| 595 Жукович 1901. С. 92; Коялович М.О. Литовская церковная уния. Т. 1. СПб., 1859. С. 84–90; Плохий 1989 С. 47; Likowski 1907. S. 94–95; Halecki 1968. P. 238–239. 602 Lewicki 1933. S. 78–79. М.С. Грушевский также интерпретируется события июня 1590 г. в ином свете, чем О. Халецкий (Грушевський 1994. Т. 5. С. 565–569). 604 М.С. Грушевский не видит оснований в нем сомневаться (Грушевський 1994. Т. 5. С. 562), однако нужно иметь в виду, что свидетельство Потея – единственное в своем роде. 606 Таков взгляд на генезис унии О. Халецкого и Б. Гудзяка («challenged and provoked by the vitality in the Christian West, the Ruthenian bishops gradually came to see in the West models and means for satiating the spiritual hunger of thir flock»; «the idea of union with Rome, as a means of overcoming religious discord in the Common wealth even at the expense of (temporary) separation from the patriarchate of Constantinople, developed gradually along with the bishops’ growing awareness of the crisis in the Ruthenian community and the need for reform in and spiritual revitalization of the «Church of the Greek law»; «they saw in Rome not only the primacial Apostolic See, separation from which was simply wrong and spiritually detrimental to their flock, but also a Church on the move that was effectively reading the signs of the times» [Gudziak 1998. P. 250, 252–253]). 607 Утверждение Э. Ликовского, будто вскоре после собора «Терлецкий наконец вручил королю Белзскую декларацию с подписями 4-х епископов, обратившись прежде к Замойскому и епископу Мацеевскому» (Likowski 1907. S. 99), ни на чем не основано и не подтверждено никакими ссылками. 608 Жукович П.Н. Брестский собор 1591 г. (по новооткрытой грамоте, содержащей деяния его)//Известия Отделения русского языка и словесности Академии наук. XII (1907). Кн. 2. С. 45–71. 609 О. Халецкий пробует все-таки связать решения собора с подготовкой унии. Он обращает внимание, что собор поручил проверку церковных книг Терлецкому и Балабану, и считает, что доверие, оказанное двум епископам, чье тяготение к унии должно было быть известно собору, «ясно показывает», что среди его участников не было недовольства такой позицией. |
| 2793 Trapp, Maximus, 182 n. 9; Maximus of Tyre preferred Platós looseness in vocabulary (Or. 21.4). 2794 Nock, «Vocabulary,» 137. One should merely take care to avoid «improper» synonyms (Rowe, «Style,» 123–24); for ancient discussion of synonyms, see, e.g., Porphyry Ar. Cat. 68.5–27. In some writers a more consistent sense obtained, but this was unusual (Aulus Gellius 2.5.1). 2795 Morris, Studies, 293–319; Nicholson, Death, 135. His overall stylistic simplicity could also be viewed as fitting some rhetorical practice before the Second Sophistic (see, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Isoc. 2, 3,12; Demosth. 5–6,18). 2807 Inscriptions demonstrate the use of faith language in patronal relationships; see, e.g., Seneca Benef. 3.14.2; Marshall, Enmity, 21–24; DeSilva, Honor, 115–16,145; idem, «Patronage,» 768 (following Danker, Benefactor). 2808 E.g., Ovid Metam. 3.513–518. To disbelieve (πιστων) is to act unjustly (δικσεις, Philostratus Hrk. 17.1). 2812 The terms are from Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 72. Koester, «Hearing,» distinguishes those who «hear» about Jesus and proceed to true faith, from those who «see» Jesus and do not (the categories are not airtight). 2813 This need not imply that the confessions of faith progress from lesser to greater, though 20is certainly climactic (cf. Baron, «Progression»). 2815 On the sense of the Hebrew term (whose semantic range was extensive), cf. Bromiley, «Faith» 270; Michel, «Faith,» 595–97; Jepsen, «» 2824 Buchanan, Consequences, 131–34; for Qumran, cf. Schütz, «Knowledge,» 397; and life for a thousand generations in 4Q171 1–2 3.1. 