| 684 Терминология эта позднейшая и искусственная, ничуть не указывающая на существование легализованных классов иудейского общества прозелитизма. См. Schürer E. Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. Bd. 3. Leipzig, 3 1898. S. 126 ss.; и cp. Рыбинский В. П. Религиозное влияние иудеев на языческий мир в конце ветхозаветной и в начале новозаветной истории. Киев, 1898. С. 58 и далее. См. также Allen W.C. On the Meaning of προσλυτος in the Septuagint//The Expositor. 1894. 40;ol. 10. P. 264–275. 685 Деян. 13, 43 : ο σεβμενοι προσλυτοι [почитающие Бога прозелиты]; Деян. 13, 50; 16, 14; 17, 4 : κα τινες ξ ατν ( ουδαων) πεσθησαν τν τε σεβμενων λλνων πλθος πολ [и некоторые из них (иудеев) уверовали и великое множество чтущих Бога еллинов]; Деян. 17, 17; 18, 7 ; Josephus Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae XIV, 7, 2: «Нет ничего удивительного, что такие богатства стекаются в наш храм, πντων τν κατ τν οκουμνην ουδαων κα σεβμενων τν θεν ες ατ συμφερντων» [ибо все иудеи, живущие по вселенной, и прочие почитающие Бога доставляли в него приношения]. 687 В издании 1932 г. Глубоковский говорит об «одной из политически-национальных функций» и делает сноску: «Ср. Headlam А. С. The Doctrine of the Chruch and Christian Reunion. London, 2 1921. P. 12: в Риме “even if foreign cults are introduced, they are brought in as new developments of the State religion” [даже учреждая чужеземные культы, их привносят в качестве обновления и развития государственной религии]». -Ред. 688 Слова " υο το θεο« [Сына Божия] Тишендорф и Нестле опускают и считают их неподлинными (Т, р. 215), Весткотт-Хорт, сомневаясь в аутентичности (Westcott В. F., Hort F. J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Vol. 2: Introduction. Appendix. London, 1882. P. 23), помещают (WH, p. 72) на поле υο θεο [Сына Божия] (как у Lch Тг в тексте), а Гебхардт (Gebhardt О. L. von. Novum Testamentum graece. Lipsiae, 1891) относит их под строку. Главное основание то, что их нет в , в двух минускулах (26, 255 [нумерация минускулов у Глубоковского отличается от современной: ср. Greek-English NT. Ad 10c. -Ред.]) и у большинства древних отцов. Но уже первый справщик синайского кодекса, едва ли младший самого писца, прибавляет их, как это находится во всех остальных греческих манускриптах и древних переводах. Правда, Ориген , Епифаний, Василий Великий , Иероним и некоторые другие не упоминают их, но это потому, что, определяя начало второго Евангелия по сравнению с прочими, они довольствовались лишь общим указанием, что Марк ведет речь от проповеди Иоанна; для них термины » υο το θεο« не нужны. По этой же причине в таких случаях опускает их и Ириней (Adversus haereses III, 11, 8, PG 7, 888), хотя несомненно, что он знал эти слова и на них опирался в своей полемике против еретиков (Ibid. III, 10, 5, PG 7, 878; Ibid. III, 16, 3, PG 7, 922). |
| 264 Кроме Тишендорфа этому обозначению следуют Весткотт-Хорт, но они предпосылают общее для всех евангельских повествований надписание – εαγγλιον – для выражения мысли о единстве Евангелия как дела Христова, раскрываемого в четырех редакциях (Westcott В. F., Hort F. J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Vol. 2: Introduction. Appendix. London, 1882. P. 321, 423). Синайский кодекс указывает уже позднейшую эпоху, когда все наши Евангелия были собраны вместе и нуждались только в письменном различении, но само собой понятно, что первоначально они не могли ходить в отдельности без всяких «заглавий». 265 Нам не удалось установить источник цитаты: скорее всего, ее автор указан неверно или она сильно искажена. В Глубоковский-1932 данный фрагмент отсутствует. -Ред. 266 Theophylactus Bulgariae archiepiscopus. Enarratio in Evangelium Matthaei, praefatio, PG 123, 145. 268 В Гпубоковский-1932 автор поясняет свою мысль так: «...поскольку тут причины не соответствуют следствиям и, насильственно применяемые к последним, извращают их, грубо и уродливо портят свой предмет. “Жизнь Иисуса”, во всей ее божественной грандиозности, ничуть не раскрывается при обычном биографическом методе, ибо эта человеческая мерка не подходит к делу, фактически давая не целостный образ, а лишь искажения и аберрации его в неполных и разрозненных фрагментах, обильно субсидируемых фантастическими измышлениями». -Ред. 269 Выражение «через Иисуса Христа» не относится в тексте послания к слову «благовестив». Весь стих Рим. 2, 16 в синодальном переводе звучит так: «в день, когда, по благовествованию моему, Бог будет судить тайные дела человеков через Иисуса Христа». Аналогичный синтаксис в церковнославянской Библии, Authorized King James Version of the Bible, La Bible de Jerusalem и др. -Ред. 270 Ср. Schniewind J. Die Begriffe Wort und Evangelium bei Paulus. Bonn, 1910. S. 75–76, 106. [Сноска взята из Глубоковский-1932. -Ред)] 271 Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 4, PG 20, 220; Hieronymus Stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 7, PL 23, 622; cp. Patrizi F. S. De evangeliis. T. 1. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1852. P. 71. |
