| The English Underground If France is a shining example and the envy of Europe, the English opponents of the ligbitist agenda are shadowy resisters, still struggling for their footing. When I traveled to London to meet with about eight organizations concerned about the impact of the same-sex marriage law, I stayed with a descendant of one of the first publishers of Shakespeare’s complete works. We had to rush through Westminster Abbey in only twenty minutes between meetings, but I got to see the bust of one of my host’s ancestors. He went to Eton and Oxford. Tradition was a powerful presence. I cannot explain the difference between France and England, but the strong sense of tradition in the United Kingdom simply never sparked the fireworks that went off across the Channel. Anglicans in England are still dumbstruck by the speed with which the same-sex marriage law passed earlier this year. Many of them are impatient with the leadership of the Anglican Church, seeing clear signs that their bishops are interested in avoiding controversy. Traditionalists in England are equally enraged at the mosques in London (I met with two Muslim groups), because Muslim leaders specifically told their rank and file to remain quiet about same-sex marriage in order not to anger the Labor Party leaders who have political ties to prominent imams. One sheik I met in London for tea and crumpets (no joke) had actually been driven out of his mosque for defying those standing orders and circulating pamphlets in a Muslim neighborhood, warning residents to voice their opposition to same-sex marriage based on Islamic teaching. Britain’s aristocracy caved quickly in the House of Lords, scuttling any hopes of an eleventh-hour veto on the same-sex marriage law last summer. Then the House of Windsor failed traditionalists as well, for the Queen signed on without any fuss. One disadvantage faced by the English is owed to Henry VIII: without a large Catholic population, there simply wasn’t the massive edifice upon which activists, even if mostly secular, could rely for manpower and assistance, as there was in France. |
| Bishop Andrei died in 1963. Three years later, a diocesan congress with representatives from about twelve parishes that remained under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Bucharest elected Father Victorin Ursache as the new bishop. With approval of the Patriarchate of Bucharest, he was consecrated in August of that year in Windsor, Ontario. Archbishop Iakovos of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese was the presiding hierarch. 201 THE BULGARIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESES Political developments in Bulgaria in the period following World War II also had an effect upon the Bulgarian Orthodox diocese in the United States. The synod of the Church of Bulgaria had acted in 1922 to establish a mission to unite the several parishes that had come into existence. Not until 1938, however, was a diocese formally established. Bishop Andrei (Petkov) came to this country in the same year to head the new diocese. With the outbreak of war, Bishop Andrei returned to Bulgaria. In the wake of the Communist victory in Bulgaria, Bishop Andrei returned to this country in 1945 and identified himself with anti-Communistic factions. Two years later, in 1947, he led his diocese to a formal break with the Church of Bulgaria. At a meeting of clergy and lay representatives in 1947, it was resolved that the diocese was an inseparable part of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. However, the delegates declared that as long as the Communist regime existed in Bulgaria, they would not accept decisions from the synod of the Church of Bulgaria but would maintain only a spiritual relationship. 202 In response to this decision, the Church of Bulgaria refused to accept the actions of the assembly and dismissed Bishop Andrei from his duties as bishop. For the most part, however, the Bulgarian Americans were solidly behind their bishop and firmly opposed to the Communist government in Bulgaria. Under the leadership of Bishop Andrei, his diocese remained in a state of formal separation from the mother church from 1947 to 1962. During this period Bishop Andrei made some overtures to the Russian Orthodox Metropolia to establish a relationship with it. However, no agreement could be reached. |
