| Apud Acco domos et obedientiam sanctae Catarinae. In civitate Damasci ecclesiam sancti Georgii et domos, et extra civitatem tria virgulta. Apud Laodichiam hospitale sancti Demetrii et tria casalia cum villanis et pertinentiis corundem. In loco, qui dicitur Odaue-vafe, domos, terras, et vineas. Apud Antiochiam domos et furnum. Apud Conftantinopolim in monafterio sancti Georgii de Mangana duas confratrias, et in proventibus commercii libram auri unam. In insula Cretensi sancti Salvatoris, sancti Georgii, et sancti Simeonis ecclesias cum omnibus pertinentiis eorundem, tria casalia cum villanis posseffionibus et pertinentiis eorundem. Apud Macritichon molendinum. Apud sanctum Nicolaum terras, vinea, et molendina. In loco, qui nuncupatur Rucanum, monafterium fancti Ioanni Crimi? cum monte, casalibus, villanis, molendinis, et pertinentiis eorundem. In locis, qui dicuntur Cunavo, Peia, Gaetania, Parascheve et Sterianorum vineas. In civitate, Candia ecclesias sancti Nicolai et sanctae Barbarae cum domibus et pertinentiis suis, et domum sancto Stratigo, libertatem quoque maris et terrae. In insula Cypri domos et in proventibus commercii libram auri unam, cum pratis, terris, vineis, nemoribus, usuagiis, et pascuis in bosco et plano, in aquis et molendinis, in viis et semitis, et omnibus aliis libertatibus et immunitatibus suis. Sane laborum veftrorum de possessionibus habitis ante concilium gnte (?) et etiam novalium, quae propriis manibus aut sumptibus colitis, sive de hortis, virgultis, et piscationibus veftris, vel de nutrimentis animalium veftrorum nullus a vobis decimas exigere vel extorquere praesumat. Praeterea quod communi affensu capituli, vel partis confilii sanioris in tua Dioecesi per te, frater Episcope, ac succeffores tuos fuerit canonice inftitutum; ratum et firmum volumus permanere. Prohibemus infuper, ne excomunicatos vel interdictos tuos frater episcope ad officium vel communionem ecclesiasticam sine conscientia et consensu tuo, vel successorum tuorum, quisquam» admittat, aut contra vefram sententiam canonice promulgatam aliquis venire praesumat, nisi forte periculum mortis immineat, et si extra praesentiam tuam ibi pervenerint per alium secundum formam ecclesiae satisfactione praemiffa oporteat ligatum absolvi. |
| Series Graeca/ed. J. P. Migne. 2 Catena in Epistulam ad Hebraeos/Ed. J. A. Cramer//Catenae graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum. Τ. 7. Catenae in sancti Pauli Epistolas ad Timotheum, Titum, Philemona et ad Hebraeos. Oxonii, 1843. P. 112–598. 4 Cyrillus Alexandrinus, st. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos/Introd., ed., trad. et not. A. Mai//PNB. T. 3. Romae, 1845. P. 107–127 (греческий текст), P. 69–82 (латинский перевод). 6 Cyrillus Alexandrinus, st. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos/Introd., ed., et not. P. E. Pusey//CAO. T. 5. Oxonii, 1872. P. 362–440. 7 Cyrillus Alexandrinus, st. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos/Introd., éd., trad. et notes J. Lebon//Le Muséon. 1931. 44. P. 72–88 (армянский текст), P. 89–102 (латинский перевод); Cyrillus Alexandrinus, st. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos/Introd., éd., trad. et notes J. Lebon//Le Muséon. 1933. 46. P. 241–244 (армянский текст), P. 244–245 (латинский перевод). 8 Parvis P. M. The Commentary on Hebrews and the Contra Theodorum of Cyril of Alexandria. P. 415–419. 15 Мы ссылаемся на текст «Толкования» по критическому изданию Ф.Э. Пьюзи: Cyrillus Alexandrinus, st. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos/Introd., ed., et not. P.E. Pusey. При этом первое число указывает номер страницы, а второе – номер строки в данном издании. 16 «И будет в день он, защитит Господь живущих во Иерусалиме: и будет немощный в них в той день яко дом Давидов, а дом Давидов, яко дом Божий, якоже ангел Господень пред ними». 17 Cyrillus Alexandrinus, st. Commentarius in Zachariam. V. Рус. перевод см.: Кирилл Алек- сандрийский, свт. Толкование на пророка Захарию. С. 183–186. 18 Cyrillus Alexandrinus, st. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos/Introd., ed., et not. P. E. Pusey. P. 397–398. Читать далее Источник: Материалы X Международной студенческой научно-богословской конференции к 100-летию подвига новомучеников и исповедников Церкви Русской: Сборник - Санкт-Петербург: Изд. Религиозная организация - духовная образовательная организация высшего образования СПбПДА, 2017. - 532 с./Никулин М., свящ. Превосходство Нового Завета над Ветхим и веры над законом в «Толковании на послание к евреям» свт. Кирилла Александрийского. 293-299 с. Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное |
| Jesus declares, «It has been finished!» (19:30), and John reminds his audience that the Sabbath began at sundown that evening (19:31). (John does not invent this Sabbath tradition–cf. Mark 15:42 –but may make theological use of it.) 10219 Or Jesus may have «finished» «preparing» dwelling places for believers (14:2–3); or «finished» may signify the fulfillment of Scripture (19:28) and Jesus " word (18:32). 10220 5C. Handing Over His Spirit (19:30b) Jesus bows his head, perhaps as a matter of mortal weakness (cf. 4:6) but, on the Johannine level, perhaps as an authoritative nod of approva1. 10221 What invites more comment is what follows: Jesus «gave his spirit.» John probably intends «finish» to include the work of redemption (cf. 1:29). One suggestion that might support this probability is the appearance of John " s verb for the surrender of Jesus» spirit, παραδδωμι, twice in the LXX of Isa 53(παρεδθη). 10222 By itself, such an observation would remain insignificant; the verb is frequent elsewhere. But John elsewhere portrays Jesus» death in servant language, especially «glorified» and «lifted up» (Isa 52LXX), and his proclivity toward double entendres commends for us the possibility that he reads the «betrayals» of the Passion Narrative in light of Isaiah. In Isaiah LXX as elsewhere in the Passion Narrative, the «handing over» is in the passive voice; here Jesus takes the lead in his death, consistent with John " s Christology and view of Jesus» «hour» and submission to the Father " s wil1. Although the departure (often breathing out) of onés spirit appears frequently in ancient texts as a euphemism for death, 10223 that Jesus gave up his spirit (19:30) is theologically significant. In Mark " s tradition, Jesus breathed his final «breath» (εξπνευσεν, Mark 15:37 ); here he hands over his «spirit» (πνεμα, John 19:30 ), suggesting a Johannine twist on a more familiar tradition. (What John would add to Mark may also stem from tradition; see Luke 23:46, where Jesus «commits» his «spirit» to God before «breathing» his last breath.) The text does not clarify to whom Jesus hands over his spirit; probably the term for «hand over» here is employed for its symbolic value (see below; cf. 18:2, 30; 19:16) rather than with an indirect object in view, but if an indirect object is implied, it must be the Father (Luke 23:46). This image of handing over his spirit to his Father could evoke the Roman custom in which the nearest kin would receive in the mouth the dying person " s final breath to ensure the survival of that person " s spirit (spiritum). 10224 But the custom seems to have been a local Italian one largely removed from John " s eastern Mediterranean audience, 10225 and in any case, a more typical Johannine image is likely. |
| Although the purification aspect of the Spirit is important here, the other main aspect of the Spirit, as prophetic anointing to declare God " s message, is explicit in this text. 10716 Immediately before Jesus commands them to receive the «Holy Spirit» (the phrase connects the Spirit of purification in 1and the Spirit of prophecy in 14:26), he commissions them to carry on his own mission from the Father (20:21). (This phrase appears only three times in the Gospel, including its first and final uses. Just as the Gospel proper concludes with Thomas " s confession of Jesus» deity, forming a christological inclusio with the prologue, this passage closes a slightly smaller pneumatological inclusio.) These relate to the prophetic mission of his disciples. John 20:19–23 binds together the two main pneumatological motifs in the Fourth Gospel, showing that only those who are purified or regenerated by the Spirit will be empowered by him to experience and proclaim the risen Christ. For John, all those who believe are to «receive» the Spirit after Jesus» glorification (7:39), so the experience depicted here for the disciples functions proleptically for the whole church. The language of «receiving the Spirit» (also 14:17; cf. 1 John 2:27 ) accords with early Christian tradition, normally for the experience of new relationship ( Rom 8:15 ; 1Cor 2:12 ; 2Cor 11:4 ; Gal 3:2, 14 ) or empowerment for mission (Acts 1:8) temporally at (Acts 10:47), or theologically implicit in (Acts 2:33; 19:2), conversion, although in the early church " s experience it may have applied to a postconversion experience in some cases (Acts 8:15, 17). 10717 That John uses λαμβνω rather than δχομαι here (20:22) does not merit more than passing interest, although the former term could sometimes bear stronger force. In the whole Gospel, John employs the latter term only once (4:45, and nowhere in the Epistles; probably interchangeably with λαμβνω; cf. 4:44; 1:11) and the former forty-six times (plus six times in the Epistles). The imperative may, however, connote that although the gift is freely offered to all, it must be embraced by those who would accept the offer. 10718 «Receiving» the Spirit here also refers to the beginning of an indwelling (14:17,23) and hence implies a fuller inspiration than that reported among the biblical prophets. 10719 |
