| Наша задача сегодня состоит не в простом повторении патристических формул, а в развитии в рамках Традиции христианского тринитаризма применительно к вопросам нашего времени. Невозможно приблизиться к пониманию личностного феномена человека без обращения к его божественному прототипу. И нет иного пути к церковному миру, как только через осознание того факта, что Церковь есть «институт обожения» ( κοινονα θεσεως). Отцы, конечно, своими писаниями не могли исчерпать всех возможных аспектов богословия, но, проникая в глубины их опыта Троичного Бога, желающий, без сомнения, найдёт ключ к разрешению и наших собственных проблем. Восток и Запад часто расходились в разрешении вопросов, возникающих в богословии и религиозной практике. На мой взгляд, нет никаких сомнений в том, что корень всех этих расхождений в различии тринитарных концепций. Тем не менее я верю, что если мы, – и православные, и римокатолики, – попытаемся отождествить себя с ранней патристической традицией, то это решающим образом поможет нам в нахождении путей к осознанию нашей общей обязанности свидетельствовать о христианской тринитарной вере в современном секулярном мире. 1 Le problume de la simplicimй en Orient et en Occident aux XIVe et XVe suuclë Grйgoire Palamas, Duns Scot, Georges Scholarios (Lyon, 1933). 2 See particularly Palamite (Controverse) in Vacant-Mangenot, Dictionnaire de mhйologie catholique, XI, cols, 1735–1776; and Theologia Dogmatica Christianorum, Orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica dissidentium, I (Paris, 1926), 436–451; II (Paris, 1933), 47–183. 7 J. Meyendorff, Introduction а l’йmude de Grйgoire Palamas (Paris, 1959), [английский перевод A Study of Gregory Palamas (London, 1964; второе издание 1974)]; см. также того же автора, Grйgoire Palamas: Dйfense des saints hesycuhastes, 2. vols. (Louvain, 1959; второе издание 1975). 8 См. D. Stiernon, «Bulletin sur le palamisme», Revue des etudes byzantines 30 (1972) 231–337; это библиографический обзор литературы о паламизме между 1959 и 1972 годами, насчитывающий 303 заглавия. |
| Various non-Markan material recurs in two of the other gospels (e.g., Matt 28:6; cf. Luke 24:6), suggesting access to non-Markan resurrection traditions or perhaps material in a now lost ending of Mark, 10381 if indeed the ending we have in Mark 16was not the original one (a disputable premise). 10382 It is, in fact, difficult to doubt that such other traditions would have existed, given the large number of reported witnesses to the resurrection (cf. 1Cor 15:5–7 ). Some scholars are convinced that one can completely harmonize the stories of the women at the tomb if we grant that the Gospel writers only reported data essential to their distinctive accounts; 10383 on the other end of the spectrum, some, while acknowledging that the conviction of the resurrection is early, doubt that our current Easter stories belong to the earliest stratum of tradition. 10384 Although harmonization approaches become strained when they misunderstand the liberties literary historians sometimes applied on details (see our introduction, ch. 1), they do exhibit the merit of working harder than more skeptical approaches to make the best possible sense of the data we have. On any account, two matters are plain and a third likely follows: (1) the differences in accounts demonstrate that the Gospel writers were aware of a variety of independent traditions. The likely diversity and number of such traditions precisely here (more so than at many other points in extant gospel tradition) suggest a variety of initial reports, not merely later divergences in an originally single tradition. Sanders may be right to argue that «a calculated deception should have produced greater unanimity. Instead, there seem to have been competitors: saw him first!» «No! I did.»» 10385 Eyewitness reports often varied on such details (e.g., Thucydides 1.22.3). (2) The divergent details suggest independent traditions, thereby underlining the likelihood of details the accounts share in common. 10386 Yet these divergent traditions overlap significantly and hence independently corroborate the basic outlines of the story. (3) Given the likely variety of initial reports, explaining the similarities and differences in terms of multiple witnesses surrounding a core historical event appears plausible and indeed probable. (One might compare eyewitnesses» different accounts of Callisthenes» death, which nevertheless agree that he was indicted, publicly scorned, and died.) 10387 |
