| 30 eýlelikde, olar ýola düdüler. Antiýoha gelip, imanlylary üýürdiler-de, haty gowurdylar. 31 Imanlylar hatdaky ruhlandyryjy habary okap, at boldular. 32 Ýudas bilen Silas pygamberdiler. Olar doganlara köp öwüt-nesihat edip, olary imanyny berkitdiler. 33-34 Birnäçe wagt ol ýerde bolanlaryndan sora, doganlar olary resullary ýanyna sag-salamat ugradyp goýberdiler. 35 Pawlus we Barnap hem Antiýohda galdylar. Olar bagalar bilen birlikde halka sapak öwredip, Reb Isa hakyndaky Ho Habary wagyz etdiler. Pawlus bilen Barnap biri-birlerinden aýrylýarlar 36 Birnäçe günden so Pawlus Barnaba: «Indi Rebbi Ho Habaryny wagyz eden äherlerimize dolanyp baraly, ol ýerdäki doganlarymyzy görüp, hal-ýagdaýlaryny soraly» diýdi. 37 Mark diýlip atlandyrylýan Ýohannany-da Barnap özleri bilen äkitmek isleýärdi. 38 Emma Pawlus özlerini Pamfiliýada terk edip, Hudaýy hyzmatyny ahyryna çenli bile dowam etmedik Marky äkitmegi makul bilmedi. 39 eýlelikde, aralarynda agzalalyk döräp, olar biri-birlerinden aýryldylar. Barnap ýanyna Marky alyp, gämi bilen Kipre gitdi. 40 Pawlus bolsa Silasy saýlady, imanlylar olary Rebbi merhemetine tabyranlaryndan sora, olar ýola düdüler. 41 Olar Siriýa, Kilikiýa aýlanyp, ýygnaklary berkitdiler. 16-njy bap Timoteos Pawlus bilen Silasa goulýar 1 Pawlus Derbe we Listra äherlerine geldi. Listrada Timoteos atly Isany bir ägirdi bardy. Onu ejesi imanly ýahudydy, kakasy bolsa grekdi. 2 Listradaky we Ikoniýadaky doganlar ol barada gowy sözler aýdýardylar. 3 Pawlus Timoteosy özi bilen äkitmek isleýärdi. onu üçin ony sünnet etdirdi, sebäbi ol ýerde ýaaýan ýahudylary hemmesi Timoteosy kakasyny grekdigini bilýärdi. 4 Olar äherleri içinden geçip, ol ýerdäki imanlylara Iýerusalimdäki resullar we ýolbaçylar tarapyndan kabul edilen kararlara eýermekligi tabyrýardylar. 5 eýlelikde, doganlary imany has-da berkäp, olary sany günsaýyn artýardy. Pawlus Makedoniýa barada görnü görýär 6 Mukaddes Ruh tarapyndan Rebbi sözüni Aziýa welaýatyna wagyz etmeklik bökdelenso, Pawlus dagy Frikiýa we Galatýa ülkesinden geçdiler. 7 Olar Misýa serhedine gelip, Bitiniýa welaýatyna girmekçi boldular. Emma IsaMukaddesRuh arkaly olara rugsat bermedi. 8 Onso Misýany üsti bilen Troasa gitdiler. 9 ol gije Pawlus bir görnü gördi. Makedoniýaly bir adam onu garysynda durup: «Makedoniýa gel, bize kömek et!» diýip ýalbardy. 10 Pawlus bu görnüi görenso, Hudaý bizi olara Ho Habary wagyz etmäge çagyrýar diýen netijä gelip, biz dessine Makedoniýa tarap ýola düdük. |
| 432 The Gospel is more advanced than Mark (Burridge, «Gospels and Acts,» 530), though for a professional orator this would not have been a significant claim. 434 See, e.g., Rhet. Alex. 25.1435a.32–1435b.24 (esp. 1435b.7–16, 19–22); Photius Bibliotheca 166.109a (on Antonius Diogenes Thüle); see further Rowe, «Style,» 123–24; Black, «Oration at Olivet,» 84 (citing Quintilian 8.2.22). 435 See Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 17; Black, «Oration at Olivet,» 88 (citing Quintilian 9.2.65–95); cf. 2Pet 3:15–16 . Stamps, «Johannine Writings,» 620, cites as Johannine examples the abrupt shifts between 5and 6and between 14and 15:1. 436 Thielman, «Style of Fourth Gospel,» 175–77 (citing, e.g., Hermogenes, Issues 240.24–241.9; Diogenes Laertius 4.13–14; 9.6,16; Demetrius 2.101). 439 Maximus himself preferred clarity and simplicity (albeit in Atticist terms) except when pursuing such grandeur (Trapp, Maximus, xxxiv n. 64, cites as examples of the latter Or. 2.10; 10.9; 11.12; 21.7–8; 41.2). 440 Thielman, «Style of Fourth Gospel,» 173–75, cites Philo Worse 79; Heir A; Longinus Sub1. 9.3. Stamps, «Johannine Writings,» 620, notes asyndeton as a feature of Johannine sublimity (see comment below). 441 E.g., Thielman, «Style of Fourth Gospel,» 182 (cf. John " s use of solemnity, 177–78; emphasis and obscurity, 178–80). 