2828 M. " Abot 2:7, attributed to Hillel; b. Ber. 28b; Lev. Rab. 13:2; CIJ 1:422, §569 (Hebrew funerary inscription from Italy); 1:474, §661 (sixth-century Hebrew inscription from Spain); 2:443, §1536 (Semitic letters, from Egypt); cf. Abrahams, Studies, 1:168–70; Philo Flight 77. The usage in 1 En. 10(cf. 15:6; 25:6) and Jub. 5(cf. 30:20) is more restrictive, perhaps figurative; the Similtudes, however, seem to follow the ordinary usage (37:4; 58:3,6), and the circles from which 1 En. and Jub. derive probably used «long duration» language to represent eternity as well (CD 7.5–6; cf. Sir 18:10 ); for «eternal life» in the DSS, see also 4Q181 (Vermes, Scrolls, 251–52); Coetzee, «Life,» 48–66; Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 414. «Eternal» occurs with other nouns (e.g., Wis 10:14; 1QS 2.3) far more rarely. |
| 591 Frolow. La relique, 483–484 661). IC XC Σταυρ παγες ψωσας νθρπων φσιν. Γρφει Κομνηνς Μανουλ στεφηφρος. ‘Attached to the cross, you have raised the nature of man. Manuel Komnenos, who bears the crown wrote this’. 592 Frolow. La relique, 416 509: Chilandari), 432–433 540: de Coppi). This latter ivory staurothek, now in Cortona, is normally dated to the reign of Nikephoros II Phokas (963–969; see Cutler A. The Hand of the Master: craftsmanship, ivory and society in Byzantium (9th–11th centuries). Princeton, 1994, p. 213 for references). 593 Frolow. La relique, 353 390: Studenica), 415–416 508: ia), 443 570: Sopoani), 443–444 572 Pe). 594 Baha al-Din. Life of Saladin in Receuil des historiens des Croisades: Historiens orientaux, vol 3. Paris, 1884, p. 299. 595 Chchinadze N. The True Cross Reliquaries of Medieval Georgia//Studies in Iconography 20, p. 27–49. 596 The family had risen to power in the reign of Giorgi III (1156–1184) as part of a backlash against the powerful aristocratic families that were seeking to limit or subvert Georgian royal power. See Lordkipanidze M. Georgia in the XI–XII Centuries. Tbilisi, 1987. 597 Ivane and his brother Zakare had both been brought up in the Armenian church, but at some time around 1204 Ivane converted to Georgian Orthodoxy. The decision was certainly influenced as much by political considerations (notably the multi-confessional nature of the territory now ruled by the brothers) as by theological imperatives. For an introduction to the family and their cultural position see Rogers J. M. The Mxargrdzelis between East and West//Bedi Kartlisa 34. 1976, p. 315–325 (also printed in: Atti del primo simposio intema- zionale sufl " arte georgiana/Ed. G. Ieni. Milan, 1977, p. 259–272. 599 See, for example, Thomson R. W. The Historical Compilation of Vardan Arewelc‘i//DOP 43. 1989, p. 211; Kirakos Gandzakec " i. Histoire de l " Arménie par le vartabed Kirakos de Gantzac/tr. M. F. Brosset//Deux historiens armcniens: Kiracos de Gantzac, XHIe siccle, Histoire d " Arménie; Oukhtanès d " Ourha, Xe siècle, Histoire en trois parties. St Petersburg, 1870–1871, p. 83. The positive Georgian view is recorded in: Kartlis Tskhovreba/Ed. S. Qaukhchishvili. Vol. 2. Tbilisi, 1959, p. 286–290 (trans. Brosset M. F. Histoire de la Gdorgie. Paris, 1849, p. 450–455). |
| 4077 The dove could represent Aphrodite (Plutarch Isis, Mor. 379D; Ovid Metam. 13.673–674; Statius Thebaid 5.58,63; Helen or her daughters in Lycophron Alex. 86–87,103; for Athene disguising herself as a bird, see Homer Od. 3.371–372; 22.239–240), was sacred in some Syrian religion (Lucian Syr. d. 54, in Grant, Religions, 119), and in artwork often symbolized the realm of a goddess, which was transferred to wisdom and hence to the Spirit in later Christian art (Schroer, «Geist»). For a survey of uses in pagan art, see Goodenough, Symbols, 8:27–37; for Christian material, 8:37–41, and other Jewish material, 8:41–46. 