| In Hagia Sophia in Constantinople we find the most unique situation of cross-shape cavities placed in the top comers of the bases of porphyry columns (figs. 5:9). These columns support the northeast, southeast, northwest, and southwest exedras of the naos 186 . The cavities are in the form of the cross and they are placed in the top comers of the porphyry columns bases facing the nave. Four metal crosses contained within the cross-shape cavities are still in situ (fig. 9). The interior depth of cross-shape cavities is 1.5–2.5 cm. And it is similar to the size of the metal crosses encolpions. The shape of these crosses suggest that they can be dated generally from the ninth to the year 1204 before the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders 187 . Pilgrims accounts record information about relics placed under the church columns and capitals. The twelfth century English traveller to Constantinople mentions that relics were placed in all major columns in Hagia Sophia and high above in the capitals of the columns 188 . The Patria dated to about eleventh century mentions that relics in Hagia Sophia were placed in columns in the lower and upper levels 189 . Pilgrims did not specify the names of saints in these columns. The Russian traveler, Stephen of Novgorod, who visited Constantinople in the years 1348 or 1349, discusses the porphyry columns in the area of the northwest bay venerated by pilgrims who obtained cures from them: “Wonderfully decorated stone columns of beautiful marble stand there with relics of the saints reposing within them. People who are suffering some malady touch what ails them [to these columns] and received healing” 190 . Another evidence comes from the monastery of St. Lazarus, which was located near the monastery of the Virgin Hodegetria in Constantinople 191 . The Russian pilgrim Zosima the Deacon traveled to Constantinople three times in 1419–1420, 1422, and 1423. He mentions the monastery of St. Lazarus, where his relics were sealed in a column. |
| Webb, Barry G. Five Festal Garments. Downers Grove. IL InterVar-sity. 2000. Weiser, Artur. The Psalms. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1962. Weiss, M. The Story of Job " s Beginning. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. 1983. Westermann, Claus. The Living Psalms. Trans, by J.R. Porter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Weiss, M. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Trans, by Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981. Weiss, M. The Psalms: Structure, Content & Message. Trans, by Ralph D. Gehrke. Minneapolis: Augsburg. 1980. Weiss, M. The Structure of the Book of Job: A Form-Critical Analysis. Trans, by С A Muenchow. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Whybray, R. Norman. Ecclesiastes. OTG. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1989. Whybray, R. «Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy. " 7S07 " 23 (1982): 8798. Whybray, R. Reading the Psalms as a Book. JSOTSupp 222. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. White, J.B. A Study of the Language of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Love Poetry. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Williams, R. «Theodicy in the Ancient Near East.» CJT2 (1956): 1426. Repr. in Theodicy in the Old Testament. Ed. J.L. Crenshaw. Issues in Religion and Theology 4. London: SPCK; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. See pp. 42–56. Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing ofthe Hebrew Psalter. SBLDS 76. Chico, С A: Scholars Press, 1985. Wilson, Gerald H. «Evidence of Editorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter.»/Т34 (1984): 337352. Wilson, Gerald H. Psalms. Vol. 1. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: ZondeVvan, 2002. Wilson, Gerald H. «Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms.» In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSupp 159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Wilson, Gerald H. «The Shape ofthe Book of Psalms.» ltd 46 (1992): 129142. Wilson, Gerald H. «Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls and Promise.» In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSupp 159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. |
