| Tweet Нравится Sermon for the Feast of the Forty Holy Martyrs by St. Theodore the Studite St. Theodore the Studite Photo: Pravoslavie.ru CATECHESIS 62: On Our Imitating the Lord’s Sufferings By St. Theodore the Studite [Migne adds: On the Forty Martyrs [March 9th]. But it seems to have been given after the day itself.] Brethren and fathers, how good it has become for us the separation from the monastery here! For why should our liberty be subject to the judgement of another’s conscience? (1 Cor. 10:29). And why do we maltreat ourselves still for what is of no use? We managed as far as it was possible and the moment allowed; but now, because when the moment summoned they did not choose persecution on behalf of Christ, as certain others, it is necessary to listen to the Prophet when he says, Come out from among them and be separated , (Isa 52:11) says the Lord. If others act otherwise over these matters, they will render an account to the Lord on the day of judgement; for it seems to me that to be brought under their power is equivalent of being indifferent towards the heretics. You see that the same distinction withdraws us from the world and drives us to trouble, to distress, to hunger, to persecution, to prison, to death; but in all these we must be supremely victorious through the God who loved us , (Rom. 8:37) when, whenever he sees a soul thirsting for Him, gives it force to be able to endure sufferings on His behalf. And to this the Forty Martyrs, whose memorial we have just celebrated, bear witness with the others; for we cannot say that they possessed a different nature to the one we have. But since they loved God with a true heart, they were empowered in their weakness to throw down the invisible enemy by the flesh, and to accomplish a struggle of such a quality and greatness that all Christians praise it in song. And blessed is one who has been granted to share in the sufferings of Christ, (Cf. 1 Pet. 4:13) even to some extent at least: the persecuted, because He too was persecuted; the arrested, because He too was arrested; the reviled, because He too was reviled; the scourged, because He too was scourged; the imprisoned, because He too was imprisoned; see too why it is written, If we have died with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we endure, we shall also reign with Him; if we deny, He too will deny us; if we are faithless, He remains faithful; He is not able to deny Himself (2 Tim. |
| 25 3 Kgd 19:9 ff. 26 Probably an echo of both the chariot in which Elijah ascends into heaven in 4 Kgd 2:11, and of the chariot of the soul in Plato’s Phaedrus (246A-C). 27 Cf. 4 Kgd 2:1ff. 28 Probably commenting on 4 Kgd 1:9–12, but alluding also to 4 Kgd 6:15–17. 29 Cf. 1 Kgd 1:9–20. 30 Cf. Lev. 14:33–42 . 31 Cf. 3 Kgd 17:8–24. 32 Cf. Matt. 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8 , Luke 9:28–36. 33 Cf. Isa. 53:2. 34 Cf. Psa. 44:3. 35 Cf. John 1:1 . 36 Apophasis: Maximus introduces here the technical terms of apophatic and cataphatic theology. 37 Cf. John 1:14 . 38 This section develops the theme just introduced in the dual interpretation of the radiant garments of the Transfigured Christ as both Scriptures and creation. 39 The Evagrian triad of ascetic struggle (praktike), natural contemplation (physike), and theology was related by Origen to a very similar classification of the categories of philosophy in the prologue to his Commentary on the Song of Songs: see Louth (1981), 57–8. 40 Cf. Denys the Areopagite, Ep. 9.1 (1105D). 41 Literally: in a Greek way. It is in contrast with the later ‘in a Jewish way’: cf. St Paul’s contrast between Greeks/Gentiles and Jews, especially in Rom. 1–3 . 42 Cf. Phil. 3.19 . 43 A metaphor for the Incarnation used by Gregory Nazianzen in Sermon 38.2 (PG 36:313B). Maximus devotes a Difficulty to Gregory’s use of the term (suspected of Origenism?): Amb. 33:1285C-1288A, where the Word’s expressing itself in letters and words is one of the interpretations offered of the metaphor. 44 Cf. Gen. 39:11–12 . 