Марк 6:52
οὐ γὰρ συνῆκαν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις, ἀλλ' ἦν αὐτῶν ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη
Синодальный перевод:
Ибо не вразумились чудом над хлебами, потому что сердце их было окаменено
Перевод М.Г. Селезнёва:
Даже после чуда с хлебами они так ничего и не поняли, настолько ослеплены были их умы
γὰρ – часто употребляется, маркирует вещи, касающиеся прошлого.
ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη – слово «сердце» в греческом языке Септуагинты и Нового завета употребляется не в качестве метафоры для нравственной целостности, сострадательности и милосердия, а вслед за еврейской образностью это сосредоточение ума, понимания. Например, Исход 10:20:
καὶ ἐσκλήρυνεν κύριος τὴνκαρδίαν Φαραω καὶ οὐκ ἐξαπέστειλεν τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ
Но Господь ожесточил сердце фараона, и он не отпустил сынов Израилевых (СП)
Здесь речь идет о том, что ум фараона стал глупым
Как в таком случае лучше перевести ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη?
Взглянем, где еще в Библии встречается «окаменение». Например, Евангелие от Иоанна 12:40:
τετύφλωκεν αὐτῶν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ ἐπώρωσεν αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν ἵνα μὴ ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ νοήσωσιν τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ στραφῶσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς
народ сей ослепил глаза свои и окаменил сердце свое, да не видят глазами, и не уразумеют сердцем, и не обратятся, чтобы Я исцелил их (СП)
Здесь речь идет о сердце как об органе понимания, а окаменение – ослепление этого органа, которое не дает уму правильно функционировать
Ср. 2-е Коринфянам:
ἀλλὰ ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται
Но умы их ослеплены: ибо то же самое покрывало доныне остается неснятым при чтении Ветхого Завета, потому что оно снимается Христом (СП)
Образ окаменения эксплицитно сочетается не с сердцем, а пониманием
Ср. Марк 3:5:
καὶ περιβλεψάμενος αὐτοὺς μετ᾿ ὀργῆς συλλυπούμενος ἐπι ̀ τῇ πωρώσει τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρα καὶ ἐξέτεινεν καὶ ἀπεκατεστάθη ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ
И, воззрев на них с гневом, скорбя об ожесточении сердец их, говорит тому человеку: протяни руку твою. Он протянул, и стала рука его здорова, как другая (СП)
У Иисуса есть круг людей, которые его понимают и которые его не понимают
Если посмотреть, не на «окаменение» сердец, а на «ожесточение», то видно много отсылок к Исходу. Однако там употребляется другой глагол – σκληρύνω.
М.Г. Селезнев:
I made some comments on the image or the porosis of the hearts or the disciples mentioning both the image the nature of the image that, in fact, hearts here do not refer to emotional side of human being but rather to the possibility of understanding and then I tried to draw our attention to the fact that Jesus disciples are described here almost in the same terms as Jesus opponents out there and almost in the same terms as the enemies of the Jewish people in the Old Testament.
Joel Marcus:
I followed that and I agreed with everything that you said and I do think this is a radical thing to say about the disciples to apply this language to them. And as you mentioned he repeats it in chapter 8 where it becomes even more emphasized and I do think the Old Testament background is important.
Just a few things.
First of all so the classic text as you showed is God hardening Pharaoh's heart but we also have text in which Pharaoh hardens his own heart. So there is a duality about this. On the one hand it's human responsibility: he hardens his own heart. but on the other hand God's behind the hardening of people's hearts. So there's a mysterious and somewhat contradictory duality the language is also applied to the children of Israel though too so while it's a terrible thing to have your heart hardened it may be that that's not the last word because the children of Israel's hearts are hardened but there's a possibility that they can be softened. And that and it doesn't mean that God has cut himself off from those whose hearts are hardened.
And the other thing I found in various researches that I did is this language is also very common in Qumran. I mean the expression «Hardness of Heart». I think it is applied again to their enemies but also that's something that can afflict insiders. I mean the other thing concerning this verse 6:52 is what does it mean exactly. I think you’ve done a very good job with «Hardness of Heart», but about the loaves they didn't understand about the loaves. Somebody wrote a whole dissertation on this verse about how their Hardness of Heart is connected to the loaves so that's another mystery.
М.Г. Селезнев:
Thank you, meanwhile I would like us to look at the passage. In fact here in Mark we have a kind of a reference to Isaiah 6:10 where the prophet tells us why the people of Israel cannot understand God's will. Once again “ἡ καρδία” in the sense of the human possibility to understand what is going on and they can hear with difficulty they can see with difficulty. And the ultimate goal of all this is that's God's will God's decision behind this God's decision to divide the people to those who can understand what is going on, and to those who cannot. Let's look once again at this passage of Isaiah which seems to be so important for the gospel of Mark.
ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτῶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσανμήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπι στρέψωσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς
Ибо огрубело сердце народа сего, и ушами с трудом слышат, и очи свои сомкнули, да не узрят очами, и не услышат ушами, и не уразумеют сердцем, и не обратятся, чтобы Я исцелил их (СП)
Отсылка из Марка к этому месту уже встречалась, а у Марка отсылку из этого места из Исайи.
Марк 4:11-12:
καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὑμῖν τὸ μυστήριον δέδοται τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάν τα γίνεταιἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ μὴ ἴδωσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν καὶ μὴ συνιῶσιν μήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς
И сказал им: вам дано знать тайны Царствия Божия, а тем внешним все бывает в притчах;
так что они своими глазами смотрят, и не видят; своими ушами слышат, и не разумеют, да не обратятся, и не прощены будут им грехи. (СП)
When Jesus explains to his disciples that there are those who are out or the circle of his disciples and who cannot understand anything and there are the disciples that can do this.