442 Thielman, «Style of Fourth Gospel,» 172, cites John " s redundant use of pronouns, sayings (e.g., 1:15, 30; 4:29, 39; 13:16; 15:20), and on a broader compositional leve1. 443 Burridge, «Gospels and Acts,» 527. John frequently repeats favorite theological terms even though he often varies them with favorite synonyms (see comments on theological language in ch. 7 of the introduction). For the normal preference for stylistic variety, see, e.g., Rowe, «Style,» 155. 446 See Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 228 (citing esp. Demetrius 103,211); for examples of some forms of rhetorical repetition in John, see esp. comment on 6:38–39. 449 Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 2,4; Menander Rhetor 2.4,393.21–22; 2.7,411.23–29; but cf. also 2.7,411.29–31. On this preference in Koine, cf. Black, «Oration at Olivet,» 84. |
| Wfaat seems most significant is that, as in 2:2, Jesus» disciples remain with him in a family setting. Given the significance of «remain» in 1:38–39, it is reasonable to suspect that their continuance with Jesus here indicates the intimate, familial relationship Jesus has with his followers who persevere (cf. 8:31, 35; 14:23; 15:4); they have become members of his extended household (cf. 20:17; Mark 3:34–35 ). 4592 2. Purifying the Temple (2:13–15) Unless Jesus cleansed the temple twice, which is unlikely, 4593 it is impossible to harmonize John " s chronology for cleansing the temple with that of the Synoptics, as some early interpreters recognized. 4594 One might suggest that John depends on a separate tradition or that Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, dischronologized the cleansing due to his emphasis on the passion. But more likely John adapts the more familiar chronology of the passion tradition to make an important point. (As noted in the introduction, ch. 1, ancient readers did not expect ancient biographies to adhere to chronological sequence.) The mention of Passover is critical here, framing the unit (2:13, 23); 4595 this context significantly informs Jesus» words about his death in this pericope (2:19). 4596 Together with the final Passover (13:1; 18:28,39; 19:14), this Passover (2:13) frames Jesus» ministry in the Fourth Gospe1. Interpreters have traditionally insisted that the repeated Passovers of the Fourth Gospel provide a chronological outline of Jesus» public ministry, 4597 but they miss the symbolic significance John finds in the Passover. 4598 Not only we who have read the Synoptics and their Markan passion outline, but presumably all early Christians who celebrated the Lord " s Supper, were familiar with the paschal associations of the events of the Passion Narrative ( 1Cor 5:7; 11:23–25 ). More than likely, they also knew of the temple cleansing in this context. 4599 It is historically implausible that Jesus would challenge the temple system by overturning tables yet continue in public ministry for two or three years afterward, sometimes even visiting Jerusalem (although in Johns story world, Jesus does face considerable hostility there: 7:30–52; 8:59; 10:20–21, 31–39; 11:46–57). More than likely, John alludes to common knowledge about the place of the temple cleansing in the tradition, and opens Jesus» ministry with it for theological reasons. Now Jesus» entire ministry is the Passion Week, overshadowed by his impending «hour» (see comment on 2:4). 4600 |