4078 4 Ezra 5:26; LA.B. 39(23:7); b. Šabb. 49a, 130a; Exod. Rab. 20:6; Song Rab. 2:14, §§1–2. Johnston, Parables, 595, cites Mek. BeS. 3:86ff.; 7:27ff. but notes that it is not frequent enough to constitute a standard metaphor. Although Augustine applied it to the Spirit (Tract. Ev. Jo. 6.13.1), he noted some applied it to the church (6.11.2). 4079 B. Ber. 3a; cf. Abrahams, Studies, 1:47. One may compare the prophetic doves of Dodona (alluded to in Sib. Or. 1.242–252; the term is different from here). 4080 Abrahams, Studies, 1:48–49 (followed by Barrett, Spirit, 38; cf. Taylor, Mark, 160–61), cites only Gen. Rab. 2 and Ya1. Gen. 1(where the interpretation seems dominated more by exegetical principles than by standard tradition); Lachs, Commentary, 47, adds b. Hag. 15a (or the Spirit as an eagle in t. Hag. 2:5). A link with the Spirit naturally became common in early post-Synoptic Christian tradition, however (Odes So1. 24:1; 28:1; and the interpolation in T. Levi 18). The Hebrew Bible does sometimes portray God as a bird (e.g., Ps 91:3–4 ). 4081 E.g., Lane, Mark, 57. 4082 Against the arguments of Odeberg, Gospel, 33–36; Lightfoot, Gospel, 104; Dahl, «History,» 136, which effectively assume that the Johannine community would more readily read the Jacob narrative through late rabbinic tradition on the Hebrew than through the LXX. 4083 Gen 8:8–12 ; cf. 4 Bar. 7(which develops from Gen 8 the image of messenger-birds); Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 6.19.2–4; pace Bürge, Community, 57. Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 20, suggests a combination of Gen 8:8–9 and Isa 11:1–2. Writing on Mark 1:10 , Garnet, «Baptism,» connects the dove with Noah, Noah with Enoch, and Enoch with the Son of Man; but this scheme of associations is too complex, and the last two links are particularly tenuous. In early Christian literature, see 1Pet 3:20–21 ; cf. 2Pet 3:6 ; Matt 24:38. For a connection with Gen 1and its eschatological interpretation in the DSS, see Allison, «Baptism.» |
| In addition to the festal celebrations of the capital city that spread throughout the Eastern empire, such elements as the formal liturgical entrances, and the chanting of the Trisagion in the Divine Liturgy, were added. The convergence of several factors caused numerous changes in the Church’s liturgical ritual and piety. These factors were the rise of the Constantinopolitan Church as the model for other churches; the development of the imperial churchly ritual; the appearance of the mystical theology expressed in the writings published under the name of Saint Dionysius the Aeropagite; and the attempts of the Church and State to reconcile the Non-Chalcedonians. At this time the practices of the Church of Constantinople were combined with the original Jewish-Christian worship of the early Church, the rule of prayer which had developed in the Christian monasteries, and the liturgical practices of the Church in Jerusalem, to form the first great synthesis of liturgical worship in Orthodox history. Five Patriarchates In the sixth century, Constantinople, in the minds of Eastern Christians, was firmly established as the primary see in the Christian pentarchy, even though the see of Rome was still technically considered the “first among equals.” Emperor Justinian called the pentarchy-the great original patriarchates of Constantinople, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem-the “five senses of the universe.” The title “ecumenical” was given to all the chief offices in the imperial city. When Saint John the Faster (r. 582–595), the Patriarch of Constantinople, assumed the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch,” the designation was adamantly opposed by Pope Saint Gregory the Great of Rome (r. 590–604) as being extremely arrogant and unbecoming of any Christian bishop, including the bishop of Rome. This is the same Saint Gregory whose name is traditionally connected with the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts which the Orthodox celebrate on the weekdays of Great Lent (see Worship). The West |