45 This is an important section in which Maximus reworks a fundamental Evagrian theme. For Evagrius, the five modes of contemplation are: 1. contemplation of the adorable and holy Trinity, 2. and 3. contemplation of incorporeal and incorporeal beings, 4. and 5. contemplation of judgment and providence (Centuries on Spiritual Knowledge I.27, in Guillaumont 1958 ). Maximus’ understanding is quite different. See Thunberg (1965), 69–75 and Gersh (1978), 226–7. 46 I do not know where Maximus gets these five secret meanings (or hidden logoi) from. They recall Plato’s ‘five greatest kinds’ (being, rest, motion, sameness and difference: see Sophist 254D-255C), but are evidently not the same. |
| 2565 Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 82. 2566 E.g., T. Mos. 4:2. Cf. also Plutarch Isis 2, Mor. 352A, who applies this title to the universal God. 2567 Sipre Deut. 26.5.1; Gen. Rab. 12:15; 33:3; 73:3; Exod. Rab. 3:7; 6:1, 3; Num. Rab. 9:18. 2568 See Schweizer, Jesus, 72. 2569 Applied even to a relative of higher rank, e.g., P.Oxy. 1231,26; Select Papyri 1:338–39, lines 1, 24; P.Giess. bib1. 21.11. 2570 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 114–15; he notes evidence for the title applied to teachers on 114–20. For the vocative, see also Γ. Job 3:5; for the title of a legal guardian (or perhaps a freedwoman " s patron), CP/2:20–22, §148 (Egypt, 10 b.C.e.). 2571 Fee, Corinthians, 839. 2572 Ladd, Theology, 416–17. See further Longenecker, Christology, 136. 2573 Dibelius, Tradition, 96, emphasizes the gradual «disappearance of the boundaries between God and the God-sent man» in Hellenistic religious history in genera1. Arguing against this, Croy, «Neo-Pythagoreanism,» 741, thinks that hellenized Judaism resisted the blending of human and divine; yet this too may overstate the case (see below). 2574 By the second century Jesus» deity was widely affirmed by Christians (see Ign. Rom. 3; Eph. 7; Justin Dia1. 68:9; Athenagoras 24; perhaps 1 En. 48:5; etc.). Contrast «Ebionites,» Irenaeus Haer. 3.19; 5.1.3; cf. Kaye, Apology, 54; Chadwick, «Defence,» 287. 2575 E.g., Heracles (Cicero Tusc. 1.12.28; 2.7.17; cf. Nat. d. 2.24.62; 3.15.39); Apollonius (probably third- or fourth-century inscription; see Jones, «Epigram»; a demigod in Eunapius Lives 454). This also applied to divine lawgivers like Lycurgus (Herodotus Hist. 1.65–66; Plutarch Lycurgus 5.3) and occasional other mortals (Pausanias 8.9.6–8; 9.22.7). On the deification of heroes, cf. Nock, Paul, 96 (Heracles, the Dioscurai, Dionysus, and Asclepius); Hadas and Smith, Heroes. One may compare esp. the popular Asclepius, a former mortal who now cures diseases (cf. Pausanias 6 [Elis 2].l 1.9). 2576 E.g., Democritus (Diogenes Laertius 9.7.39); Pythagoras (Diogenes Laertius 8.1.11); «the divine Plato» (Cicero Opt. gen. 6.17; Leg. 3.1.1; Nat. d. 2.12.32; Plutarch Profit by Enemies 8, Mor. 90C; Apol1. 36, Mor. 120D; Philostostratus Epistulae 73, §13; cf. patristic sources in Grant, Gods, 63–64); Theodorus (Diogenes Laertius 2.100). People could be divinized by philosophy (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 48.11; Marcus Aurelius 4.16); philosophy " s goal, virtue (Seneca Dia1. 1.1.5; Epictetus Diatr. 2.19.26–28; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 3.18,29; 8.5; Plotinus On Virtues 1.2.7; cf. also Koester, Introduction, 1:353); proper knowledge of onés humanity (Plutarch Pompey 27.3); faithfulness (Sent. Sext. 7ab, a Hellenistic Christian source); or, in some systems, death (Cicero Leg. 2.9.22; 2.22.55). See Alexander, «Ipse dixit,» 109–10. |
