| 558 . Idem. Les premieres formulas trinitaires de saint Augustin//Bulletin de literature ecclesiastique 31 (1930). P. 97–123. 559 . Chevalier I. La theorie augustinienne des relations trinitaires. Analyse explicative des textes. Freiburg, 1940a (=Divus Thomas 18. P. 317–384). 560 . Idem. Saint Augustin et le pensee grecque. Les relations trinitaires. Fribourg, 1940b. 561 . Cipriani N. Le fonti cristiane della dottrina trinitaria nei primi Dialogi di S. Agostino//Augustinianum 34 (1994). P. 253–312. 562 . Idem. La ‘retractatio’ agostiniana sulla processione-generazione dello Spirito Santo (Trin. 5.12.13)//Augustinianum 37 (1997). P. 431–439. 563 . Idem. Agostino lettore dei commentari paolini di Mario Vittorino//Augustinianum 38 (1998). P. 413–428. 564 . Clark M. T. Augustine’s Theology of the Trinity: Its Relevance//Dionysius 13 (1989). P. 71–84. 565 . Eadem. Augustine on Person: Divine and Human//Augustine: Presbyter factus sum. Collectanea Augustiniana. Ed. J. T. Lienhard, E. C. Muller, R. J. Teske. N. Y., 1993. P. 99–120. 566 . Eadem. De Trinitate//The Cambridge Companion to Augustine/Ed. E. Stump, N. Kretzmann. N. Y., 2001. P. 91–102. 567 . O’Connell R. J. St. Augustine’s Early Theory of Man (386–391). Cambridge (MA.), 1968. 568 . Cooper J. The Basic Philosophical and Theological Notions of Saint Augustine//Augustinian Studies 15 (1984). P. 93–113. 569 . Courcelle P. Les Confessions de Saint Augustin dans la tradition litteraire: Antecedents et posterite. Paris, 1963. 570 . Idem. Recherches sur les Confessions de saint Augustin. Paris, 1968. 571 . Carreker M. L. A Commentary on Books Five, Six and Seven of the «De Trinitate» of Saint Augustine of Hippo. Ann Arbor, 1996. 572 . Crawford N. The sapiential structure of Augustine’s «De trinitate»//Pro Ecclesia 19 (2010). P. 434–452. 573 . Cross R. Quid tres? On what precisely Augustine professes not to understand in «De trinitate» 5 and 7//Harvard Theological Review 100 (2007). P. 215–232. 574 . Crouse R. D. St. Augustine’s De Trinitate: Philosophical Method//Studia Patristica 16 (1985). P. 501–510. |
| Попов И. В. Личность и учение блаженного Августина. Ч. 1–2. СПос., 1916–1917 [переизд.: Попов И. В. Труды по патрологии. Т. 2. СПос., 2006]. Alfaric P. L’évolution intellectuelle de S. Augustin. I. Du manichéisme au néoplatonisme. Paris, 1918. Следует упомянуть, что сжатое, но весьма информативное изложение триадологии Августина И. В. Попов дал в своих не так давно переизданных лекциях по патрологии, см.: Попов И. В. Патрология. СПос., 1907; М., 2003 2 . С. 260–263. Интересно, что независимо от Т. Де Реньона Попов приходит к выводу, что в тринитарном учении Августина преобладает идея «единой сущности»: « essentia есть нечто единичное и неделимое, в пределах которого находятся Лица Божества» (Там же. С. 260). Idem. L’idée de vérité dans la philosophie de saint Augustin. Paris, 1939. См., особенно, P. 87–114. Idem. L’image de la Trinité. Synthèse de la pensée augustinienne//Gregorianum 27 (1946). P. 173–199, 333–352. Cayré F. La contemplation augustinienne. Principes de la spiritualté de saint Augustin. Essai d’analyse et de synthèse. Paris, 1927. P. 95–141. Schmaus M. Die psychologische Trinitätslehre des hl. Augustinus. Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, 11. Münster, 1927. Cavallera F. La doctrine de saint Augustin sur l’Esprit-Saint à propos de “De Trinitate”//Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale 2 (1930). P. 365–387; 3 (1931). P. 5–19; idem. Les premières formulas trinitaires de saint Augustin//Bulletin de literature ecclésiastique 31 (1930). P. 97–123. Ritter J. Mundus Intelligibilis: Eine Untersuchung zur Aufnahme und Umwandlung der Neuplatonischen Ontologie bei Augustinus. Frankfurt-am-Main, 1937. Chevalier I. La théorie augustinienne des relations trinitaires. Analyse explicative des textes. Freiburg, 1940a (=Divus Thomas 18. P. 317–384); idem.Saint Augustin et le pensée grecque. Les relations trinitaires. Fribourg, 1940b. Dahl A. Augustin und Plotin. Philosophische Untersuchungen zum Trinitätsproblem und zur Nuslehre. Lund, 1945. К сожалению, эта важная работа нам до сих пор недоступна. |