| Our investigation of this motif in the background of the Paraclete will not provide the same fertile ground we found in the prologue; here there is no concerted parallelism between John " s subject and divine Wisdom, and also no development in rabbinic sources from Wisdom to the Spirit to provide material from that massive body of literature for analysis. But the parallels are at least suggestive, as Harris, Isaacs, and others have already noted. In addressing the Pleroma of sapiential tradition, Harris argued early in the twentieth century that «the Holy Spirit came into the Christian Theology through the bifurcation of the doctrine of the Divine Wisdom, which, on the one side, became the Logos, and on the other the Holy Ghost.» 8666 While he failed to develop any «bifurcation» adequately in pre-Christian texts, his observations concerning the relationship of the Spirit and Wisdom derive sufficient support from the LXX wisdom traditions to warrant serious consideration as important background for the personality of the Spirit where this occurs in the NT. Regarding especially the Fourth Gospel, Isaacs observes that «it is an over-simplification to talk of a «bifurcation»»: Whatever was to take place in later theology, no such development has taken place in the Fourth Gospe1. We have already seen [pp. 122–23] that John keeps Jesus and the spirit-paraclete in the closest possible relationship. In fact it could be argued that, far from reflecting any division, John drew upon wisdom concepts precisely in order to emphasize a continuity between the ministry of Jesus and that of the spirit. 8667 Wisdom and the Spirit are paralleled in Wis 9:17: And who has known your counsel, Unless you have given [δωκας] wisdom [σοφαν], And sent [επεμψας] his holy Spirit from above [π υψστων]? Thus men of earth below were taught (Wis 9:18). Wisdom will not enter a sinful person (Wis 1:4), for the γιον πνεμα of παιδεα will flee from sin and not let it enter (1:5). For Wisdom is a spirit who cares for men [Φιλνθρωπον γρ πνεμα σοφα];... |
| Yet there is good reason why in this Trinity we call none Word of God but the Son, none gift of God but the Holy Spirit, none of whom the Word is begotten and from whom the Spirit originally proceeds, but God the Father. I add the word ’originally’ (principaliter) because we learn that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son (XV. 29, LCC 158) The fundamental idea running through this extract, as Gunton perspicaciously notices, is that Augustine realizes the very basic requirement for a doctrine of the Trinity, namely a conceptual distinction between Son and Spirit (53). In other words, he is intentionally moving on the stream of the Cappadocians rather than on that of the unitarianists or ditheists. Yet, there is an important issue here not to overlook, namely Patriarch Gregory Cyprius’ (1283–89) claim that it is a grave mistake to equate both terms- δια του Υιο and ‘ex Patre filioque’, because the former bears on the everlasting manifestation of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son (an aspect of the theology of oikonomia), while the latter is applied to the eternal coming into being of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit (an aspect of immanent theology) ( Apologia, PG 142, 240D-241A). According to his interpretation “the ‘ex’ has a bearing on the existential origin both of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and therefore has to be associated with the Father as the sole source and cause of the godhead, whereas the ‘ δια’ is linked to the eternal emission, epiphany and sending of the Holy Spirit and therefore should be associated with hypostasis of the Son” (Alexopoulos 187). One must acknowledge that the Patriarch Photius himself never ascribed ill-intention to Ambrosius and Augustine concerning their idea regarding the double procession of the Holy Spirit. He held to the conviction that they were simply inaccurate (Alexopoulos 30). One may surmise that what Augustine presumably endeavored to express lexically by means of the filioque was either the idea of co-inherence (a theological concept against any peril of tritheism), a term unknown to him at the time, or the idea of a congruence between the immanent and economic theology (Alexopoulos 196-197). The consequences of this awkward wording, though, proved to be fateful both for the later theological developments in the West as well as for the unity of the Christian Church (Gunton 40-59). Patriarch Photius’ major accomplishments was that he both was in the vanguard of attempts to contain the serious theological and philosophical problems associated the filioque, and generated a counter-argument that carried the pretense of tenability. |