| Nun, «Wearing» Nun, Mende1. «What Was Simon Peter Wearing When He Plunged into the Sea?» Jerusalem Perspective 52 (1997): 18–23, 37. Nunn, Authorship Nunn, H. P. V. The Authorship of the Fourth Gospe1. Windsor: Alden 8c Blackwell (Eton), 1952. Oakman, «Peasant» Oakman, Douglas E. «Was Jesus a Peasant? Implications for Reading the Samaritan Story.» Biblical Theology Bulletin 22 (1992): 117–25. ÓBrien, Colossians ÓBrien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon. WBC 44. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982. Ockinga, «Divinity» Ockinga, Boyo. «Thoughts on the Nature of the Divinity of the Ruler in Ancient Egypt and Imperial Rome.» Prudentia 26 (1994): 17–34. ÓDay, «Faith» ÓDay, Gail R. «Surprised by Faith: Jesus and the Canaanite Woman.» Listening 24 (1989): 290–301. ÓDay, «John» ÓDay, Gail R. «The Gospel of John: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.» Pages 491–865 in vo1. 9 of The New Interpreter " s Bible. Edited by Leander Ε. Keck. Nashville: 12 vols. Abingdon, 1995. ÓDay, «Misreading» ÓDay, Gail R. « John 7:53–8:11 : A Study in Misreading.» JBL 111 (1992): 631–40. ÓDay, Revelation ÓDay, Gail R. Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. ÓDay, «Study» ÓDay, Gail R. «Toward a Narrative-Critical Study of John.» Interpretation 49 (1995): 341–46. ÓDay, «Theology» ÓDay, Gail R. «Johannine Theology as Sectarian Theology.» Pages 199–203 in «What Is John?» Readers and Reading of the Fourth Gospe1. Edited by Fernando F. Segovia. SBLSymS 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. ÓDay, Word ÓDay, Gail R. The Word Disclosed: John " s Story and Narrative Preaching. St. Louis: CBP Press, 1987. Odeberg, Gospel Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1929. Repr., Chicago: Argonaut, 1968. Odeberg, Pharisaism Odeberg, Hugo. Pharisaism and Christianity. Translated from the 1943 Swedish edition by J. M. Moe. St. Louis: Concordia, 1964. |
| Описания свои заключу я примечанием на счет английского любопытства. Что ни пойдете вы здесь осматривать, церковь ли св. Павла, Шекспирову ли галерею или дом какой, везде находите множество людей, особливо женщин. Не мудрено: в Лондоне обедают поздно, и кто не имеет дела, тому надобно выдумывать, чем занять себя до шести часов. Виндзор Земляки мои непременно хотели видеть славную скачку близ Виндзора, где резвая лошадь приносит хозяину иногда более ост-индского корабля. Я рад с другими всюду ехать, и в девять часов утра поскакали мы четверо в карете по виндзорской дороге; беспрестанно кричали нашему кучеру: «Скорее! Скорее! " - и в несколько минут очутились на первой станции. – «Лошадей!» – «А где их взять? Все в разгоне». – «Вздор! Это разве не лошади?» – «Они приготовлены для других; для вас нет ни одной». – Мы шумели, но без пользы и наконец решились идти пешком, несмотря на жар и пыль. – Какое превращение! Какой удар для нашей гордости! Те, мимо которых, как птицы, пролетели мы на борзых английских конях, объезжали нас один за другим, смотрели с презрением на бедных пешеходцев и смеялись. «Несносные, грубые британцы! – думал я. – Обсыпайте нас пылью; но зачем смеяться?» – Иные кричали даже: «Добрый путь, господа! Видно, по обещанию!» – Но русских не так легко унизить: мы сами начали смеяться, скинули с себя кафтаны, шли бодро и пели даже французские арии, отобедали в сельском трактире и в пять часов, своротив немного с большой дороги, вступили в Виндзорский парк... Thy forests, Windsor, and thy green retreats, At once the Monarch " s and the Musés seats. Pope 305 . Мы сняли шляпы... веря поэту, что это священный лес. «Здесь, – говорит он, – являются боги во всем своем великолепии; здесь Пан окружен бесчисленными стадами, Помона рассыпает плоды свои, Флора цветит луга, и дары Цереры волнуются, как необозримое море...» Описание стихотворца пышно, но справедливо. Мрачные леса, прекрасные лесочки, поля, луга, бесконечные аллеи, зеркальные каналы, реки и речки – все есть в Виндзорском парке! – Как мы веселились, отдыхали и снова утомлялись, то сидя под густою сению, где пели над нами всякого роду лесные птицы, то бегая с оленями, которых тут множество! – Стихотворец у меня в мыслях и в руках. Я ищу берегов унылой Лодоны, где, по его словам, часто купалась Цинтия – Диана... |