| 132 Термин «чинопоследование» указывает на полный текст того или иного богослужения, включая указания касательно его совершения. 133 О развитии богослужения в IV веке см., в частности: Dix G. The Shape of the Liturgy. P. 268–433; Mazza E. The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer. P. 177–331 (охватывает IV–V вв.); Wybrew H. The Orthodox Liturgy. P. 27–66; Bradshaw P. F. In Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. P. 118–230; Bradshaw P. F., Johnson M. E. The Eucharistic Liturgies. P. 61–191 (охватывает IV–V вв.); Bradshaw P. F. Eucharistic Origins. P. 139–157; Schulz H.-J. The Byzantine Liturgy. P. 3–20. 136 Он не включает, например, Литургию Григория Богослова . Кроме того, к настоящему времени известны и другие Литургии, не вошедшие в данное собрание, а представление о «литургических семьях» подверглось существенному пересмотру. 137 Dix G. The Shape of the Liturgy. P. 314. Более того, в христианском богослужении послеконстантиновской эпохи воссоздаются – сознательно или бессознательно – некоторые черты древнееврейского храмового богослужения. Об этом см., в частности: Barker M. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. P. 373–378. 140 Кирилл Иерусалимский . Поучение тайноводственное 5, 6–9 (PG 33, 1124). Рус. пер. С. 344–345. Обзор мнений относительно авторства и происхождения этой анафоры см. в: Burreson K. J. The Anaphora of the Mystagogical Catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem, P. 131–138. 149 Иоанн Златоуст. Беседы на Второе послание к Коринфянам 2, 5; 18, 3 (PG 61, 399–400; 527). Рус. пер. С. 478–479, 632. 150 Он же. Беседы на Послание к Римлянам 14, 3 (PG 60, 557). Рус. пер. С. 660–661; Толкование на Книгу Бытия 27, 8 (PG 53, 251). Рус. пер. С. 283. 170 Греческое слово παννυχς означает «всенощное». В современной практике этим словом обозначают заупокойное богослужение (панихиду), однако в византийскую эпоху оно употреблялось в своем буквальном значении. 178 Предание возводит составление Иерусалимского устава к преподобному Савве Освященному, однако в реальности этот устав, как и другие монастырские уставы, – плод коллективного творчества многих поколений монахов. Подробнее см. в: Успенский Н. Д. Т. I. С. 155–175. |
| Theodore and the Studites devised the Triodion precisely because the form of the celebration at the time, with its emphasis on baptism, failed to connect to a society where there were no adult catechumens. They, therefore, transformed Lent and Holy Week to a time of repentance and renewal of one’s baptismal commitment. Now, however, people are ignorant of the Triodion, and the fast is viewed as no more than a set of external dietary rules. Following the example of these ninth century saints, we, in our own time must strive to find ways to bring back a personal connection to the historical events. A Selected Bibliography Deiss, Lucien. Springtime of the Liturgy: Liturgical Texts of the First Four Centuries. Tr. Matthew J. O’Connell. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1979. The Didache. Tr. and annotated by James A. Kleist. In Vol. 6 of Ancient Christian Writers. Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, eds. New York: Newman Press, 1948. Dix, Dom Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. 2 nd ed. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1945. Egeria. Diary of a Pilgrimage. Tr. and annotated by George E. Gingras. Vol. 38 of Ancient Christian Writers. Johannes Quasten, Walter J. Burghardt and Thomas Comerford Lawler, eds. New York: Newman Press, 1970. Kavanagh, Aidan. The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation. New York: Pueblo Publishing Company, 1978. Mary, Mother and Kallistos Ware, trs. The Lenten Triodion. London: Faber and Faber, 1984. Nassar, Seraphim. Divine Prayers and Services of the Catholic Orthodox Church of Christ. 3 rd ed. Englewood, New Jersey: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, 1979. Papadeas, George L. Greek Orthodox Holy Week and Easter Services. Greek and English. Published by the author, 1977 ed. Schmemann, Alexander. Great Lent. Revised ed. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974. ________. Of Water and the Spirit: A Liturgical Study of Baptism. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974. |