Joel Marcus:
It immediately begins in 4:11 and 12 there's this sharp division between disciples and outsiders but then in 4:13 there's a beginning of qualification of it I'd say.
Марк 4:13
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην καὶ πῶς πάσας τὰς παραβολὰς γνώσεσθε
И говорит им: не понимаете этой притчи? Как же вам уразуметь все притчи? (СП)
М.Г. Селезнев:
In some sense we can say that Mark 4:13 somehow prefigures what you have here in 6:52 in 4:13 we have a question do not understand this parable as well and then in 6:52 we have an answer.
Joel Marcus:
It looks pretty bad for the disciples.
М.Г. Селезнев:
It looks pretty bad for the disciples but that's the logic of Mark and narrative.
Joel Marcus:
It is interesting to look at the usages of Isaiah 6:10-11 in the New Testament it's very frequently cited and already with Paul it's and in John we saw too. It's used to explain something that was a big problem for the church and that was the unbelief of Israel if Jesus is the Messiah why doesn't Israel accept him and so in most of those passages it's used to say to explain well this is by God's will for some mysterious reason that the rest of Israel doesn't understand. But again Mark applies it in a way I don't think anybody else does in the New Testament to the disciples themselves or if they do apply it it's in dependence on Mark.
М.Г. Селезнев:
Could you please, Joel, provide us with references to Paul and John.
Joel Marcus: Yes, that is John 12:40. And as far as Paul is concerned it is Romans 11:7.
М.Г. Селезнев:
By the way the inner logic of this passage in John 12:40 is almost the same as in our Mark passage because although he did all those miracles before them they did not believe in him.
Joel Marcus:
Yes but here it's not the applying to the disciples but it's applying to those from Israel who don't accept Jesus..
М.Г. Селезнев:
Yes that's exactly what I wanted to draw attention to that the same imagery and the same reproaches that here in John are applying to Jesus opponents in the Jewish environment in Mark in our place it's almost the same logic and the same vocabulary applied not of the unbelieving Jews but of his disciples.
Римлянам 11:7:
τί οὖν ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ Ἰσραήλ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐπέτυχεν ἡ δὲ ἐκλογὴ ἐπέτυχεν οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν
Что же? Израиль, чего искал, того не получил; избранные же получили, а прочие ожесточились. (СП)
Joel Marcus:
Here it's again those from Israel who have not accepted Jesus. Another significant usage is at the end of Acts 28:26-27
Деяния 28: 26-28:
ὃς πέποιθεν θρασείᾳ καρδίᾳ ὁ τοιοῦτος ἄφρων ὃς δὲ πορεύεται σοφίᾳ σωθήσεται
ὃς δίδωσιν πτωχοῖς οὐκ ἐνδεηθήσεται ὃς δὲ ἀποστρέφει τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν πολλῇ ἀπορίᾳ ἔσται ἐν τόποις ἀσεβῶνστένουσι δίκαιοι ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐκείνων ἀπωλείᾳ πληθυνθήσονται δίκαιοι
Кто надеется на себя, тот глуп; а кто ходит в мудрости, тот будет цел.
Дающий нищему не обеднеет; а кто закрывает глаза свои от него, на том много проклятий.
Когда возвышаются нечестивые, люди укрываются, а когда они падают, умножаются праведники (СП)
This is a very significant passage because it's the end of the whole book and we've had throughout Acts this division within Israel some accept Jesus and some don’t and then at the end where there's a similar division between those in Rome those Jews who are accepting the message and those who are not accepting it those who don't accept it they have this passage applied to them.
М.Г. Селезнев:
Yes it is also important place both in the book of Acts and in the New Testament because this is an explanation and legitimation of the gentile Christianity because in the next verse Paul uses this reference to Isaiah and the idea that «ἡκαρδία πεπωρωμένη» as a legitimation for the mission to the Gentiles.
Joel Marcus:
That's true and this is a pattern within acts that previously in the narrative several times Jews who have opposed the message and Paul says okay I'm going to the gentiles but then in the next chapter he's back with in the synagogue but still there is a pattern of being rejected by Jews and going to Gentiles which happens here at the very end of the book but then it does say it at in the very last verse the implication is that he was still hanging around in synagogues and teaching Jews so it's not irrevocable he doesn't do any more outreach with Jews even after he pronounces stuff like this now it's kind of complex and there's a lot of debates about how has Luke the author of Acts given up on Jews, who don't believe or not and I think it's a pretty complex situation.
М.Г. Селезнев:
Интересно, как Матфей 13:16-17 поправляет Марка 4:11-23, где Иисус говорит ученикам:
«Ваши же блаженны очи, что видят, и уши ваши, что слышат, ибо истинно говорю вам, что многие пророки и праведники желали видеть, что вы видите, и не видели, и слышать, что вы слышите, и не слышали»
Видение мира Матфеем намного ближе традиционному церковному восприятию. У Марка картина другая: «окаменели очи всех»
Далее обсуждается Исайя 6:10, предлагаем почитать об этом стихе в статье М.Ю. Юровицкой
Марк 6:53-56
καὶ δια περάσαντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἦλθον εἰς Γεννησαρὲτ καὶ προσωρμίσθησαν
καὶ ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου εὐθὺς ἐπιγνόντες αὐτὸν
περιέδραμον ὅλην τὴν χώραν ἐκείνην καὶ ἤρξαντο ἐπὶ τοῖς κραβάττοις τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας περιφέρειν ὅπου ἤκουον ὅτι ἐστίν
καὶ ὅπου ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς κώμας ἢ εἰς πόλεις ἢ εἰς ἀγροὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς ἐτίθεσαν τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας καὶ παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν ἵνα κἂν τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ ἅψωνται καὶ ὅσοι ἂν ἥψαντο αὐτοῦ ἐσῴζοντο
Перевод М.Г. Селезнёва:
Они переправились, достигли земли в Геннисарете и причалили к берегу
Едва они вышли из лодки, как люди тотчас же узнали Иисуса
и обежали всю округу, чтобы оповестить. И отовсюду начали приносить больных на носилках туда, где, как люди слышали, находился Иисус
В-какую бы деревню, или город, или село Он не входил, всюду на площадях клали больных и просили, чтоб Он позволил им коснуться хотя бы края Его Одежды:
Те, кто прикасался, исцелялись
Иисусу не удаются уйти, чтобы молиться в одиночестве. Люди узнают о Нем, приносят больных. Получается обратный контраст: умы учеников ослеплены (несмотря на чудеса, которые творит Иисус). А умы внешних «просвещены»: они понимают, что от Иисуса исходит чудотворная сила.