| 4052 The saying may, however, reflect eschatological nuances concerning the expected «coming one» (cf. the participle in 3:31). 4053 The Baptist s original saying concerning one mightier than himself may have alluded to Daniel 7s Son of Man, as Kraeling assumes, 4054 in which case the Fourth Gospel may merely clarify the idea of préexistence already implicit in the tradition of the Baptist " s words here. 4055 In the Fourth Gospel, the Baptist declares paradoxically, «One comes after me who came before me, for he was first before me.» The first «came before me» may be read as a reference to preeminence; status-conscious ancients allowed those of higher rank to enter or be seated before them as a mark of respect. 4056 Such respect was typically accorded the aged, 4057 but for the Gospel " s informed audience, the respectable antiquity to which the Johannine Baptist refers is no mere matter of primogeniture or age, but préexistence itself (1:1–3). 3. Jesus and the Abiding Spirit (1:32–33) Although the Baptist " s «witness» resounds throughout the surrounding narrative, the author underlines John " s testimony at this point in the narrative («And John witnessed, saying»), 4058 which recounts John " s eyewitness experience. Michaels feels that none of the extant gospels contradicts the Markan portraits of Jesus alone seeing the dove and hearing the voice; 4059 but given the usual nature of «heavenly voices» in Jewish texts, it may be more likely that all four intended the event publicly. Thus one need not regard this encounter as merely an ecstatic experience of Jesus. 4060 This passage fits John " s theology: the Spirit is prominent in this Gospel (1:32–33; 3:5,6, 8, 34; 4:23–24; 6:63; 7:39; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 20:22), and draws attention to and attests Jesus (14:26; 15:26; 16:13); 4061 the Spirit " s descent accords with the Gospel " s vertical dualism; that John «sees» (1:32,34) the Spirit " s descent fits another motif in this Gospel (e.g., 1:14; see introduction). The title «holy spirit,» frequent in Judaism by this period, is reserved for the first, last, and one other pneumatological passage in the Gospel; this title thus frames the books pneumatology as a large inclusio (1:33; 14:26; 20:22). 4062 Yet despite the author " s employment of this title in his literary design, the first reference derives from his tradition (all four extant gospels concur at this point in the tradition: Mark 1:8 ; Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16). The Baptist " s words here are again rooted in tradition (cf. Mark 1:8–10 ; Matt 3:11,16; Luke 3:16, 22); where he can be checked against other extant sources, our author again makes his point by adapting available tradition rather than by fabricating what suits him. |
| The question whether John intends 20:19–23 as an equivalent to Lukés Pentecost presupposes the question whether he knows about Lukés version of Pentecost. Although other early Christian writers attest the Spirit empowerment of early Christianity (e.g., Rom 5:5 ; Tit 3:5 ), they do not comment on the time at which it occurred. Still, an association with Pentecost probably precedes the writing of Luke-Acts. Early Judaism connected Pentecost with covenant renewal 10657 and, especially prominent in the rabbis, the giving of Torah. 10658 Some have therefore concluded that Luke connects the outpouring with specific aspects of that festiva1. 10659 Intriguing as such a connection would prove, however, it appears tenuous; possible as it was in pre-Lukan tradition, it receives little emphasis in Acts 2, 10660 which suggests that Luke already had tradition of an outpouring of the Spirit on the church on its first Pentecost. Given the connections I believe existed among early Christian communities (see introduction, esp. pp. 41–42), I do think it likely that John knew of a story of Pentecost such as appears in Acts, whether through pre-Lukan tradition or tradition stemming from Acts. Even if Lukés tradition were widespread in the early church, however, and even if it were therefore likely that John and his audience knew the tradition of Pentecost, it would not be necessary to assume that John is directly adapting or reacting against the Pentecost tradition. John completes his Gospel in ch. 21; if he is to narrate any fulfillment of his Paraclete promises that provide continuity between the missions of Jesus and his followers, he must do so here. Further, John " s theology necessitates a close connection between the passion/resurrection and the giving of the Spirit (7:39); indeed, he may report a proleptic «giving of the Spirit» at both Jesus» death (19:30) and his resurrection appearance (20:22). 10661 Even if the giving of the Spirit in the tradition behind 20represents merely a symbolic or partial impartation, it must bear in John " s narrative the full theological weight equivalent to Lukés Pentecost. 10662 |