| proves the existence and use of the Fourth Gospel in a little provincial town along the Nile, far from its traditional place of composition (Ephesus in Asia Minor), during the first half of the second century. Had this little fragment been known during the middle of the past century, that school of New Testament criticism which was inspired by the brilliant Tuebingen professor, Ferdinand Christian Baur, could not have dated the composition of the Fourth Gospel in about 160. 1133 This is the earliest attestation available for any sample of early Christian literature and represents a phenomenal discovery. Apart from contemporary copies of imperial decrees, extant copies of most ancient works usually date to centuries after the origina1. 1134 Papyrus Egerton 2 includes elements that parallel both John and the Synoptics. 1135 The papyrus is clearly dependent on John, which it regards as an authoritative source, 1136 indicating (at the least) that the Fourth Gospel predates it. Jeremias thinks that this fragment attests to oral citation of gospels already fixed in writing. 1137 What is uncertain is how far before 100 C.E. the Gospel is to be dated. One scholar argues that the «allusion to Peter s martyrdom in 21:18–19 demands a date after 64 A.D.» 1138 Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot, the great triumvirate of nineteenth-century British NT scholars, dated Revelation to the late sixties and the Gospel and Epistles, from the same hand, to the nineties. John A. T. Robinson, however, dates both to the sixties. 1139 Some contemporary scholars suggest a date in the eighties. 1140 Such a proposal is not of itself untenable, although, as we shall see below, the situation presupposed in the Fourth Gospel better fits a later period. Complexity of thought is hardly a necessary indicator of lateness, as if Paul had contemplated his faith less thoroughly than Ignatius because Paul was earlier. 1141 If John is not dependent on the Synoptics (and we doubt that it is, at least directly), the earlier date is possible. 1142 |
| 2210 Angels being by nature mutable, either for better or for worse, that is, capable of good or evil, and so of death, are de facto sinless, and hence need not, are not meet to be placed under, penal discipline. Or the meaning may be that the angelic nature was not created to be gradually taught in the way of holiness as human nature was. 2211 Eccl. xii. 14. Hurter observes that God would not judge rational creatures, were they not capable of advance or retrogression, of becoming better or falling into degradation, and had, as a matter of fact, advanced or fallen back. 2212 The Arians regarded the Son as immortal de gratia; the Orthodox esteem Him immortal de jure, with true, absolute immortality. 2225 “Due” by His own and the Father’s Will. Some reference also, perhaps, to the preaching to the spirits in Hades, a necessary part of our Lord’s work and ministry. 1Pet. iii. 19. 2230 Rom. viii. 3. Note “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” not “in sinful flesh.” Cf. Phil. ii. 7; for the miracle referred to, see 2 Kings xiii. 21. 2239 i.e.we are not to infer from the fact that the Word became flesh, that the Word is a created being. For that which becomes is already existing–that which is created did not exist before it was made. 2241 Ps. cxviii. 14. The “becoming” is rather in us. It is we who have come into being, to find a refuge and salvation in the Lord. 2244 Note that it is Christ Himself Who is our justification, etc., not a certain course of life; in other words the saving power is not so much in the mere example of Christ’s life on earth, but primarily and necessarily in Himself, now seated in heaven at the Father’s right hand, interceding for us, and communicating His grace, especially through the sacraments. 2256 S. John i. 4. Observe that St. Ambrose follows a different punctuation to that of our Bible. St. Ambrose’s stopping is the same as that adopted by Westcott (Commentary on S. John) and by Westcott and Hort in their edition of the Greek text of the N.T. 2266 |