Joel Marcus:
I think it's an interesting suggestion that all it depends on what “συνῆκαν” means in 52. It suggests again that the disciples don't understand that they should have understood and they didn't understand about the loaves. I guess on one level I mean Jesus has just multiplied miraculously the loaves but they still didn't understand his power. I guess why they're astonished at the end of verse 51, but I mean it could also be that understanding is a deeper thing than just knowing that Jesus has the power to heal.
I think the disciples lack of understanding goes deeper than that. But I do think in the overall context of the Gospel that you're right that this the sharp division that we saw in 4:10 to 12 between the disciples and the outsiders it begins to be messed up almost immediately and at the end of The Gospel the disciples all run away and it's a an outsider it's a Roman soldier who sees what's going on so maybe this is as you suggest prefiguring of that.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
I would like to ask whether this is just messing up that both disciples and outsiders are now treated in the same way or even it is not just messing up but it's an inversion like in the passage that you mentioned that Roman Centurion turns out to be closer to understanding Jesus identity than the disciples. it's not just that they are on the same level but that's the complete inversion of the attitude between insiders and outsiders.
Joel Marcus:
I think I can go along with that but I still don't I want to hold out some hope for the disciples and I think Mark does and I mentioned this before Chapter 14:28 and chapter 16:7 and in both of those Jesus says after he's raised he's going to go before them into Galilee and there they will see him so I do think the author thinks that there is going to be a reconciliation between Jesus and the disciples after the resurrection. But I agree in the sense that I mean Mark does he sets up this division sharp division and then he knocks it down and I think that must be a deliberate that must be a deliberate strategy of his that he wants to deconstruct the binary that he himself has created to speak in like deconstructive terms which I don't generally like to do.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
I think that in this case deconstruction is very much in place I mean the term deconstruction but the question is whether Mark deconstructs here the construction that he himself had created in the earlier chapter or whether he is deconstructing some image that he inherited from the earlier Christian tradition. There is somehow black and white duality between those, who are inside and those, who can understand and those who are outside and cannot understand. Whether it is Mark's own invention, or he inherited it from the earlier tradition just in order to reconstruct it.
Joel Marcus:
I think it's likely that he did inherit it from the earlier tradition and he is deconstructing it. But I guess maybe I don't think that he deconstructs it as totally as you think that he does. Because you want to say I think that the disciples represent some other faction in the church some other stream of Christian tradition, maybe, the Jerusalem disciples that Mark is opposed to.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
It's a good question because definitely I like very much the gospel of Mark especially because of that particular worldview that is so prominent in Mark. I believe that it's not rather a polemics of one faction within the church let's call it Mark's faction against another faction let's call it Jerusalem faction. I'm not going to think about these lines but rather I think that behind the gospel narrative as this represented in Mark is not a polemics against some particular faction in early Christianity but maybe the polemics against the very idea of hierarchy and pretention of some disciples and faction to be the real Apostles. We have the same attitude in Paul. Paul does not say that other Apostles are bad or they're not Apostles. He just says that we're all under the sin.
Joel Marcus:
I like that and I think the comparison to Paul is good because you have a similar kind of duality in Paul because he does sometimes he constructs a dualism of insiders and outsiders. Like in Romans too sharp dualism between those who will be saved and those who will be damned and those who obey the law and those who do not. But then there is one of the most important verses in Romans 11:32: God has handed all human beings over to disobedience in order that he may have mercy on all.
So everybody belongs in the category of the disobedient including presumably Jesus followers such as himself. But somehow that serves God's mercy on the whole Cosmos. So I do think you have a similar deconstruction there of a construction that Paul elsewhere endorses and that Paul. Also may have inherited from the church before him or from apocalyptic ways of thinking that one finds already in Judaism which he buys into and yet ultimately undermines in at least that verse at the end of Romans 11.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
I know that there were some works that tried to explain Mark's attitude towards the disciples as a sign of his mistrust in the Jerusalem Church and so on. I think the literature here better than I do but to my mind this is not his negative attitude to some particular group of people who pretended to be the real followers of Jesus but rather his critique of any attempt on behalf of Jerusalem Apostles or whoever else to say that we are the real followers. There are no real followers, like the place of Paul that you quoted that all of us are sinners.
Joel Marcus:
I mean this sort of Jerusalem Church opposition theory was popular in the 60s in America. That had to do with the crisis of our own time and with distrust by those exegetes of their own ecclesiastical authorities. But I agree with you, I think that Mark's criticism is not trying to knock down one group in favor of another group so much as to knock down all human pretention to possess the knowledge of God. And yet he does think that God reveals himself to human beings, but the claim that I know and you don't become a trap. And this is a trap that pretty much everybody in the Gospel falls into except for somebody like the Centurion this Roman soldier. At the end these people are just just momentary appearances.
