| And In One Lord Jesus Christ ... The fundamental confession of Christians about their Master is this: Jesus Christ is Lord. It begins in the gospel when Jesus himself asks his disciples who they think that He is: But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” ( Mt.16:16 ). Jesus is the Christ. This is the first act of faith which men must make about Him. At His birth, the child of Mary is given the name Jesus, which means literally Saviour (in Hebrew Joshua, the name also of Moses’ successor who crossed the Jordan River and led the chosen people into the promised land). “You will call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” ( Mt.1:21 ; Lk.1:31 ). It is this Jesus who is the Christ, which means the Anointed, the Messiah of Israel. Jesus is the Messiah, the one promised to the world through Abraham and his children. But who is the Messiah? This is the second question, one also asked by Christ in the gospels – this time not to his disciples, but to those who were taunting him and trying to catch him in his words. “Who is the Messiah?” he asked them, not because they could answer or really wished to know, but in order to silence them and to begin the inauguration of “the hour” for which he had come: the hour of the world’s salvation. Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question saying, “What do you think of the Christ [i.e., the Messiah]? Whose Son is he? They said to him, “The Son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till I put thy enemies under thy feet” ( Ps.110 ). If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions. ( Mt.22:41–46 ) After Jesus’ resurrection, inspired by the same Holy Spirit who inspired David, the apostles and all members of the Church understood the meaning of his words. Jesus is the Christ. And the Christ is the Lord. This is the mystery of Jesus Christ the Messiah, namely that He is the One and Only Lord, identified with the God Yahweh of the Old Testament. |
| There “they take counsel how they might entangle Him in His talk” (Mt 22:15); here “they lead Him unto the brow of a hill, that they may cast Him down headlong (Lk 9:29); at another place “they take up stones to cast at Him” (Jn 8:5); nowhere do they give Him “where to lay His head” (Mt 8:20); He raised up the dead, and His jealous enemies take counsel how to kill Him (Jn 9:43, 44, 46, 53). At the gates of Jerusalem the people salute Him as a King, and all the earthly authorities rise up to condemn Him as a malefactor. In the chosen circle of His friends He discovers an ungrateful traitor, and the first instrument of His death; the best of them are an “offence” unto Him, for at the very time He goes forth on the work of God, “they savour not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Mt 26:23). Wilt Thou not rest, Thou divine Cross-bearer, even for one moment from the yoke, ever pressing more heavily on Thy shoulders? Wilt Thou not rest, if not to renew Thy strength for new labours, at least in condescension to the infirmities of Thy followers? Yea, on coming nigh unto Golgotha, Thou wilt rest on Mount Tabor. Go up then unto the mountain of glory; let Thy face be lighted up by heavenly light—let Thy raiment become white and glistening—let the law and the prophets come to acknowledge in Thee their fulfilment—let the voice of Thy Father’s goodwill be heard! But do not you perceive, my hearers, how the Cross follows Jesus even to Mount Tabor, and how the preaching of the Cross is inseparable from the preaching of the glorification? Even there, amidst such great glory, of what do Moses and Elias speak unto Jesus? They speak of His Cross and Death: “And they spake of His decease” (Lk 9:31). Perhaps, to some of us, the mortal agony of Jesus appears to be unworthy of the Holy One. Be it known to such, that this agony was not the result of human impatience, but of divine justice. Could “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8) fly from His altar of sacrifice? He, “Whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world” (Jn 10:36)—He, Who had from eternity taken upon Himself the office of Mediator between man and God, could He be shaken in His work, by the thought only of suffering? If He could feel any impatience it was but the impatience to accomplish our salvation and to bless us. |