| 25 Zorell, cit. op., p. 633–634: ψυχ дыхание признак жизни всего воодушевленного, начало естественной жизни; в этом смысле душа формальная причина жизни. Душа седалище аффектов и желаний, воли, разума и знания; она продолжает существование после смерти. 27 Zorell. cit. op., p. 555556: σμα тело человека, животных, растений, светил; всякий предмет с определенными очертаниями. 28 Novnm Testamentum Graece. Constantinus Tischendorf. Editio octava critica major. Lipsiae. 1872 cp. The New Testament in Greek, Westcott and Hort, London. 1895. Славянско-русский текст Нового Завета нашей Церкви передает эту мысль иначе: «есть тело душевное, и есть тело духовное есть тело душевное, есть тело и духовное» ( 1Кор. 15:44 ), т. е, опускает, условную частицу (Новый Завет Господа н. Иисуса Христа на славянском и русском языках. Издание второе. С.-Петербург. 1903). Правильным считают вышеприведенное чтение (Godet, Korintherbrief, s. 229; Cornely, Pr. Epist. ad Corinthlos, p. 497). Разночтения не изменяют смысла нашей речи. 32 Cornely, cit. op., p. 493: апостол не отрицает с решительностью общности существования; он делает различие лишь по отношению к прерогативам тела. 34 Evagrii Pontici capita practica ad Anatolium, Migne, t. 40, p. 1245, §49. Добротолюбие. т. 1, стр. ‹5›86. Москва. 1905. 36 Macarii Aegyptii homiliae. Migne, t. 34, p. 460, hom. X. Добротолюбие, т. I, стр. 180, §8‹5›. Москва, 1905. 37 S, Antonii М. Abbatis Epistolae. VI. Migne, t. 40, p. 1011. Cp. Zorell, cit. op., p. 513: σρξ подвержена скорбям, болезни и смерти. 38 S. loannis Chrysostomi, ln Epist. ad Hebraeos. Migne, t. 63, p. 63. Творения, т. 12, стр. 70. С.-П., 1906. 39 S. Marci Eremitae, De lege Spirituali. Migne, t. 65, p. 925, §174. Добротолюбие, т. I, стр. 535. 40 Σωφρονιος Ευστρατιαδος, μητροπ. λεοντοπολεως, Λεξικον τ. Καινης Διαθηκης. Αλεξανδρεια. 1910. s. 362. 42 Σωφρονιος Ευστρατιαδος, Λεξικοτ, s. 676. Ср. Preuschen, Gr.-D. Wrterbuch z. d. Schriften d. N. Т., Giessen, 1910, s. 976; Schirlitz, Wrterbuch z. |
| If Acts gains no credit for the strategoi of Philippi, the author ought to be allowed full marks for his description of the city as πρτη τς μερδος Μακεδονας πλις κολωνα. 328 The Acts Commentary has dealt adequately with the administrative technicality. The survival of the four regiones into which Macedonia was divided by the Romans after its final conquest, and the use of the term μρις πρτη, &c., for these districts is proved by an inscription of the Flavian period. 329 There is also evidence in Livy that Philippi was in the first district. 330 The text of Acts ought then, as Cadbury argues, to be asserting that the Roman colony Philippi was a city of the first region of Macedonia. As it stands the text does not make clear sense. The suggestion is not so much that the text should be amended, as that the proper phrase τς πρτης μερδος Μακεδονας πλις was misunderstood and hence garbled at an early date into πρτη τς μερδος. Cadbury fails to clinch his argument because he did not observe that the subdivision of a province into official regiones of this sort was very rare outside Macedonia. The four regiones of Macedonia were genuine sub-provinces with a separate regional council or συνδριον for each district. The mention of the districts suggests the eye-witness. In other provinces there was a grouping of the cities into judicial conventus or assize districts; such cities used a particular centre for their proconsular assizes. But these conventus were not organized like the regiones of Macedonia. The nearest parallel in the eastern empire would be the conjoining of Pontus and Bithynia under a single proconsul; both districts had a separate provincial council; but there was no technical term to designate the two parts. 331 The numbered districts of Macedonia were unique, and hence the correct term, which even in its garbled form has the ring of an official designation, was not understood outside the province. The worst solution of the problem presented by this text is to bracket the difficult term μερδος as an intruder, as Westcott and Hort did. Its difficulty guarantees its authenticity. |