| Schulz, Hans-Joachim. The Byzantine Liturgy. Tr. Matthew J. O’Connell. New York: Pueblo Publishing Company, 1986. Taft, Robert. Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding. Washington D.C.: The Pastoral Press, 1984. Triodion. Greek. New, expanded ed. Athens: Phos (no date). Vaporis, Nomikos Michael. The Services for Holy Week and Easter. Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1993. Uspensky, Nicholas. Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church. Tr. and ed. Paul Lazor. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985. von Gardner, Johann. Orthodox Worship and Hymnography. Vol. 1 of Russian Church Singing. Tr. Vladimir Morosan. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980. The term “Holy Week,” attested in Rome and the West by the fourth century, is equivalent to the “Great Week” used in the East from the same time. Egeria makes note of the difference in terms, Diary of a Pilgrimage, 30. Aidan Kavanagh, The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation (New York: Pueblo Publishing Company, 1978), pp. 23ff. Justin, Aplology, quoted in Kavanagh, p. 43. See also: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, who cites Irenaeus; Tertullian, On the Fasts, Hippolytus; Apostolic Tradition. Kallistos Ware, “The Meaning of the Great Fast,” The Lenten Triodion, tr. Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1984), p. 29. Robert Taft, Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding (Washington, D.C.: The Pastoral Press, 1984), pp. 23-24. Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, 2 nd ed. (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1945), p. 348. Council of Laodicea, canon 49. Trullo, canon 52, made an exception for the Annunciation, however, when it came to be celebrated on March 25. Ware, p. 49, n. 58. So called because they reduced the number of biblical odes used in canons for weekday matins to just three from the usual nine. Later manuscript copies and printed editions of the Triodion split the work into two volumes: the Lenten Triodion and the Pentecost Triodion, or even simply Triodion and Pentecostarion. |
| 52. Bobrinskoy B. Liturgie et ecclésiologie trinitaire de S. Basile//Eucharisties d " Orient et d " Occident. T. II. Paris, 1970. [Bobrinskoy. Liturgie et ecclésiologie] 53. Bobrinskoy B. The Mystery of the Trinity. NY, 1999. [Bobrinskoy. The Mystery of the Trinity] 54. Boismard M. E. De son ventre couleront des fleuves d " eau//Revue Biblique. 1958. 65. P. 523–546. [Boismard. RB 65] 55. Boismard M. E. Le prologue de S. Jean. Paris: Cerf, 1953. [Boismard. Le prologue de S. Jean] 56. Boismard M. E. Revue Biblique 55, 1948. [Boismard. RB 55] 57. Borgen Peder. Targumic Character of the Prologue of John//New Testament Studies. 1970. P. 291–293. [Borgen. Targumic Character of the Prologue of John] 58. Bornkamm G. Der Paraklet im Johannes evangelium/Festschrift für R. Bultmann. Stuttgart, 1949. [Bornkamm. Der Paraklet im Johannes evangelium] 59. Boulnois M.-O. Le Paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d " Alexandrie. Paris, 1994. [Boulnois. Le Paradoxe trinitaire] 60. Braun F.-M. New Testament Studies 4, 1958. [Braun. NTS 4] 61. Breck John. Spirit of Truth. The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1991. [Breck. Spirit of Truth] 62. Breck John. The Power of the Word. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1986. [Breck. The Power of the Word] 63. Breck John. The shape of biblical languagë chiasmus in the Scriptures and beyond. NY: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1994. [Breck. The shape of biblical language] 64. Brown Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. 1 vol. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1966. [ Brown. John, 1] 65. Brown Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. 2 vol. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1970. [Brown. John, 2] 66. Brown Raymond E. The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel//New Testament Studies. 1966/67. 13. P. 113–132. [Brown. The Paraclete] 67. Büchsel F. Der Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament. Gütersloh, 1926. [Büchsel. Der Geist Gottes] 68. Bultmann R. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. [Bultmann. Das Evangelium des Johannes]. Translation: Bultmann R. The Gospel of John/Tr. G. R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. [ Bultmann. John] |