| 373 Виктор Антиохийский 390 комментирует это конкретное выражение, очевидно, именно потому, что замечает его необычность. Однако он как будто не видит его христологической значимости. A. Ambrozic, The Hidden Kingdom (1972) 39, 42–44 подвергает отрывок тщательному анализу, но не считает, что евангелист вкладывал в Мк 11:10 какой-то особый смысл. 374 R. Bartnicki, «Il carattere messianico,» 5–27 пытается доказать, что использование слова «царство» (βασιλεα) вместо «царь» (βασιλες) в Мк. 11:10 связано с желанием Марка не акцентировать в данный момент идею Мессии. 375 Это объяснение выглядит более правдоподобным, чем гипотеза мессианской тайны (Nineham 292), которая в этом месте Евангелия менее убедительна. Cp. Achtemeier 162; Gnilka 2, 119. 376 Из литературы по Мк 11:12–14, 20–25 можно выделить, в частности: R. H. Hiers, «Not the Season for Figs,» JBL 87 (1968) 394–400; J. G. Kahn, «La parabole du figuier stérile et les arbres récalcitrants de la Genèse,» NovT 13 (1971) 38–45; K. Romaniuk, «Car ce n’était pas la saison des figues,» ZNW 66 (1975) 275–278; J. T. Wright, «Arnos and the Sycamore Fig,» VT 26 (1976) 362–368; J. C. Meagher, Clumsy Construction in Mark’s Gospel (1979) 64–67; G. Biguzzi, «Mc. 11,23–25 e il Pater,» RivB 27 (1979) 57–68; C. A. Wanamaker, « Mark 11,25 and the Gospel of Matthew,» SB 1978 2 (Sheffield, 1980) 329–337. 377 Из литературы по Мк 11:15–18 можно выделить, в частности: R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message (1950) 60–69; R. H. Hiers, «Purification of the Temple: Preparation for the Kingdom of God JBL 90 (1971) 82–90; N. M. Flanagan, «Mark and the Temple Cleansing,» BT 63 (1972) 980–984; J. M. Ford, «Money Bags in the Temple,» Biblica 57 (1976) 249–253; J. Jeremias, «Ein Widerspruch zur Pericope von der Tempelreinigung?,» NTS 23 (1976) 179–180; J. D. M. Derrett, «The Zeal of the House and the Cleansing of the Temple,» DR 95 (1977) 79–94. 378 Некоторые древние комментаторы усматривали в эпизоде с увядшей смоковницей ещё одну форму власти Иисуса. Виктор Антиохийский 291 пишет: «Было необходимо, чтобы Иисус показал свою карающую силу, дабы узнали иудеи, что Он может засушить их, но Он этого не делает. Напротив, Он сознательно их прощает». Исидор Пелусиот замечает: «Господь не без причины проклял смоковницу... но с намерением показать неблагодарным иудеям, что Он имеет достаточную силу и для наказания... может и наказывать, но не соизволяет сего по своей благости...» (Послание трибуну Феопомпу, PG 78.213). См. также Феофилакт 613 и Зигабен 85. Относительно эсхатологических нюансов эпизода см.: W. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark (1974) 100, 105; W. Schenk, Der Passionsbericht (1974) 158–166. |
| 2 Подробнее об анафорах египетского типа см. в нашей статье: Желтов М. С. Древние александрийские анафоры//Богословские труды. М„ 2003. Сб. 38. С. 269–320; там же представлены и русские переводы всех сохранившихся текстов этой традиции. 3 Так, хорошо известен инцидент, случившийся в Константинополе в 1194 году, когда находившийся в городе патриарх Александрийский Mapk III объявил о своем намерении совершить в храме Святой Софии литургию апостола Марка (PG. 138. Col. 953). 4 Публикация подготовленных Камингом материалов была сделана посмертно: Cuming G. The Liturgy of St. Mark: Edited from the Manuscripts with a Commentary by G. J. Cuming. Roma, 1990. (Orientalia Christiana Analecta; 234). 5 Andrieu M., Collomp P. Fragments sur papyrus de l’anaphore de saint Marc//Revue des sciences relegieuses. Strasbourg, 1928. Vol. 8. P. 489–515. 8 Здесь текст Страсбургского папируса существенно лаконичнее, чем текст в позднейших рукописях (ср.: Brightman.129–130) 9 Engberding H. Die amphorische Fürbittgebet der griechischen Markusliturgie//Orientalia Christiana Periodica. Roma, 1964. Vol. 30. P. 398–446. 10 GamberK. Das Papyrusfragment zur Markusliturgie und das Eucharistiegebet im Clemensbrief//Ostkirchliche Studien. Würzburg, 1959. Bd. 8. S. 31–45. 11 Coquin R.-G. L’anaphore alexandrine de Saint Marc//Le Muséon. Louvain, 1969. Vol. 82. P. 307–356. 