| At the same time, whatever view one takes regarding the historicity of the claim, it is surely also Johannine theology. The Fourth Gospel returns to the paschal lamb motif (18:28; 19:36), and «Behold» (Christ) is an especially Johannine construction (19:5,14). 4044 If the tradition of the exclusion of Jewish apostates from the Passover lamb is this early (though such exclusion could not be easily enforced in any case), 4045 recognizing Jesus as the lamb may have served an apologetic function encouraging to Jewish Christian expelled from their synagogues. Neither other reports about the Baptist nor contemporary Jewish Christologies (see introduction, chapter 7) support the likelihood that the Baptist would have foreknown that the messianic mission included an atoning death. While the Baptist could have drawn such concepts from the Hebrew Bible (a new exodus and eschatological redemption could imply the need for a new Passover), the Fourth Gospel " s testimony on this specific point can neither be confirmed nor disproved with certainty. On grounds of historical probability, one can say only that the Baptist " s witness here is consistent with the general historical truth that the Baptist testified to Jesus, 4046 and is specifically consistent with motifs in the Fourth Gospel that the author may have regarded as natural insights for a true prophet and Jesus» forerunner. Given the Gospel " s genre and use of materials where we can test him, I suspect that the author believed that the Baptist made an affirmation which could ultimately have been understood in this manner; but his wording appears to be a thoroughly Johannine formulation. The result is at any rate a masterful expression of Johannine soteriology. «Taking away sin» (also 1 John 3:5 ) may evoke the scapegoat, but probably alludes to a sacrificial reading of the Passover lamb, very possibly interpreted in light of the servant lamb of Isa 53. 4047 John " s particular expression for «taking up» sin probably means that it is lifted up with him on the cross (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). |
| Greek deities also speak of their «only» sons 3651 or " beloved» sons, 3652 but the plurality both of children and of deities that begot them would place this image outside the realm of Johannine thought and the Jewish sense of divine sonship on which it rests (see introduction on Christology). Arguing that the backdrop for John " s conception is primarily Jewish, however, does not solve the question of what John means by μονογενς here. Commentators dispute the significance of μονογενς; some follow the traditional translation «only begotten,» 3653 whereas others object that this is not even a sound etymological reading of the term. 3654 «Only begotten» fails the etymology test, as it would require a different word, μονογεννητς; μονογενς derives instead from a different root, γνος, leading to the meaning «one of a kind.» 3655 This observation hardly settles the Johannine sense of the term, since usage rather than etymology determines word meanings in practice; but further analysis confirms the conclusion based on the term " s derivation. Many patristic writers read the term as «only begotten,» 3656 but this may say more about second-century Christology than about the semantic presuppositions shared between John and his original audience. «Only» is also a very old translation, appearing in some ancient versions 3657 and some from the Reformation era. 3658 «Only begotten» came into vogue through church councils and the rendering of the Latin Vulgate. 3659 Other writers contemporary with John clearly used μονογενς to indicate uniqueness rather than procreation; Plutarch, for instance, notes that Aristotle denied a succession of worlds, supposing our world the only (μονογενς) one created. 3660 Although the LXX attests that the term applies well to an only child ( Judg 11:34 ; Tob 3:15; 6:11; 8:17), it applies also to other unique things ( Ps 21:21; 24:16; 34:17 LXX)–most significantly for John, to divine Wisdom (Wis 7:22). Although Jesus officially assumes the role of Son particularly at his resurrection in Paul and the apostolic preaching in Acts, 3661 and at the exaltation in Hebrews, 3662 Jesus» special relation to the Father exists in this Gospel long before his public, officiai glorification, probably in his preincarnate state. 3663 Thus one cannot interpret μονογενς in light of Israelite or ancient Near Eastern texts about a ruler «begotten» at his enthronement (as with Ps 2in Acts 13:33); 3664 the concept of «begetting» is not present. Even where writers like Philo apply to a cosmic being (the Logos or the universe) terms specifically indicating «birth» (e.g., «firstborn»), they are emphasizing role (e.g., the right of the firstborn, Ps 89:27 ), not procreation. 3665 |
