| 2. Учение о Святом Духе в составе Пресвятой Троицы Догматические высказывания Афинагора особенно замечательны: “Ибо как Бога мы называем и Сына-Слово Его, и Духа Святого. Они соединены по силе и различаются по чину: Отец, Сын и Дух, потому что Сын есть Ум, Слово и Премудрость Отца, а Дух — истечение от Отца подобно тому, как свет истекает от огня (Прош. 24)”; “Впрочем этот, действующий в пророчествующих, Дух Святой мы называем истечением Божиим, истекающим и возвращающимся подобно солнечным лучам. (...) Да и кто не подивится, услыхав, что безбожниками называют тех, кто признает Бога Отца, Бога Сына и Духа Святого, представляя их как Силу в единстве и разделение по чину? (Прош. 10)”. Слово “Бог”, употребляющееся в последней фразе в связи с первыми двумя Лицами Троицы, опускается перед третьим Лицом. По А.И. Сидорову “подобная констатация вряд ли полагает, что Афинагор не считал Святой Дух полноценным Богом, хотя определенный элемент умаления Его по сравнению с другими Лицами Святой Троицы у апологета все-таки присутствует” 4 . Однако вряд ли стоит придавать этому высказыванию чрезмерно большое значение, рассматривая его как отдельную чеканную догматическую формулировку. Акцентирование Бог-Отец и Бог-Сын обусловлено здесь не противопоставлением их Святому Духу, а контекстом предыдущих фраз, в которых Афинагор говорил, что “мы мыслим о Боге-Отце и Сыне не так, как стихотворцы... ибо Отец и Сын — одно”. Немаловажно отметить, что в ряде рукописей в этом месте встречается другой вариант чтения: legontas theon patera kai uion theon kai pneuma agion, который можно перевести как “говорящих, что Бог (есть) Отец, Бог (есть) Сын и Дух Святой…”, в таком случае еще лучше видно, что опускание в третий раз слова theon не означает умаления божественности Духа, но обусловлено ритмикой речи, к тому же оно излишне, поскольку из общего контекста фразы очевидно, что для апологета Дух Святой также – Бог, и он прямо говорит об этом в Прош. 24 (см. выше). Триадологические формулировки Афинагора в основе имеют ту же методологическую установку, что имели и Отцы-Каппадокийцы и другие православные богословы IV века: попытка объяснения тайны триединства через различение и противопоставление общего (dunamis) в Боге частному (taxis). Посредством образов огня и солнца Афинагор специально подчеркивает после каждой формулировки, что различие en taxei не означает сущностного различия Лиц Троицы, ни вносит разделения в едином Боге. Очевидно, это различие в порядке Божественного домостроитльства. |
| 4256 Cf. also the use of a person " s name when praising that person in an encomium, even by wordplays (Theon Progymn. 9.49–55). Contrast Stock, «Peter.» 4257 «Building» represents people-of-God language in the Hebrew Bible (Ruth 4:11; Ps 51:18; 69:35; 147:2 ; Jer 1:10; 24:6; 31:4, 28 ); cf. esp. Jeremias, Theology, 168; also Ladd, Theology, 109–10). Some connect the saying with the Abraham saying of Isa 51:1–2 (although the rare rabbinic parallels they cite, such as Yalqut Shim " oni 1.766; Exod. Rab. 15:7, are late; cf. Gen. Rab. 44:21); cf. Cullmann, «Πτρος, Κηφς,» 106; Bruce, Time, 60; Ford, «Abraham»; Manns, «Halakah»; Chevallier, «Pierre»; Siegel, «Israel,» 108; contrast Arnéra, «Rocher.» Jesus and his teachings, of course, represent the ultimate foundation in the gospel tradition (Matt 7:24–27; Luke 6:47–49), but his witnesses provide the next layer of the structure ( Eph 2:20 ). 4258 As in Mark 11:9 ; Matt 21:9; Luke 19:38; the Hallel was sung during Passover season (m. Pesah. 5:7; 9:3; 10:5–7; especially mentioned in connection with Sukkoth, e.g., m. Sukkah 3:10; 4:8; t. Sukkah 3:2; Gen. Rab. 41:1); cf., e.g., Stendahl, Matthew, 65; Michaels, John, 207; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 255–56. 4259 Cullmann, Peter, 18, and especially primary references in n. 11; cf. n. 12. Cullmann holds that «Petros» was also an Aramaic name (e.g., Gen. Rab. 92:2; Exod. Rab. 52:3; contrast Meier, Matthew, 181; Williams, «Personal Names,» 104), but Paul " s letters indicate that «Kephas» was the earlier name (Cullmann, Peter, 19 n. 14; contrast Edersheim, Life, 360). The pun indicates identity between Petros and Petra (Cullmann, «Πτρα,» 98; idem, «Πτρος, Κηφας,» 106; Brown, «Rock,» 386; Richardson, Theology, 309; contrast Lampe, «Petrusnamen). 4261 Smith, Magician, 147, doubts that all Jesus» disciples were Jewish, contending that «Galileans with pure Greek names like Philip are dubious.» 4262 Palestinian inscriptions in CIJ; cf. also, e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.255; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:252; Freyne, Galilee, 172–73; Goodman, State, 88, 175; Meyers, «Judaism and Christianity,» 77–78; Davies, «Aboth,» 138–51. For some nuancing in the other direction, cf. also Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 26; Sandmel, «Theory»; Feldman, «Hellenism.» |