| 9959 Stripping before execution was standard (e.g., Polybius 11.30.1–2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.69.2; Herodian 8.8.6; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.191; 2.53; m. Sanh. 6:3; b. Sanh. 45a, bar.), as before public beatings (Longus 2.14; Aulus Gellius 10.3.3; Cicero Verr. 2.4.40.86; Herodes Mime 5.20). 9960 Plautus Bacchides 4.7.25; Artemidorus Onir. 1.78, in Blinzler, Trial, 222; see also m. Mak. 3:12. One could also be scourged, presumably across the breast, while bound to the cross itself (Dio Cassius R.H. 49.22.6). 9961 Apuleius Metam. 7.30.154; Cod. theod. 8.5.2; 9.35.2; Goguel, Jesus, 527; Blinzler, Trial, 222 9968 Cf. Bruce, «Trial,» 15; Blinzler, Trial, 224; Bammel, «Trial,» 440–41, though Blinzler and Bammel go too far in separating this from the crucifixion historically. Blinzler (Trial, 223) distinguishes forms of scourging thus: «an inquisitional torture (Acts 22:24; probably Josephus War 4.304), as a death sentence (fustuarium, primarily a military punishment–Horace Sat. 1.2.41–42), as an independent police chastisement (P. Flor. 61; Josephus War 2.269; cf. Dig. 48.2.6; Philo Flaccus 75), and as the introductory stage to execution after the sentence of death (War 2.306, 308; 5.449; 7.200, 202; Livy 33.36).» 9971 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:600. Public abuse of prisoners, even adorning one as a king and beating him, occurred on other occasions; see comment below. 9974 Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 249, point to «formal elements» of a royal coronation in 19:1–22: (1) crowning and homage (19:1–3); (2) proclamation (19:4–5); (3) acclamation (19:6–7); (4) enthronement on the judgment seat (19:13–16, assuming Jesus seated there); (5) naming and title (19:19–22); and (6) royal burial; of these, I would regard only 1–3 and 5 as persuasive, all ironic. 9975 Possibly, though not certainly, John contrasts the world " s «giving» here with God " s gracious gift (e.g., 3:16; 4:10). 9980 Commentators cite Philo Flaccus 36–39; CPJ 154, 158; Plutarch Pompey 24; Dio Cassius 15.20–21; cf. also Winter, Trial, 102–3; cf. Josephus " s mock funeral (Life 323); the occasions of abuse in Alexandria were especially to be expected (cf. Herodian 4.9.2–3). Robbins, Jesus, xxvi, 189 helpfully supplies another parallel from Persian behavior at the Sacian festival (Dio Chrysostom Or. 4.67–70), though he lays too much emphasis on this to the exclusion of other parallels. |
| Craig S. Keener The Response of the Unorthodox. 4:1–54 THE BULK OF THIS SECTION, which actually continues the general thought of 3:1–36, revolves around a sinful Samaritan woman and her response to Jesus. If the initial faith of the best representative from the Judean elite appears ambiguous (3:1–10), the faith of the socially worst representative from an unorthodox and ethnically mixed sect appears far more positive, even allowing her to bring her people as a whole to Jesus (4:39–42; cf. 1:46). She is one of those who believe, not one on whom God " s wrath remains (3:36); but those who exalt themselves will be brought low (3:30–31), and most, like Nicodemus initially, do not receive Jesus» witness (3:32). Yet Christ is available even to the elite. If we place John the Baptist in the special category of witness, 5206 the context surrounding his witness (3:22–36) in fact alternates between the socially powerful and the weak, providing positive and ambiguous or negative examples of each: Nicodemus (elite, open but uncomprehending), a Samaritan woman (receptive), an official of Antipas (receptive), and a lame man (unfaithful). Only Nicodemus, however, is part of the Judean religious elite, for the royal official could be viewed as unorthodox. This section also includes a much briefer healing miracle with no accompanying discourse (4:46–54). The royal official here represents part of a Galilean economic elite, but like many other Herodian aristocrats would have been religiously impure by Pharisaic standards. Through him the Gospel writer illustrates various levels of faith. True Worshipers in Samaria (4:1–42) This extended narrative contrasts starkly with the Nicodemus narrative. 5207 There a religious teacher in Israel proved unable to understand Jesus» message (3:10); here a sinful Samaritan woman not only received the message (though starting with no less daunting social obstacles–cf. πς in 3:4, 9 and 4:9; perhaps πθεν in 4:11), but brought it to her entire Samaritan town (4:28–29, 39–42). Here, as often, John employs ironic contrasts among characters to convey his emphases. 5208 (That the Samaritan woman, in contrast to Nicodemus, is unnamed is probably not as significant. As a woman, her name was less likely to be recorded in John " s tradition; 5209 further, most characters in the context are unnamed, and perhaps their names had not been preserved–2:1; 4:46; 5:5; 7:3; 9:1. |