| Now, it is precisely at this point that a radical disagreement among Christian interpreters arises. Is there anything else to happen «in history», which may have any ultimate existential relevance for men, after Christ’s coming? Or has everything that could be accomplished in history already been achieved? History, as a natural process, is, of course, still continuing – a human history. But does the Divine history continue as well? Has history any constructive value now, after Christ? or any «meaning» at all? It is sometimes contended that, since the ultimate Meaning has been already manifested and the Eschaton has already entered history, history has been, as it were, «closed» and «completed,» as a meaningful process, and eschatology has been «realized.» This implies a specific interpretation of the «turning-point» of history which was the coming of Christ. It is sometimes assumed that there was, indeed, a sacred history in the past, just up to the coming of Christ Jesus, in which it was «consummated,» but that after him there is in history only an empty flux of happenings, in which the nothingness and vanity of man is constantly being exposed and manifested, but nothing truly «eventful» can ever take place, since there is nothing else to be accomplished within history. This assumption has been variously phrased and elaborated in contemporary theological thought. It may take a shape of the «realized Eschatology,» and then meaning is shifted from the realm of history to the realm of sacramental experience, in which the Eschaton is present and re-enacted. 38 It may take the shape of a «consequent Eschatology,» and then history appears to be just a great Interim between the great events in the past and in the future, between the «first» and «second» comings of the Lord, devoid of any constructive value, just a period of hope and expectation. Or else history may be «interiorized,» and the realm of meaning would be confined to the experience of individual believers, making «decisions.» 39 In all these cases, history as an actual course of events in time and space is denied any «sacred» character, any positive significance. Its course is apprehended as a continuous unfolding of human vanity and impotence. |
| After emerging from the era of persecutions, Christians increasingly built their own churches, as well as adapting basilicas gifted to them by the emperor. Some of the best ancient basilicas, least adapted, that remain are in Orthodox use: the Church of Transfiguration at St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai, and the Nativity Church at Bethlehem, given as a donation of Constantine in the 4th century. After the 5th century, many pagan temples were also taken over for use as Christian churches. Some of the most dramatic examples are the Pantheon in Rome, the Parthenon in Athens, and the Serapeum in Alexandria. The donation of basilicas had a strong impact on later Christian architecture. This was substantially a rectangular hall, with an apsidal benched end (originally for magistrates) and was to become one of the most common formats of Christian building, in which case the apse was oriented to the East (an aspect not usually observed in pre-Christian basilicas that were taken over from the pagans). Churches built over special sites or holy places were often marked by a distinctive architectural shape. Martyria (the tomb-shrines of martyrs that developed into churches) were often octagonal or rotunda in shape. Octagonal church building in the East also usually designated a particular commemoration of a site: biblical holy places or the like being enclosed in a clear geometric design, with surrounding colonnades to allow pilgrims access to the holy place. The great Church of the Anastasis built by Constantine at Jerusalem combined a rotunda over the site of Christ’s death, with a large basilica attached to the holy place by colonnaded porticoes. The design of the buildings in Jerusalem had a powerful effect on the determination of liturgical rites (such as processions or circumambulations) in many other churches of Christendom. In the Greek East after the 5th century a new form of Christian architecture came into favor and was patronised by powerful emperors. Justinian’s churches of Saints Sergius and Bacchus, later to be followed by his monumental Hagia Sophia at Constantinople (replacing a basilica-type predecessor church on the site), used the idea of a squared cross floor plan set under a central dome (frequently with extra apsi- dal half-domes added on). This “Byzantine” style soon superseded the basilica in the Greek speaking and Slavic East, but the Armenian churches combined elements of both the squared Byzantine cross and the western basilica and formed their own distinctive synthesis. |