I mean there are people who want to say that the disciples as a group they disqualify themselves and the real model for faith are people like the Centurion the Roman Centurion, like the woman who reaches out in faith to Jesus and is healed by him like the mother of the Syrophoenician woman. I mean that's true these are all they're very they're positive examples of faith but they just appear for a moment and then they disappear.
It's easy to reach out in faith for one minute but it's hard to follow day after day. And I think Mark recognizes that and his portrait of the Twelve is a portrait of the realistic problems that disciples meet and fall into and the way that they fail, but that's not the last word for them either. Because then, there's still Jesus' promise that He will see them again in Galilee.
Марк 7:1-4
καὶ συνάγονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ
Ἱεροσολύμων
καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις ἐσθίουσιν τοὺς ἄρτους
οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων
καὶ ἀπ᾿ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶ
М.Г. Селезнёва:
К Иисусу подошли фарисеи и несколько толкователей Писания пришедших из Иерусалима.
Они увидели, что некоторые из учеников Иисуса приступили к еде с «нечистыми» руками, то есть не омыв рук.
(А фарисеи, как и все иудеи, не приступают к еде, пока не омоют рук. Так они соблюдают: предписания Отцов.
Придя с рынка, они не приступают к еде, пока не совершат омовения, и еще много других предписаний соблюдают: об омовении чаш, кувшинов, медных сосудов, кроватей[1].)
Продолжается противостояние Иисуса и фарисеев. Образ фарисеев как главных оппонентов Иисуса и даже как главных виновников его смерти возникает позднее, в результате полемики между христианами и протораввинистическим иудаизмом.
Любопытно, что в этом тексте есть какие-то вещи, которые по предписаниям протораввинистического иудаизма восходят к традиции фарисеев. Строго разработанные предписания (омывать руки перед едой) относятся к раннему раввинистическому иудаизму и дальше к позднейшим раввинистическим предписаниям, однако идея того, что омовение рук как знак чистоты, который должен быть соблюден благочестивым иудеем, встречается намного раньше. Особо интересно, что этот обычай описан уже в «Письме Аристея» (параграфы 305-306) – эта традиция связана с александрийским иудаизмом, где зарождалась Септуагинта.
Joel Marcus:
I'm just wondering now to what extent we can use the Epistle of Aristeas as a sort of source about what diaspora of Jews did. I mean it's just such a legendary story to what extent can we derive history from it but I mean it seems like it attests to a general Jewish custom of washing hands before praying which we don't know about otherwise. Mark is presenting well Pharisees washing their hands as something distinctive about them though then he deconstructs it again by saying that all the Jews do it. I don't know if that is historical either.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
I think at least the Letter of Aristeas is a witness to the fact that in the Jewish community of Alexandria or in Jewish circles at the time washing hands was regarded as a sign of piety. Whether it was prescribed to wash the hands every time you want to pray is not clear, but I think that this passage could have been written only if the author thought that he and his audience would regard this as a sign of piety. He may have been may have exaggerated this. Look these 72 men were so pious that they washed their hands every time before they wanted to pray or to translate a piece of scripture.
Joel Marcus:
I agree with that and that seems right to me and there probably was some sort of custom of washing hands it does fit into his overall allegorical interpretation of the Jewish law and Jewish Customs which runs throughout the whole letter. The whole letter is or at least a section of the letter is explaining in great detail why the Jews have these peculiar laws and they all turn out to be allegories for virtuous behavior.
But I think your main point is right, it's an important passage because it shows that people and Jewish people could associate handwashing with Jewish piety even outside of the Pharisaic realm. And we don't get anything about the Pharisees being and washers in Josephus, who is another main source. What we get is a lot of Rabbinic discussion about handwashing and so people retroject that back into New Testament time and there's probably some continuity but the Mark is our basic source for Pharisaic handwashing.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
It also draws into the picture the handwashing of Pontius Pilatus in Matthew. Though he was not a Jew but the story was produced for Jewish audience and it seems that the very logic that we see here in Aristeas they explained that handwashing was a token that they had done no evil. In fact, at least with this explanation the passage from Aristeas seems to be even closer to the description of Pontius Pilatus handwashing in Matthew than to Mark. So obviously these different indications, different passages speak about the role of handwashing for the Jewish tradition. This not just a coincidence, they refer to some maybe even not a custom but some understanding of the meaning of handwashing that goes at least to the 2 Century BC, if we date Aristeas to this time.
Joel Marcus:
That's a very good point. I do think it's interesting that in the passage in Mark at the beginning of chapter 7 they don’t ask him why don't you wash your hands they ask Jesus why his disciples don't wash their hands and this is a pattern elsewhere in the Gospel too. Like in Chapter Two, I can't remember, if it's the Pharisees or the Scribes. They asked Jesus, or maybe it's the Disciples of John the Baptist, I forget who it is, but they say why don't your disciples fast, so there's some question about what Jesus' disciples do. But in a realistic context I would think that they would ask Jesus why he doesn't do it.
This was this sort of observation was used by Bultmann and others to say that these are ideal scenes that were constructed by the early church to explain what they did, rather than traditions going back to the historical Jesus. I'm not sure that's necessarily true, but the question is a good one, why don't they ask Jesus what he's doing.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
My preliminary answer would be quite close to that of Bultmann since their reproaches are addressed in both cases to Jesus disciples, then probably the whole discussion date to the time of clashes between these disciples and their Pharisee contemporaries. But here we enter into a new area. You mentioned Bultmann, so, namely, the question is to what extent the controversy that we have in Mark can be traced to historical Jesus, or to the time of Markan community, early Church.
Let’s start our next discussion with this topic.
[1] В критическом аппарате отмечено, что «кровати» могут быть позднейшей добавкой.