| 186 Origen dealt with the doctrine of the Resurrection on several occasions: first in his early commentary on the first Psalm and in a special treatise De resurrectione, which is now available only in fragments preserved by Mehodius and in the Apology of Pamphilus; then in De Principiis; and finally in Contra Celsum. There was no noticeable development in his views. See Selecta in Ps. 1.5 , M.G. XII, c. 1906: περ πτε χαρακτηρζετο ν τη σαρκ, τουτο χαρακτηρισθσεται ν τω πνευματικ σματι; c. 1907: σπερματικς λγος ν τω κκκ του στου δραξμενος της παρακειμνης λης, κα δι’ λης ατς χωρσας κτλ.; cf. ар. Method. De resurr. I.22.3, p. 244 Bonw.: τ λικν ποκεμενον οδποτε χει τατν διπερ ο κακς ποταμς νμαστε τ σμα, διτι ς πρς τ κρις τχα οδ δο μερν τ πρτον ποκεμενον ταυτν στιν ν τω σματι μν… κν ρευστ ν σις το σματος, τ τ εδος τ χαρακτηρζον τ σμα τατν εναι, ς κα τος τπους μνειν τος ατος τος τν ποιτητα Πτρου κα Παλου τν σωματικν παριστνοντος… τουτο τ εδος, καθ’ εδιοποιεται Παλος κα Πτρος, τ σωματικν, ν τη ναστσει περιτθεται πσιν τη ψυχ, π τ κρειττον μεταλλον. The same αρ. Pamphil. Apologia pro Origene, cap. 7, M.G. SVII, c. 594: nos vero post corruptionem mundi eosdem ipsos futuros esse homines dicimus, licet non in eodem statu, neque in iisdem passionibus; p. 594–595: per illam ipsam substantialem rationem, quae salva permanet; ratio illa substantiae corporalis in ipsis corboribus permanebat; p. 595: rationis illius virtus quae est insita in interioribus ejus medullis; De Princ. II. 10.I, Koetschau: virtus resurrectionis; schema aliquid; 10.3: Ita namque etiam nostra corpora velut granum cadere in terram putanda sunt; quibus insita ratio, ea quae substantiam continet corporalem, quamvis emortua fuerint corpora et corrupta atque dispersa, verbo tamen Dei ratio illa ipsa quae semper in substantia corporis salva est, erigat ea de terra, et restituat ac reparet, sicut ea virtus quae est in grano frumenti…; Dei jussu ex terreno et animali corpore corpus reparat spiritale, quod habitare possit in coelis; Sic et in ratione hamanorum corporum manent quaedam surgendi antiqua principia, et quasi ντερινη id est seminarium mortuorum, sinu terrae confovetur. |
| As discussed in chapter 4 of the present work (p. 185 above), there were a number of planetary phenomena recorded in the texts that the Babylonian astronomers were unable to calculate. These included conjunctions of planets with the moon and other planets, with their distances. VAT 4956 records a number of such – for the Babylonian astronomers – unpredictable and incalculable phenomena. With respect to lunar eclipses, the Babylonian astronomers were certainly able to predict and retrocalculate the occurrences of lunar eclipses, but they were unable to predict or calculate a number of important details about them. (See above, p. 185.) This has been discussed in detail by Dr. John M. Steele. 594 that the eclipse records on the lunar eclipse tablets might be retrocalculations by Babylonian astronomers in the Seleucid era, Steele explains: You were absolutely right when you argued that the Babylonians could not have retrocalculated the early eclipse records. The Saros cycle could have been used to determine the date of eclipses, even centuries earlier, but none of the Babylonian methods could have allowed them to calculate circumstances such as the direction of the eclipse shadow, the visibility of planets during the eclipse, . . . Although the Babylonians could calculate the time of the eclipses, they could not do so to the same level of accuracy as they could observe – there is a clear difference of accuracy between eclipses they said were observed and those they say were predicted (this is discussed in my book), which proves that the “observed” eclipses really were observed. 