| In Byzantine liturgical language, the term koinonia («communion») is the specific expression designating the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic community, and one of the key notions in Basil " " s treatise on the Holy Spirit. 324 This observation is important inasmuch as it emphasizes that the «communion» of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, as divine Trinity, the «communion of the Holy Spirit» which introduces man into divine life, and the «communion» or «community» which is then created between men in Christ, not only are designated with the same term, but, ultimately, represent the same spiritual experience and reality. The Church is not simply a society of human beings, associated with each other by common beliefs and goals; it is a koinonia in God and with God. And if God Himself were not a Trinitarian koinonia, if He were not three Persons, the Church could never be an association of persons, irreducible to each other in their personal identity. Participation in divine life would be nothing more than a Neoplatonic or Buddhist integration into an impersonal " " One.» The very specific «oneness» realized in the Eucharistic koinonia, is, par excellence, a gift of the Spirit. One of the recurring themes in the Byzantine hymnography of Pentecost is a parallel drawn between the «confusion» of Babel and the «union» and «symphony» effected by the descent of the Spirit in tongues of fire: «When the Most High came down and confused the tongues, He divided the nations; but when He distributed the tongues of fire, He called all to unity. Therefore, with one voice, we glorify the all-holy Spirit.» 325 The Spirit does not suppress the pluralism and variety of creation; nor, more particularly, does He exclude the truly personal experience of God, accessible to each man; He overcomes division, contradiction, and corruption. He Himself is the «symphony» of creation, which will be fully realized in the eschatological fulfillment. The Church " " s function is to render this fulfillment accessible by anticipation through its role of «sanctification,» effected by the Spirit. |
| Thus the mystery of the Church has its birth in the entire economy of the Trinity and in a pneumatologically constituted Christology. The Spirit as “power” or “giver of life” opens up our existence to become relational, so that he may at the same time be “communion” (κοινωνα, cf. II Cor. 13). For this reason the mystery of the Church is essentially none other than that of the “One” who is simultaneously “many” – not “One” who exists first of all as “One” and then as “many,” but “One” and “many” at the same time. 184 In the context of a Christology constructed in this pneumatological manner, truth and communion once more become identical. This happens on the historical and anthropolgical levels alike. While the Christ-truth, as existence in the Spirit, cannot be imagined individualistically, truth itself is inevitably and constantly realised in the Spirit, i.e. in a pentecostal event. In the description of Pentecost in Acts 2, the significance of the event seems related as much to history as to anthropology: through the outpouring of the Spirit, the “last days” enter into history, while the unity of humanity is affirmed as a diversity of charisms. Its deep significance seems to lie in the fact that this takes place in Christ, viewed both historically and also anthropologically, as a here-and-now reality. The objectivization and individualization of historical existence which implies distance, decay and death is transformed into existence in communion, and hence eternal life for mankind and all creation. In a like manner, the individualization of human existence which results in division and separation is now transformed into existence in communion where the otherness of persons (“on each of them separately,” Acts 2:3) is identical with communion within a body. 185 Christ’s existence, as described above, is thus made historical and personal through the same movement of the Spirit of God which made Christ Himself into a historical being. The truth seen as Christ and the truth seen as the Holy Spirit are identical, and therefore the Spirit himself is called “the Spirit of truth” ( Jn. 14:17, 15:26, 16:13 ). Only the mode of the operation of truth differs, a Christ-mode and a Spirit-mode, such that the one divine love may accommodate itself (the economy) to our needs and limitations. |