| Most disciples in the Gospel had begun to «believe» Jesus before the resurrection, often with minimal signs (cf. 1:49); they become paradigmatic for believers after Jesus» ascension. 10775 Like the disciples before the resurrection appearances, John " s own audience comprised entirely, or almost entirely, believers through the word of others (17:20), who had not seen Christ for themselves (cf. 1Pet 1:8 ); 10776 through Jesus» words to Thomas, John exhorts his own audience to believe despite having to depend on the eyewitnesses. The Spirit, after all, presented the real Jesus through the witnesses» testimony ( John 16:7–11 ). Signs-faith is not rejected here; Thomas " s faith is a start. But signs are not always available, and signs do not in themselves guarantee faith (6:26; 11:45–47). Thus Jesus provides a beatitude (see comment on 13:17) for those who believe without signs, on the testimony of others about signs Jesus already worked (20:30–31). The argument that those who had not seen yet believed were more blessed (20:29) would have been intelligible in terms of Jewish logic about rewards. 10777 But as Thomas " s confession demonstrates, the true, resurrection faith requires more than commitment to Jesus (cf. 11:16); it requires in addition the recognition of Jesus» divine role. 10375 Niccacci, «Fede,» emphasizes parallels between 1:19–51 and 20:1–29, including in the four units of each section (some others make the parallels with the epilogue, ch. 21–e.g., Breck, «Conclusion»; Ellis, «Authenticity»). 10376 Cf. Sabugal, «Resurreccion.» 10377 See Brown, «Resurrection.» 10378 Here we have used material especially from Keener, Matthew, 697–712. 10379 Dodd, Tradition, 148. 10380 See Lindars, «Composition,» 147. He believes that John utilized his material creatively (Lindars, Behind, 76). 10381 Wenham, «Narratives»; Gundry, Matthew, 590–91. 10382 The sudden ending in Mark 16fits some ancient narration patterns; though in some cases, e.g., L.A.B., the ending may be lost, one may compare also abrupt original endings, e.g., in some of Plutarch " s speeches (Fame of Athenians 8, Mor. 351B; Fort. Alex. 2.13, Mor. 345B; Fort. Rom. 13, Mor. 326C; Uned. R. 7, Mor. 782F); Isocrates Demon. 52, Or. 1; Demetrius 5.304; Lucan C.W. 10.542–546; Herodian 8.8.8. See esp. Magness, Sense, for more ancient literary parallels; for consistency with Markan style, especially a final γρ, cf. Boomershine and Bartholomew, «Technique.» An abbreviated conclusion allows Mark to retain the centrality of the cross without actually playing down the resurrection (cf. also Thompson, Debate, 225), because he points to resurrection appearances beyond his narrative (e.g., Anderson, Mark, 353; Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 42; Hooker, Mark, 120». Farmer, Verses, even makes a noteworthy case on external (pp. 3–75) and internal (79–103) grounds that Mark 16:9–20 has more support for being the original ending than usually accepted. |
| Непокорство . Taken from Faber, Dominica 2 Post Pascha, No. 2 «Damnatur inobedientia, et rebellio contra Superiores». The poem summarises the whole sermon, though not consecutively: 11. 1–14 cf sect. 1 «Per earn offenditur Deus»: «Quatuor potissimum rationes, quamobrem inobedientiam et rebellionem contra Superiores cavere debeamus, adducit Apostolus ad Rom. 13 Prima. Quia redundat in ipsum Deum.» 11. 15–22 cf sect. 3 «Offenditur proximus»: «Sic Core, Dathan, Abiron et Hon, rebellions contra Moysen auctores traxerunt secum in eamdem rebellionem alios 250. viros, quos absumpsit ignis [ Num. 16.1–35 ].» 11. 23–30 cf sect. 1: «Ita olim Deus ad Samuelem dixit de Hebraeorum populo, qui repudiato Samuele aequissimo Iudice, postularat sibi regem iuxta morem gentium. Non te abiecerunt, sed me, ne regnem super eos, 1. Reg. 8.[ 1Sam. 8.7 ].» 11. 39–46 cf sect. 3: «Sic enim rebellis ille Draco, Lucifer, traxit cauda sua, id est, hortatu et exemplo tertiam partem stellarum in terrain, maximam inquam partem Angelorum in infemum, ut dicitur Apoc. 12.[Rev. 12.4] et exponit D. Thom. 1 p.q. 63. art. et alii 7.» 11. 47–54 cf sect. 4 «Offenditur ipse rebellis»: «Offenditur ipsemet rebellis, et quidem gravissime, quia ut cit. loco ait Apost. qui resistunt, ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt [ Rom. 13.2 ]. Damnationem vero multiplicem. Primo perturbationem et pavorem perpetuum in conscientia, quae semper eis praesagit, non fore impune suum peccatum. ... Secundo, damnationem temporalem. ... Terra non sustinuit rebelles illos Corem, Dathan et Abiron, ut diximus, sed dirupta subter eis, vivos absorbuit.» Нерадение . Taken from Faber, Dominica 12 Post Pentecosten, No. 9 «Documenta [on the Gospel for the day, viz. Luke 10.23–37]», sect. 3 «Discunt clerici: 1 Curam habere animarum»: «Sicut medicus si neglexerit aegrotum, quern iuvare poterat, culpae reus fit: ita Sacerdotes pro populorum iniquitate damnantur, si eos aut ignorantes non erudiunt, aut peccantes non arguunt, inquit S. Isidorus 1. 3. de summo bono.» |