| The section heavily emphasizes love for Jesus and the association of love for him with keeping his commandments. Keeping the commandments (in the context, especially love–13:34–35) seems a prerequisite for acquiring or continuing in the activity of the Spirit. God " s blessings also were often conditional on keeping his commandments, as in 14:15 8551 (e.g., Exod 15:26). Early Judaism generally believed in the renewal rather than the abrogation of Torah in the end time. 8552 Faith and love, the central requirements of the covenant in Deuteronomy, also appear as the basic requirements here; 8553 in biblical covenant tradition, those who love God will keep his commandments (Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10; 7:9; 11:1,13; 30:16 ). 8554 Thus, for John as for the law, love is not mere sentiment but defined by specific content through God " s commandments. 8555 Does this imply that for John the Spirit can be earned? Evidence suggests that many Jewish people thought in terms of meriting the Spirit, 8556 prophecy, 8557 or (sometimes interchangeably in the accounts) the divine presence; 8558 Christian tradition could certainly speak of God giving the Spirit only to the people who obey him (Acts 5:32). 8559 Yet by contrast, early Christian tradition, which viewed the Spirit as more widely available than did most contemporaries, often viewed it simply as an eschatological gift ( Rom 5:5 ; Gal 3:2 ; cf. Ezek 36:24–27 ). Clearly for John the Spirit is not simply merited; apart from Jesus» presence, the disciples can do nothing (15:5), and the Spirit is received through faith (7:39). At the same time, the Spirit comes only to the disciples, to those committed to Jesus (14:17); those who obey (14:15) receive greater power for obedience (14:16–17), moving in a cycle of ever deeper spiritual maturation. For John, an initial «experience» without continuing perseverance is not ultimately salvific (15:6; 8:30–31); the Spirit comes to believers and forms them into stronger believers (on the inadequacy of initial signs-faith, see introduction) who in turn become more obedient to the life of the Spirit. God " s answers to Israel were conditional on obedience (e.g., Deut 7:12 ), but both promise and commandments were given only to a people already redeemed by God " s covenant mercy (Exod 20:2). 8560 |
| 1Cor 11:23–25 ). If the Jewish officials want Jesus executed but Pilate does not, it makes some sense that he would push the responsibility off onto the people; perhaps he thought that Jesus was popular enough with the masses for them to want to release him. But in the Fourth Gospel, the «Jews» and the authorities overlap at most points, so, in the logic of the story world, Pilatés attempt to release Jesus by appealing to the «Jews» reveals only his inadequate, foreigner " s understanding of the ferment taking place within the Jewish community (7:43; 9:16; 10:19). 9929 1B. The Paschal Amnesty Custom (18:39) Pilatés offer may suggest that he thought himself indulgent on special occasions; his otherwise brutal disposition, however, colors all the other brief Jewish reports of his activity that remain extant. 9930 What is the historical likelihood that he might have followed an existing amnesty custom in Judea? Although all four gospels attest the paschal amnesty custom, 9931 most scholars remain skeptical of the custom because the proposed analogies from other locations appear inadequate. 9932 Yet an argument against the custom from silence (in a narrative that can be confirmed at many other points) may not take adequate account of the burden of proof in favor of the Gospels» usual authenticity (see introduction, ch. 1). 9933 One could argue that John follows a literary practice of his day in creating customs to suit his narrative, 9934 but if John is independent of the Markan tradition (less likely in the Passion Narrative than elsewhere), it would testify to the pre-Johannine character of John " s primary point here. Like most customs of the Roman administration in Palestine, this one is currently unattested (a not surprising situation given the freedom of governors to ignore and supersede earlier customs), 9935 but if the Gospels usually correctly report events, especially when they multiply attest them (as possibly here), the assumption should begin in favor of, rather than against, their claims if no hard evidence to the contrary is available. |