οὐ γὰρ συνῆκαν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις, ἀλλ' ἦν αὐτῶν ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη
Синодальный перевод:
Ибо не вразумились чудом над хлебами, потому что сердце их было окаменено
Перевод М.Г. Селезнёва:
Даже после чуда с хлебами они так ничего и не поняли, настолько ослеплены были их умы
γὰρ – часто употребляется, маркирует вещи, касающиеся прошлого.
ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη – слово «сердце» в греческом языке Септуагинты и Нового завета употребляется не в качестве метафоры для нравственной целостности, сострадательности и милосердия, а вслед за еврейской образностью это сосредоточение ума, понимания. Например, Исход 10:20:
καὶ ἐσκλήρυνεν κύριος τὴνκαρδίαν Φαραω καὶ οὐκ ἐξαπέστειλεν τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ
Но Господь ожесточил сердце фараона, и он не отпустил сынов Израилевых (СП)
Здесь речь идет о том, что ум фараона стал глупым
Как в таком случае лучше перевести ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη?
Взглянем, где еще в Библии встречается «окаменение». Например, Евангелие от Иоанна 12:40:
τετύφλωκεν αὐτῶν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ ἐπώρωσεν αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν ἵνα μὴ ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ νοήσωσιν τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ στραφῶσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς
народ сей ослепил глаза свои и окаменил сердце свое, да не видят глазами, и не уразумеют сердцем, и не обратятся, чтобы Я исцелил их (СП)
Здесь речь идет о сердце как об органе понимания, а окаменение – ослепление этого органа, которое не дает уму правильно функционировать
Ср. 2-е Коринфянам:
ἀλλὰ ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται
Но умы их ослеплены: ибо то же самое покрывало доныне остается неснятым при чтении Ветхого Завета, потому что оно снимается Христом (СП)
Образ окаменения эксплицитно сочетается не с сердцем, а пониманием
Ср. Марк 3:5:
καὶ περιβλεψάμενος αὐτοὺς μετ᾿ ὀργῆς συλλυπούμενος ἐπι ̀ τῇ πωρώσει τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρα καὶ ἐξέτεινεν καὶ ἀπεκατεστάθη ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ
И, воззрев на них с гневом, скорбя об ожесточении сердец их, говорит тому человеку: протяни руку твою. Он протянул, и стала рука его здорова, как другая (СП)
У Иисуса есть круг людей, которые его понимают и которые его не понимают
Если посмотреть, не на «окаменение» сердец, а на «ожесточение», то видно много отсылок к Исходу. Однако там употребляется другой глагол – σκληρύνω.
М.Г. Селезнев:
I made some comments on the image or the porosis of the hearts or the disciples mentioning both the image the nature of the image that, in fact, hearts here do not refer to emotional side of human being but rather to the possibility of understanding and then I tried to draw our attention to the fact that Jesus disciples are described here almost in the same terms as Jesus opponents out there and almost in the same terms as the enemies of the Jewish people in the Old Testament.
Joel Marcus:
I followed that and I agreed with everything that you said and I do think this is a radical thing to say about the disciples to apply this language to them. And as you mentioned he repeats it in chapter 8 where it becomes even more emphasized and I do think the Old Testament background is important.
Just a few things.
First of all so the classic text as you showed is God hardening Pharaoh's heart but we also have text in which Pharaoh hardens his own heart. So there is a duality about this. On the one hand it's human responsibility: he hardens his own heart. but on the other hand God's behind the hardening of people's hearts. So there's a mysterious and somewhat contradictory duality the language is also applied to the children of Israel though too so while it's a terrible thing to have your heart hardened it may be that that's not the last word because the children of Israel's hearts are hardened but there's a possibility that they can be softened. And that and it doesn't mean that God has cut himself off from those whose hearts are hardened.
And the other thing I found in various researches that I did is this language is also very common in Qumran. I mean the expression «Hardness of Heart». I think it is applied again to their enemies but also that's something that can afflict insiders. I mean the other thing concerning this verse 6:52 is what does it mean exactly. I think you’ve done a very good job with «Hardness of Heart», but about the loaves they didn't understand about the loaves. Somebody wrote a whole dissertation on this verse about how their Hardness of Heart is connected to the loaves so that's another mystery.
М.Г. Селезнев:
Thank you, meanwhile I would like us to look at the passage. In fact here in Mark we have a kind of a reference to Isaiah 6:10 where the prophet tells us why the people of Israel cannot understand God's will. Once again “ἡ καρδία” in the sense of the human possibility to understand what is going on and they can hear with difficulty they can see with difficulty. And the ultimate goal of all this is that's God's will God's decision behind this God's decision to divide the people to those who can understand what is going on, and to those who cannot. Let's look once again at this passage of Isaiah which seems to be so important for the gospel of Mark.
ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτῶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσανμήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπι στρέψωσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς
Ибо огрубело сердце народа сего, и ушами с трудом слышат, и очи свои сомкнули, да не узрят очами, и не услышат ушами, и не уразумеют сердцем, и не обратятся, чтобы Я исцелил их (СП)
Отсылка из Марка к этому месту уже встречалась, а у Марка отсылку из этого места из Исайи.
Марк 4:11-12:
καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὑμῖν τὸ μυστήριον δέδοται τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάν τα γίνεταιἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ μὴ ἴδωσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν καὶ μὴ συνιῶσιν μήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς
И сказал им: вам дано знать тайны Царствия Божия, а тем внешним все бывает в притчах;
так что они своими глазами смотрят, и не видят; своими ушами слышат, и не разумеют, да не обратятся, и не прощены будут им грехи. (СП)
When Jesus explains to his disciples that there are those who are out or the circle of his disciples and who cannot understand anything and there are the disciples that can do this.