| 405 Antisthenes, fr. 65. 406 Crates, fr. 3, 8, 9, 17 (14 Diels); cf. Diogenes Laert. VI 86. 407 Philemon, Philosophi, fr. 85 CAF II 502. 408 Чтение L.: musthri oi» (тайны) вслед за Munzel заменяем на a)munthri oi» (защита). 409 Homer., Ilias V 739—742. 410 Cf. Mt. 11: 29. 411 Sophocles, fr. 703. 412 Homer., Odyssea XIX, 163. 413 Zenon, fr. 241 SVF. 414 Cf. Ps. 81: 1. 415 Cf. Rom. 8: 9. 416 Cf. II Cor. 10: 3. 417 Hebr. 13: 5; Deut. 31: 6.8. 418 Cf. Mt. 11: 30. 419 Cf. Hippocrates, Epidem., VI 4, 18. 420 Вероятно, лакуна в тексте. 421 Usener, Epicurea 200, 406, 450, 502. 422 Cf. Cicero, Disputationes Tusculan., V 30, 85. 423 Usener, Epicurea, fr. 509. 424 Aristoteles, Ethica Nicomacheia, passim, e.g. I 6, 1098 a 18. 425 Имеются в виду блага внешние (материальные), телесные (здоровье) и душевные. 426 Zeno, fr. 180 SVF I; Cleanthes, fr. 552 SVF I. 427 Добавлено О. Штелином. Diogenes Babylonius, fr. 46 SVF III. 428 Antipatros, fr. 58 SVF III. 429 Archedemos, fr. 21 SVF III. 430 Ariston, fr. 360; Herillos, fr. 419 SVF. 431 Лик был главой перипатетической школы. Ликиск или Левким (чтение имени сомнительно) неизвестен. Мы следуем О. Штелину. 432 Cf. Stobeus, Ecl. II 7, 3 b 46, 10—13 Wachsm. 433 Anaxagoras, A 29 DK; cf. Aristoteles, Ethica Nicom. 1141 b ( A 30 DK). 434 Heraclitus, A 21 DK. 435 Heracleides Ponticus, fr. 13 Voss. 436 Democrites, B 4 DK; в тексте лакуна, которая заполняется аналогичным свидетельством из Стобея. 437 Hecataeus, fr. 20 FHG (FGrH III 264); Apollodotus Cyzicus упомянут один раз в: Diogenes Laert. IX 38; Nausiphanus, 75 B 3 DK; Democrites, 68 B 4 DK. 438 Cf. Diogenes Laert. X 3. 439 Usener, Epicurea, fr. 451. 440 Metrodorus, fr. 5 Koerte. 441 Климент пользуется, по всей вероятности, каким-то учебником платоновской философии. 442 Cleanthes, fr. 558 SVF I. 443 Plato, Timaeus 90 c. Счастье (eu)daimoni a), таким образом, — это сохранение «даймона», охраняющего духа, в хорошем состоянии. 444 Plato, Laches 188 d; Theaetetus 176 b. 445 Plato, Leg. IV 715 e — 716 d; цитата сокращена Климентом и слегка искажена. |
| 112. Там же. С.406. 113. ерр. (Письма) 7 (М. 91.436D-437A). 114. anim. et res. (О душе и воскресении) (М. 46.48В). 115. Цит. по: Киприан (Керн), архимандрит. Антропология святителя Григория Паламы. С.406. 116. ог.7 (Слово 7-е) 21 (М. 35.781). 117. V. Zos. (Житие аввы Зосимы) 13 (L 1547). 118. Там же 14 (L 1546). 119. or. (Слова) 16 (L 1547). 120. hom. (Духовные беседы) 22 (М. 34.660А,В). 121. Jo. (Толкование на Евангелие от Иоанна) 28.6 (GCS vol.10,1903 p.395.31-396.10; М. 14.689С-692А). 122. Laz. 2 (Слово о Лазаре, 2-е) 2 (М. 48.984). 123. hom. in Mt. (Беседы на Евангелие от Матфея) 28.3 (М. 57.352-353). 124. haer. (Пять книг против ересей) 5.31.2 (М. 7.1209В). 125. hom. in Mt. (Беседы на Евангелие от Матфея) 28.3 (М. 57.353). 126. qu.Ant. (Вопросы к Антиоху) 32 (М. 28.616C,D). 127. qu.Ant. (Вопросы к Антиоху) 33 (М. 28.617А). 128. V.Zos. (Житие аввы Зосимы) 14 (L 1546). 129. orat. (Слово к эллинам) 13 (М. 6.833А,В). 130. fr. (фрагменты) 12 (М. 7.1236А). 131. Мефодий Патарский, священномученик. Творения. С.72. 132. Там же. 133. Киприан (Керн), архимандрит. Антропология святителя Григория Паламы. С.201. 134. Августин Блаженный. О Граде Божием. kh.XIV,III. 135. fr. res. (О воскресении: фрагменты) 8 (М. 6.1584D). 136. catech. (Огласительные слова) 4. 23 (L 1549). 137. str. (Строматы) 7.3 (GCS vol.17, 1909 p. 11.22; М. 9.420А). 138. princ. (О началах) 3.3.5 (GCS vol.22, 1913 p.262.9f; М. 11.318С). 139. or. (О молитве) 29.13 (GCS vol.3, 1899 p.387.26; М. 11.540А). 140. catech. (Огласительные слова) 4. 21 (L 1544). 141. Максим Исповедник, преподобный. Творения, кн.1, С.216,217. 142. hom. (Беседы) 9.6 (М. 31.344 В). 143. d.n. (О божественных именах) 4.24 (М. 3.725D-728A). 144. Там же 4.30 (М. 3.732А). 145. hom. in Jer. (Беседы на кн. Иеремии) 6.2 (GCS vol.3,1901 p.49.14; М. 13.325D). 146. princ. (О началах) 3.1.14 (GCS vol. 22, 1913 р.219.4; М. 11.276А). 147. Jo. (Толкование на Евангелие от Иоанна) 13.61 (GCS vol.10,1903 p.293.13; М. 14.516С). |