12 Brakmann H. Neue Funde und Forschungen zur Liturgie Kopren (1984–1988)//Actes du 4e Congres Copre: Louvain-La-Neuve. 1988. (Publican de ÎInstitut Orientaliste de Louvain;41) Louvain-La-Neuve.1992. Vol. 419–435. 13 Kilmartin E. Sacrificium Laudis: Content and Function of Early Eucharistie Prayers//Theological Studies. Woodstock, Md., 1974. Vol. 35. P. 280. 14 Cuming Op. eit. P. XXIV–XXV; idem. The Anaphora of St Mark: a Study in Development//Le Museon. Louvain, 1982. Vol. 95. P. 115–129. 15 Cp.: Ray W.D. The Strasbourg Papyrus//P. F. Bradshaw (ed.) Essays on Early Eastern Eucharistie Prayers. Collegeville (MN), 1997. P. 39–56. 16 Spinks B. A Complete Anaphora ? A Note on Strasbourg Gr. 254//Heythrop Journal. London, 1984. Vol. 25. P. 51–55. |
| 570 Эти ссылки приведены в подлиннике в кн.: Муретов М. Ренан и его “Жизнь Иисуса”. СПб., 1907, с.345 сл.; см. также: Aland К. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Stuttgart, 1973. 571 Св.Климент. 1 Послание к коринфянам, 13, 15, 16, 18, 24. 572 Св. Игнатий Богоносец . Послания к ефесянам, XIV; к смирнянам, IV, I; к Поликарпу, II, I; Дидахе, I, VII, VIII, XI, XV, XVI. 573 Св.Поликарп. Послание к филиппийцам, 2,7. О возрасте Поликарпа см. Окружное послание о мученичестве Поликарпа (русск.пер., М., 1835, с.15). 574 Евсевий. Церковная история, III, 39. 575 См.: Безе Г. Достоверность наших Евангелий, с.116–117; Quasten J. Patrology. Utrecht, v. I, p.191f. 576 Св.Иустин. Диалог с Трифоном Иудеем, 5, 17, 49, 51, 76, 78, 100, 102 и др. Кроме того, христианский писатель рубежа I и II веков Кодрат свидетельствует, что он знает некоторых лиц, исцеленных Христом (см.: Евсевий. Церковная история, IV, 3). 577 Евсевий. Там же, 1,13. О находке см.: Кубланов М. Указ.соч., с.24. 578 Св.Ириней Лионский. Против ересей, II, 17,8,22; III, 11, 7–9. 579 Ревиль А. Иисус Назарянин. Т.1, с.209. 580 Св.Ириней. Против ересей, III, 1,1. О Марке см.: Деян 12,12; 13,5,13; 15,37-39 ; Кол. 4:10 ; Флм. 24:2; Тим 4,11; 1Петр. 5:13 ; возможно, что Марк, как и Варнава, был левитского рода; см.: Фивейский М. Евангелие от Марка. – ТБ. Т. IX, с.1–11; Nineham D.E. Saint Mark. London, 1967, p.38–43. 581 Папий. – В кн.: Евсевий. Церковная история, III, 39. 582 Св. Иустин. Диалог с Трифоном Иудеем, 108. 583 См.: Leon-Dufour X. Les Evangiles synoptiques. — RFIB, v. II, p.198. 584 Мк 15,21 ; ср. Рим. 16:13,14,51-52 . В связи с этими данными стоит, может быть, находка израильских археологов, сделанная в долине Кедрона. Там был обнаружен фамильный склеп иудеев – репатриантов из Египта. Среди них похоронен и некто “Александр, сын Симона”, родом из Кирены (см.: Barag D.P. Temoignages archeologiques sur l’histoire de Jesus. — Les dossiers de l’archeologie, 1975, N 10, p.12). 585 См.: Leon-Dufour X. The Gospels and the Jesus of History, p.110. |
| 1 Валеев Р. М. Из истории казанского востоковедения середины – второй половины XIX в.: Гордий Семенович Саблуков – тюрколог и исламовед. – Казань, 1993. – С. 6. 2 Mark Batunsky. Russian missionary literature ап islam/Zeitchrift fьr Religions und Geistesgeschichte. 1987/– 38. – S. 261. 4 Миссионерское отделение при Казанской духовной академии и внутренняя миссия в России/Церковно-общественная жизнь. – 1906. – 18. – С. 634. 8 Валеев Р.М. Казанское востоковедение: истоки и развитие. XIX в. – 20-е гг. XX в. – Казань, 1999. – С. 114; НА РТ. Ф. 10. Оп. 1. Д. 827. Л. 39. 12 Колесова Е.В. Востоковедение в синодальных учебных заведениях Казани. Середина XIX – начало XX веков. – Казань, 2000. – С. 64. 13 Протоколы заседаний Совета Казанской духовной академии за 1876 г. – Казань, 1876. – С. 127–131. 14 Григорьев А.Н. Христианизация нерусских народностей как один из методов национально-колониальной политики царизма в Татарии/Материалы по истории Татарии. Вып. 1. – Казань, 1948. – С. 261; Спасский Н.