| 3 restitution: 1. the act of restoring to the rightful owner something that has been taken away, lost, or surrendered. 2. the act of making good or compensating for loss, damage, or injury; indemnification; reparation. 4 foreign experts: Expert scientific opinion was divided as to whether the remains were those of the royal family. 5 internment: It should be noted that the Russian Orthodox Church did not recognize these remains (or the ones found by Gelli Ryabov) as belonging to the royal family; and the Church did not participate in the internment; the internment was purely governmental. This whole question is a painful one for people in the Church. 6 [ shown live on several television stations] : The ceremony, although secular, was very moving. The TV commentators spoke in hushed tones; a nation-wide minute of silence was observed; the remains were interred in the same cathedral with Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and all the other emperors since the 18th century. A well-respected historian spoke of how Nicholas II had passed two great tests: the test of having great power, which he passed with integrity and meekness; and the test of enduring great humiliation, which he passed with Christian forgiveness and (again) meekness. 7 Emergency Commission [Cheka] : The words Emergency and Commission (in Russian Ch rezvychainaya K omissiya ) begin with the letters che and ka; hence the acronym Chek a (stress on the k a ). Cheka : the feared Soviet state security service (secret police) organized by Lenin; later reorganized and renamed successively as GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD, and KGB. 8 Innocent, murdered Russian citizens: The first 7 peoplethe immediate familyhave since been rehabilitated. 9 negative verdict: As noted previously, on 1 October 2008, a positive verdict for the immediate family was brought out. 10 In the original telegram (in Russian), there is no verb in this sentence. There are half a dozen minor grammatical errors in the original, which were corrected (in parentheses) in the original Russian version of this article. |
| 188 percent of these documents were found in Babylon during the detailed excavations of R. Koldewey in 18991917. (Berger, ibid., pp. 13) As explained by Dr. Ronald Sack, “a virtual mountain” of royal inscriptions have survived from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar alone. (Images of Nebuchadnezzar [Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press; London and Toronto: Associated University Press 1991], p. 26.) Six of the inscriptions are from the reign of AwelMarduk, eight from the reign of Neriglissar, and about thirty from the reign of Nabonidus. (Berger op. cit., pp. 325388.) 189 Beaulieu, in his doctoral thesis The Reign of Nabonidus, included a new catalogue with detailed descriptions of the royal inscriptions from the reign of Nabonidus. – PaulAlain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556539 B.C. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 190 Unfortunately, scholars have arranged or numbered the inscriptions differently, which may cause some confusion. In the systems of Tadmor, Berger, and Beaulieu the three inscriptions are listed as follows: Tadmor 1965: Berger 1973: Beaulieu 1989: Nabon. No. 18 Nbd Zyl. II, 7 Nabon. No. 8 Nbd Stl. Frgm. XI Nabon. No. 24 (missing) (Adadguppi stele) Beaulieu’s arrangement is chronological: No. 1 was written in Nabonidus’ first year, No. 2 in his second year, and No. 13 after year 13, possibly in year 14 or 15. (Beaulieu, op. cit., p.42.) In Tadmor’s list Nabonidus’ inscriptions are numbered in the order of their publication, starting with the fifteen texts published by Langdon in 1912. (Hayim Tadmor, “The Inscriptions of Nabunaid: Historical Arrangement,” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his SeventyFifth Birthday [=Assyriological Studies, No. 16], ed. H. Gtiterbock 8s T. Jacobsen, Chicago, The Chicago University Press, 1965, pp. 351363.) The systems of Tadmor, Berger, and Beaulieu, in turn, differ from that of H. Lewy in Archiv Oriental™, Vol. XVII, Prague, 1949, pp. 34, 35, note 32. In the discussion here presented Tadmor’s numbers will be used. |
