| Walter Bauer, for instance, divined that Papias either ‘expressed himself in an unfavorable manner [about John], or he kept silent also with respect to this gospel’. If he kept silent it was because John’s Gospel ‘apparently belonged to the long-winded prattle in which the great masses took pleasure... the Fourth Gospel [was suspect], no doubt, because of its content, origin, and the friends it had made.’ 288 Bauer is the main source of the popular but recendy debunked theory mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 8, which states that the Gospel of John was for a long time avoided or rejected by the orthodox (who suffered from what we might call ‘orthodox Johannophobia’) but was loved by the heretics (‘heterodox Johannophilia’). Bauer thus leaves us with a choice of two possible conspiracies: either it was Papias who suppressed the Gospel according to John, because it was entirely suspect and was popular with the wrong sorts of people; or Papias said something negative about John and it was Eusebius who edited out Papias’ embarrassing testimony. It is the second of these conspiracy theories which has been preferred by a few more recent scholars. In contrast to Bauer, these scholars suppose that Papias had a quite positive view of John, but they still propose that Eusebius purposely censored Papias’ testimony because Papias had, as Bauer suggested, ‘expressed himself in an unfavorable manner’ about it. What these scholars believe Papias said about John that was unfavourable was that its author was not the apostle John but the mysterious ‘Elder John’ mentioned above (yes, John was a quite common Jewish name). This would mean that Eusebius was intentionally concealing from his readers a very crucial fact. Now, I have to say, a lot of people are quite prepared to believe that Eusebius was fully capable of this kind of duplicitous censorship. It would certainly not be the only time Eusebius could be accused of reporting things in a way most favourable to his own position. Yet, it should not be forgotten that copies of Papias’ writings were in existence when Eusebius wrote, and he seems not the least threatened by the possibility that others will read Papias’ books and learn the ‘truth’ themselves. In fact, he recommends it (EH 3.39.14, ‘to which [i.e. Papias’ books] we refer those interested’). Moreover, the deception in this case cannot be confined to Eusebius. Other ‘interested’ people clearly had read Papias’ books, including Irenaeus and a number of other second- and third-century writers, yet neither they nor any one else ever reports the opinion that the Gospel according to John had been written by John the Elder. If Papias reported that the true author of the Fourth Gospel was not John the apostle but John the Elder, this would mean that a host of people in different times and places were involved in the same cover-up. In my opinion, this conspiracy theory more than stretches credulity. |
| 1206 Fr.Seraphim Rose. Bishop Sava and the Glorification of Archbishop John Maximovitch//The Orthodox Word. 1972. Р.270; см. также: Fr.Seraphim Rose and Fr. Herman Podmoshensky. Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.23. Русский пер. см.: Блаженный Иоанн Чудотворец. С.16. 1207 Fr.Seraphim Rose. Bishop Sava and the Glorification of Archbishop John Maximovitch//The Orthodox Word. 1972. Р.271–272; Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.23–25. 1208 Father Seraphim Rose. The Chronicle of Bishop Sava of Edmonton//The Orthodox Word. 1976. Р.46; также см.: Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.20. 1210 Из «Некролога епископа Саввы» архиеп. Аргентинского Афанасия//Наша страна. 1973. 6 февр. (Буэнос-Айрес); см. также: The Orthodox Word. 1972. Р.270; в русский пер. см.: «Блаженный Иоанн Чудотворец». 1214 Fr.Seraphim Rose and Fr.Herman Podmoshensky. Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.471. Русский пер. см.: Блаженный Иоанн Чудотворец. С.317. 1216 Fr.Seraphim Rose. Bishop Sava and the Glorification of Archbishop John Maximovitch. Р.272; Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.25. 1217 Fr.Seraphim Rose. The Chronicle of Bishop Sava of Edmonton. Р.46; Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.18–20. Русский пер. см.: Блаженный Иоанн Чудотворец. С.13–14. 1218 Величание святому иерарху, например архиепископу Иоанну, звучит иначе, нежели святому иноку: «Величаем тя, святителю отче наш Иоанне, и чтим святую память твою, ты бо молиши о нас Христа, Бога нашего». 1220 Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco and Western America//Orthodox America. Vol.19. (166). Р.5. 1221 Fr.Seraphim Rose. Bishop Sava and the Glorification of Archbishop John Maximovitch. Р.272–273; Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.26–27. 1223 Десять лет спустя о.Михаил Помаэанский подтвердил оценку архиепископа Иоанна. Отец Серафим отмечал в письме: «Мы спросили о. Михаила Помазанского , кто сейчас является ведущим истинно православным богословом, и тот ответил: архиепископ Аверкий» (письмо к Алексию Янгу от 4 ноября 1975г.). 1224 Fr.Seraphim Rose. Archbishop Averky: His Significance for the Ecumenical Orthodox Church//The Orthodox Word. 1981. Р.222. |