Joel Marcus:
It immediately begins in 4:11 and 12 there's this sharp division between disciples and outsiders but then in 4:13 there's a beginning of qualification of it I'd say.
Марк 4:13
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην καὶ πῶς πάσας τὰς παραβολὰς γνώσεσθε
И говорит им: не понимаете этой притчи? Как же вам уразуметь все притчи? (СП)
М.Г. Селезнев:
In some sense we can say that Mark 4:13 somehow prefigures what you have here in 6:52 in 4:13 we have a question do not understand this parable as well and then in 6:52 we have an answer.
Joel Marcus:
It looks pretty bad for the disciples.
М.Г. Селезнев:
It looks pretty bad for the disciples but that's the logic of Mark and narrative.
Joel Marcus:
It is interesting to look at the usages of Isaiah 6:10-11 in the New Testament it's very frequently cited and already with Paul it's and in John we saw too. It's used to explain something that was a big problem for the church and that was the unbelief of Israel if Jesus is the Messiah why doesn't Israel accept him and so in most of those passages it's used to say to explain well this is by God's will for some mysterious reason that the rest of Israel doesn't understand. But again Mark applies it in a way I don't think anybody else does in the New Testament to the disciples themselves or if they do apply it it's in dependence on Mark.
М.Г. Селезнев:
Could you please, Joel, provide us with references to Paul and John.
Joel Marcus: Yes, that is John 12:40. And as far as Paul is concerned it is Romans 11:7.
М.Г. Селезнев:
By the way the inner logic of this passage in John 12:40 is almost the same as in our Mark passage because although he did all those miracles before them they did not believe in him.
Joel Marcus:
Yes but here it's not the applying to the disciples but it's applying to those from Israel who don't accept Jesus..
М.Г. Селезнев:
Yes that's exactly what I wanted to draw attention to that the same imagery and the same reproaches that here in John are applying to Jesus opponents in the Jewish environment in Mark in our place it's almost the same logic and the same vocabulary applied not of the unbelieving Jews but of his disciples.
Римлянам 11:7:
τί οὖν ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ Ἰσραήλ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐπέτυχεν ἡ δὲ ἐκλογὴ ἐπέτυχεν οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν
Что же? Израиль, чего искал, того не получил; избранные же получили, а прочие ожесточились. (СП)
Joel Marcus:
Here it's again those from Israel who have not accepted Jesus. Another significant usage is at the end of Acts 28:26-27
Деяния 28: 26-28:
ὃς πέποιθεν θρασείᾳ καρδίᾳ ὁ τοιοῦτος ἄφρων ὃς δὲ πορεύεται σοφίᾳ σωθήσεται
ὃς δίδωσιν πτωχοῖς οὐκ ἐνδεηθήσεται ὃς δὲ ἀποστρέφει τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν πολλῇ ἀπορίᾳ ἔσται ἐν τόποις ἀσεβῶνστένουσι δίκαιοι ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐκείνων ἀπωλείᾳ πληθυνθήσονται δίκαιοι
Кто надеется на себя, тот глуп; а кто ходит в мудрости, тот будет цел.
Дающий нищему не обеднеет; а кто закрывает глаза свои от него, на том много проклятий.
Когда возвышаются нечестивые, люди укрываются, а когда они падают, умножаются праведники (СП)
This is a very significant passage because it's the end of the whole book and we've had throughout Acts this division within Israel some accept Jesus and some don’t and then at the end where there's a similar division between those in Rome those Jews who are accepting the message and those who are not accepting it those who don't accept it they have this passage applied to them.
М.Г. Селезнев:
Yes it is also important place both in the book of Acts and in the New Testament because this is an explanation and legitimation of the gentile Christianity because in the next verse Paul uses this reference to Isaiah and the idea that «ἡκαρδία πεπωρωμένη» as a legitimation for the mission to the Gentiles.
Joel Marcus:
That's true and this is a pattern within acts that previously in the narrative several times Jews who have opposed the message and Paul says okay I'm going to the gentiles but then in the next chapter he's back with in the synagogue but still there is a pattern of being rejected by Jews and going to Gentiles which happens here at the very end of the book but then it does say it at in the very last verse the implication is that he was still hanging around in synagogues and teaching Jews so it's not irrevocable he doesn't do any more outreach with Jews even after he pronounces stuff like this now it's kind of complex and there's a lot of debates about how has Luke the author of Acts given up on Jews, who don't believe or not and I think it's a pretty complex situation.
М.Г. Селезнев:
Интересно, как Матфей 13:16-17 поправляет Марка 4:11-23, где Иисус говорит ученикам:
«Ваши же блаженны очи, что видят, и уши ваши, что слышат, ибо истинно говорю вам, что многие пророки и праведники желали видеть, что вы видите, и не видели, и слышать, что вы слышите, и не слышали»
Видение мира Матфеем намного ближе традиционному церковному восприятию. У Марка картина другая: «окаменели очи всех»
Далее обсуждается Исайя 6:10, предлагаем почитать об этом стихе в статье М.Ю. Юровицкой
Марк 6:53-56
καὶ δια περάσαντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἦλθον εἰς Γεννησαρὲτ καὶ προσωρμίσθησαν
καὶ ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου εὐθὺς ἐπιγνόντες αὐτὸν
περιέδραμον ὅλην τὴν χώραν ἐκείνην καὶ ἤρξαντο ἐπὶ τοῖς κραβάττοις τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας περιφέρειν ὅπου ἤκουον ὅτι ἐστίν
καὶ ὅπου ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς κώμας ἢ εἰς πόλεις ἢ εἰς ἀγροὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς ἐτίθεσαν τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας καὶ παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν ἵνα κἂν τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ ἅψωνται καὶ ὅσοι ἂν ἥψαντο αὐτοῦ ἐσῴζοντο
Перевод М.Г. Селезнёва:
Они переправились, достигли земли в Геннисарете и причалили к берегу
Едва они вышли из лодки, как люди тотчас же узнали Иисуса
и обежали всю округу, чтобы оповестить. И отовсюду начали приносить больных на носилках туда, где, как люди слышали, находился Иисус
В-какую бы деревню, или город, или село Он не входил, всюду на площадях клали больных и просили, чтоб Он позволил им коснуться хотя бы края Его Одежды:
Те, кто прикасался, исцелялись
Иисусу не удаются уйти, чтобы молиться в одиночестве. Люди узнают о Нем, приносят больных. Получается обратный контраст: умы учеников ослеплены (несмотря на чудеса, которые творит Иисус). А умы внешних «просвещены»: они понимают, что от Иисуса исходит чудотворная сила.
