| 23 воцарил над Израилем сына своего Соломона. Летописец опускает рассказ о борьбе Соломона за отцовский престол ( 3Цар. 1; 2 ), как прежде не упомянул о том, каким образом пришел к власти Давид (см. ком. к 11,1–9), пытаясь создать иллюзию мирного перехода власти от отца к сыну. 23:2–32 священников и левитов. Летописец приводит перечень черед левитов по их родам: потомки Гирсона (23,7–11), Каафа (23,12–20) и Мерари (23,21–23). См. ком. к 6,1–81. 23 от тридцати лет. Возраст, по достижении которого левитам надлежало приступать к исполнению своих обязанностей, не был, по всей видимости, строго определен и менялся в зависимости от ситуации. Различные ветхозаветные тексты называют тридцать ( Чис. 4,1–3 ), двадцать пять ( Чис. 8,23.24 ) и двадцать лет (23,24.27). 23 на музыкальных орудиях. См. ком. к 15,16–24. 23:6–23 Ср. сходные перечни в 6,16–30 и 24,20–30. 23 именем. См. ком. к 13,6. 23:24.27 от двадцати лет и выше. См. ком. к 23,3. 23:28.32 Летописец отмечает, что левиты находились под началом священников из числа потомков Аарона (см. ком. к 6,1–15 и 6,48–53). Глава 24 24:1–2 Летописец следует традиционно принятому распределению рода Аарона (см. 6,3; Исх. 6,23 ; Чис. 3,2–4 ), согласно которому только потомки Елеазара и Ифамара могли исполнять роль священников (см. ком. к Лев. 10,1–3 ; Чис. 3,4 ). 24 Садока. См. ком. к 15,11. 24 Распределял же их по жребиям. Жребий, бросаемый с соблюдением определенных, четко обозначенных правил, служил гарантией того, что то или иное решение принималось в соответствии с Божественной волей, а не человеческими предрассудками ( Притч. 16,33 ; Лк. 1,8.9 ; Деян. 1,26 ; см. также ком. к 24,31). 24:7–18 Назначение двадцати четырех черед имело целью обеспечить регулярное чередование обязанностей (ротацию в служении) среди священнических семей. Подобная практика существовала и в новозаветные времена ( Лк. 1,8.9 ). 24 первый жребий Иегоиариву. Отец Маккавеев Маттафия был в череде Иегоиарива (1 Макк. 2,1). 24 восьмой Авии. Захария, отец Иоанна Крестителя, был в череде Авии ( Лк. 1,5 ). |
| 7542 It is even possible that Mark may have suppressed the story to protect Lazarus and his sisters, who still lived near Jerusalem. 7543 If the story was originally part of the passion narrative, one might expect protective anonymity, as in the case of some other disciples who figured prominently in it (e.g., Mark 14:51–52 ); 7544 but in this instance the story was well-known enough that drawing attention to it, even anonymously, could have caused trouble for the family ( John 12:10–11 ). By contrast, if the story was not originally part of the passion narrative, Mark is no more obligated to report this event than the resuscitation at Nain (Luke 7:11–17; Q mentioned multiple raisings, Matt 11:5/Luke 7:22) or dramatic healings such as the centurion " s servant (Matt 8:5–13/Luke 7:1–10). If the early passion narrative or, alternatively, Mark, suppressed or simply omitted the story, Matthew and Luke may not have known of it or may not have understood it as critical to the movement of the story in the way John does. John " s community does seem to have already known of Mary " s involvement in the final anointing of Jesus (see comment on 11:2). A number of scholars have concluded that the story probably has a historical core. 7545 As difficult as it is to distinguish tradition and redaction anywhere in this Gospel, including in this narrative, 7546 Meier provides convincing evidence that the Lazarus story goes back to John " s tradition, though it was originally a brief story unrelated to Jesus» passion. Hence he does not regard it as surprising that the Synoptics omit it. 7547 By all critical approaches other than a philosophical predisposition against it, traditions indicate a popular belief that at least on some occasions Jesus raised the dead. 7548 It may be significant that third-century rabbis acknowledged these raisings but attributed them to necromancy; 7549 they may, however, well be responding to later Christian claims from the Gospels rather than to the traditions behind the Gospels. |