595 (C Although the observational texts, due to particular circumstances such as bad weather, occasionally contain calculated events, most of the entries are demonstrably based on actual observations. That this is the case with the Diaries is directly indicated by the Akkadian name engraved at the end and on the edges of these tablets: natsaru sha ginê, which means “regular watching.” (ADT, Vol. I, p. 11) |
| On November 9, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights published a report entitled “Overview of Antisemitic Incidents Recorded in the European Union, 2010-2020.” According to the report, the COVID-19 pandemic has provoked a new surge in antisemitism . In October, Rabbi Menachem Margolin, chairman of the European Jewish Association, said that the Jewish freedom of religion was under direct attack across Europe fr om the very institutions that had promised to protect the Jewish communities . At the same time, incidents of hate crime against Christians have soared in Europe. According to the OSCE report as of November 16, 2021, over the past year alone Christians fell victim to 980 attacks. There occurred arson attacks on Roman Catholic churches, Eucharistic hosts desecrations and robberies, assaults on priests; there appeared anti-Catholic graffiti on church property, written by abortion activists. The year 2019 saw fewer incidents, namely 595. There was a significant increase in the number of attacks against church property, from 459 in 2019 to 871 in 2020. Arson attacks on Roman Catholic churches took place in France, Germany, Spain and Italy. Religious hate crimes have also intensified in social media . Recently, Monsignor Janusz Urbaczyk, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the OSCE, has raised public awareness of these facts. Speaking at a plenary meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, he emphasised that crimes against Christians were no longer a marginal phenomenon, that, therefore, all states were called to combat discrimination against Christians, Jews, Muslims and representatives of other religions. The recent data indicates that Christian communities are largely falling victim to hate crimes and incidents motivated by anti-religious prejudices, even in the countries, wh ere Christians constitute the majority . Throughout the history of humankind, religion has been playing a significant role in the life of individuals, societies and civilizations. Widespread in the late 19th and early 20th century was an idea that religion would fall into natural decay and degenerate against the background of the advancing scientific rationality, technical progress and modernization of societies. From that point of view, religion was regarded as an outdated archaic form of human consciousness, associated with many misconceptions and prejudices, for which there would be no room left in a new, dynamically changing world. Such standpoint, largely based on contrasting science with religion, and the positivism paradigm with a special notion of progress, has to this day been significantly affecting the attitude towards religion. |
