| Библиография Источники Библия. Книги Священного Писания Ветхого и Нового Завета в русском переводе с параллельными местами. М., 1988, 1376 с. Библия. Книги Священного Писания Ветхого и Нового Завета на церковнославянском языке с параллельными местами. М., 1993, 1658 с. Ветхозаветные апокрифы. Пер. прот. А. В. Смирнова. СПб., 2001, 407 с. Законы царя Хаммурапи. Сост. Гусаков А. Г. Б/м, 41 стр. Иосиф Флавий. Иудейские древности. М., 1996, 864 с., илл. Abegg М., Flint Р., Ulrich Е. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. San-Francisco, 1999, xxvii + 649 p. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Ed. R. Kittel. edition. Deutsche Bibelgesel- lschaft, lxxii + 1574 S, Martinez F. C., Tigchelaar E. j. C. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. 1–2. Leiden- Boston-Koln, xxiii -+- 627 pp. and 628–1361 pp. Miller F. P. The Great Isaiah Scroll. http://www.ao.net/Mmoeller. Septuaginta. Ed. A. Rahlfs. Duo volumina in uno. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, lxx + 1184 + 940 S. The Greek New Testament. Edited by Kurt Aland. 3rd ed. United Bible Societies, 1997, 926 p. Современная литература Амусин И. Д. Кумранская община. М., 1983. Амусин И. Д. Рукописи Мертвого моря. М., 1960, 1961, 272 стр., илл. Амусин И. Д. Новейшие открытия и публикации рукописей из района Мертвого моря/Штоль Г. Пещера у Мертвого моря. М., 1965, с. 3–26. Антонины Б. Экзегезис книг Ветхого Завета. М., Беляев Λ. А. Христианские древности. СПб., 2001. Бикерман Э. Хронология древнего мира. М., 1975. Бранн М., Хволъсон Д. Еврейская литература/Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона. Электронное переизд. словаря 1890–1907 гг. М., 2002. Владимиров А. Кумран и Христос. М., 2002, 766 с., илл. Волнин А. К. Мессия по изображению пророка Исаии. Опыт библейско- богословского и критико-экзегетического исследования пророчеств Исаии о лице Мессии. Киев, 1908, 476 стр. Глаголев С. С. Предисловие к статье «Израильтяне»/Иллюстрированная история религий, под ред. проф. Д.П.Шантепи де ля Соссей в 2-х тт. Т. 1, [М„] 1992, С. 247–264. |
| Ed. by A. Brenner and J.W. Henten. Leiderdorp, the Netherlands, 1999, pp. 3–21. Barrett 1975 – Barrett C.K. Review of mallon xrhsai by S. Scott Bartchy//JTS 26, pp. 173–174. Bartchy 1973 – Bartchy S.S. First-Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1Corinthian 7.21. SBLDS, 11. Missoula, 1973. Barthelemy 1992 – Barthelemy D. Critique textuelle de L " Ancien Testament. Tome 3. Fribourg Suissë Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992, p. 1030. Barthes 1986 – Barthes R. The Rustle of Language. New York: Hill and Wang, 1986. Bascom 1988 – Bascom R.A. Preparing the Way Midrash in the Bible//Issues in Bible translation. Ed. by Ph.C. Stine, London New York Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1988, pp. 221–246. Beccari 1905 – Rerum Aethiopicarum scriptores occidentales inediti a seculo XVI ad XIX. Beccari C. (ed.), vol. II, Roma, 1905. Bergey 2003 – Bergey R. The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case of Early Intertextuality?//JSOT 28 (2003), pp. 33–54. Bergjan 1992 – Bergjan S.-P. Die dogmatische Funkzionalisierung der Exegese nach Theodoret von Cyrus//Christliche Exegese zwischen Nicaea und Chalcedon. Her. von J. van. Oort und U. Wichert Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992, pp. 32–48. Berlin 1985 – Berlin A. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington, 1985. Berlin 1994 – Berlin A. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Winona Lake, 1994. Bernstein 2005 – Bernstein M.J. «Rewritten Bible»: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?//Tex 22, pp. 169–196. Boxall 2007 – Boxall I. The Books of the New Testament (SCM Study guide). London, 2007. BP – Biblia Patristicä index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la litterature patristique. Ed. par J. Allenbach et al. Vol. 1–6. Paris, 1975–1991. Bradley 1987 Bradley K.R. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empirë A Study in Social Control. New York, 1987. Braxton 2000 – Braxton B.R. The Tyranny of Resolution: 1Corinthians 7.17–24. SBLDS 181, Atlanta, 2000. Brayford 2009 – Brayford S. Feminist Criticism: Sarah Laughs Last//Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David L. |