| Pacepa’s story also really has no explanation of how the actual theology came to be. For starters, although Gustavo Gutiérrez’s seminal work A Theology of Liberation was published in 1971, he presented the key ideas that later became that work at a conference in Peru in July, 1968, as “Hacia una teología de liberacion.” And of course this was a good two months before the bishops met in Medellín. Pacepa has the order of causation backwards; it was not a cabal of leftist bishops who sent out the theologians with marching orders, but rather the theologians who advised the bishops. But even aside from the dates, the most implausible thing about Pacepa’s theory is this: regardless of what one thinks about its conclusions, Gutiérrez’s work and that of the other most prominent liberation theologians are works of great intellectual sophistication. Likewise, Gutiérrez’s We Drink From Our Own Wells is a spiritual masterpiece, drawing on the Ignatian and Carmelite traditions, as well as the spirituality of the poor Gutiérrez lived among. It is just silly to think this work could be produced at the instigation of KGB goons, and Pacepa doesn’t even try to explain how this happened. He doesn’t really seem interested in the theology at all, having only “glanced” at A Theology of Liberation . Works of sophistication depend on intellectual tradition, and understanding the background for Gutiérrez’s work puts one more nail in the coffin of Pacepa’s fantasy. Gutiérrez did his studies in France under the likes of Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and Marie-Dominiqiue Chenu, all of whom went on to shape the work of the Second Vatican Council. Gutiérrez’s theology is to a significant degree shaped by theirs, as well as by others such as the German Karl Rahner. Gutiérrez was also profoundly impacted by the Catholic social movements emerging in Western Europe in the 1940s and 1950s, such as the Mouvement Populaire des Familles and above all the worker priests, some of whom were engaged with Marxism. As a number of works ( here , here , and here ) have shown, these movements developed key ideas later taken up by the Latin American liberation theologians. Obviously there is no need for a secretive KGB intervention to account for the origins of liberation theology, as the plain facts provide a more plausible explanation. |
| But while an expulsion is possible, it was not likely a wholesale «excommunication» of believers in Jesus; excommunications normally focused on individuals, and no central authority could mandate all local synagogues to implement it in any case. Other means could be employed, however, to make purveyors of deviant ideologies sufficiently unwelcome. If Jewish Christians» insistence that Jesus was deity and the only way (cf. 14:6), perhaps coupled with eschatological and/or pneumatic enthusiasm, had become irritating enough, it takes little imagination to suppose that those responsible for order and unity in synagogues might see them as a threat. Hostile rhetoric from the bema could further shape public Jewish opinion, thereby making Jewish Christians marginal not only in synagogue services on holy days but also in the social networks of the synagogue communities. Still, in John some form of exclusion urged by the authorities seems to have at least begun, 1761 since the Gospel directly addresses the issue (9:34; 12:42; 16:2; cf. 2:15), and the writer draws an explicit connection «between what Jesus suffered and what his disciples will suffer (15.18–21 ).» 1762 Some scholars argue, probably correctly, that Jesus» warning in 16stems from authentic Jesus tradition also reflected in Luke 6:22; 1763 but the recurrence of the matter in the Fourth Gospel at key points (9:22; 12:42; 16:2) suggests that John has a reason to emphasize it. But if the disciples were not made unwelcome by a formal, person-by-person excommunication, how might it have occurred? Many scholars have contended that the repudiation of the Jewish Christians was effected or aided by the Birkath Ha-minim, 1764 a curse against the heretics reportedly added by Yavneh to the Shemoneh Esreh, a prayer that eventually came to be used in synagogues throughout the ancient world. 1765 Yet despite the adequate antiquity of the basic substance of the Shemoneh Esreh, or Eighteen Benedictions, also known as the Amida, 1766 the evidence for a unified prayer liturgy throughout the synagogues is disputed; it is not clear that it existed in the Diaspora (or even Judea) by the end of the first century. 1767 First-century local leaders in Galilee could call a special public fast day (Josephus Life 290), and people would engage in their prayers (Life 295) in the house of prayer (Life 293). It is likely that they prayed aloud, 1768 but it is not clear whether those present recited their prayers in unison. 1769 |
|
|