| Greek δξα often meant honor. Thus δξα, reputation, could provide a basis for praise in an encomium (Theon Progymn. 9.18). 7965 Yet many thinkers warned that such reputation depended on peoplés whims and was not worth expending much effort. 7966 Although some thought the pursuit of honor would lead to noble exploits (in contrast to passions), 7967 many thinkers regarded φιλοδοξα, love of glory, as something to be avoided. 7968 Cynics, of course, went so far as to refuse human commendations altogether. 7969 Stoics could ridicule those concerned with what others thought. 7970 In many Jewish texts the righteous who did exploits could be «honored,» sometimes literally «glorified»; 7971 they could seek to bring honor to their nation. 7972 Other Jewish texts praised those who would not concern themselves with human glory (cf. John 5:41,44 ), 7973 and noted that God would shame those presently honored. 7974 Early Christian writers also adopted this virtue of seeking only divine commendation ( Rom 2:29 ; 1Cor 4:3 ; 2Cor 3:1; 1 Thess 2:6). Thus Jewish thinkers, like some Greek and Roman thinkers, emphasized the importance of transcending concern for honor. At the same time, honor was a dominant social value in the ancient Mediterranean, strongest among the elite. Pressures for conformity could be great, especially conformity in the name of public religion (e.g., Josephus Life 291). 7975 The situation Jesus promised (16:2) and which confronted John " s audience was also more severe than mere loss of reputation; unless confessors of Christ within the synagogue achieved sufficient numbers critical mass, they, too, could be expelled with potentially disastrous consequences (see introduction). These who loved human honor more than God " s honor acted from fear rather than from courage (cf. 3:2); this behavior merited only shame, not honor, before the one who knows all hearts (2:23–25). Meanwhile, Jesus himself is about to become an example of relinquishing onés own honor (13:1–11), following the example of Mary (12:3–8) and setting an example for his disciples (13:14–17). Jesus as God " s Standard of Judgment (12:44–50) |
| 20 Although the Gospels were probably «heard» more often than «read,» at least aristocratic audiences could be described by ancient writers as their «readers» (e.g., Polybius 9.2.6). 21 E.g., Theon Progymn. 2.5–33; even different genres of speeches require different kinds of styles (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Demosth. 45–46); see also the ancient division of Pindar " s various kinds of hymns and songs (Race, «Introduction,» 1). Of course, such categories were never strictly observed even in Greco-Roman texts, and Israelite-Jewish tradition rarely reflected on the theoretical categories (Aune, Environment, 23). Mixed genres were common in the early imperial period (idem, «Problem,» 10–11,48). 24 Certainly ancient writers debated about intention, both regarding deeds and legislative purpose (see Hermogenes Issues 61.16–18; 66.12–13; 72.14–73.3). 26 See Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 173, also noting the extrinsic reality of this author and audience regardless of our ability to reconstruct them. 27 See, e.g., Allison, Moses, 3. If various authorial or redactional levels complicate the question of «authorial intention» in John (Smith, John 13), we mean the level of our completed Gospel in our earliest textual tradition, which we believe remained well within the range of earlier Johannine theology. 29 Talbert, Gospel, 2–3, observing that Strauss, Bultmann (see Bultmann, Tradition, 372), and their followers rejected the biographical category because they confused the two. 32 W. Schneemelcher in Hennecke, Apocrypha, 1:80; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 2; Guelich, «Genre.» The designation «Gospels» appears to date from the mid-second century (Aune, Environment, 18, cites Justin Dial 10.2; 100.1; Irenaeus Haer. 3.1.1; Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1.21), though some derive it from Mark " s (Kelber, Story, 15) or Matthews usage (Stanton, New People, 14–16) and it probably has antecedents in the LXX use of the term (Stuhlmacher, «Theme,» 19–25; Betz, «Gospel»). 34 So rightly Borchert, John, 29–30 (though noting differences between John and the Synoptics, p. 37). |