| 52. Bobrinskoy B. Liturgie et ecclésiologie trinitaire de S. Basile//Eucharisties d " Orient et d " Occident. T. II. Paris, 1970. [Bobrinskoy. Liturgie et ecclésiologie] 53. Bobrinskoy B. The Mystery of the Trinity. NY, 1999. [Bobrinskoy. The Mystery of the Trinity] 54. Boismard M. E. De son ventre couleront des fleuves d " eau//Revue Biblique. 1958. 65. P. 523–546. [Boismard. RB 65] 55. Boismard M. E. Le prologue de S. Jean. Paris: Cerf, 1953. [Boismard. Le prologue de S. Jean] 56. Boismard M. E. Revue Biblique 55, 1948. [Boismard. RB 55] 57. Borgen Peder. Targumic Character of the Prologue of John//New Testament Studies. 1970. P. 291–293. [Borgen. Targumic Character of the Prologue of John] 58. Bornkamm G. Der Paraklet im Johannes evangelium/Festschrift für R. Bultmann. Stuttgart, 1949. [Bornkamm. Der Paraklet im Johannes evangelium] 59. Boulnois M.-O. Le Paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d " Alexandrie. Paris, 1994. [Boulnois. Le Paradoxe trinitaire] 60. Braun F.-M. New Testament Studies 4, 1958. [Braun. NTS 4] 61. Breck John. Spirit of Truth. The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1991. [Breck. Spirit of Truth] 62. Breck John. The Power of the Word. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1986. [Breck. The Power of the Word] 63. Breck John. The shape of biblical languagë chiasmus in the Scriptures and beyond. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1994. [Breck. The shape of biblical language] 64. Brown Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. 1 vol. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1966. [ Brown. John, 1] 65. Brown Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. 2 vol. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1970. [Brown. John, 2] 66. Brown Raymond E. The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel//New Testament Studies. 1966/67. 13. P. 113–132. [Brown. The Paraclete] 67. Büchsel F. Der Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament. Gütersloh, 1926. [Büchsel. Der Geist Gottes] 68. Bultmann R. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. [Bultmann. Das Evangelium des Johannes]. Translation: Bultmann R. The Gospel of John/Tr. G. R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. [ Bultmann. John] |
| The Academy enjoyed a bright period during the Rectorship of Archimandrite Antony (Khrapovitskii) from 1890 to 1895, and weathered the storms of 1905, when “extraneous influences” sought to gain the upper hand. Despite temporary closure, the Academy flowered again under the rectorship of Bishop Feodor (Pozdeyevskii), from 1909 to 1917. The Bolsheviks closed the Academy in 1917. After his graduation from the Moscow Theological Academy as a Candidate of Theology (Master’s Degree) in 1915, the future Bishop Nikolai taught at spiritual and educational institutions, and was a preacher at the Oboyan Monastery in the Kursk Diocese. In 1916, the future Bishop Nikolai took part in the Glorification of Saint John (Maximovich), Metropolitan of Tobolsk. The form of his participation in the Glorification of Saint John of Tobolsk is unknown; it is known that the Glorification touched him deeply, and that he always great venerated Saint John of Tobolsk. Saint John (Maximovich), Archbishop of Shanghai & San Francisco, who shared the Sainted Metropolitan of Tobolsk’s name, was a distant relative of St. John of Tobolsk. Saint John (Maximovich), Metropolitan of Tobolsk, was born in 1651 in Nezhin, Ukraine. His father was Maxim Vasilkovskaia, so called for the city of Vasilkova, where he once lived. He later moved to Kiev and became known for his donations to and construction of many churches in Kiev. John was the first of ten sons in the family. His surname “Maximovich” was derived from his patronymic, meaning “son of Maxim.” His mother’s name was Evfrosinia. John Maximovich was educated at the Kiev Mogila Academy, and after graduation in 1675, was tonsured a monk with the name John, after Saint John Chrysostom. He was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Lazar (Baranovichi, 1620-1693) of Chernigov, and in 1680 was appointed Steward of the Kiev Caves Lavra. Between 1680 and 1690, he made many trips to Moscow on official Church business. In 1695, Saint Feodosy (Polonitskii-Uglich, 1630s-1696) of Chernigov decided that Hieromonk John was to be his successor, and had him transferred to the Yeletskii Monastery of the Dormition in Chernigov. |
