The Twelve Disciples and New Israel in Mark 3:13-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-110
Author(s):  
Hyeon Woo Shin
Keyword(s):  
2006 ◽  
Vol 117 (8) ◽  
pp. 346-346
Author(s):  
James Dickie
Keyword(s):  

1983 ◽  
pp. 226-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Wallace‐Hadrill
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
pp. 192-205
Author(s):  
Robert Collis ◽  
Natalie Bayer
Keyword(s):  

This chapter examines the legacy of the New Israel Society in Russia in the aftermath of Tadeusz Grabianka’s arrest and subsequent death in prison in October 1807. More specifically, it carries out a study of how two members of the New Israel Society—N. F. Pleshcheeva and A. A. Lenivtsev—were able to form a relatively tight-knit circle of like-minded millenarians that soon came to include the powerful government ministers A. N. Golitsyn and R. A. Koshelev. The chapter also examines the links between the so-called Pleshcheeva Circle and the well-known prophetess Barbara von Krüdener in the early 1820s.


1967 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernst Livneh

The new Israel Civil Procedure Rules, 1963 re-enact in rr. 269–82, with certain amendments, rr. 241–50 of the Palestinian Civil Procedure Rules, 1938 dealing with “Summary Procedure on Specially Endorsed Statement of Claim”, which in their turn were a colonial version of Order XIV of the English Rules of the Supreme Court. A glance at some recent judgments in Israel shows a surprising number of cases in which doubts have arisen as to the application and scope of the Summary Procedure in general and the defendant's right to be heard in particular. One may wonder whether litigants and lower courts quite understand the rules of the game or whether the game is after all not as easy as might be expected of a summary procedure. And indeed, compared with institutions in continental Europe, where scores of thousands of claims are disposed of without discussion and complaint, our Summary Procedure seems inelegant and burdensome on plaintiff and defendant alike. It is the object of this study to compare it, and the procedure under the English Order XIV, with those European institutions. In view of the gap between Anglo-Israel and Continental notions of civil procedure it may be useful also to sketch the history of the various forms of action, viz. the (summary) trial by documents, the non-litigious executory instruments and the conditional command to pay.


2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 173-231
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Kain

This essay analyzes the ideas, events and processes leading to the establishment of Patriarch Nikon’s Iverskii (1653) and Krestnyi (1656) monasteries and their endowment by Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich, highlighting the explanations supplied in the patriarch’s Gramota o Krestnom monastyre (1656) and Rai Myslennyi (1658). The article offers a more complex picture of Nikon’s patriarchate (1652-1666) by locating his monastery building program within the context of the concurrent reforms church texts and rituals and his efforts to help promote the reimaging of Russian dynastic and “national” myths through the use of print, iconography and symbolic replications. Iverskii and Krestnyi monasteries were part of a lager “scenarios” designed to (re)establish Russia’s claimed inheritance of the Byzantine legacy and fulfill its potential as “New Jerusalem,” while simultaneously enhancing Nikon’s and the Romanov dynasty’s image and legitimacy. Nikon developed an updated version of the “ancient” past, connected it directly with the reign of Aleksei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), embedded it in the reforms of the Russian Church, and employed it to support his vision of Russia’s future as a new Israel, represented concretely in his monastic foundations. By reinforcing Aleksei Mikhailovich’s image as the “new Constantine,” Nikon offered the tsar a premier role in the construction of a Russian “New Jerusalem” and produced opportunities for he and his family to endow it. Thus, the construction of Nikon’s monasteries offered the Romanovs perfect forums to actively build their own image as the legitimate heirs to the Byzantine imperial legacy and as the ultimate champions of Orthodoxy.


1967 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-337
Author(s):  
J. K. Howard

The events of the Exodus, in which the Passover occupied a central and dominant place, were one of the most deeply rooted of all Israel's traditions. The Passover itself lay at the very heart of the covenant concept and forms the basis of the Heilsgeschichte which records the redemptive acts of God for His people Israel. In later Judaism it became overlaid with eschatological ideas, especially those associated with a Messianic deliverance for the people of God, as God's saving act in the past became the prefigurement of an even greater saving act in the future. The Passover night was thus a night of joy for all Israel, the night on which Israel's future redemption, effected through the Messiah, would be revealed. The early Christians, however, believed that this Messianic deliverance had already appeared in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and consequently, in Preiss' expression,‘the totality of the events of the Exodus centering on the Passover’ together with its associated ideas occupied a dominant position in Christian soteriological thought in the New Testament period, especially as Jesus Himself had instituted the eucharist in a distinctly Paschal setting. We may trace, as has been done in recent years, the idea of the Exodus complex of events running as a constant theme through the New Testament writings, and Jesus is pictured both as a second Moses leading His people forth from a bondage far greater than the slavery of a human despot, from the thraldom of sin and death, and as the Antitype of the very Passover sacrifice itself, through which the redemption of the New Israel was effected.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document