| Since those lines were written in 1881, many earlier Greek manuscripts and papyrus copies have been found. In every case these new finds continue to demonstrate that the confidence of Westcott and Hort in the present texts of the Gospel was well founded. The editors of the Revised Standard Version of the English Bible published in 1946 say, «It will be obvious to the careful reader that still in 1946, as in 1881 and 1901, no doctrine of the Christian faith has been affected by the revision, for the simple reason that, out of the thousands of variant readings in the manuscripts, none has turned up thus far that requires a revision of Christian doctrine.» Professor Metzger, writing in 1968, summarizes the present situation with the following remarks. «It is widely agreed that the Alexandrian text (passed on by Christians from Alexandria in Egypt) was prepared by skillful editors trained in the scholarly traditions of Alexandria...Until recently the two chief witnesses to this form of text were codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus, dating from about the middle of the fourth century. «With the discovery, however, of papyrus p66 (Photograph 9 in Chapter IV of Section Six) and papyrus p75, (Photograph 5 in III E of this Section) both dating from about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, proof is now available that (this text) goes back to an older copy from early in the second century .» The end of the second century or the beginning of the third century speaks of 200 AD. That is 170 years after Jesus» ascension and only 110–120 years after John wrote his Gospel. At that date men were still alive who had heard the Doctrinal Gospel from their fathers and from other men who had known the apostles personally. On good evidence then, we BELIEVE that the text which we have is essentially the text which the Apostles of Jesus originally gave us. Conclusion Abundant evidence from the Hadith and from Muslim commentaries prove that there were variant readings in the copies of the Qur " an made by the companions of the prophet. This contradicts the frequent Muslim claim that the present text is a «photographic copy» of the original. Nevertheless, these variant readings are not important enough to undermine Muslim confidence that they have the essential message of the Qur " an as it was proclaimed by Muhammad. |
| The intimate connection between Father and Son is not only relational, but in terms of their shared nature and similar role. Although some critics still favor the reading «only son,» 3778 the text more naturally reads «the only God, who is in the bosom of the Father.» 3779 Given the tendency to simplify the sense of the text, the Arian controversy in Egypt, the source of most of our manuscripts, would have led to a later preference for «only Son,» since «only» was often read as «only begotten» and «only begotten God» could be pressed into ambiguous support against both Arius and Athanasius: «no copyist is likely to have altered «Son» to »God,» whereas there would have been a strong temptation to alter the difficult word «God» to the familiar »Son.» (How could God be in the bosom of God?)» 3780 One of the text critics who developed the original Westcott-Hort text notes that «unique God» «is the more intrinsically probable from its uniqueness» and «makes the alternative reading more intelligible.» 3781 In further support of the «God» reading may be John s penchant for variation in christological titles, 3782 the probable inclusio surrounding Jesus» role introduced in 1:1c 3783 (and indeed in the body of the book, 1with 20:28), and the shock value of the phrase. 3784 Finally, μονογενς θες (in its anarthrous or articular form) has in its favor most of our earliest manuscripts, 3785 including P 66 (second or third century), P 75 (third century), Sinaiticus and its copy (, fourth century), and Vaticanus (B, fourth century), although Alexandrinus (A, fifth century) is on the other side; 3786 as Longenecker observes, «The reading «the unique God» (μονογενς θες) of John 1.18 is better attested textually than »the unique Son» (μονογενς υις), though it is often set aside on theological grounds.» 3787 The prologue thus culminates in a rehearsal of Jesus» deity, closing an inclusio that began with 1:1c; it also parallels the conclusion of the Gospel as a whole (20:28), forming an inclusio around the entire Gospel which proclaims Jesus» deity. 3788 To Jewish Christians needing to lay even their lives on the line because of their Christology, John reminds them that Christology is at the heart of their faith in Israel " s God. |