| In 1714, Metropolitan John directed the Russian Mission in Peking, which was founded officially to serve the spiritual needs of the “Albazins,” descendants of Cossacks that had been captured by the Chinese, and pressed into serving the Chinese Emperor. He gave support to the Slavonic-Russian school that was the predecessor of the Tobolsk Seminary, and actively assisted the building of churches in his Diocese. He was also a great helper to the needy, assisting the opening of twenty almshouses in Tobolsk. He was also well known for his literary efforts, works of spiritual and moral content. Perhaps best known is the “Iliotropion,” an adaptation of a work by Jeremiah Drexel about the conformity of the human will to the Divine Will. This work of Saint John has been criticized as being influenced too heavily by Roman Catholicism, but those who make this criticism assume it was mostly simply a translation. This is not the case, however, as Metropolitan John not only translated the work, but applied Orthodox theology to correspond to the written illustrations of Divine Will in the work. On 09 June 1715, after serving the Divine Liturgy, and then himself serving guests at a dinner for the clergy and the poor, Metropolitan John retired to his room. He was found the next morning to have reposed in an attitude of prayer before the Chernigov Icon of the Mother of God. Metropolitan John’s body was placed in various temporary graves until 1753, when it was placed in a tomb in the right wall of the altar of the Saint John Chrysostom chapel in the Tobolsk Saint Sophia Cathedral. After his repose, various healings and other miraculous works were ascribed to the intercession of Metropolitan John. In 1913, with the approach of the bicentennial of his repose, Bishop Varnava (Nakropin), an early advocate of the glorification of Metropolitan John, petitioned the Holy Synod and the Tsar on behalf of the Congress of Clergy and Churchwardens of the Tobolsk and Siberia Diocese to that end. The Synod replied that the remains of Metropolitan John were to be examined, and accounts of his intercession were to be investigated. In 1914, Bishop Varnava inspected the remains of Metropolitan John. While conditions in the tomb were extremely damp, and the wooden coffin had rotted completely, literally disintegrating, the body of Metropolitan John was incorrupt, and his episcopal vestments, although wet, were undamaged. |
| John among the Gospels: The Relationship in 20th-Cent. Research. Minneapolis, 1992. Columbia, 20012; idem. The Theology of the Gospel of John. Camb.; N. Y., 1995; Sterling G. E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography. Leiden; N. Y., 1992; Boismard M.- É . Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology. Minneapolis, 1993; Brodie T. L. The Quest for the Origin of John " s Gospel. N. Y., 1993; idem. The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary. N. Y., 1993; Harner P. B. Relation Analysis of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Reader-Response Criticism. Lewiston (N. Y.), 1993; Hengel M. Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch. Tüb., 1993; idem. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. Harrisburg (Penn.), 2000; Kysar R. John: The Maverick Gospel. Louisville, 1993; Ladd G. E. A Theology of the NT. Grand Rapids, 19932; Stanton G. N. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Louisville, 1993; Verm è s G. The Religion of Jesus the Jew. Minneapolis, 1993; Belle G., van. The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel. Leuven, 1994. (BETL; 116); Harris E. Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist. Sheffield, 1994; Sch ü ssler Fiorenza E. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. N. Y., 199410; Wilcox J. The Origins of Epistemology in Early Greek Thought: A Study of Psyche and Logos in Heraclitus. Lewiston, 1994; Bauckham R. The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author//The Johannine Writings: A Sheffield Reader/Ed. S. E. Porter, C. A. Evans. Sheffield, 1995. P. 46-68; idem. John for Readers of Mark//The Gospels for All Christians/Ed. R. Bauckham. Grand Rapids, 1998. P. 147-171; idem. Messianism According to the Gospel of John//Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John/Ed. J. Lierman. Tüb., 2006. P. 34-68; idem. Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John// Idem. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple. Grand Rapids, 2007. P. 93-112; idem. The Qumran Community and the Gospel of John//Ibid. |