| 1989. Bd. 56. S. 26-50; Schwarz R. Die apokalyptische Theologie Thomas Müntzers und der Taboriten. Tüb., 1977; The Anabaptists and Thomas Müntzer/Ed. J. M. Stayer, W. O. Packull. Dubuque (Iowa), 1980; Seebass G. Artikelbrief, Bundesordnung und Verfassungsentwurf: Studien zu drei zentralen Dokumenten des südwestdeutschen Bauernkrieges. Hdlb., 1988; idem. Müntzer, Thomas (ca. 1490-1525)//TRE. 1994. Bd. 23. S. 414-436; idem. Müntzers Erbe: Werk, Leben und Theologie des Hans Hut. Gütersloh, 2002; Bubenheimer U. Thomas Müntzer: Herkunft und Bildung. Leiden; N. Y., 1989; idem. Thomas Müntzer und Wittenberg. Mühlhausen, 2014; Gritsch E. W. Thomas Müntzer: A Tragedy of Errors. Minneapolis, 1989; Koch E. Das Sakramentsverständnis Thomas Müntzers//Der Theologe Thomas Müntzer. 1989. S. 129-155; Scott T. Thomas Müntzer: Theology and Revolution in the German Reformation. N. Y., 1989; Der Theologe Thomas Müntzer: Untersuchung zu seiner Entwicklung und Lehre/Hrsg. H. Junghans, S. Braüer. Gött., 1989; Matheson P. Thomas Müntzer " s Marginal Comments on Tertullian//JThSt. N. S. 1990. Vol. 41. N 1. P. 76-90; Warnke I. Wörterbuch zu Thomas Müntzers deutschen Schriften und Briefen. Tüb., 1993; Kim K. R. Das Reich Gottes in der Theologie Thomas Müntzers: Eine systematische Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der alternativen Anschauungen Martin Luthers. Fr./M. etc., 1994; Andersson B. Melanchthons Polemik gegen Thomas Müntzer//Philipp Melanchthon und seine Rezeption in Skandinavien: Vorträge eines intern. Symposions. Stockh., 1998. S. 25-50; Quilisch T. Das Widerstandsrecht und die Idee des religiosen Bundes bei Thomas Müntzer: Ein Beitrag zur politischen Theologie. B., 1999; Hoyer S. Bemerkungen zu den letzten Schriften Thomas Müntzers//Mühlhausen, der Bauernkrieg und Thomas Müntzer/Hrsg. M. Sünder. Mühlhausen, 2000. S. 91-108; Scheible H. Die Verfasserfrage der «Historie Thome Muntzers»//Flugschriften der Reformationszeit: Colloquium im Erfurter Augustinerkloster 1999/Hrsg. U. |
| 2A. Thomas " s Skepticism (20:24–25) Jesus has lost none except Judas (17:12), and «the Twelve» remain a defined group even without Judas (20:24). 10741 Thus Jesus must appear once more while Thomas is present; this happens after eight days (20:26) to suggest the following Sunday, perhaps to emphasize the worship experience of early Christians as the context for Jesus» revelations (cf. Rev 1:10). Thomas may suppose that his fellow disciples had seen merely a ghost 10742 if in fact they had seen anything at all; but ghost stories were not resurrections (see comments above), and Thomas is unwilling to believe. Because Thomas plays no significant individual role in other extant first-century traditions (i.e., the Synoptics), some scholars have proposed special reasons for Thomas being the particular disciple to fill this role here, proposing a specific Thomas tradition existing in this period. One approach connects Thomas with the beloved disciple, thereby affecting how readers encounter that disciple as a model for faith. 10743 Yet it appears difficult to reconcile the anonymous disciple with Thomas. 10744 Another approach takes Thomas " s appearances in this Gospel as instances of polemic against the Thomas tradition that stood behind the Gospel of Thomas and its community. 10745 If we nuance this view to allow for traditions that later became the Gospel of Thomas rather than that work itself, this approach is possible and plausible. It is not, however, by any means certain. Synoptic tradition recognizes that the disciples responded with skepticism, and some more than others (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:11, 24, 38, 41); it is not impossible that John simply preserves a more detailed tradition where a notably skeptical disciple is named, one who was eager to follow Jesus (11:16; 14:5) though too devastated by Jesus» death to accept the apostolic witness of his colleagues (20:25). That a tradition that later became the Gospel of Thomas adapted some ideas once related to Thomas is possible, but it is also possible that it merely exploited his name. |
| Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Crestwood, NY, and noted Orthodox Christian priest, theologian, preacher, and speaker, fell asleep in the Lord on the afternoon of March 18, 2015. Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Crestwood, NY, and noted Orthodox Christian priest, theologian, preacher, and speaker, fell asleep in the Lord on the afternoon of March 18, 2015. Father Thomas was the beloved husband of Matushka Anne [Schmemann] Hopko. They were married on June 9, 1963. Together, Father Thomas and Anne are the parents of five children, sixteen grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren. Thomas John Hopko was born in Endicott, NY, on March 28, 1939, the third child and only son of John J. Hopko and Anna [Zapotocky] Hopko. He was baptized and raised in Saint Mary’s Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church and educated in Endicott public schools, graduating from Union-Endicott High School in 1956. Father Thomas graduated from Fordham University in 1960 with a bachelor’s degree in Russian studies. He graduated with a theological degree from Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in 1963, from Duquesne University with a master’s degree in philosophy in 1969, and earned his doctorate degree in theology from Fordham University in 1982. Ordained to the Holy Priesthood in August 1963, Father Thomas served the following parishes as pastor: Saint John the Baptist Church, Warren, OH (1963–1968); Saint Gregory the Theologian Church, Wappingers Falls, NY (1968–1978); and Saint Nicholas Church, Jamaica Estates, NY (1978–1983). Father Thomas was honored with the clerical rank of Archpriest in 1970 and the rank of Protopresbyter in 1995. Beginning in 1968, Father Thomas began his long service to Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. Over the years, Father Thomas held the following positions: Lecturer in Doctrine and Pastoral Theology, 1968–1972; Assistant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, 1972–1983; Associate Professor of Dogmatic Theology, 1983–1991; Professor of Dogmatic Theology, 1991–1992; Dean, Rector of Three Hierarchs Chapel, and Professor of Dogmatic Theology, 1992–2002. |
| ThQ 56 (1874). S. 1−70; Idem. Hymnenausdem Zweiströmeland. Mainz, 1882. S. 247−259; Bevan A. A. The Hymns of the Soul, contained in the Syriac Acts of St. Thomas. Text and Studies 5, 3. Cambridge, 1897; Hoffmann G. Zwei Hymnen der Thomasakten. ZNTW 4 (1903). S. 273−309; Medlycott A. E. India and the Apostle Thomas. Inquiry with a critical Analysis of the Acts of Thomas. London, 1905; Bousset W. Hauptprobleme der Gnosis. Göttingen, 1907. S. 276−319; Haase F. Zur bardesanischen Gnosis. Leipzig, 1910. S. 50−67; Rostalski F. Sprachliches zu den apokryphen Apostelgeschichten. Teil 1. Die casus obliqui in den Thomasakten. Programm Myslowitz, 1911; Dahlmann J. Die Thomaslegende und die ältesten historischen Beziehungen des Christentums zum fernen Osten. Freiburg im Breisgau. 1902; Zaleski L. M. L " apôtre St. Thomas et l " Inde. Mangalore, 1912; Martinez F. L " ascétisme chrétien pendant les trois premiers, siècles. Paris, 1913. P. 54−72; Burch V. A Commentary on the syriac Hymn of the Soul. JTS 19 (1917−1918). P. 145−161; Reitzenstein R. Ein Gegenstück zu dem Seelenhymnus der Thomasakten. ZNTW 21 (1922). S. 35−37; Baumstark A. S. 14−15; Väth A. Der hl. Thomas, der Apostel Indiens. 2 th ed. Aachen, 1925; Charpentier J. St. Thomas the Apostle and India. Kyrkhist. Aarskrif 27. P. 21−47; Panjikaran J. Christianity in Malabar with special reference to the St. Thomas Christians. Or. Chr. 6 (1926). P. 93−136; Mingana A. The early Spread of Christianity in India. London, 1926, Lietzmann H. Messe und Herrenmahl. Bonn, 1926. S. 243−247; Amann E. Apocryphes du N. Testament. DB SuPl. I. Paris, 1928. Coll. 501−504; Joseph Т. К. К Query, St. Thomas in Parthia or India? Indian Antiquary 61 (1933). P. 159; Idem. The St. Thomas Traditions of South India. Bull, of the Intern. Committee of Hist. Research 5 (1933). P. 570−569; Bornkamm G. Mythos und Legende in den apokryphen Thomasakten, Göttingen, 1933; Connolly R. H. A Negative Golden Rule in the Syriac Acts of Thomas. JTS 36 (1935). P. 353−357; Margoliouth D. |