| 127 The tradition probably goes back to the Book of Daniel (7:13f.). Cf. J.Coppens, “Le Fils d’Homme Daniélique et les Relectures de Dan. 7, 13 dans les Apocryphes et les Écrits du N.T.” in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 37 (1961), p.37 128 Earlier by F.Kattenbusch, “Der Quellort der Kirchenidee” in Harnack – Festgabe, 1921, p.143. See also more recently Y.Congar, The Mystery of the Church, 1960, p.85f 129 This gave rise to the theory of “corporate personality”, the chief exponents of which were J.Pedersen, Israel, its Life and Culture, 1926; H.Wheeler Robinson, The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality (Werden und Wesen des A.T.Wissenschaft), 1936, p.49f. and A.R.Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, 1942. An extension of this theory to the whole of the Bible has been attempted more recently by both Protestant theologians (e.g. O.Cullmann, Christus und die Zeit, p.99f.) and Roman Catholics (e.g. de Fraine, op.cit.). On the O.T., cf. also N.Bratsiotis, op.cit., p.22f 130 Such appears to be the relationship between the “Son of Man” and the “people of the saints” in Daniel 7:13–27 . In the N.T., this same relationship is clearly presented in the depiction of the Judgment ( Mt. 25:31–46 ) where the “Son of Man” identifies Himself completely with the group of “the least of these my brethren” (vv.40 and 45). Cf. with certain reservations, the interpretation of T.W.Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 1955, p.265 134 The principal characterization of the “Son of Man” in the Fourth Gospel is as “he who descended from heaven”. See Jn. 3:13 , where the phrase “he who descended from heaven” is followed by the explanatory phrase “the Son of Man” 137 Jn. 6:56 . One indication of the connection in the Fourth Gospel between the “Son of Man” and the idea of the identity of Christ with the Church is the curious interchange between “I” and “we” in Jn. 3:11–13 : “Truly, truly I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen; but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man”. It should be noted that here again the “Son of Man” is mentioned. Cf. characteristically 1Jn. 1 :1f |
| 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 Before the Epitaphios For it is dreadful to be abandoned by neighbors and friends, but it is even more dreadful to think that God has left you, when an insuperable wall has been raised between you and God, and He seems neither to hear, nor see, nor notice you. Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) 31 March 2010 That for which God became man, for which the Son of God became the son of man, has been accomplished: the Savior’s death on the Cross has been accomplished. During the last days of His earthly life, the Lord was abandoned in the face of His tormentors, in the face of suffering and death. He drained to the dregs the cup that was prepared for Him, and experienced the most dreadful thing ever suffered by man – loneliness and abandonment. He was alone in Gethsemane, for His disciples were fast asleep. He was alone before the council of the chief priests, alone during Herod’s interrogation, alone before Pilate’s tribunal, for His disciples had run away in fear. He was alone when He went to Golgotha: a chance passer-by, and not His beloved disciple, helped Him bear the cross. He was alone upon the cross, He died alone, abandoned by all. Jesus cried out to His Father on the cross: “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Mt. 27:46). This cry bore the pain of all humanity and of every person – the pain of everyone who feels lonely and abandoned by God. For it is dreadful to be abandoned by neighbors and friends, but it is even more dreadful to think that God has left you, when an insuperable wall has been raised between you and God, and He seems neither to hear, nor see, nor notice you. If you suffer from loneliness, remember how lonely the Savior was during the last days of His life. If your neighbors or your disciples have turned their backs on you, if you are subjected to unrighteous slander, if they call you a heretic and a destroyer of paternal traditions, if they bear false witness against you and pronounce you worthy of death, remember that the Lord Himself underwent this. |