| 5:8. There is thus no reason to reject the interpretation according to which this passage has to do with the institution of presbyters and in particular their place in the Eucharistic assembly, especially given that, as Professor P.Bratsiotis observes (ibid., p.122), “this heavenly liturgy [in the Apocalypse] is a type of the earthly liturgy according to the Orthodox understanding”. Ignatius’ phrase “the Bishop with the presbyterium” (Smyrn. 8:1 and Eph. 20:2) most likely also takes its origin from the celebration of the Divine Eucharist which Ignatius had in mind. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that this phrase appears immediately after a reference to the Eucharist and as part of Ignatius’ more general effort to underline its unity 230 This arrangement of the Eucharist is likewise presupposed by texts such as Justin’s First Apology, 65 and 67; Hippolytus, Apost. Trad. (Dix, 6 and 40f.) etc 231 The Johannine understanding of the Divine Eucharist was precisely theocentric: “My Father gives you the true bread from heaven” ( Jn. 6:32 ). The Bishop who occupied the throne in the Altar was therefore seen as the living icon of God or of Christ (Ignatius, Tral. 3:1 and Magn. 3:1). Anyone who does not obey the “visible” bishop “seeks to mock the one who is invisible”, i.e. God (Magn. 3:2). Cf. likewise the connection between the “unity of God” and “unity in the episcope ”which Ignatius makes in Polyc. 8:3. The conception that the Bishop is an “icon of Christ” was long preserved (see Ps-Clement, Hom. 3:62 – Syria, fourth century) 233 Ignatius, Magn. 6: “Be united with the Bishop”. It is worthy of particular note that Ignatius “does not hesitate to characterize union with Christ as union with the Bishop” (K.Bonis, “St.Ignatius the God-bearer and His Views on the Church” (in Greek) in Orthodoxos Skepsis, 1 (1958), p.39) 237 Ignatius, Magn. 11:1. Cf. also Tral. 8:1, “Not because I know of anything of the sort among you; but since you are dear to me I put you on your guard, knowing the wiles of the devil” 238 The term apodiylismos (Lat. abstractio) does not mean division into groups, but disintegration or divisions of an individualistic nature, as in 1Corinthians (“I am of Paul”, etc.). Cf. also the “passers by”, or isolated people, in Ignatius Eph. 9:1 and Rom. 9:3 239 Ignatius, Philad. 3:1. This should have been taken into account by W.Bauer (Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, 1964 (2ed.), p.67) who wrongly regards what Ignatius says about unity as a mere wish on the part of the apostolic Father and talks about an “Ignatian faction” (Ignatiusgruppe) in order to support his theories about the preexistence and prevalence of heresy in the early Church which are otherwise proved groundless 241 |
| On the date see: T. Tenšek, L’ascetismo nel Conci lio di Gangra: Eustazio di Sebaste nell’ambiente ascetico siriaco dell’Asia Minore nel IV° secolo, Excerpta ex dissertatione ad Doctoratum in Facultae Theologiae Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, (Rome 1991), 23-24. J. Gribomont, “Le monachisme au IVe s. en Asie Mineure : de Gangres au messalianisme,” Studia Patristica 2 (Berlin 1957), 400-415. P. Joannou, Fonti. Discipline générale antique (IVe- IXes.), fasc. IX, (Grottaferrata-Rome 1962), t. I, 2, 89. English trans. from The Rudder (Pedalion), trans. by D. Cummings (Chicago 1957), 523. See Tenšek, L’ascetismo 17-28.9 Joannou, Discipline 91; The Rudder 524. Tenšek, L’ascetismo 28. Joannou, Discipline 94; The Rudder 527. On the later development in Byzantium see P. Viscuso, „Purity and Sexual Defilement in Late Byzantine Theology,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 57 (1991) 399-408. Cf. H. Hunger, “Christliches und Nichtchristliches20im byzantinischen Eherecht,“ Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht 3 (1967) 305-325. 