А. Просветитель инородцев Казанского края Николай Иванович Ильминский . – Самара, 1900. – С. 32–33; НА РТ. Ф. 10. Оп. 1. Д. 994. Л. 1. 18 Писарев Н.Н. Казанская духовная академия на служении православной церкви и русскому народу. – Казань, 1917. – С. 15–16. 19 Крачковский И.Ю. Очерки по истории русской арабистики/Избр. соч. – Т. V. – М.-Л., 1958. – С. 127–129. 29 См. Лисовский Н.М. Библиография русской периодической печати 1703–1900 гг.: (Материалы для истории русской журналистики). – Пг., 1915. – С. 125–126. – 526; Беляева Л.Н., Зиновьева М.К. Библиография периодических изданий России. 1901–1916. – Л., 1959. – Т. 2. – С. 637. – 6308; Роспись содержания см.: Люстрицкий В. Указатель к “Православному Собеседнику” за двадцать пять лет его издания: (с 1855 по 1875 гг.) – Казань, 1876; Указатель статей “Православного Собеседника” 1877–1891 гг. – Казань, 1892; Тоже за 1892–1909 гг. – Казань, 1910. 30 Православный собеседник. – 1872. – Май. – С. 38–78; Октябрь. – С. 273–295; Ноябрь. – С. 351–376. |
| Matthew and Luke both follow a longer form of the Baptist " s saying in a fuller context which apparently speaks of a judgment baptism in fire as well as in the Spirit (cf. also Luke 12:49–50 in light of Mark 10:38–39 ). 4095 The contextual image of a harvest and threshing floor in that Q tradition often functioned in the Hebrew Bible as judgment and/or end-time imagery. 4096 Fire also symbolized eschatological judgment in this context (Matt 3:10, 12; Luke 3:9, 17) as in the Hebrew Bible; 4097 Jewish tradition also developed a doctrine of an eternal 4098 or temporary 4099 hel1. Like Mark, the Fourth Gospel omits the mention of fire baptism along with the context in Q that makes it clear that it represents eschatological wrath. 4100 Given the Baptists emphasis on repentance and the Essene association of the Spirit with eschatological purification, 4101 we need not doubt that he proclaimed such an eschatological baptism. 4102 Given the comparison between outpoured water and the Spirit in the biblical prophets (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:25–27; 39:29 ; Joel 2:28–29 ; Zech 12:10), the image of a Spirit baptism which supercedes a mere water baptism is natural (see esp. comment on the background of John 3in Ezekiel). Scholars have more often disputed whether the Gospels accurately reflect the original meaning of John " s prophecy. Following the Q form, some scholars have suggested that the Baptist " s «holy spirit» may extend the image of wind separating the wheat from the chaff, hence applying to a fiery wind that would purge Israel of its sinners; 4103 but beyond the possibility that a wordplay may lie behind the phrase, three reasons make it improbable that «spirit» does not refer to God " s Spirit: the phrase «holy spirit» is much more widely established in early Judaism with reference to the Spirit of God; both fire and wind can represent the purifying spirit of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible; and all streams of tradition in which the saying is extant include the baptism in the Holy Spirit ( Mark 1:8 ; Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16; John 1:33 ), although three of the four gospels can speak of «God " s Spirit» in the context ( Mark 1:10 ; Matt 3:16; John 1:32 ). 4104 Contrasted with fiery judgment in Q (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16), «holy spirit» may there refer to the purificatory aspect of the Spirit in early Judaism stressed in Essene circles. 4105 |