| 1144 Delff, Das vierte Evangelium, 9–10, считает, что Иоанн мог однажды замещать первосвященника. То же предполагает Rigato, «L«apostolo, " » 464 η. 33 (см. ниже). 1152 Например, J.Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (tr. F.H. and С. H. Cave; London: SCM, 1969) 197 n. 161; VanderKam, From Joshua, 438 n. 114. 1153 В. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975) 317–318. 1154 D.Barag and D. Flusser, «The Ossuary of Yehohanah Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus,» IEJ 36 (1986) 39–44. 1156 Коптский текст части «Деяний Павла», перевод из: Е. Hennecke, W.Schneemelcher, and R. McL. Wilson, eds., New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2 (revised edition; Louisvillë Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 264. 1157 Я подчеркиваю этот пункт, поскольку он, по-видимому, остался незамеченным для критиков моего «Папия и Поликрата», предполагающих, что Поликрат отождествлял автора Евангелия от Иоанна одновременно с Иоанном из Деян 4и с Иоанном, сыном Зеведеевым. Опытный и знающий экзегет, каким, несомненно, был Поликрат, такого сделать не мог. 1158 В. Mutschier, «Was weiss Ireridus vom Johannesevangelium? Der historische Kontext der Johannesevangeliums aus der Perspektive seiner Rezeption bei Irenaus von Lyon,» in J. Frey and U. Schnelle, eds., Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums. Das vierte Evangelium in religions-und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr, 2004) 705–706, following C. – J. Thornton, Der Zeuge des Zeugen. Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen (WUNT 56; Tübingen: Mohr, 1991) 8–67, который датирует этот источник 120–135 годами. (62). 1159 Тексты «Против ересей» я привожу по изданию под редакцией А. Rousseau в серии: Sources Chrétiennes series: vols. 100, 153, 211, 264, and 294. 1160 Mutschier, «Was weiss Irenaus,» 705, 707, полагает, что это выражение в такой форме, где родительный падеж («ученик Господа») стоит в предикативной позиции, всегда исходит из какого-то источника, сам же Ириней использует форму родительного падежа в атрибутивной позиции. Но этот аргумент неубедителен. Атрибутивную форму мы встречаем в десяти случаях, предикативную – в восьми (bis); 3.1.1; 3.11.1, 3; 4.30.4; 5.33.3; «Послание к Виктору " ]; есть также один случай (2.22.5), где в греческом тексте стоит предикативная форма, а в латинском атрибутивная – что показывает, что в таких случаях не следует всецело доверять буквальности латинского перевода. Из восьми случаев предикативной формы только четыре принадлежат к отрывкам, которые Мутшлер относит к тем или иным источникам Иринея (3.1.1; 3.3.4; 5.33.3; «Послание к Виктору»). |
| Однако всегда в этих случаях за действием стоит определенная группа личностей, а не просто «люди вообще». 399 Комментаторы расходятся в вопросе об Мк 1:29 , где множественное число делает предложение неполным – поэтому некоторые предпочитают видеть здесь единственное. Однако вполне возможно, что в этом случае действовала та же закономерность: множественное число создавало трудности при чтении, и переписчики начали заменять его единственным, чтобы сделать текст понятнее. В. М. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975) 75, сообщает, что к такому выводу склонилось большинство в комитете Объединенного библейского общества. 403 Аргументы R.P.Meier, Jesus and the Twelvë Discipleship and Revelation in Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), глава 6, который стремится показать, что под «учениками» Марк подразумевал только и исключительно Двенадцать, на мой взгляд, основаны на крайне сомнительной интерпретации текста. 404 Здесь я в большой степени (хотя и не во всем – см. предыдущее примечание) согласен с Р. П. Мейером, Jesus and the Twelve. 405 Так понимает эту фразу С. Е. В. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St Mark (CGTC; Cambridgë Cambridge University Press, 1959) 335; другие комментаторы толкуют ее по-другому. 409 N. R. Petersen, ««Point of View» in Mark»«s Narrative,» Semeia 12 (1978) 97–121; J.Dewey, «Point of View and the Disciples in Mark,» SBL Seminar Papers (1982) 97–106; S.H.Smith, A Lion with Wings: A Nanative-Critical Approach to Mark» " s Gospel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), глава 5. 410 См. S. Rimmon-Kenan, Nanative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (New York: Routledge, 1989) 74–76. M. Bal, Nanatology: Introduction to the Theory of Nanative (second edition; Torontö University of Toronto Press, 1997) 142–144, использует термин «фокализация» (который она предпочитает термину Дж.Джинетта «перспектива») только применительно к тому, что Риммон-Кинан называет «внутренней фокализацией». Вообще, в этой области наблюдается большая терминологическая путаница, и при чтении необходимо ясно понимать, в каком значении тот или иной теоретик использует тот или иной термин. |