| Others show that John 20:19–23 fulfills specific promises of the final discourse, especially the promise of the Spirit (14:16–17, 27) and Jesus» promise that after he went away, he would return to them (14:18–19, 22). 10646 Other allusions include the fulfillment of «peace» (14:27; 20:19,21) and «rejoicing» (16:20–24; 20:20), 10647 and the language of rebirth or re-creation in Jesus breathing on them also recalls earlier Johannine pneumatological motifs (3:3, 8; 20:22). 10648 Empowerment for mission (20:21, 23; cf. Acts 1:8) fits Jesus» earlier promises (15:26–27; 16:7–11). Jesus» glorification began at the cross, so it is logical in the narrative for Jesus to make available the Spirit at this point (7:39), although this by itself would not exclude a continuing or further impartation later. 10649 The present passage merely confirms the link between Jesus» return after the resurrection and the impartation of the Spirit already implied in the final discourse; 10650 the fulfillment is nearly as clear as that between Luke 24and Acts 2:4. 10651 Thus some write that this passage and Acts 2 ultimately represent the same event. 10652 After summarizing arguments for identifying 20with Pentecost, Turner offers several reasoned arguments distinguishing the two events, to each of which I will respond in turn. 10653 First, Turner states that the glorification (a prerequisite for the Spirit " s coming, 7:39) is not complete by 20because the ascension remains future (20:17). 10654 I agree that the ascension remains future (see my comment on 20:17), but would argue that for the purposes of John " s theological point, Jesus was already «lifted up» sufficiently on the cross for the Spirit to be «given» proleptically (and symbolically) in 19:30. Second, Turner argues that Jesus will not be present when he provides the Spirit, since 16says he will «send» the Spirit to them after his departure. In view of the larger narrative, I would contend that this argument reads too much into the particular words, which if pressed would undercut Turner " s argument as well; Jesus «goes» at his death and returns at the resurrection (16:16–22), so sending the Spirit in his absence should technically place the Spirit " s coming before the resurrection. The language of «sending» deliberately parallels the Father sending the Son, without necessary reference to distinction in location; it simply involves delegated authority and mission (as in 20:21,23). |
| Несмотря на то что проповеди М. кратки и динамичны, его проповедание вряд ли было спонтанным; вероятнее всего, он заранее делал необходимые наброски и готовил цитаты. В частности, в его проповедях встречаются довольно пространные выдержки из сочинений свт. Амвросия, особенно из «Изъяснения Евангелия от Луки» (Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam; CPL, N 143) и «Шестоднева» (Exameron; CPL, N 123). У свт. Амвросия М. заимствовал трактовку мн. библейских сюжетов и образов, напр. притчи о горчичном зерне (см.: Maxim. Taurin. Serm. 24-25; ср.: Ambros. Mediol. In Luc. VII 175-179), толкование 1-го искушения Христа диаволом в пустыне (см.: Maxim. Taurin. Serm. 51; ср.: Ambros. Mediol. In Luc. IV 16-18) и т. п. Подобно свт. Амвросию, М. сопоставляет роль Евы в грехопадении Адама и роль служанки в отречении ап. Петра (см.: Maxim. Taurin. Serm. 75. 3; ср.: Ambros. Mediol. In Luc. X 75). Иногда, следуя свт. Амвросию, М. развивал его мысли и предлагал довольно неожиданные прочтения событий священной истории. Так, опираясь на толкование свт. Амвросием истории с Улиссом и сиренами ( Ambros. Mediol. In Luc. IV 2), М. рассматривает спасение Улисса через древо (т. е. деревянную мачту корабля, к к-рой тот был привязан, чтобы не впасть в безумие от песен сирен) как прообраз человеческого спасения через животворящее древо Креста Христова ( Maxim. Taurin. Serm. 37. 2). В др. проповеди (Ibid. 57; также ср.: Ibid. 58) он толкует суд над Сусанной , без вины обвиненной старцами (см.: Дан 13. 1-64), как прообраз суда над Спасителем, указывая в т. ч. и на вербальные сходства в повествованиях Книги прор. Даниила и Евангелия от Матфея. Подобно тому как прор. Даниил воскликнул: «Чист я от крови ее!» (Дан 13. 46), Пилат провозгласил: «Невиновен я в крови Праведника Сего» (Мф 27. 24). Показательным примером оригинальной и неожиданной интерпретации в проповедях М. отдельных библейских образов является объяснение слов из Псалтири: «Гортань их - открытый гроб» (Пс 5. 10). М. сопоставляет их с открывшимся после Воскресения гробом Иисуса Христа. В псалме метафора «открытый гроб» служит для характеристики врагов праведника и несет заведомо негативный смысл, тогда как у М. «открытый гроб» понимается как гортань евангелистов и в конечном счете как Свящ. Писание: «Верно говорит пророк, ибо открытый гроб Христа - это гортань евангелистов, через которую воспевают то, что принадлежит вечной сокровищнице Писаний» ( Maxim. Taurin. Serm. 39. 2; обзор наиболее типичных для проповедей М. образов и метафор см.: Conroy. 1965). |
|
|