10 C. L. Feltoe (ed.), The Letters and Other Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria (Cambridge 1904), 102-103. For date and authenticity see P. Joannou, Discipline générale antique (IVe- IXes.) 1-2 (Grottaferratta-Rom 1962), 2, 12. Translation adapted from The Rudder 718. Patriarch Pavle, “Moet li enš?ina” 24. R. F . Taft, The Communion, Thanksgiving, and Concluding Rites (Rome202008), 205-207 (in press). See the commentary of Theodore Balsamon (ca. 1130/40-post 1195) on this canon: In epist. S. Dionysii Alexandrini ad Basilidem episcopum, can. 2, PG 138: 465C-468A. Can. 8, Rallis-Potlis II, 133. English translation in The Rudder 719. Zonaras is repeated verbatim by Patriarch Pavle, “Moet li enš?ina” 25.11 Klutschewsky, “Frauenrollen” 174. See the questions-answers of Fr. Maxim Kozlov on the website of the St. Tatiana Church in Moscow: www.st-tatiana.ru/index.html?did=389. CPG 244; Joannou, Discipline II, 243-244, 264. W. Riedel, Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien (Leipzig 1900), 209. See English translation in P. Bradshaw (ed.), The Canons of Hippolytus, English trans. by C. Bebawi (Bramcote 1987),20. |
| 588 See above, Part I, Ch.2, especially at the end. On this cf. also the study of O.Perler, “L’Évêque Représentant du Christ...” in L’Épiscopat et l’Église Universelle, pp.31–36 591 The original connection of the deacons directly and exclusively with the Bishop is clearly attested by texts such as Apostolic Tradition, 9.2, the Syriac Didascalia etc. This is due to the fact that, as we have seen, the Bishop continued to be the leader of the Eucharist to which the ministry of the deacons was principally connected. Cf. above n.212 602 The first person to write about the authenticity of this work was E.Schwartz, Über die pseudoapostolischen Kirchenordnungen (Schriften der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strassburg, 6), 1910, who simply expressed the opinion that the Latin text of the so-called Egyptian Tradition represents the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus which was thought lost. This view of Schwartz’ was first proved right through serious arguments by R.H.Connolly, The So-called Egyptian Church Order and Derived Documents (Texts and Studies, 8, 4), 1916, and received still further support from H.Elfers, Die Kirchenordnung Hippolyts von Rom, 1938. The text circulated more widely through the anonymous work Die apostolische Überlieferung des hl.Hippolytus, 1932, but the best critical edition hitherto remains that of G.Dix, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of Saint Hippolytus of Rome, 1937, to which has been added those of B.Botte, “Hippolyte de Rome. La Tradition Apostolique” (Sources Chrétiennes, No.11), 1946, and more recently Eiusdem: “La Tradition Apostolique de Saint Hippolyte” (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 39), 1963 603 Apostolic Tradition, 3 (ed. B.Botte in Liturgiewissen. Quellen, p.7): “Da, cordis cognitor Pater, super hunc seruum tuum, quem elegisti ad episcopatu[m], pascere gregem sanctam tuam, et primatum sacerdotii tibi exhibere sine repraehensione, seruientem noctu et die, incessanter repropitiari vultum tuum et offere dona sancta[e] ecclesiae tuae, sp[irit]u[m] primatus sacerdotii habere potestatem dimittere peccata secundum mandatum tuum...” [“O Father who knowest the heart, bestow on this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen to the episcopate to shepherd Thy holy flock and to fulfill the high-priestly office without reproach, serving night and day; unceasingly to make supplication before Thy face; and to offer the gifts of Thy holy Church, and in the spirit of the high-priesthood to have the power to remit sins according to Thy command...”] |