| When the imperial family was exiled to the city of Tobolsk, servants and people close to the imperial family who arrived to be with them, also found themselves under arrest, including the following: Eugene Sergeevich Botkin—physician to the royal family; Sophia Karlovna Buxgevden—personal lady-in-waiting to the empress; Ivan Vereschagin А —cook; Alexei Ivanovich Volkov—valet; Anastasia Vasilievna Gendrikova—maid of honor; Sidney Ivanovich Gibbs—English-language instructor and citizen of Great Britain; Ermolai Gusev—man-servant; Anna Stepanovna Demidova—maid; Vladimir Nicholaevich Derevenko—medical doctor; Alexei Nicholaevich Dmitriev—hairdresser/barber; Basil Alexandrovich Dolgorukov—marshal of the imperial court; Mr. Dormidontov—servant; Ekaterina Zhivaya—maid for the children’s instructress E.A. Shneider; Peter Andreevich Zhiliar—instructor to the tsarevich (crown prince) and citizen of Switzerland; Franz Zhuravski—waiter; Magdalena Franzevna Zanotti— “kamer-kapfera” [probably a lady attending the empress]; Sergei Ivanovich Ivanov—servant; Michael Karpov—attendant; Mr. Kiselev—servant; Alexander Kirpichnikov—clerk; Mr. Kokichev—cook; Stepan Makarov—helper of valet Chemodurov; Maria (last name unknown)—maidservant of instructress Shneider; Paulina Kasperovna Mezhants—servant girl of maid of honor Gendrikova; Sergei Mikhailov—kitchen helper; Klementi Grigorievich Nagorni—servant; Victorina Vladimirovna Nicholaeva—governess of maid of honor Gendrikova; Franz Pyurkovski—kitchen helper; Mr. Rozhkov—head of the food-cellar; Anna Pavlovna Romanova—maid; Ivan Dmitrievich Sednev—children’s servant; Leonid Sednev—young cook-in-training; Mr. Smirnov—attendant; Mr. Stupel—cloakroom-wardrobe attendant; Ilia Leonidovich Tatischev— ADC general [aid-de-camp general]; Alexandra Alexandrovna Tegleva—children’s governess; Mr. Terekhov—kitchen helper; Alexei Egorovich Troop—servant; Maria Gusmavovna Tumelberg—“yugo-fera” [lady in charge of the dressing-room]; Mr. Tyutin—servant; Anna Yakovlevna Utkina—maid; Ivan Michailovich Kharitonov—cook; Terenti Ivanovich Chemodurov—valet; Ekaterina Adolfovna Shneider—instructress of the royal children; and Elizaveta Nicholaevna Ersberg—helper of instructress Shneider. |
| The altar or sanctuary became its place, and access to the sanctuary was closed to the uninitiated» (p. 101); the division was furthered by the gradual raising of the iconostasis. «The mystery presupposes theurgii, consecrated celebrants; the sacralization of the clergy led in its turn to the »secularization» of the laity.» There fell aside «the understanding of all Christians as a " royal priesthood»,» expressed in the symbol of royal anointing, after which there is no «step by step elevation through the degrees of a sacred mystery» (p. 100). The author quotes Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, who warned against revealing the holy mysteries «to profane impurity,» and likewise similar warnings of Saints Cyril of Jerusalem and Basil the Great. In this description of the Constantinian era and thereafter, the Protestant treatment is evident. The golden age of Christian freedom and the age of the great hierarchs, the age of the flowering of Christian literature, is presented here as something negative, a supposed intrusion of pagan elements into the Church, rather than as something positive. But at any time in the Church have simple believers actually received the condemnatory appellation of «profane»? From the Catechetical Lectures of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem it is absolutely clear that he warns against communicating the mysteries of faith to pagans. Saint Basil the Great writes of the same thing: «What would be the propriety of writing to proclaim the teaching concerning that which the unbaptized are not permitted even to view?» (On the Holy Spirit, ch. 27) Do we really have to quote the numerous testimonies in the words of the Lord Himself and in the writings of the Apostles concerning the division into pastors and «flock,» the warnings to pastors of their duty, their responsibility, their obligation to give an accounting for the souls entrusted to them, the strict admonitions of the angels to the Churches which are engraved in the Apocalypse? Do not the Acts of the Apostles and the pastoral Epistles of the Apostle Paul speak of a special consecration through laying on of hands into the hierarchical degrees? The author of this book acknowledges that a closed altar separated the clergy from the faithful. |
|
|