| During his years of priestly ministry, Father Thomas authored numerous books and articles. Most well known of these publications is The Orthodox Faith: An Elementary Handbook on the Orthodox Church . A prolific speaker and preacher, he spoke at conferences, retreats, public lectures, and Church gatherings of all kinds, many of which were recorded. Father Thomas performed countless duties on behalf of the Orthodox Church in America, including representing the Church at intra-Orthodox gatherings and ecumenical meetings. Upon retirement, Father Thomas and Anne moved to Ellwood City, PA, where they lived near the Orthodox Monastery of the Transfiguration, and Father Thomas began a new ministry: internet-based Orthodox Christian radio talks. Since 2008, Father Thomas had produced well over 400 podcasts for Ancient Faith Radio. Father Thomas exercised untiring and loving pastoral care on behalf many who sought him out for spiritual guidance. His greatest desire was that every person would respond to these words of Jesus Christ: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). Father Thomas is survived by his wife, Matushka Anne, and their five children: Archpriest John Hopko and his wife Macrina, of Terryville, CT; Juliana and husband Gregory Thetford, of Ellwood City, PA; Catherine and husband Raymond Mandell, of Clearfield, PA; Mary and husband Archpriest Nicholas Solak, of East Stroudsburg, PA; and Alexandra and husband Joseph Sedor, of Ellicott City, MD. He is also survived by two sisters, Mary Ann Macko of Endwell, NY, and Barbara McPherson of Sayre, PA and Frostproof, FL. Additionally, Father Thomas is survived by 16 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren, as well as many, many other dear relatives, colleagues, and friends. All services and visitations will be at the Orthodox Monastery of the Transfiguration, Ellwood City, PA. Father Thomas’ body will be ushered into the monastery church at 10:00 a.m. on Friday morning, March 20. The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts will be celebrated at 11:00 a.m. Visitation will continue throughout the day on Friday, with the celebration of Matins for the Departed at 6:00 p.m. followed by a Panikhida at 7:30 p.m. Visitation will close at 9:00 p.m. that evening. |
| Answer “Having beheld the resurrection” (certainly very familiar to everyone who has sung the Paschal Hours in lieu of morning prayers during Bright week, since it is also sung three times then), is normally sung once in Sunday matins, just after the Gospel is read. During the Paschal season, until and including the Sunday preceding Ascension Thursday, it is sung three times. Question How many days after the resurrection were required for Thomas to believe? Why did he not originally believe? Answer According to the Gospel of St. John, Jesus appeared unto the Apostles the first time on the evening of Pascha, with Thomas being absent, then the second time eight days later, with him being present. He originally did not believe because of the incredible reality of the Resurrection. He needed to see the evidence. Question How does the Holy Spirit, through the services characterize Thomas’ unbelief? The church characterizes St. Thomas’ unbelief as “good”, because it led to a greater manifestation of the reality of Christ's resurrection in the flesh: “As the disciples were in doubt,/the Savior came on the eighth day/to where they were gathered and granted them peace,/and cried unto Thomas:/Come, O Apostle, and feel the palms in which they fastened the nails./O good unbelief of Thomas,/which hath led the hearts of the faithful to knowledge!/Hence, he cried out with fear://O my Lord and my God, glory be to Thee” (Sticheron from Lord I have cried, vespers for St. Thomas Sunday). Question What strident words did the Holy Apostle Thomas say, which were quite similar to the Holy Apostle Peter’s just before the Passion Week of our Savior? Were these words shown to be sincere? Answer Just before Jesus went to Bethany to raise Lazarus, which preceded His passion week by only a little, St. John recounts in his Gospel: Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him (Jn. 11:16). This sentiment was also expressed by the Holy Apostle Peter during the passion week: |