| 19 Amy Clampitt, Archaic Figure (London: Faber & Faber, 1988), 18. 20 For an exhaustive discussion of the reconciliation of these five divisions, see Thunberg (1965), 396–454. 21 For a much fuller discussion of the cosmic role of the humanity of Christ, see Heinzer (1980), 149–61. 22 See Riou (1973), 123–200. 23 This second part is sufficiently detailed for it to be possible to reconstruct the sequence of the liturgy of Maximus’ day, as has been done in Brightman (1896), 534–9. 24 For a brief account of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, see Louth (1989), 52–77. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTS 1 I owe this information to the kindness of B.Markesinis, who is working on the critical edition of the Opuscula. 2 Psa. (LXX) 1–8=Psa. (Heb.) 1–8; Psa. (LXX) 9=Psa. (Heb.) 910; Psa. (LXX) 10–112=Psa. (Heb.) 11–113; Psa. (LXX) 113=Psa. (Heb.) 114 115; Psa. (LXX) 114=Psa. (Heb.) 116:1–9; Psa. (LXX) 115=Psa. (Heb.) 116:10–19; Psa. (LXX) 116–145=Psa. (Heb.) 117–146; Psa. 146 (LXX)=Psa. (Heb.) 147:1–11; Psa. 147 (LXX)=Psa. (Heb.) 147:12–20; Psa. (LXX) 148–150=Psa. (Heb.) 148–150. 3 I have often been content with Migne references, especially where (as with the modern critical edition of Denys the Areopagite) these references are given in the modern editions anyway. LETTER 2: ON LOVE 1 There is a French translation of this letter in Dalmais (1948), but I have not been able to consult it. 2 Cf. Rom. 13:10 and Matt. 22:40. 3 The incensive power. 4 ‘That which is within our power’ (to eph’imin): see Amb. 10, n. 122. 5 Gnomi. 6 Maximus was later, during the Monothelite controversy, to retract this way of putting the unity of will and inclination between God and the saints: see Opusc. 1:33A, where he retracts his reference to ‘one activity of God and those worthy of God’ (Amb. 7:1076C). 7 stoicheion: element or principle. 8 One of the ‘Chalcedonian’ adverbs. 9 Logos and tropos. 10 This paragraph seems to be based on the idea, found in Philo, that the name Abraham means ‘elect father of sound’, signifying the good man’s reasoning: see below Amb. 10.45 and n. 126. |
| Deut. 5:9. 2549 О том, что Василид учил о перевоплощении Климент пишет в четвертой книге своего основного произведения. Грешные души, согласно Василиду, вынуждены проводить здесь еще одну жизнь как наказание, избранные же за их свидетельствование (или мучения — diaÜ marturi/ou) получают отпущение грехов (Strom. IV, 83,2). Об этом же говорит Ориген (In Epist. ad Rom., 5). 2550 Двусмысленный пассаж. Тишина понимает Отца, но свойственным ей образом (см. след. Извл. 30). Фактически, только Сын знает его. Casey предложил kate/laben исправить как не понимала ou) kate/laben. Однако такое исправление, как справедливо замечает Sagnard, в данном контексте неоправданно. Термин kate/laben cf. Io. 1:5. 2551 Col. 2:9. 2552 Io. 1:2; Phil. 2:7. 2553 Текст испорчен. Casey предполагает лакуну после слова Топос: w(/ste kaiÜ tou=To/pou tw=n klh/twn taÜ a)ggelikaÜ au)th?=proba/llousa par ) au(th?=kate/xei… Избранные — это духовные сущности, которые созданы от начала. Что может создать и оставить при себе София? Очевидно, душевные сущности (то есть, женское семя или душевную природу) и того самого архонта, который здесь называется Топосом, в то время как у Иринея и Ипполита — Творцом или Демиургом. Возможно, это особенности терминологии самого Теодота. 2554 Mt. 5:16. 2555 Io. 1:9. 2556 Cf. Lc. 14:27. 2557 Весь последующий третий раздел базируется на том же источнике, что и Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I 4,5 — 7,5. 2558 Col. 1: 16; Phil. 2: 9–11; Eph. 4: 9. 2559 I Cor. 11:10. 2560 Io. 1:3. 2561 Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I 8, 5; Heracleon, fr. 2; Philo, De opifitio Mundi 30,31. 2562 Rom. 8: 20–22. 2563 Cf. Mt. 5:25; Rom. 7:25; Lk. 12:58; Mt. 12:29. 2564 Cf. Mt. 13:25; 13:39; Io. 10:1. 2565 Ср. фр. А Валентина. 2566 I Cor. 15: 47. 2567 Rom. 11:17.24. 2568 Rom. 11:25 sq. 2569 Cf. Rom. 5:12.14.20–21; Hebr. 2:14–15. 2570 o( me/gaj a)gwnisth/j. Cf. Clemens, Prot. 110, 3. 2571 eu(=ren )Ihsou=j (чтение предложенное Bunsen, MSS: Ihsou=n) Xristo/n e)ndu/sasqai toÜn prokekhrugme/non. 2572 LP. sfo/dra, Sofi/a? Sagnard. 2573 |
|
|