| 5 Из литературы по Мк 1:1 можно выделить, в частности: W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (Nashville, 1969) 117–150; W. Feneberg, Der Markusprolog: Studien zur Form-bestimmung des Evangeliums (Munich, 1974); P. Lamarche, Révélation de Dieu chez Marc (Paris, 1976) 2946; M. Bouttier, «Commencement, force et fin de LÉvangile,» ETR 51 (1976) 465–493; G. Arnold, « Mk 1.1 und Eröffnungswendungen in griechischen und lateinischen Schriften,» ZNW 68 (1977) 123–127; P. Pokorny, «Anfang des Evangeliums,» Die Kirche des Anfangs, Festschr. H. Schürmann, ed. R. Schnackenburg (Freiburg, 1978) 115–132; A. Feuillet, «Le commencement de l’économie chrétienne d ’après He. 2.3–1. Mc. 1.1 et Ac. 1.2,» NTS 24 (1978) 163–174; C. R. Kazmierski, Jesus the Son of God (Würzburg, 1979) 1–26; A. Globe, «The Caesarean Omission of the Phrase ‘Son of God’ in Mk 1.1 ,» HTR 75 (1982) 209–218. 6 «Начальный стих – это марковское исповедание веры», – замечает Р. Мартин. См.: R. P. Martin, Mark the Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter, 1972) 127. Это исповедание является ещё более значимым, если титул «Сын Божий» принадлежит к оригиналу Евангелия. Последний тезис недавно отстаивался в работе: A. Globe, «The Caesarean Omission,» 218. 7 Словосочетание ησο Χιστο – это родительный объектный падеж. См.: Lagrange 2–3 ; Taylor 152; Pesch 1, 75; Gnilka 1, 43. Однако W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist 146–150, высказывает гипотезу, что перед нами одновременно родительный субъектный и родительный объектный, и что Христос проповедует Евангелие, которое проповедует Христа. 8 См.: W.H. Kelber, Mark’s Story of Jesus (Philadelphia, 1979) 16–17. Автор пишет: Прежде чем сам Иисус заговорит в евангельском повествовании, и прежде чем Его именует небесный голос, Марк уже представляет Его читателю как фигуру, наделённую необычайной властью». См. также: М. Bouttier, «Commencement,» 465–467; P. Lamarche, Révélation de Dieu, 42–43. Если пролог соотносится с последующей перикопой Мк 1:2–8 , то превосходство Мессии подчеркивается через Ветхий Завет . Это предположение высказывал ещё Ориген , Толкование на Евангелие от Иоанна, 1, 13, GCS Origen Vol. 4, 18. |
| The Gospels» sources may well include collections of «memoirs» 41 (perhaps «Q» may be understood in such terms), 42 the sort that could constitute «folk» biographies. Some second-century Christian writers 43 viewed the Gospels–alongside other apostolic works– as «memoirs,» probably recalling Xenophon " s Memorabilia, a «life» of Socrates. Their use of this term provides attestation that, from an early period, some saw the Gospels as a form of biography. 44 A common general pattern does exist, but the canonical gospels may represent a different kind of biography from most collections of memoirs; they are complete literary narratives and not simply «folk» biographies, as most such collections would be. 45 In their present form the Gospels are relatively polished and intricate works, as literary critics have skillfully demonstrated. Such literary preparation is to be expected for writers in a Greco-Roman context. Ancient speechwriters, for instance, were expected to premeditate their works carefully, arranging the material in advance and fixing it in their memories, so that they needed add only finishing touches once they set out to write their speeches. 