| The reader has probably realized by this time, that the types of variant readings which we have discussed in relation to the Torah and the Gospel, like those we examined from the Qur " an, have no effect at all on the validity of the message. Whether the verse mentioned in Luke 24 says «praising God» or «blessing God», or «praising and blessing God» changes nothing. Whether it says Jesus washed us from our sins, or freed us from our sins, the DOCTRINAL GOSPEL is the same. There are now more than 5,300 old copies or portions of the Gospel in Greek alone. It is not surprising therefore to know that there are thousands of minor differences in these hand made copies. LOOK magazine once printed a headline reading 50,000 Errors in the Bible. But for all practical purposes that headline was a lie, just as a statement saying that there are 5000 errors in the Qur " an would be a lie. The author used the word «error» for «variant reading», and the reader is not told that most of them are easily checked out against the other manuscripts; or that thousands are in later manuscripts which are controlled by the earlier ones. Dr. Bucaille has made the same type of misleading statement on page 3 where he writes, «It is not difficult to understand why from version to version, and translation to translation, with all the corrections inevitably resulting, it was possible for the original text to have been transformed during the course of more than two thousand years .» But we are not dealing with two thousand years. Our present Bibles are translated from copies of the Gospel made in the second, third, and fourth centuries. A scribal error made in 900 AD can have no effect on our present copies of the Gospel-New Testament , which are translated from the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of 350 AD, and papyri from 200 AD. In their edition of the Greek New Testament, Westcott and Hort, who spent 28 years from 1853 to 1881 comparing in great detail all the Greek manuscripts available to them, marked «about sixty passages (only seven of which are from the four Gospels) which they (or one of them) suspected involved a error " «. By «primitive error» they meant an error older than the existing manuscript witnesses. What a fantastic difference to change from speaking about 50,000 errors to talking about having a question on 60 places in the new Testament. |
| Westcott and Hort wished to reduce the phrase to the colourless πρτη τς Μακεδονας πλις, ‘First City of Macedonia’. But Cadbury objected that the Roman colonies of the East never took the title First City, a title which was the cause of great rivalry and civic pride among the great Greek cities of the eastern provinces. The reason is evident. The Roman colonies were well aware of their superiority to any provincial Greek city, however large. They did not need to print the title First City on their coins and inscriptions. They were the First People of the province, and though not technically what the Romans called civitates liberae, or free cities, they were apt to regard themselves as being in but not of the province where they lay. The Roman colony of Apamea in A.D. 110 registered a protest when the imperial legate proposed to interfere with their internal arrangements, and required the assurance that this was at the express wish of the emperor. 332 Philippi might not technically call itself First City. But the author of Acts, himself no Roman, could very well use the familiar Greek term to describe the pre-eminence of Philippi: ‘First city of its region.’ But even with this concession to the textual tradition the reading is still unsatisfactory. What is required is πρτη τς πρτης μερδος Μακεδονας πλις, κολωνα.But perhaps too much attention should not be given to that unnecessary and offending definite article in πρτη τς μερδος. Much more interesting is the question – why did the author go out of his way to introduce Philippi thus, when he never formally describes the technical status of any other city? The reasonable answer could be that it was because Paul had an adventure at Philippi of which the significance depended upon the special status of the place. The notice is a warning. Paul enters a Roman community and encounters special difficulties, such as he had not met earlier at the Roman colonies of Antioch-by-Pisidia and Lystra, where the action taken against him was not formal and official. 333 |
|
|