| The «place of a skull» (19:17) may have gotten its name from the shape of the terrain, 10095 but more likely from the executions carried out there. (In any event, the current terrain of the traditional Protestant Golgotha did not exist in Jesus» day.) 1C. Crucifixion (19:18) The Gospel writers require little description of crucifixion (19:18), which was well known in their world. Jesus» crucifixion by the Romans outside Jerusalem is an «almost indisputable» historical fact; 10096 early Christians would not have invented the crucifixion. The full horror of that mode of execution (e.g., Apuleius Metam. 3.9; 6.32; Chariton 3.3.12) remained vivid enough in the first century that all four evangelists hurry by the event itself quickly, Matthew, for example, «disposing of it in a participial clause.» 10097 (It was established rhetorical practice to hurry most quickly over points that might disturb the audience, Theon Progymn. 5.52–56.) Although some features of crucifixions remained common, executioners could perform them in a variety of manners, limited only by the extent of their sadistic creativity. 10098 Executioners usually tied victims to the cross with ropes but in some cases hastened their death by also nailing their wrists (20:25). 10099 The nails were typically five to seven inches long, enough to penetrate both the wrist and well into the wood of the cross. 10100 One being executed on the cross could not swat flies from onés wounds nor withhold onés bodily wastes from coming out while hanging naked for hours and sometimes days. 10101 The upright stakes were normally ten feet at the highest, more often closer to six or seven feet so that the man hung barely above the ground, with a seat (sedile) in the middle; 10102 animals sometimes assaulted the feet of the crucified. Romans could employ high crosses to increase visibility for significant public executions (Suetonius Galba 9.1), and given the branch here (19:29; cf. Mark 15:36 ), Jesus may have been slightly higher than usua1. 10103 |
| 1004 By contrast, the Odyssey, which cannot imply an omniscient narrator since the narrator is Odysseus, must supply other knowledge to Odysseus through conversations with the gods to remain plausible (e.g., Homer Od. 12.389–390). 1005 Hillman, «Statements.» For historians» asides (e.g., Polybius 1.35.1–10; Diodorus Siculus 31.10.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus RA. 7.65.2), see the discussion of Greco-Roman biography and history under the discussion of genre in ch. 1 of the introduction. 1007 The phenomenon spans many cultures; Nagy, «Prologue,» xxxiii-xxxiv, cites a ninth-century Irish epic supposedly recounted to the poet by the deceased hero Fergus. 1008 Isaacs, «Spirit» 406; Boring, Sayings, 85–86. Even ecstatic prophecy could be didactic, of course (Aune, Prophecy, 63, following Nock on didactic oracles). 1010 Käsemann, Testament, 46, is correct that the Spirit is bound to Jesus» word in John. This might suggest that the Paraclete sayings already have in view the schismatics which appear in 1 John. The Spirit-Paraclete may have authenticated the leadership of the Johannine community (Smith, Johannine Christianity, 185); he certainly authenticated their message (1 John 4). 1018 E.g., Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 75–78, thinks that the writer of the Gospel may have drawn on 1 John while composing the Gospe1. Russell " s proposal of 1 John as an introduction to the Johannine literature («Mysteries,» 343) is based on a fanciful parallel with initiation into the Mysteries. More reasonably, Schnelle, Christology, 228, dates John later because he thinks its antidocetic polemic more developed. 1020 E.g., Segovia, Relationships, 21 (citing also Georg Richter and Hartwig Thyen; Jürgen Becker, and R. Schnackenburg). 1023 Ibid., 122, citing John 1:29 . John does not, however, stress Jesus» baptism as a point of revelation, as Brown suggests (p. 119); John omits any reference to Jesus» baptism (1:32–33), probably purposely (cf. Theon Progymn. 5.52–56 on the propriety of narrating more concisely or adding details as necessary). |