46 Similarly, writers of Greek and Latin narratives typically began with a rough draft before producing their final work; 47 Jewish writers in Greek could do the same. 48 The Gospels are thus undoubtedly polished products of much effort, carefully arranged to communicate their points most adequately. 49 The writers of the Synoptics, like writers of most ancient historical works, probably began with a basic draft of the material in chronological order, to which a topical outline, speeches, and other rhetorical adjustments would be added later. 50 It was not, however, usually appropriate to «publish» the work in an unfinished form; one would complete the book, check copyists» manuscripts when possible, and then give the first copy to the dedicatee when appropriate (Cicero Att. 13.21a, 23,48). 51 Aristotle recommended sketching the plot in outline, then expanding by inserting episodes, and illustrates this with the Odyssey. 52 Like other Greek writers, Luke follows one source at a time, incorporating a large block of Q material into Mark; 53 both Luke and Matthew make Mark the backbone, and supplement Mark from other sources. 54 John s adjustments toward rhetorical sophistication may in some respects be less elaborate than even those of Mark. Depending on the circumstances, some ancient observers could view incorporating preexisting lines as plagiarism, others (if the incorporation was obvious) as flattering the source (Seneca Suasoriae 3.7). The Gospels (especially if they were circulating anonymously, though this remains uncertain), however, functioned as common property of the apostolic church. |
| I uly tabyryk (Mark 12:28-34;Luka 10:25-28) 34 Fariseýler Isany saddukeýleri agzyny ýumdurandygyny eidenlerinde, bir ýere ýygnanydylar. 35 Olardan bir Töwrat mugallymy Isany synamak üçin: 36 «Mugallym, Töwratda i uly tabyryk näme?» diýip sorady. 37 Isa oa eýle jogap berdi: «Hudaýyyz Rebbi tutu ýüregiiz, ähli düünjäiz bilen jan-tenden söýü. 38 u birinji we i uly tabyrykdyr. 39 Ikinjisi bolsa unu ýalydyr: „Ýakynyy özüi söýü ýaly söý“. 40 Tutu Töwrat bilen pygamberleri ýazgylary u iki tabyryga baglydyr». Mesih kimi ogly? (Mark 12:35-37;Luka 20:41-44) 41 Fariseýler üýüp durkalar, Isa olardan: 42 «Mesih barada näme pikir edýärsiiz? Ol kimi ogly?» diýip sorady. Olar hem Isa: «Ol Dawudy ogly» diýip jogap berdiler. 43 Isa olara eýle diýdi: «Onda näme üçin Dawudy özi Mukaddes Ruhdan ylham alyp, Mesihe Reb diýýär? Ol eýle diýipdir: 44 „Hudaý Rebbime eýle sözledi: Dumanlaryy aýak astyna salýançam, Meni sagymda otur“. 45 Eger Dawut Mesihe Reb diýýän bolsa, Ol nähili Dawudy ogly bolýar?» 46 Isany soragyna hiç kim jogap berip bilmedi. ol günden balap, Oa mundan artyk sorag bermäge hiç kim milt etmedi. 23-nji bap Waý halyyza! (Mark 12:38-40;Luka 11:39-52;20:45-47) 1 Sora Isa halka we Öz ägirtlerine eýle gürrü berdi: 2 «Töwrat mugallymlary bilen fariseýler Musany ornunda otyrlar. 3 onu üçin olary size aýdýanlaryny baryny ýerine ýetirip, berjaý edi, emma olary edenlerini etmä, sebäbi aýdýan zatlaryny özleri edýän däldirler. 4 Olar agyr, götermesi kyn ýükleri baglap, adamlary gerine goýýandyrlar, ýöne özleri bu ýükleri götermek üçin, barmagyny hem gymyldatmak isleýän däldirler. 5 Olar ähli edýän zatlaryny göz üçin edýändirler. Töwrat aýatlar gutujygyny gieldip, donlaryny gotazlaryny uzaldýandyrlar. 6 Toýlarda töri, sinagogalarda ba kürsüleri, 7 bazarlarda salam almagy, adamlary özlerine „mugallym“ diýmeklerini halaýandyrlar. 8 Siz özüize „mugallym“ diýdirmä, sebäbi sizi bir Mugallymyyz bardyr. Sizi hemmäiz dogansyyz. 9 Ýer ýüzünde hiç kime „ata“ diýmä, sebäbi sizi bir Atayz bardyr, Ol hem gökdedir. 10 Özüize „batutan“ diýdirmä, sebäbi sizi bir Batutanyyz bardyr, Ol hem Mesihdir. 11 Arayzda beýik saýylýan hemmäize hyzmatkär bolsun. 12 Kim özüni ýokary tutsa, peseldiler, kim özüni pes tutsa, beýgeldiler. |