Joel Marcus:
I think it's an interesting suggestion that all it depends on what “συνῆκαν” means in 52. It suggests again that the disciples don't understand that they should have understood and they didn't understand about the loaves. I guess on one level I mean Jesus has just multiplied miraculously the loaves but they still didn't understand his power. I guess why they're astonished at the end of verse 51, but I mean it could also be that understanding is a deeper thing than just knowing that Jesus has the power to heal.
I think the disciples lack of understanding goes deeper than that. But I do think in the overall context of the Gospel that you're right that this the sharp division that we saw in 4:10 to 12 between the disciples and the outsiders it begins to be messed up almost immediately and at the end of The Gospel the disciples all run away and it's a an outsider it's a Roman soldier who sees what's going on so maybe this is as you suggest prefiguring of that.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
I would like to ask whether this is just messing up that both disciples and outsiders are now treated in the same way or even it is not just messing up but it's an inversion like in the passage that you mentioned that Roman Centurion turns out to be closer to understanding Jesus identity than the disciples. it's not just that they are on the same level but that's the complete inversion of the attitude between insiders and outsiders.
Joel Marcus:
I think I can go along with that but I still don't I want to hold out some hope for the disciples and I think Mark does and I mentioned this before Chapter 14:28 and chapter 16:7 and in both of those Jesus says after he's raised he's going to go before them into Galilee and there they will see him so I do think the author thinks that there is going to be a reconciliation between Jesus and the disciples after the resurrection. But I agree in the sense that I mean Mark does he sets up this division sharp division and then he knocks it down and I think that must be a deliberate that must be a deliberate strategy of his that he wants to deconstruct the binary that he himself has created to speak in like deconstructive terms which I don't generally like to do.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
I think that in this case deconstruction is very much in place I mean the term deconstruction but the question is whether Mark deconstructs here the construction that he himself had created in the earlier chapter or whether he is deconstructing some image that he inherited from the earlier Christian tradition. There is somehow black and white duality between those, who are inside and those, who can understand and those who are outside and cannot understand. Whether it is Mark's own invention, or he inherited it from the earlier tradition just in order to reconstruct it.
Joel Marcus:
I think it's likely that he did inherit it from the earlier tradition and he is deconstructing it. But I guess maybe I don't think that he deconstructs it as totally as you think that he does. Because you want to say I think that the disciples represent some other faction in the church some other stream of Christian tradition, maybe, the Jerusalem disciples that Mark is opposed to.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
It's a good question because definitely I like very much the gospel of Mark especially because of that particular worldview that is so prominent in Mark. I believe that it's not rather a polemics of one faction within the church let's call it Mark's faction against another faction let's call it Jerusalem faction. I'm not going to think about these lines but rather I think that behind the gospel narrative as this represented in Mark is not a polemics against some particular faction in early Christianity but maybe the polemics against the very idea of hierarchy and pretention of some disciples and faction to be the real Apostles. We have the same attitude in Paul. Paul does not say that other Apostles are bad or they're not Apostles. He just says that we're all under the sin.
Joel Marcus:
I like that and I think the comparison to Paul is good because you have a similar kind of duality in Paul because he does sometimes he constructs a dualism of insiders and outsiders. Like in Romans too sharp dualism between those who will be saved and those who will be damned and those who obey the law and those who do not. But then there is one of the most important verses in Romans 11:32: God has handed all human beings over to disobedience in order that he may have mercy on all.
So everybody belongs in the category of the disobedient including presumably Jesus followers such as himself. But somehow that serves God's mercy on the whole Cosmos. So I do think you have a similar deconstruction there of a construction that Paul elsewhere endorses and that Paul. Also may have inherited from the church before him or from apocalyptic ways of thinking that one finds already in Judaism which he buys into and yet ultimately undermines in at least that verse at the end of Romans 11.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
I know that there were some works that tried to explain Mark's attitude towards the disciples as a sign of his mistrust in the Jerusalem Church and so on. I think the literature here better than I do but to my mind this is not his negative attitude to some particular group of people who pretended to be the real followers of Jesus but rather his critique of any attempt on behalf of Jerusalem Apostles or whoever else to say that we are the real followers. There are no real followers, like the place of Paul that you quoted that all of us are sinners.
Joel Marcus:
I mean this sort of Jerusalem Church opposition theory was popular in the 60s in America. That had to do with the crisis of our own time and with distrust by those exegetes of their own ecclesiastical authorities. But I agree with you, I think that Mark's criticism is not trying to knock down one group in favor of another group so much as to knock down all human pretention to possess the knowledge of God. And yet he does think that God reveals himself to human beings, but the claim that I know and you don't become a trap. And this is a trap that pretty much everybody in the Gospel falls into except for somebody like the Centurion this Roman soldier. At the end these people are just just momentary appearances.
