prodigal Son. We are confronted with the causes of our separation from God and our need for His great mercy. It is truly a time of repentance as we prepare to commemorate and contemplate all that has been done for us through Christ our Lord. This solemn and reflective journey is not one of despair. This is not a time of inconsolable grief or of deep anguish and anxiety. Holy and Great Lent is a time of spiritual renewal in which repentance finds forgiveness and grace, engenders hope, strengthens our faith and leads us to abundant and eternal life. First, we know through the Gospel that genuine repentance receives forgiveness and grace. The sincerity of the Publican expressed in his cry, God, be merciful to me a sinner, was recognized by God, and his sins were forgiven (Luke 18:13). John the Baptist preached,Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, calling people to prepare to receive the One who was coming in grace and truth (Matthew 3:2). The Cross of our Lord is before us, offering by the grace of God a way to salvation through repentance. |
| 10806 There are twenty-eight terms that appear nowhere else in John, but similar figures may obtain for terms in some of the other chapters. E.g., nearly 20 percent of the words in John 11apply only or almost only to the Lazarus narrative, two or three times higher than the percentage in John 21 . 10808 Smalley, John, 96. Also Minear, «Functions,» who regards ch. 21 as the conclusion to the Gospel and (probably wrongly) 20:30–31 merely as the conclusion to ch. 20. 10809 Westcott, John, 299; cf. similarly (especially on authorship of the chapter) Robinson, Trust, 83; Hunter, John, 191; Morris, John, 858; Michaels, John, xxii; Feuillet, Studies, 25; Trudinger, « John 21 .» 10814 Fuller, Formation, 146; he believes that Luke 5:1–11 was transposed to a resurrection appearance here (pp. 151, 160–61). Many who doubt that it was original to the Gospel nevertheless affirm (e.g., Trudinger, «Ironies»; cf. Witherington, Wisdom, 352) or allow that it stems from the same author. 10821 Hunter, John, 191. He also notes (pp. 191–92) that Matthew and Luke conclude not with initial resurrection appearances but with a commissioning, which he finds in ch. 21 (but which one could just as easily argue, on the other side, is provided sufficiently in 20:21–23). 10823 In addition to manuscript evidence and the readily available quotations in antiquity, some people of antiquity acted out details of the Iliad in their own day (Herodian 4.8.4–5). 10824 One could argue that even the end of the Iliad is secondary, but this would not help the case against authenticity; the point is that the Iliad in its accepted first-century form had an anticlimactic ending that was not believed secondary. Cf. also Homer Od. 23–24, though it may constitute a necessary wrap-up to allow Penelope to recognize Odysseus. 10826 Cf., e.g., Breck, «Conclusion» (who regards it as authentic); Neirynck, « John 21 .» Cf. Spencer, «Narrative Echoes,» though he reads the connections as results of the later author " s intertextual relationship with the Gospel (which would be how we would need to take them if other grounds persuaded us that John 21 is later). |
|
|