| Of specific candidates outside the circle of the Twelve, the most entertaining suggestion is probably Paul (whom the Gospel " s author allegedly thought to be one of the Twelve). 726 But one of the more commonly proposed and most defensible candidates is Lazarus, «whom Jesus loved» (11:3). 727 This makes sense of the phrase, though it makes less sense of the frequency with which, and locations in which, the disciple appears in the narrative, if an earlier case of anonymous disciples (1:37–40) includes him (which is uncertain). One might propose that Lazarus of Bethany would have readier access to the high priest " s house in 18:15–16 than a Galilean disciple (if the disciple of 18:15–16 is the beloved disciple, which is uncertain); the Synoptics might also have omitted Lazarus to protect him because of his location. 728 Yet the case for Lazarus suffers from the primary objection to anyone outside the Twelve– the beloved disciplés prominence in Jesus» circle (13:23). Unless the beloved disciplés tradition is either originally deliberately false or a literary device (on the latter see below), he assumes a role that the Synoptic tradition would allow only for one of the Twelve, and probably for one of the three (Peter, James and John). Certainly 21assumes his prominence. One could argue that the Synoptic tradition is biased in favor of the Twelve–despite Peter " s repeated failures in Mark–but it is difficult to dispute the reliability of the tradition that Jesus had a group of twelve special disciples who were closest to him. 729 Other arguments against identification with the Twelve falter on similar grounds. Of the Twelve, the best specific candidate besides John son of Zebedee would be Thomas. 730 Although Charlesworth " s case for Thomas is novel, it is brilliant. Yet it poses problems that Johannine authorship does not. Since Thomas is explicitly named in the Gospel, why is the beloved disciple sometimes anonymous and sometimes not? Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, 731 the first audience would likely not assume that the beloved disciple was Thomas unless they already knew this to be the case, which we cannot. In favor of Thomas is his demand to touch Jesus» side in 20:25, though only the beloved disciple saw the wounds at the cross (19:34–35). 732 But that Thomas announces this demand to his fellow disciples probably presupposes that they all knew about the wounded side, which is plausible in the story world if the beloved disciple was one of the Twelve and could have informed them. It would be literary genius if Thomas verified both the cross and the physicality of the resurrection, 733 but it is hardly necessary. Thomas is not the only witness of the resurrection that balances Johns witness in 1:19–36; he is merely the climactic one. |
| Крит. изд. готовится Д. М. Сирби в серии: Thomas de Aquino a Byzantinis receptus. Vol. 1: Demetrii Cydonis Defensio Sancti Thomae Aquinatis adversus Nilum Cabasilam. О соч. см.: Rackl M . Die ungedruckte Verteidigungsschrift des Demetrios Kydones für Thomas von Aquin gegen Neilos Kabasilas//Divus Thomas. Ser. 2. Freiburg, 1920. Bd. 7. S. 303-317 (анализ сочинения); Fyrigos. 2004. P. 27-72 (здесь: P. 60 sqq.); Podskalsky. 1977. S. 196-206. Фрагменты в нем. пер. см.: Rackl M. Der hl. Thomas von Aquin und das trinitarische Grundgesetz in byzantinischer Beleuchtung//Xenia Thomistica. Vol. 3: Tractatus historico-criticos continens. R., 1925. P. 363-389 (здесь: P. 380-389). Составлено против трактата Нилы Кавасилы (в 3 ч., изд. см.: ИАБ, 6. 1355-1356). Длинное опровержение этого сочинения К. написано Димитрием Хрисолором (PLP, N 31156) между 1425 и 1439 гг. в форме разговора Фомы Аквинского, Нила Кавасилы, К. и самого автора (о сочинении см.: Pasiourtides. 2012; Searby. 2012). Издание сочинения Хрисолора готовит В. Пасиуртидис в серии: Thomas de Aquino a Byzantinis receptus. Vol. 2: Demetrii Chrysolorae Refutatio operis Demetrii Cydonis «Contra Nilum Cabasilam» sub forma dialogi, in quo auctor ipse cum personis Thomae Aquinatis, Nili Cabasilae et Demetrii Cydonis loquitur. Предварительно текст опубликован в составе диссертации: Pasiourtides V. An Annotated Critical Edition of Demetrios Chrysoloras " Dialogue on Demetrios Kydones " Antirrhetic against Neilos Kabasilas: Diss. L., 2013. P. 189-397. 2. «К некоему другу об исхождении Святого Духа» (Ες τς λσεις τν παγομνων τπων τος παρ Πατρς κα Υο λγουσι τ Αγιον Πνεμα κπορεεσθαι; De processione Spiritus Sancti ad amicum quendam); не издано. Трактат с похожим названием (PG. 154. Col. 863-958), иногда приписываемый К., ему не принадлежит. Опровержение этого сочинения К. написано Иосифом Филагрием (PLP, N 29730; ИАБ, 6. 1610-1613). 3. «К господину Константину Асаню об апории, выдвигаемой паламитами, об ипостасных особенностях Троицы» (Πρς τν Ασν κρ Κωνσταντνον περ τς π τν Παλαμιτν προτεινομνης πορας π τος ποστατικος διμασι τς Τριδος; De personarum proprietatibus in Trinitate ad Constantinum Asanem); изд.: Candal M. |
|
|