I mean there are people who want to say that the disciples as a group they disqualify themselves and the real model for faith are people like the Centurion the Roman Centurion, like the woman who reaches out in faith to Jesus and is healed by him like the mother of the Syrophoenician woman. I mean that's true these are all they're very they're positive examples of faith but they just appear for a moment and then they disappear.
It's easy to reach out in faith for one minute but it's hard to follow day after day. And I think Mark recognizes that and his portrait of the Twelve is a portrait of the realistic problems that disciples meet and fall into and the way that they fail, but that's not the last word for them either. Because then, there's still Jesus' promise that He will see them again in Galilee.
Марк 7:1-4
καὶ συνάγονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ
Ἱεροσολύμων
καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις ἐσθίουσιν τοὺς ἄρτους
οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων
καὶ ἀπ᾿ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶ
М.Г. Селезнёва:
К Иисусу подошли фарисеи и несколько толкователей Писания пришедших из Иерусалима.
Они увидели, что некоторые из учеников Иисуса приступили к еде с «нечистыми» руками, то есть не омыв рук.
(А фарисеи, как и все иудеи, не приступают к еде, пока не омоют рук. Так они соблюдают: предписания Отцов.
Придя с рынка, они не приступают к еде, пока не совершат омовения, и еще много других предписаний соблюдают: об омовении чаш, кувшинов, медных сосудов, кроватей[1].)
Продолжается противостояние Иисуса и фарисеев. Образ фарисеев как главных оппонентов Иисуса и даже как главных виновников его смерти возникает позднее, в результате полемики между христианами и протораввинистическим иудаизмом.
Любопытно, что в этом тексте есть какие-то вещи, которые по предписаниям протораввинистического иудаизма восходят к традиции фарисеев. Строго разработанные предписания (омывать руки перед едой) относятся к раннему раввинистическому иудаизму и дальше к позднейшим раввинистическим предписаниям, однако идея того, что омовение рук как знак чистоты, который должен быть соблюден благочестивым иудеем, встречается намного раньше. Особо интересно, что этот обычай описан уже в «Письме Аристея» (параграфы 305-306) – эта традиция связана с александрийским иудаизмом, где зарождалась Септуагинта.
Joel Marcus:
I'm just wondering now to what extent we can use the Epistle of Aristeas as a sort of source about what diaspora of Jews did. I mean it's just such a legendary story to what extent can we derive history from it but I mean it seems like it attests to a general Jewish custom of washing hands before praying which we don't know about otherwise. Mark is presenting well Pharisees washing their hands as something distinctive about them though then he deconstructs it again by saying that all the Jews do it. I don't know if that is historical either.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
I think at least the Letter of Aristeas is a witness to the fact that in the Jewish community of Alexandria or in Jewish circles at the time washing hands was regarded as a sign of piety. Whether it was prescribed to wash the hands every time you want to pray is not clear, but I think that this passage could have been written only if the author thought that he and his audience would regard this as a sign of piety. He may have been may have exaggerated this. Look these 72 men were so pious that they washed their hands every time before they wanted to pray or to translate a piece of scripture.
Joel Marcus:
I agree with that and that seems right to me and there probably was some sort of custom of washing hands it does fit into his overall allegorical interpretation of the Jewish law and Jewish Customs which runs throughout the whole letter. The whole letter is or at least a section of the letter is explaining in great detail why the Jews have these peculiar laws and they all turn out to be allegories for virtuous behavior.
But I think your main point is right, it's an important passage because it shows that people and Jewish people could associate handwashing with Jewish piety even outside of the Pharisaic realm. And we don't get anything about the Pharisees being and washers in Josephus, who is another main source. What we get is a lot of Rabbinic discussion about handwashing and so people retroject that back into New Testament time and there's probably some continuity but the Mark is our basic source for Pharisaic handwashing.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
It also draws into the picture the handwashing of Pontius Pilatus in Matthew. Though he was not a Jew but the story was produced for Jewish audience and it seems that the very logic that we see here in Aristeas they explained that handwashing was a token that they had done no evil. In fact, at least with this explanation the passage from Aristeas seems to be even closer to the description of Pontius Pilatus handwashing in Matthew than to Mark. So obviously these different indications, different passages speak about the role of handwashing for the Jewish tradition. This not just a coincidence, they refer to some maybe even not a custom but some understanding of the meaning of handwashing that goes at least to the 2 Century BC, if we date Aristeas to this time.
Joel Marcus:
That's a very good point. I do think it's interesting that in the passage in Mark at the beginning of chapter 7 they don’t ask him why don't you wash your hands they ask Jesus why his disciples don't wash their hands and this is a pattern elsewhere in the Gospel too. Like in Chapter Two, I can't remember, if it's the Pharisees or the Scribes. They asked Jesus, or maybe it's the Disciples of John the Baptist, I forget who it is, but they say why don't your disciples fast, so there's some question about what Jesus' disciples do. But in a realistic context I would think that they would ask Jesus why he doesn't do it.
This was this sort of observation was used by Bultmann and others to say that these are ideal scenes that were constructed by the early church to explain what they did, rather than traditions going back to the historical Jesus. I'm not sure that's necessarily true, but the question is a good one, why don't they ask Jesus what he's doing.
М.Г. Селезнёв:
My preliminary answer would be quite close to that of Bultmann since their reproaches are addressed in both cases to Jesus disciples, then probably the whole discussion date to the time of clashes between these disciples and their Pharisee contemporaries. But here we enter into a new area. You mentioned Bultmann, so, namely, the question is to what extent the controversy that we have in Mark can be traced to historical Jesus, or to the time of Markan community, early Church.
Let’s start our next discussion with this topic.
[1] В критическом аппарате отмечено, что «кровати» могут быть позднейшей добавкой.
Подготовила Полина Шабанова