| The early years of the 21 st century saw continuing development of the megachurch movement – the rise of numerous, mostly evangelical and Pentecostal churches each with a stated membership of over 2000 – though by 2013this movement seemed to be tapering off. The mainline denominations continued to decline in membership. Major denominational mergers among Protestants While small splinter groups of mostly conservative Protestants continued to be formed throughout the twentieth century, there also were a number of significant mergers of smaller denominations into larger, united Churches. For example, the United Methodist Church was formed in 1968 with the merger of the Evangelical Brethren Church with the much larger Methodist Church. In 1939 the northern and southern wings of the Methodist Church had rejoined after about 80 years of separation resulting from the Civil War. The Protestant Methodist Church also participated in this reconciliation in 1939. The Evangelical Brethren Church also resulted from a previous merger, when the Church of the United Brethren and the Evangelical Church joined together in 1946. In 1957, the United Church of Christ (UCC) was formed through the merger of the Congregational Christian Churches with the Evangelical and Reformed Church. At least four previous mergers had occurred to create these two Churches that merged to form the UCC. In 1983the United Presbyterian Church in the USA (UPCUSA) began the merger process with the Presbyterian Church in the US (PCUS) to form the Presbyterian Church (USA), known as the PCUSA. In 1987, the largest Lutheran body in the U.S., called the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), was formed through an amalgamation of the Lutheran Church in America, the American Lutheran Church, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches. The United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant body in Canada, was formed in 1925 as a blend of Presbyterian, Congregational, Methodist, and Evangelical United Brethren Churches. The United Church of Canada took its final shape in 1968, when the Canada Conference of the Evangelical United Brethren joined it. |
| Although his chapel was closed, Father Bjerring made an outstanding contribution to the development of Orthodoxy in America. He was responsible for translating and publishing a number of liturgical services. He also wrote a brief history of the Orthodox Church and a commentary on its customs and liturgical practices. One of the most outstanding contributions of Bjerring was the publication of the Oriental Church Magazine from November 1879 to October 1881. This journal was the first English-language Orthodox periodical to be published in the United States. Its purpose was to acquaint Americans with the beliefs and practices of the Orthodox Church. The articles that appeared in the journal clearly indicate that Father Bjerring was very deeply committed to the task of Orthodox Christian evangelization in America. 69 THE GREEK IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR PARISHES The United States has been called a nation of immigrants. From the time when the first settlements were established along the Atlantic coast in the early seventeenth century, America has been a haven for persons of all races and backgrounds who have sought freedom and opportunity. Until about the year 1880, the majority of the immigrants who came to the United States were from Western and Northern Europe. After 1880, however, the majority of the immigrants who came to the United States prior to 1921 were from Eastern and Southeastern Europe. It has been estimated that between 1800 and the period of World War I, about 15 million immigrants entered the United States. Because many of these immigrants were Orthodox Christians, they provided a powerful impetus to the growth of Orthodoxy in the United States. A substantial migration of Greeks to the United States began during the last quarter of the nineteenth century and continued until 1921. Prior to this period, Greeks had come to America, but their numbers were not significant. About 200 Peloponnesians came to Florida in 1762, when it was still part of the Spanish Empire. 70 Later, during the early nineteenth century, some American philanthropists helped a small number of Greeks to come to the United States to study. As we have already noted, throughout the middle of the nineteenth century, Greek merchants and government officials could be found in most of the port cities of the United States. 71 |