| What were the main virtues of these holy Myrrhbearing Women? Above all, they firmly believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Messiah proclaimed by the prophets, Who came to earth to save mankind. Then, they led a life pure and holy, in prayer and fasting, abstinence, and almsgiving, abiding in sacred love for one another, and, as they were able, lovingly rendering hospitality to Jesus and His holy disciples. However, the faith and zeal of the holy Myrrhbearing Women are not limited to this. They didn’t just receive the Lord into their homes, wash His feet, serve Him at the table, and provide Him the opportunity to rest, but more than that, they followed after Christ with zeal, and were witness to His miracles and boldly confessed that He is the Son of God, the Savior of the world. But the Myrrhbearing Women’s greatest bravery was revealed during the Lord’s sufferings. After the disciples deserted Him in fear and Peter denied Christ, the only ones following Him from afar were the holy Myrrhbearing Women with the Mother of God at the head, Mary Magdalene, and the apostle of love, John, for it’s impossible to ever cast off Divine love. The bravery and courage of the Myrrhbearing Women was seen on the path of the Cross to Golgotha. They alone, with St. John, accompanied the Lord to the crucifixion and were witnesses to His suffering. They alone prayed for Him with tears and deep sighs, such that the Savior, moved with compassion for them, said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children… For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry? (Lk. 23:28-31). At Golgotha the holy Myrrhbearing Women, together with the apostle of immortal love, were also the sole witnesses to the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ. They saw Him bleeding and falling beneath the weight of the Cross. They saw Him naked, without a robe, stretched out upon the Cross. They saw how His hands and feet were pierced with nails, and how He fainted under the Cross from pain. They heard the blasphemous words of the Jews, the repentant confession of the thief, and the heart-rending prayer of the Savior: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mt. 27:46). |
| 524 TGF, fr. 112. 525 Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis, 161—3. 526 Euripides, Antiope, fr. 211. 527 Euripides, Supplices, 269—70. 528 FPG I, 200; cf. Plutarchus, Moralia, 286 d-e. 529 Cf. Apollonius, Mirabilia, 46. 530 Mt. 8:22. «Пусть мертвые хоронят своих мертвецов». Далее Климент предлагает метафорическое понимание этого пассажа. 531 Cf. Col. 3: 1,5. 532 Этому положению следовали николаелиты, см.: Strom. II 118, 3. 533 Cf. Mt. 6: 24. 534 Ephes. 4: 20—24; 5: 1—4; 5.11. 535 Ср. высказывания Тертуллиана (Adversus valentinianos, 4, 2) и Иринея (Adversus haereses I, 11, 1), где также говорится о семени некой древней доктрины, от которой «зачали» валентиниане. Это вербальное сходство весьма примечательно. О возможном смысле пассажей Иринея и Тертуллиана см. статью: Quispel G. Valentinus and the Gnostikoi. — Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996), p. 1—4, однако это место там не упоминается. 536 Io. 8:34. Однако это слова Иисуса. Возможно, в тексте лакуна. 537 I Joh. 1: 6—7. 538 Согласно Епифанию (Panarion 45, 2) таких воззрений придерживались гностики севериане. 539 Cf. Mt. 5: 25. Точный текст таков: «Мирись с соперником своим скорее, пока ты еще на пути с ним, чтобы соперник не отдал тебя судье (…) и не ввергли бы тебя в темницу. Истинно говорю тебе: ты не выйдешь оттуда пока не отдашь до последнего кодранта». Как видим, толкование этого пассажа Климентом существенно изменяет контекст и смысл евангельской заповеди. 540 Cf. Didache 2, 1. 541 Herodotus, 7, 55. 542 Cf. Gen. 1:29; 6: 2. 543 Andronicus, De affect. 12, 4 Kreuttner. 544 Hesiodus, Opera et dies, 211. 545 Так Гомер называет Сциллу (Odyssea, XII, 118). 546 Gal. 2: 11; 3: 1—3, 5—6, 8—9. 547 Aristoteles, Ethica Nicomachea, I 4, 1096 b 29. 548 Цитата из утраченного Евангелия от египтян. Фрагменты см.: Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1.166—9. Климент часто упоминает об этом тексте, вероятно, весьма популярном в Александрии. См. его Excerpta ex Theodoto, 67, а также далее в этой книге (Strom. III, 63—64). 549 Mt. 19: 3—9; 22: 30. |