| 7778 Normally, however, one anointed kings, guests, or others on their heads; 7779 that Mary anoints Jesus» feet (12:3; cf. Luke 7:38, 44–46, 48) indicates an even greater respect for Jesus (cf. Luke 10:39); she takes the posture of a servant (1:27; 13:5). (One may compare a later story in which one who wished to greatly honor R. Jonathan kissed his feet.) 7780 That she also wipes Jesus» feet with her hair (12:3) reinforces this portrait of humble servitude; a woman " s hair was her «glory» ( 1Cor 11:7 ) . 7781 Commentators often observe that it would have violated the Palestinian Jewish custom that required women to keep their heads covered. 7782 This custom obtained only for married women, however, and it is unclear that either Mary or Martha is married; given the nature of ancient sources, one would expect them to report if either was married, but we instead get the impression (though it is never explicit) that Mary and Martha live in their brother " s home, and that if either had been married, they were not married now. They appear to be Lazarus " s closest relatives (11:19–20), suggesting that all were unmarried (which might suggest their youth, and perhaps that Simon the leper in Mark 14was their deceased father); but John may simply omit extraneous characters and information, so we cannot say for certain. Whether Mary was single or married, however, to use her prized feminine hair (see above) to wipe Jesus» feet, when normally only servants even touched the master " s feet (see comment on 1:27), indicates the depth of her humble submission to and affection for Jesus. 7783 Banqueters were known to wipe excess water or oil on the head or hair of servants; Mary seeks this servant " s role as an expression of devotion to Jesus. 7784 And given the taboos of the very pious against even speaking with women, 7785 and undoubtedly the suspicions of most people when too much cross-gender affection between nonrelatives appeared in public, her action would probably seem immoral to many bystanders if they were present. |
| Sheffield, 1984; Hengel M. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. L., 1985; The Interpretation of Mark/Ed. W. Telford. Phil.; L., 1985; Lührmann D. Das Markusevangelium. Tüb., 1987; Yarbro Collins A. The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as Son of Man//HarvTR. 1987. Vol. 80. N 4. P. 391-407; eadem. Daniel 7 and the Historical Jesus//Of Scribes and Scrolls/Ed. H. W. Attridge e. a. Lanham (MD), 1990. P. 187-193; Crossan J. D. The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San Francisco, 1988; Mack B. L. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Phil., 1988; Edwards J. R. Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives//NTIQ. 1989. Vol. 31. N 3. P. 193-216; Kingsbury J. D. The Christology of Mark " s Gospel. Phil., 19892; Tolbert M. A. Sowing the Gospel: Mark " s World in Literary-Historical Perspective. Minneapolis, 1989; Blackburn B. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Aner Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark. Tüb., 1991; Fowler R. M. Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis, 1991; Head P. M. A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1. 1: «The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ»//NTS. 1991. Vol. 37. N 4. P. 621-629; idem. Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority. N. Y., 1997; idem. The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations//TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. Atlanta, 2008. Vol. 13. P. 1-38 (var. pag.); Wenham J. W. Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. L., 1991; Camery-Hoggatt J. Irony in Mark " s Gospel: Text and Subtext. Camb., 1992; Collins J. J. The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism//NTS. 1992. Vol. 38. N 3. P. 448-466; Neirynck F. The Gospel of Mark: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1990. Leuven, 1992 [Библиогр.]; Marcus J. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the OT in the Gospel of Mark. |
|
|