| As we have already noted, the Russian Orthodox Cathedral and Pastoral School was transferred from Sitka to San Francisco in 1872. About the year 1896, a Russian Orthodox mission parish was reestablished in New York City to serve the needs of the immigrants. While this mission might be seen as the continuation of the efforts of Father Bjerring, the fact is that the new parish served chiefly the immigrant Russian population. 80 The most significant migration of Slavs to the United States prior to World War I did not come from imperial Russia but rather from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. These immigrants came from the areas about the Carpathian Mountains that were known as Cherbonnaya Rus or Russian Rubra. Until 1918, this area was part of the northeastern kingdom of Hungary, which was part of the Hapsburg-ruled, Austro-Hungarian Empire. Those persons who migrated to the United States from this area were usually known as Carpatho-Russians (Rusyns). This name indicates both the geographic location of their homeland as well as their ethnoreligious affiliation. 81 The exact number of Carpatho-Russians who entered the United States prior to 1914 is not known. The United States government listed immigrants only by country of origin until 1899. Only after that date were immigrants classified according to race and peoples. However, it has been estimated that about 150,000 Carpatho-Russians entered the United States between 1880 and 1914. The vast majority of these immigrants were peasants who left their homeland because of poor agricultural conditions. At the time of their arrival, industry in the United States was expanding, and there was a great need for cheap labor. As a consequence of this, most of the Carpatho-Russian immigrants settled in the northeastern part of the United States, especially in Pennsylvania and Ohio. There the immigrants found employment in mines and steel mills. 82 Upon their arrival in the United States, the Carpatho-Russians were Eastern-Rite Roman Catholics. Although they generally referred to themselves as pravoslavni (Orthodox), the Carpatho-Russian immigrants were Eastern Catholics who were known as either Greek Catholics or Ruthenian Catholics. Prior to the sixteenth century, the people of Carpatho-Russia had been Orthodox Christians. However, they were integrated into the Roman Catholic Church during the sixteenth century chiefly as a result of political changes. The Carpatho-Russians were permitted to retain their Orthodox liturgical traditions and many of their Orthodox religious customs. Among these was the practice of a married priesthood. However, the bishops of these Eastern Catholic dioceses were under the ultimate authority of the Roman Catholic pope. Over the course of time, these Eastern Catholics were frequently referred to as «Uniates» to emphasize their union with the Roman Catholic Church. 83 |
| The Patriarchate of Constantinople, the ranking episcopal see in the Orthodox Church, claimed to have ultimate jurisdiction over the developing Orthodox Church in North America in virtue of canons and precedents reaching back to the fourth century. However, the Patriarchate temporarily transferred its jurisdiction over the so-called diaspora in America to the autocephalous Church of Greece in 1908. While the difficulties in the parishes in America may have contributed to the decision, it appears that the Turkish government had become concerned with anti-Turkish activities of the Greek immigrants in the United States. 77 However, from 1908 to 1918 the Church of Greece undertook no major action to unify and direct the parishes in the United States. While many believed that the synod of the Church of Greece would provide America with a resident bishop, none was sent. Some believed that the synod took no action because of the influence of Lambros Coromilas, who was the Greek ambassador to the United States. He was accused of viewing religion as a «medieval hindrance» and of wanting the church to remain «headless» so that he could become the unquestioned leader of his compatriots in the United States. 78 Regardless of whether this accusation was entirely accurate, the fact remains that the status of the parishes in the United States did not improve during the ten years in which they were temporarily under the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece. As we shall see in the next chapter, not until 1918 did the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, under the presidency of Metropolitan Meletios (Metaxakis), pass a resolution to organize the parishes in America. THE CARPATHO-RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR PARISHES Prior to the October revolution of 1917 and the Russian civil war, migration of Orthodox Christians from imperial Russia to the United States was not significant. By 1910, there were only about 90,000 Russian immigrants living in the United States. Approximately 80 percent of these immigrants were Russian Jews. Of the small minority of Russian immigrants who were Orthodox Christians, most lived either in San Francisco or in New York City. By the time of World War I, these two cities had communities of Russian Orthodox immigrants that numbered no more than l,000. 79 |