| There was no noticeable development in his views. See Selecta in Ps. 1.5 , M.G. XII, c. 1906: δπερ πτε χαρακτηρζετο ν τη σαρκι, τοτο χαρκτη ρισθσεται ν τω πνευματικ σματι; c 1907: δ σπερματικς λγος ν τω κκκω του στου δραξμενος της παρακεμενης λης, και δι» δλης αυτς χωρσας κτλ.; cf. ap. Method. De resurr. 1.223, p. 244 Bonw.: τ λικν ποκε " ιμενον ουδποτε χει τατν διπερ ο κακς ποταμς νμαστε τ σμα, διτι ς προς τ ακριβς τχα ουδ δο μερων τ πρτον ποκεμενον ταυτν στιν ν τφ σματι ημν .. . καν ρευστ ν φσις του σματος, τω τ εδος τ χαρκτηρζον τ σμα τατν εναι, ς και τους τπους μνειν τους αυτος τος τν ποιτητα Πτρου και Παλου τν σωματικν παριστνοντος . . . τοτο τ εδος, καθ» δ ειδιοποιεται Παλος κα Πτρος, τ σωματικν, δ ν τη ναστσει περι-τθεται πσιν τη ψυχ, επ τ κρεττον μεταβλλον. The same ap. Pamphil. Apologia pro Origene, cap. 7, M.G. SVII, c. 594: nos vero post corruptionem mundi eosdem ipsos futuros esse homines dicimus, licet non in eodem statu, neque in iisdem passionibus; p. 594–5: per illam ipsam substantialem rationem, quae salva permanet; ratio ilia substantiae corporalis in ipsis corboribus permanebat p. 595: rationis illius virtus quae est insita in interioribus ejus medullis; De Princ. II.10.I, Koetschau: virtus resurre-ctionis; schema aliquid 10.3: Ita namque etiam nostra corpora velut granum cadere in terrain putanda sunt; quibus insita ratio, ea quae substantiam continet corporalem, quamvis emortua fuerint corpora et corrupta atque dispersa, verbo tamen Dei ratio ilia ipsa quae semper in substantia corporis salva est, erigat ea de terra, et restituat ac reparet, sicut ea virtus quae est in grano frumenti. ..; Dei jussu ex terreno et animali corpore corpus reparat spiritale, quod habitare possit in coelis; Sic et in ratione hamanorum corporum manent quaedam surgendi antiqua principia, et quasi ντερινη id est seminarium mortuorum, sinu terrae conjovetur. Cum autem judicii dies advenerit, et in voce Archangeli et in novissima tuba tremuerit terra, movebuntur statim semina, et in puncto horae mortuos germinabunt; non tamen easdem carnes, nee in his formis restituent quae fuerunt; cf. |
| Three years of preaching by the Buddhist missionary did not convert a single person, and after this the “bonza, having found their efforts to turn our Christian (Kurillians) to Buddhism to be completely fruitless, left for Saykeo” (IV, 701). Meanwhile, St. Nicholas knew of the Europeans and Americans who recieved Buddhism. He recalled the Englishman who died in Japan having converted to Zen Buddhism as a “forever unhappy renegade” (V, 348), and the American, Fenolossa, who became a Buddhist (see: V, 595). He sharply reacted to General Henry Olcott, “who converted to Buddhism and even composed a Buddhist catechesis” (III, 560). All of this seemed to the saint ridiculous in the highest degree. Noting the closeness of Schopenhauer’s philosophy to Buddhism, St. Nicholas theorized that, including through it, “Buddhism entered through the edge of its mist into certain empty heads in Europe and America” (II, 304). In different notes he points out that, firstly, in turning toward people in the West, Buddhism itself mimics in many ways the Christian milieu; and on the other hand, the new converts themselves introduce into Buddhism ideas and concepts that are alien to it. In this sense, noteworthy are St. Nicholas’s comments on the book by one of the more well-known European preachers of Buddhism of the time: “Ambassador Mikhail Alexandrovich Khitrovo came with a German catechism of Buddhism… The author is a German who placed himself among the ranks of the fans of pantheistic Buddhism, but at the same time he cannot renounce the belief he received with his mother’s milk in a Personal God, and that is why he talks in his catechism about a power that rules the world that excludes accidents in the world, at which our Mikhail Alexandrovich, partially besotted with Buddhism, replied in the margins, “Fool!” (III, 229). St. Nicholas is apparently referring to the book, Subhadra Bhikchu Buddhistischer Katechismus zur Einfuhrung in die Lehre des Buddha Gotamo (Leipzig, 1888), written in emulation of the Buddhist Catechism of Olcott. Behind the pseudonym of Monk Subhadra hid the Berlin mathematician Fredrich Zimmerman (1852-1917). |
|
|