| 515 Gerhardsson, Memory, 136–48,173; Goulder, Midrash, 64–65. Similar sayings thus could appear in different words (m. Šabb. 9:1; c Abod. Zar. 3:6). 517 P. Sotah 5:6, §1; cf. p. Ketub. 3:1, §4. Of course, the rabbi may have issued several different opinions on a subject in his lifetime; cf. p. B. Qam. 2:6, §3. Sometimes rabbis also seem to have told stories as fictitious homiletic illustrations rather than wishing to be understood as drawing on previous traditions (cf., e.g., Sipre Deut. 40.7.1). 518 Theon Progymn. 1.93–171; cf., e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.23–25 with the Loeb note referring to Plato Apo1. 29C, 28E (LCL 1:70–71). Diodorus Siculus 20.1–2 allowed limited «rhetorical embellishment» in composing speeches for historical works (Aune, Environment, 93). 522 Witherington, Christology, 181, argues that if any historical tradition stands behind the sending of the Twelve, Jesus» disciples were already communicating his teaching during his lifetime. 523 Others before him, such as Dibelius, Tradition, 39, had, however, already drawn less sustained comparisons between rabbinic and gospel traditioning. 524 Smith, «Tradition,» critiques Gerhardsson " s reading of later rabbinic traditioning into the Jesus tradition from three main angles: third-century rabbinic literature cannot represent pre-70 Pharisaism " s transmission techniques; Pharisaism would not represent all of first-century Judaism anyway; and the NT data simply do not fit this kind of traditioning. He is right on all these points, but characteristically overstates his case. Gerhardsson " s own case is overstated, but he does provide more useful evidence than Smith allows (Neusner, «Foreword,» has retracted his earlier severe critique of Gerhardsson, blaming it on Morton Smith " s influence). As many observe (e.g., Hagner, Matthew, l:xlix; Boyd, Sage, 121), the later rabbinic method hardly arose ex nihilo after 70 C.E. 525 Bailey, «Tradition.» Cf., e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 1.2.1 for an example of long informal tra-ditioning by storytelling and song. |
| 4233 Rearranging sayings and their contexts was standard rhetorical practice; see, e.g., Theon Progymn. 3.22–23; 5.388–425. 4234 Käsemann, Questions, 106–7; Boring, Sayings, 213–14; cf. Beare, Matthew, 353 (finding elements in the Matthean account that he believes must stem from the later church–Jesus» messiah-ship, the church, and Peter " s prominence; we would differ on each point); Goppelt, Theology, 1(unlike Jesus» other sayings). Aune, Prophecy, 273, sees it as a recognition oracle. 4235 E.g., Carroll, «Peter,» attributes the saying to the Antiochan church, where he believes Peter was the first bishop (others also hold the latter position, e.g., Pelikan, «Peter,» 59–60). 4238 See esp. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 20–22, 99–105; Michaels, Servant, 301–2; cf. Keener, Matthew, 427–28. 4240 Brown et a1., Peter, 92; Harrington, People, 29; Meier, Matthew, 179; cf. Cullmann, Peter, 180. 4241 Cullmann suggests the saying belongs to the passion story (Cullmann, Peter, 184; but cf. the critique in Gundry, «Framework»). 4243 Cullmann, State, 16, who points to the lack of documentary evidence for Jona as an abbreviation for Johanan. The name Jona continued even among Diaspora Jews to a late period (CIJ 1:483, §671; 2:124, §900). Gundry suggests a symbolic allusion to Jonah in Matt 12:39; 16(Matthew, 332), regarding «John» as original; conversely, the Fourth Gospel could change «Jona» to «John» to allude to the Baptist as the initial witness who «begot» Andrew and Simon (1:40). «Son of John» could mean «John " s (the Baptist " s) disciple,» but the narrative suggests this role only for Andrew (1:40). 4244 Cullmann, State, 17, uncertainly. Brown et a1., Peter, 88 η. 203, «deem unlikely» this suggestion. Roth " s association of even «Simon» with revolutionaries falters in that it was one of the most popular names (Fitzmyer, Essays, 105–12). Theissen, Sociology, 11, speculatively suggests that some called Peter «wild,» i.e., «outlaw,» because he abandoned his family to follow Jesus. |