| 38 Tov E. The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences between the LXX and MT//The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. P. 122. 39 «Непросто, – пишет ведущая исследовательница переводческой техники толковников, – идти по следам теологии Септуагинты» (Aejmelaeus A. Von Sprache zur Theologie: methodologische Überlegungen zur Theologie der Septuaginta//The Septuagint and Messianism. Leuven, 2006. P. 30). Это бесспорный факт, однако в немалой степени он связан и с тем, что, по словам другого видного специалиста, «изучение Септуагинты в настоящее время переживает кризис в области герменевтики... причиной которого является неготовность придать семантике текста то же значение, которое обычно придается форме текста... Наука о Септуагинте нуждается в теории перевода как основании для уверенного экзегезиса» (Pietersma A. Messianism and the Greek Psalter//The Septuagint and Messianism. P. 75.). 42 Lust J. Major Divirgences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel//The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. P. 84. 43 Klein R. W. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament. The Septuagint after Qumran. Philadelphia, 1974. P. 62. 45 Austermann F. Von der Tora zum Nomos. Untersuchungen zur Übersetzungs-weise und Interpretation im Septuaginta-Psalter. Göttingen, 2003. S. 105. 46 Здесь уместно снова привести слова специалиста, отражающие современное состояние вопроса: «Мы только начали разгадывать загадку исходных данных еврейских манускриптов, использовавшихся переводчиками Септуагинты, и загадку отношений между древними свидетелями [текста Библии] вообще» (Tov. The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences between the LXX and MT//The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. P. 122). 47 Стоит прислушаться к мнению одного из видных текстологов, который пишет: «Нельзя утверждать, что филология обладает ключом ко всем проблемам текстологии» (Вайнгрин. Введение в текстологию Ветхого Завета. С. 98). 48 Гадамер Х.-Г. Истина и метод: основы философской герменевтики. М., 1988. С. 338–339. К этому следует добавить, что и для субъекта исследования «всякая герменевтика – это понимание самого себя через понимание другого» (Рикёр П. Конфликт интерпретаций. М, 2002. С. 49). |
| Philolaus, fr. 14 DK, cf. Plato, Gorgius, 493 a. Pindar., fr. 137 a Schroeder. Те, кому мы обязаны учреждением мистерий, не иначе как еще в древности поняли намек о том, что непосвященный в Аиде будет валяться в грязи. Посвященный же поселится среди богов (Федон, 69 с). Phaedo, 66 b. Phaedo, 64 a. Phaedo, 65 c-d. Rep. I 328 d, 329 c. Phaedo, 62 b. Cf. Phaedo, 114 b-c (текст у Климента несколько изменен). Phaedo, 62 b. Politicus, 273 b-c (с небольшими изменениями). Politicus, 273 b. (Этот пассаж у Платона непосредственно предшествует предыдущему.) Leg. II 653 c-d. Epinomis, 973 d. Heracleitos, fr. 49 (Marcovich), 21 DK; cf. Plato, Gorgias, 492 e. Намек на Истинного Бога, которого Маркион называл Странником или Инородцем. Euripides, fr. inc. 908. TGF, adesp. fr. 111. Я переставил вторую и третью строки местами. TGF, fr. 112. Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis, 161—3. Euripides, Antiope, fr. 211. Euripides, Supplices, 269—70. FPG I, 200; cf. Plutarchus, Moralia, 286 d-e. Cf. Apollonius, Mirabilia, 46. Mt. 8:22. «Пусть мертвые хоронят своих мертвецов». Далее Климент предлагает метафорическое понимание этого пассажа. Cf. Col. 3: 1,5. Этому положению следовали николаелиты, см.: Strom. II 118, 3. Cf. Mt. 6: 24. Ephes. 4: 20—24; 5: 1—4; 5.11. Ср. высказывания Тертуллиана (Adversus valentinianos, 4, 2) и Иринея (Adversus haereses I, 11, 1), где также говорится о семени некой древней доктрины, от которой «зачали» валентиниане. Это вербальное сходство весьма примечательно. О возможном смысле пассажей Иринея и Тертуллиана см. статью: Quispel G. Valentinus and the Gnostikoi. — Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996), p. 1—4, однако это место там не упоминается. Io. 8:34. Однако это слова Иисуса. Возможно, в тексте лакуна. I Joh. 1: 6—7. Согласно Епифанию (Panarion 45, 2) таких воззрений придерживались гностики севериане. Cf. Mt. 5: 25. Точный текст таков: «Мирись с соперником своим скорее, пока ты еще на пути с ним, чтобы соперник не отдал тебя судье (…) и не ввергли бы тебя в темницу. Истинно говорю тебе: ты не выйдешь оттуда пока не отдашь до последнего кодранта». Как видим, толкование этого пассажа Климентом существенно изменяет контекст и смысл евангельской заповеди. |
|
|