| 1934. Bd. 22. S. 350–358; Wilson W. G. An Examination of the Linguistic Evidence Adduced Against the Unity of Authorship of the First Epistle of John and the Fourth Gospel//JThSt. 1948. Vol. 49. P. 147–156; Bultmann R. Die kirchliche Redaktion des ersten Johannesbriefes//In Memoriam E. Lohmeyer. Stuttg., 1951. S. 189–201; Thiele W. Untersuchungen zu den altlateinischen Texten der drei Johannesbriefe: Diss. Tüb., 1956; Nauck W. Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes. Tüb., 1957; Thompson P. J. Psalm 119: A Possible Clue to the Structure of the First Epistle of John//Studia Evangelica. B., 1964. Bd. 2. S. 487–492. (TU; 87); O’Neill J. C. The Puzzle of 1 John. L., 1966; Funk R. W. The Form and the Structure of 2 and 3 John//JBL. 1967. Vol. 86. N 4. P. 424–430; Francis F. O. The Form and the Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John//ZNW. 1970. Bd. 61. N 1. S. 110–126; Wengst K. Häresie und Orthodoxie im Spiegel des ersten Johannesbriefes. Gütersloh, 1976; Bogart J. Orthodox and Heretical Perfectionism in the Johannine Community as Evident in the First Epistle of John. Missoula, 1977; Malherbe A. J. The Inhospitality of Diotrephes//God’s Christ and His People/Ed. J. Jervell, W. Meeks. Oslo, 1977. P. 222–232; Richards W. L. The Classification of the Greek Manuscripts of the Johannine Epistles. Missoula, 1977; Rand J. A., du. Structure and Message of 2 John//Neotestamentica. Pretoria, 1979. Vol. 13. P. 101–120; idem. The Structure of 3 John//Ibid. P. 121–131; Clifton Black C. The Johannine Epistles and the Question of Early Catholicism/NTIQ. 1986. Vol. 28. N 2. P. 131–158; Lieu J. M. The Second and Third Epistles of John: History and Background. Edinb., 1986; idem. The Theology of Johannine Epistles. Camb., 1991; Painter J. The «Opponents» in 1 John//NTS. 1986. Vol. 32. N 1. P. 48–71; idem. The Johannine Epistles as Catholic Epistles//The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition: A New Perspective on James to Jude/Ed. K.-W. Niebuhr, R. |
| E. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City (N. Y.), 1977; Beckwith R. T. St. Luke, The Date of Christmas and the Priestly Courses at Qumran//RevQ. 1977. T. 9. N 33. P. 73-94; Hollenbach P. W. Social Aspects of John the Baptizer " s Preaching Mission in the Context of Palestinian Judaism//ANRW. 1979. R. 2. Bd. 19. H. 1. S. 850-875; idem. The Conversion of Jesus: From Jesus the Baptizer to Jesus the Healer//Ibid. 1982. R. 2. Bd. 25. H. 1. S. 196-219; Badia L. F. The Qumran Baptism and John the Baptist " s Baptism. Lanham, 1980; Faierstein M. M. Why do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must Come First?//JBL. 1981. Vol. 100. N 1. P. 75-86; Smith D. Jewish Proselyte Baptism and the Baptism of John//Restoration Quarterly. Abilene (Tex.), 1982. Vol. 25. N 1. P. 13-32; Davies S. L. John the Baptist and Essene Kashruth//NTS. 1983. Vol. 29. N 4. P. 569-571; Allison D. C. Elijah Must Come First//JBL. 1984. Vol. 103. N 2. P. 256-258; Fleddermann H. John and the Coming One (Matt 3:11-12/Luke 3:16-17)//SBL.SP. 1984. Vol. 23. P. 377-384; Fitzmyer J. A. More About Elijah Coming First//JBL. 1985. Vol. 104. N 2. P. 295-296; Horsley R. A., Hanson J. S. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs. Minneapolis, 1985; Nodet E. Jésus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe//RB. 1985. Vol. 92. N 3. P. 321-348; N 4. P. 497-524; Reicke B. The Historical Setting of John " s Baptism//Jesus, the Gospels and the Church/Ed. E. P. Sanders. Macon, 1987. P. 209-224; Riesner R. Bethany beyond Jordan (John 1. 28): Topography, Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel//Tyndale Bulletin. Camb., 1987. Vol. 38. P. 29-63; Ernst J. Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte. B.; N. Y., 1989; idem. Johannes der Täufer - der Lehrer Jesu? Freiburg i. Br.; Basel; W., 1994; Ottillinger A. Vorläufer, Vorbild oder Zeuge?: Zum Wandel des Täuferbildes im Johannesevangelium. St. Ottilien, 1991; Webb R. L. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A socio-historical study. Sheffield, 1991; idem. John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus//Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research/Ed. |