| 621 Aune, Environment, 91. On Herodotus " s special liberties, see Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 110. 624 Cf. ibid., 93,125; Johnson, Acts, 53 (though Witherington, Acts, 455, argues that wholesale creation of speeches was contrary to convention for historians). For the exercise, see esp. Theon Progymn. 8; for (fictitious, nonbiographic) examples, see, e.g., Alciphron Letters of Fishermen; Letters of Courtesans; Aelian Letters of Farmers; cf. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xlix. Historians should make the language fit the character (Lucian Hist. 58). Mack, Lost Gospel, 198, wrongly applies this rhetorical exercise of speeches in character to the composition of individual sayings in the Jesus tradition. 625 Diversity was helpful: ideally, a rhetor should be able to address different kinds of assemblies differently (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 9), and one might praise a rhetor who used a more diverse array of arguments, ideas, and presentation, though many failed in this (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 17; Isaeus 3). 628 Diodorus Siculus 20.1.3–4. History must be written in a way that is consistent and unified (Diodorus Siculus 20.1.5). 637 Gempf, «Speaking,» 290. Josephus is often untrustworthy in names, numbers, and speeches (Gempf, «Speaking,» 289–90) though, as noted in our previous chapter, he can often provide accurate information. Some rhetoricians may have allowed more liberty with speeches than with narrative (Lucian Hist; Gempf, «Speaking,» 290); by contrast, individual sayings of sages like Jesus were probably transmitted more carefully than narratives (see Theissen, Gospels, 60; Witherington, Christology, 28–29). 638 It fits the ancient tradition (e.g., Tacitus) «of putting stirring and even anti-Roman words into the mouths of defeated enemies» (Rajak, Josephus, 80–81). 639 Luz, «Speech»; Cohen, «Masada»; Sanders, Judaism, 6. Contrast Bauernfeind and Michel, «Eleazarreden.» Cf. Paetus " s poetic, dying lamentations–to which there were obviously no witnesses–in Propertius Eleg. 3.7.57–64. |
| 8768 In Jub. 32:25–26, Jacob receives divine help to «remember» an inspired dream (Charles, Jubilees, lxxxiii, also notes the parallel); PGM 4.726–731 likewise promises Mithras " s help to recall a lengthy revelation. 8769 This can be argued on analogy with Matt 28:19, which probably invites the disciple makers to use the teaching blocs in Matthew catechetically. 8770 This is often argued; e.g., Dietzfelbinger, «Paraklet,» 389–408. Franck, Revelation, 96, suggests that the connection between Paraclete and beloved disciple guarantees that disciple as an inspired transmitter of tradition. See introduction, ch. 3, esp. pp. 111–22. 8771 Sasse, «Paraklet,» 260–77; Culpepper, School, 266–69; Boring, Sayings, 49; Kragerund, Lieblingsjünger, 113–29 and passim. Boismard, «Review,» critiques Kragerund " s identification of the beloved disciple with the Paraclete instead of with an idealized disciple figure. Much more cautious is Wilckens, «Paraclete,» 203; they are not identical, but the beloved disciple represents the community that the Paraclete has founded. 8773 Smith, Johannine Christianity, 30. This view is shared by Aune, Eschatology, 101; Boring, Sayings, 8 (on Dibelius), 49 (with a list of other scholars), 76,85,106–7,127; Hays, Vision, 151. Boring sees this as something of a charismatic exegesis of Jesus as well as of the OT (p. 102). 8774 Oracle collections did indeed exist in antiquity, e.g., the Sibylline Oracles. See Collins, Sibylline Oracles, 6–7; Aune, Prophecy, 44. An oracle (χρησμς) was sometimes circulated (e.g., Achilles Tatius 2.14.1) by itself, although the scantiness of the evidence for this suggests that it was not a common practice. 8775 Even though skillful writers knew how to join sayings with narrative (Theon Progym. 5.388–425; cf. 4.73–79; 5.427–441) and both premeditation (Quintilian 10.6.1–2, 5) and a rough draft (Aune, Environment, 128) would permit the writer to prepare and relate material carefully. Arrian seems to impose more of his own grid on the Epictetus material in his more highly organized Enchiridion than in his Diatribai, but writers had a greater degree of freedom then than we would normally permit in biography today (Theon Progym. 1.93–171), as attested by tradition variants (cf. the tortures in 2 and 4 Macc [OTP2:555; but probably 4 Maccabees diverged more from its antecedents]; Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.23–25 vs. Plato Apo1. 29C, 28E), although some of these could have arisen from conflation of similar sayings or events (e.g., p. B. Qam. 2:6, §3). |
|
|