| At the same time, Johns view of Jesus» deity, like that of other first-century Christians, should not be exaggerated. Later Trinitarian doctrine, zealous to advocate the Father and Son " s equality in deity, sometimes neglected the earliest Christian emphasis on the Son " s voluntary subordination to the Father in role, a subordination which John emphasizes no less than Mark (see comment on 5:18–20). None of this requires us to suppose that John provides verbatim reports of Jesus» preresurrection claims to deity; it does allow for the possibility that Jesus made some claims which were only later understood as claims to deity by his followers. That some of Jesus» opponents pressed more significance into such statements than did the disciples, who in the gospel tradition had not yet understood Jesus» identity ( John 5:18; 8:59; 10:31–33 ), is also suggested by Mark (2:7; 14:63). John has reworked his narrative to speak to the events of his own day (e.g., making the Pharisees the primary opposition), and chosen to emphasize some points of the Jesus tradition to the exclusion or near exclusion of others. But in doing so John may nevertheless develop motifs already implicit in the Jesus tradition itself, reapplying Jesus to his generation rather than creating from whole cloth a new Jesus with great authority but no continuity with the earlier tradition (contrast 1 John 4:1–6 , which counters gnosticizing charismatics who have abandoned the Jesus of history for spiritual revelations from a different Jesus). 2660 Whereas the Fourth Gospel does include some protestations that Jesus has not revealed himself (10:24), and includes a Messianic Secret of its own based on the hardness of unbelieving hearts, it is clear that we must take account of the particular emphases of John, of Mark, or of both to understand why the Johannine Jesus reveals his glory (messiahship included) so early and so comparatively openly. It may be that John, «who had meditated for many years on the significance of the acts and words of Jesus, had learned to appreciate even the earliest stages of the ministry in the light of its consummation.» 2661 |
| Schürmann H. Ursprung und Gestalt. Erörterungen und Besinnungen zum Neuen Testament. Düsseldorf, 1970. Schweitzer E. The Good News according to Mark. Atlanta, 1970. Seim T.K. Roles of Women in the Gospel of John//Aspects of the Johannine Literature. Papers Presented at a Conference of Scandinavian New Testament Exegetes at Uppsala, June 16–20, 1986/ed. by L.Hartman and B.Olsson. Uppsala, 1986. SeniorD. Matthey. Nashville, 1998. Setzer C. Resurrection of the Body in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Doctrine, Community, and Self-Definition. Boston; Leiden, 2004. Simoens Y. Évangile selon Jean. Paris, 2016. Stein R.H. Mark. Grand Rapids, 2008. Storkey A. Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers. Grand Rapids, 2005. Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. London, 1924. Talbert Ch.H. Matthew. Grand Rapids, 2010. Taylor V. The Gospel according to St.Mark. London, 1952. Taylor V. The Passion Narrative of St.Luke. A Critical and Historical Investigation. Cambridge, 1972. Testament spirituel de Christian de Chergé//URL:http://www. Theissen G. The Gospels in Context. London; New York, 2004. Thomas J.Ch. Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community. Sheffield, 1991. Thomas T. Greater than Ceasar. Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel. Minneapolis, 2009. Tilborg S., van, Counet P.C. Jesus’ Appearances and Disappearances in Luke 24. Leiden; Boston; Koln, 2000. Turner D.L. Matthew. Grand Rapids, 2008. Vermes G. Jesus. Nativity – Passion – Resurrection. London, 2008. Vermes G. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. London, 2004. Vermes G. The Changing Faces of Jesus. London, 2001. Weren W. Windows on Jesus. Methods in Gospel Exegesis. Harrisburg, PA, 1999. Western W. The Enigma of the Two Swords//Expository Times. 1939. P.377; Expository Times. 1941. P.357 Wilkinson Duran N. The Power of Disorder. Ritual Elements in Mark’s Passion Narrative. London; New York, 2008. Williams C.H. Isaiah in John’s Gospel//Isaiah in the New Testament/Ed. by S.Moyise and M.J.J.Menken. London; New York, 2005. P.101–116. |
| 2050 . Politis N. G. Μρκου φσου το Εγενικο Εχ περιεκτικ ες τν Ζωοποιν Τριδα//EEBS 1966–1967. 35. 223–226. 2051 . Pétridès S. Le synaxaire de Marc d’Éphèse//ROC 1910. 2:5(15). 97–107. 2052 . Schmemann Α. γιος Μρκος Εγενικς//GP 1951. 24. 34–43, 230–241. 2053 . Tsirpanlis С. N. Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence. A historical re-evaluation of his personality (1391–1445). Diss. Ν. Y. 1973. Thessalonica; Ann Arbor 1974. 3 N. Y. 1986. Rexine J. E.//GOTR 1976 (Fall). 21:3. 313–315. 2054 . Tsirpanlis C. N. Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florencë a historical re-evaluation of his personality (1391–1455)//Dissertation Abstracts International – Ä The Humanities and Social Sciences. 1974. 34:8. 5044–5045. 2055 . Tsirpanlis C. N. The career and political views of Marcus Eugenicus//Byz 1974. 44. 449–457. 2056 . Tsirpanlis C. N. Mark Eugenicus on Purgatorium//BSI 1976. 37:2. 194–200. 2057 . Vasileiadis Ν. Μ ρκος Εγενικς κα νωσις τν κκλησιν. θναι 1972. Cavamos J.//GOTR 1984. 29:2. 209. 2058 . Vlastos Κ. Δοκμιον στορικν περ το σχσματος τς δυτικς κκλησας π τς ρθοδξου νατολικς... το βου το ν γοις πατρς μν Μρκου ρχιεπισκπου φσου το Εγενικο. θναι 2 1896. [ 1 1887 под другим назв., переизд. в третий раз опять под новым титулом в Афинах после 1970 г.]. Виссарион Никейский (loannes Bessarion) CSGL 04491; PG 161; PMA; RF 2. 527–528; TLG 3229; Beck 767–769; DHGE 8, 1196–1199; PLP 2707 Ок. 1399–1472. Ученик Георгия Хрисококка, Иоанна Хортасмена и Георгия Гемиста Плифона, гуманист. Греческий митрополит Никейский (потом Фиванский), затем (с 1439) латинский кардинал и епископ. Адресат Геннадия Схолария , Феодора Газы, Георгия Амируци. Сторонник унии. Сочинения Риторические, религ.-богосл. (Опровержение на «Против Векка» Паламы, Об унии, О Св. Духе, Против Плануда, О Евхаристии и др.), филос. (Против Плифона, Против клеветника Платона, схолии к Аристотелю и др.), речи и письма на лат. 2059 . Quae hoc in volumine tractantur. Bessarionis cardinalis Niceni... in calumniatore Platonis libri quator ...: Eiusdem correctio librorum Platonis de legibus Georgio Trapezuntio interprete ... Eiusdem de natura & arte aduersus eundem Trapezuntium ... Eiusdem Metaphysicorum Aristotelis XIIII librorum translatio. Theophrasti Meta-physicorum lib. I.... – [S.I.]: [s.n.], (Venetiis: in aedibus Aldi Manutü, et Andreae soceri). – 116, 55, |
| 2357 See esp. Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:1044–45. Parallels with the Elijah-Elisha narratives appear in the miracle stories (often noted, e.g., Robbins, Jesus, 54). 2358 See comments on John 1:21 ; although much of Judaism allowed for the continuance of prophecy, most of Judaism withheld the tide «prophet» from their contemporaries who prophesied, reserving the full restoration of prophecy for the end time (see Keener, «Pneumatology,» 77–91). That Elijah was an eschatological figure goes almost without saying (Mai 4:5; Sir 48:10 ; for additional rabbinic support, see Keener, «Pneumatology,» 124–25). 2359 Messiahship itself was not connected with signs (see Bultmann, Tradition, 257; Martyn, History, 96), but would place Jesus» ministry in an eschatological context. 