| ______________________ 1. St. John Maximovitch, The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God (Platina, Calif.: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1996). 2. Constantine Cavarnos, Holiness: Man’s Supreme Destiny, p. 24. 3. See “Father Spyridon, Sotainnik of Blessed John,” The Orthodox Word no. 141 (1988), pp. 211–13. 4. Chronicle of the St. Herman Brotherhood, June 28, 1966 5. Ibid., July 3, 1966 6. Blessed John, first edition (Platina, Calif.: St. Herman Brotherhood, 1979), p. 11 Source: The Orthodox Word You might also like: Six Encounters with St John of Shanghai and San Francisco Notes of a Pilgrim on the Glorification of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, 1994 The Veneration of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco: Recollections of a Spiritual Son Code for blog Since you are here… …we do have a small request. More and more people visit Orthodoxy and the World website. However, resources for editorial are scarce. In comparison to some mass media, we do not make paid subscription. It is our deepest belief that preaching Christ for money is wrong. Having said that, Pravmir provides daily articles from an autonomous news service, weekly wall newspaper for churches, lectorium, photos, videos, hosting and servers. Editors and translators work together towards one goal: to make our four websites possible - Pravmir.ru, Neinvalid.ru, Matrony.ru and Pravmir.com. Therefore our request for help is understandable. For example, 5 euros a month is it a lot or little? A cup of coffee? It is not that much for a family budget, but it is a significant amount for Pravmir. If everyone reading Pravmir could donate 5 euros a month, they would contribute greatly to our ability to spread the word of Christ, Orthodoxy, life " s purpose, family and society. Related articles Photo-report of a California Priest: The spiritual children of St John (Maximovich) on the celebration in… When I came to San Francisco to be close to the saintly Archbishop John Maximovitch, I… St. John is a meek and humble yet powerful intercessor. He does not force his way… |
| “Fr. John was a man of fiery prayer and a zealous celebrant of the Divine Services. His serving was inspired, prayer passed through him, filling his entire being, his eyes gazed towards the heavens, and nothing earthly distracted him. He pronounced the words loudly and distinctly. Sometimes he was as if raised upon tip-toes, ready to fly up to the heavens.…He involuntarily reminded one of … St. John of Kronstadt, for whom Fr. John had a great veneration.… Spiritual freedom, in Fr. John’s words, ‘is bought at the great price of suffering.’” Archimandrite John Krestiankin reposed in the Lord at the age of ninety-five, on February 5, 2006. On this day the Russian Orthodox Church celebrated the memory of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, who suffered persecutions for their faith in prisons and exile, just as Fr. John did. It was as if these saints, some of whom he personally knew, hereby revealed their kinship with this long-suffering soul, who gave his whole life unstintingly to God’s service and confession of the true Faith. His body was interred in the “God-given” caves of the Dormition Monastery, together with his like-minded elders. The church in which the brotherhood served his funeral was filled to overflowing by people from all over Russia, and even from abroad. May the memory of Fr. John’s labors, patience and love live eternally in the hearts of the faithful. PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION Although one of Fr. John Krestiankin’s other works, Experience in Formulating a Confession has been translated into English (and even into Chinese), his letters, published by the Pskov-Caves Monastery, are appearing for the first time in English. They are produced here in their entirety, since the translators, who also knew Fr. John personally, could not bring themselves to edit anything out of this precious perpetuation of Fr. John’s love for Christ’s flock. The fact that Fr. John was in partial reclusion during his final years is also the fortunate cause for this written pastoral inheritance, which is undoubtedly no less valuable to Christians in the West. We feel, however, that perhaps some explanations of certain topics are due to the English language reader who may not be familiar with church life in Russia. |
|
|