| Pilatés inquiry (18:28–38a) constitutes part of a larger scene (18:28–19:16) in which Pilate plays a lead character; as a foil to Jesus, his character dominates 18:28–19:16. Pilate taunts Jewish nationalism with claims of Jesus» innocence and kingship, 9766 but while not friendly to the Jewish aristocracy–the world remains divided (cf. 7:43; 9:16)–he remains a representative of the «world,» essentially hostile toward Jesus because not one of his followers. 9767 A The Jewish leaders demand Jesus» execution (18:29–32) Β Jesus and Pilate talk (18:33–38a) C Pilate finds no reason to condemn Jesus (18:38b-40) D The scourging and crowning with thorns (19:1–3) C» Pilate finds no reason to condemn Jesus (19:4–8) B» Jesus and Pilate talk (19:9–11) Á The Jewish leaders are granted Jesus» execution (19:12–16) 9768 Although the immediate opposition of John " s audience seems to be the synagogue leadership, as most Johannine scholars have argued, the power of Rome stands not far in the background. The mortal threat of synagogue leadership to John " s urban audience is probably their role as accusers to the Romans (see introduction; comment on 16:2). The gospel tradition makes clear that Jerusalem " s aristocracy and the Roman governor cooperated on Jesus» execution even if the Jerusalem aristocracy had taken the initiative. John undoubtedly has reason to continue to highlight this emphasis, although he, too, emphasizes the initiative of the leaders of his own people because it is they who, he believes, should have known better. 1. The Setting (18:28) The brief transition between Jesus» detention at the hands of the high priest and his betrayal to Pilate provides important chronological markers. Some of these are of primarily historical interest («early»), but the most critical are of theological import (reinforcing the Johannine portrait of Jesus» crucifixion on Passover). The former markers might have been assumed by John " s audience without much comment; the latter probably challenge their expectations and, for those familiar with the Jewish reckoning of Passover chronologies (as most of his audience would be), would strike them immediately. 1A. They Came «Early» |
| The disciples have reason to be fearful of «the Jews» within the story world. These authorities (see introduction, pp. 214–28) engineered the execution of their teacher, and the authorities» Roman allies normally sought to stamp out followers of leaders regarded as treasonous. 10669 But their fears do not take into account Jesus» promise to return to them (which they do not at this point believe); they act like the secret believers John has so often condemned for acting «on account of fear of the «Jews»» (7:13; 19:38; cf. 12:42). But whereas some secret believers became more public with their faith under persecution (19:38), those who had been faithful to Jesus in happier times now have abandoned and denied him (16:31–32; 18:25, 27). If the first disciples had reasons to fear, John " s audience probably has similar reasons to fear the successors of the Judean authorities in their own day and therefore will learn from the model of assurance Jesus provides in this passage. Although John informs his audience only that the doors were «shut,» this itself is sufficient, given the circumstances for which they were shut (20:19), to imply that they were secured shut, that is, locked or bolted (cf., e.g., Matt 25:10). Normal residences had doors with bolts and locks, 10670 which one might especially secure if expecting hostility (T. Job 5:3). Those familiar with the passion tradition might envision a spacious room in well-to-do upper-city Jerusalem ( Mark 14:15 ; Luke 22:12; Acts 1:13), where such features would also be likely to be assumed. John may record that the doors were locked for two reasons. First, he may wish to underline the nature of the resurrection body 10671 –corporeal (20:20) but capable of acting as if incorporeal (20:19), 10672 though presumably not like the «phantoms» of Greek thought that could pass through the thong of a bolt in a door 10673 (which would contradict the image of 20:20). Some have argued that Jesus» body was not yet glorified, on the basis of 20(some cite also Luke 24:39–43); they suggest that John merely neglects to mention that the disciples opened the doors for him. But the repetition of the closed doors in 20:26, again as the context of Jesus» sudden appearance among them, is emphatic; John wishes to underline that Jesus appeared despite closed doors and to the disciples» astonishment. 10674 As Witherington notes, «The one who could pass through the grave clothes and leave a neat pile behind would not find locked doors any obstacle.» 10675 Second, through the locked doors, John underlines the fear of the disciples before Jesus» coming, a deliberate contrast to the boldness implied for their mission to the world after he has imparted his presence to them(20:21–23). 10676 |
|
|