| Thomas E. FitzGerald 3. EARLY PARISH DEVELOPMENTS The foundation of Orthodox Christianity in the continental United States was established during the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth century. During this time, the focus of Orthodoxy dramatically shifted from Alaska to the major cities of the continental United States. The principal cause of this was the massive influx of immigrants from Greece, Asia Minor, Carpatho-Russia, and other parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Exclusive of the Alaskan territory, there were only 3 Orthodox parishes in the United States in the year 1870. However, fifty years later there were over 250 Orthodox parishes located in major cities throughout the country. These parishes were established chiefly by immigrants who were determined to preserve their Orthodox Christian faith in the New World. THE EARLY PARISHES Even before the great flux of immigrants from Eastern and Southeastern Europe, a small number of Orthodox Christians lived in the continental United States. The first Orthodox parish to be established in the United States was founded in the year 1864 in New Orleans, Louisiana. This parish was organized by Greek merchants under the direction of Nicholas Benakis, the consul of the kingdom of Greece in New Orleans. Because of this, the parish is viewed not only as the first organized parish in the United States but also as the first Greek Orthodox parish. Nonetheless, members of this parish included not only Greeks but also Russians and Serbians who were living or working temporarily in the city. While much of the history of the early years of this parish is lost, a few facts are known. The liturgical services were conducted in English, Church Slavonic, and Greek. The official records of the parish were in English until 1904. The first priest, Father Agapius Honcharenko, was of Slavic background and had been ordained at the great monastic center of Mount Athos in 1865. Although the parish had accepted gifts of vestments from Czar Alexander II, there is no indication that the parish was ever under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese. It subsequently became part of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in 1921. 65 |
| The new Assembly provides an important opportunity for the Orthodox Church to address the serious challenges and opportunities it has placed before it. The ongoing division of Orthodoxy in the United States into separate jurisdictions continues to weaken its mission and witness. Within most of the jurisdictions, the process of acculturation has not always been easy. As some of the jurisdictions move beyond their reliance upon ethnic loyalties, however, they are obliged to speak more clearly about the distinctive features of the Orthodox Christian faith within a religiously pluralistic society. They must express the Orthodox faith in terms which are understandable and develop ministries which respond to the spiritual need of persons living in this complex modern American society. The Orthodox in this context now need to distinguish between old world cultural practices, perspectives that are not essential to the faith, and those essential affirmations which are at the heart of the faith. Without diminishing the importance of worship, the Orthodox are challenged to enable greater participation in liturgical life, and relate this to all aspects of life. This will mean that a new spirit ofmission must be cultivated and that a proper relationship between clergy and laity must be expressed at all levels of church life. In addition, the role of women and their contribution to the church will need to be appropriately recognized. With its profound affirmations about the loving triune God, the theocentric nature of the human person, and the deep divine blessing within the creation, Orthodox Christianity has much to offer American society and to contemporary Christianity in America. Even so, this offering can take place only if the Orthodox themselves take seriously their responsibility to this society and to all its people. There are today about 3 million Orthodox Christians in the United States gathered in more than 1,500 parishes. The church has about twenty monasteries, three graduate schools of theology, a college and a number of other schools and charitable institutions. The Orthodox in the United States sponsor missions in Africa, Albania, and Asia. Likewise, the International Orthodox Christian Charities presently provide humanitarian assistance in over a dozen countries. Through their books and lectures, Orthodox theologians from the United States are influencing the church in many other parts the world. The Church in the United States is composed primarily of American members of a wide variety of racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds who treasure the faith of Orthodox Christianity. |
|
|