2363 Cf. Harvey, Jesus, 115, although he probably presses this too far; Witherington, Christology, 171; Sanders, Figure, 167–68. Others adapted similar Isaianic language for the eschatological inversion (1QM 14.6), praying for an eschatological miracle (4Q176 1–2 1,1). 2365 Also Dibelius, Tradition, 170; cf. Grant, Gods, 66. Compare the translation of some of these accounts in Grant, Religions, 55–58. 2367 Signs are positive if inadequate in Mark, as in John; see Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 105; Kingsbury, Christology, 76–77, cited above. Divine or supramundane activity elicits human praise, as, e.g., in 1 En. 24:4–25:7; Let. Arts. 99. 2370 Kee, Miracle, 128–31. Miracle-stories were used for legitimation, evangelization (propagation), and occasionally instruction (see Talbert, John, 162). 2373 Aune, Environment, 34; he argues that Mark " s miracles, however, while authenticating Jesus» identity (57), merely «confirm his status as an emissary of God» (59). 2375 Cf. Moore, Judaism, 1:377; Strack, Introduction, 110, for his miracles in b. Ber. 33a; 34b; Ta c an. 24b; and that he was contemporary with Johanan ben Zakkai (m. " Abot 3:9,10; Mek. on Exod 18:21). 2376 On Honi and Hanina, see, e.g., Daube, «Enfant»; on Hanina, see Vermes, «Hanina»; for examples of Jewish miracle stories in general, see Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 339ff. Bokser, «Wonder-Working,» suggests that Palestinian tradition stressed God " s protection of the pious man, whereas Babylonian stressed such a man " s responsibility to others. |
| 343 В древнейших рукописях Евангелие от Марка заканчивается на Мк 16:8 . Исследователи считают, что 12 стихов к этой «краткой» версии Евангелия были добавлены позднее либо с целью гармонизировать содержание канонических Евангелий, либо с целью устранить допущенную ранее ошибку, в результате которой из текста последней главы Мк выпали стихи 9–20. – Прим. ред. 344 М. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (tr. J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1985) 61; idem, The Four Gospels, 82. 345 Мои подсчеты здесь несколько отличаются от подсчетов R. Feldmeier, «The Portrayal of Peter in the Synoptic Gospels,» in Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 59. 347 Хенгель, там же, с. 155, прим. 72, отмечает также, что упоминания о Петре «чаще встречаются в ключевых местах Евангелия: вначале, в перипетиях и в начале рассказа о Страстях». Я не уверен, что это имеет особое значение, тем более, что большая часть упоминаний в главе 14 связана с отречением Петра. 349 Здесь два упоминания имени Симона подряд связаны с тем, что Лука сокращает текст Марка, который гласит: «Выйдя вскоре из синагоги, пришли в дом Симона и Андрея, с Иаковом и Иоанном. Теща же Симонова лежала в горячке…» (1:29–30). 350 R. Bauckham, «John for Readers of Mark,» in R. Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 147–171. 351 См. об этом в современной работе: R. Tansmuth, The Disciple with Many Faces: Martin HengeVs and James H. Charlesworth " " s Theories Concerning the Beloved Disciple (University of Helsinki Ph.D. thesis, 2004) 194–197, см. также 215. 352 R. Bauckham, «The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author,» )SNT 49 (1993) 21–44; reprinted in S.E.Porter and C.A.Evans, eds., The Johannine Writings (Biblical Seminar 32; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995) 46–68. См. также далее, главу 15. 353 В Деян 21Мнасон Кипрянин описывается как «очень давний ученик». Слово archaios может означать здесь и то, что он был учеником Иисуса с самого начала его служения, как Двенадцать и другие, и то, что он был одним из основателей Иерусалимской церкви (ср. |
|
|
