Евангелие от Марка 6:30-32. Медленное чтение. Расшифровка семинара от 26 октября 2023 г.
2024-07-23 15:57
В начале семинара Джоэл Маркус сделал небольшое вступление в продолжение предыдущего семинара, на котором обсуждалась история убийство Иоанна Крестителя Марк 6:25−29.
Joel Marcus (summary): Herod put John to death, because he felt threatened by him, because John was producing a mass following and Herod was afraid that he would somehow lead or incite a revolution and so he put him to death, he tried to "nip the problem in the bud". <…> The portrait is very similar to the that of Pontius Pilate in his relation to Jesus, he also doesn’t want to put Jesus to death, but he’s manipulated into doing so, and then the only other thing is the biblical echoes and it’s especially reminiscent of the story of Esther and Ahasuerus, who’s also an old king, who likes an apparently attractive young woman, and he promises her half of his kingdom. And so we have those elements: Mark’s story is a really great story and when a story is too good, you begin to suspect its historicity and there’s all these additional reasons for suspecting the historicity of it. Speaking about demonic elements in the story one of them is interesting, is the cutting off of John’s head and then he gives it to the girl and she gives it to her mother, and some of the terminology is like that, when Jesus divides the loaves, gives them to the disciples and they give it to the people. It’s kind of a demonic Eucharist, which takes place in a meal, and the head’s cut off and it’s brought in on a platter and we do see in medieval iconography pictures, that sometimes John’s head on the platter looks like an Eucharistic host.
М.Г. Селезнев: The more we see into the plot of Mark’s gospel, that consciously or subconsciously Mark and other early Christian writers draw parallels or organize the story of Jesus and the story of John the Baptist here, and the story of Paul in acts as a kind of different versions of the same story and as concerns the representation of John’s death and John’s head on the platter as reminiscence or prefiguration of Eucharist goes very well with that perspective. I am more hesitant about your qualification of this Eucharist as demonic.
Joel Marcus: One difference between the story of Jesus and the story of John here is within the story there is no vindication of John, I mean it’s just his disciples come and they bury, or they bury part of his body. His vindication is wrapped up with Jesus' vindication and has to wait for that. So, I think there is a lot of parallelism, but this story doesn’t end on a triumphant note.
М.Г. Селезнев: Probably because the fates are very similar to each other, but at the same time all other stories, even when they resemble that of Jesus they have a culmination and they are optimistic and not within their own development, but within the development of the story of Jesus.
Joel Marcus: One idea that I develop in my book[1] may be that historically John the Baptist did have an independent ministry, that he saw himself or even the central figure in history of salvation and the early Christians want to create a connection with John, but they also are very interested in subordinating him to Jesus. <…> John was not the light, he only came to bear witness to the light and when they come and ask him if he is the messiah he confesses, does not deny he confesses — there is this overdetermined emphasis on John’s subordination to Jesus. We do not know that there were followers of John, who didn’t become part of the Jesus movement, we see them in the book of acts and we see them in some second century reports, people, who continued to think that John was the central figure in the plan of salvation. So, partly the emphasis especially in the gospel of John on John’s subordination to Jesus is polemical.
М.Г. Селезнев: If we see this development between the gospel of Mark as most probably the earliest of the gospels and of John, which is probably the latest of the gospels, how would you explain this development?
Joel Marcus: I’m not sure, that it’s chronological like the John the Baptist movement got stronger from Mark to John, but just in John’s particular situation there are followers of John the Baptist, who he wants to win over to the Christian story, so again the story of symbolic about follower of John the Baptist, who john points to Jesus and he becomes of follower of Jesus. I think probably even in Mark the emphasis, that John’s ministry ended before Jesus’s ministry began. I wonder if that was historically true because the the gospel of John despite his polemical emphasis you have evidence, that their ministries overlapped, and that Jesus started out baptizing as John was baptizing, so he seems to have started out historically as an emissary of John, as a continuer of john’s ministry and there’s still evidence of a John the Baptist movement strongly in John, but also in Mark in this progression: first John then John’s out of the way, than Jesus. It’s also a theological move and it corresponds to the saying of Jesus in Matthew and Luke about all the prophets until John and since then the kingdom of God has been preached. It’s a concern in Mark too, and it’s also a concern in Matthew, where Matthew constructs this story when Jesus comes to be baptized by John Matthew says: ‘What are you doing? I need to be baptized by you'. And Jesus says: ‘Well thus we must do to fulfill God’s righteous plan'. It’s also an acknowledgment that there was a problem actually in Jesus being baptized by John, several problems: one initial thought is that the baptizer is more important than the person Being baptized. And secondly what is baptism for? It’s for remission of sins, but for the later church what sins did Jesus have? So there are difficulties with associating Jesus with John, but it’s also important for the Christians to insist on the link between John and Jesus. I think because there was a historical link, that Jesus did start out as part of John’s ministry.
М.Г. Селезнев выражает Джоэлу благодарность за обсуждение Евхаристических аллюзий и параллелей между историей Иисуса рассказом о казни Иоанна Крестителя
Joel Marcus: It’s another example of a sandwich in Mark, even intercalation, because Jesus sends out the disciples then we have the story of John the Baptist the disciples come back and tell Jesus what happened. So it’s also a way of reading John into the story of Jesus and connecting these two stories. And maybe a suggestion, that the power, by which the disciples work miracles and proclaim the gospel in when they go out as described here, that power also flows out of a death, of the one to whom John’s the Baptist death points.
Обсуждение стихов 6:30−32
Марк 6:30
Και συνάγονται οι απόστολοι προς τον Ιησουν και ανήγγειλαν
αυτώ πάντα όσα εποιησαν και όσα εδιδαξαν.
Апостолы собрались к Иисусу и рассказали ему
обо всем, что делали и чему учили.
М.Г. Селезнев: Здесь история смерти Иоанна Крестителя вставлена внутрь истории про то, как Иисус отправляет учеников на проповедь в начале 6-ой главы. Они отправились в путь, изгнали многих бесов. Внутрь текста (как своего рода "сэндвич") вставляется история про то, как молва дошла до царей Ирода, и как это связано с убийством, казнью, Иоанна Крестителя. Далее 13 стих продолжается в 30 стихе, где апостолы собираются к Иисусу и рассказывают ему обо всем, чему учили и что делали. Здесь скобки закрываются вокруг истории про правление апостолов. Мы видим многослойную структуру — излюбленный прием Марка. Почему такая странная структура? Можем ли говорить о влиянии хиастических структур Ветхого Завета?
Joel Marcus: In general what the structure does is so you have two stories, you’re sandwiching one into the other and thereby you’re creating parallels, you’re signaling to the reader, that there meant to be read in light of each other and so like one suggestion I just made was that in this passage it’s very striking in the begin the first few sentences of chapter six Jesus could not perform many miracles right, he just performed a few miracles, because of their unbelief, but the disciples performed many miracles, but by placing the story of the disciples going out and them coming back around the story of John’s death. Maybe Mark is suggesting that the power of working Miracles it’s a foreshadowing of the power that comes through Jesus’s death and resurrection to which John’s death points, so I think in general if you look in these sandwichstructures you can see that they compare two things to each other. <…> So again there’s a connection being made with the opposition of his political and religious opponents. So I think in all these cases you can see comparisons being made or sometimes contrasts, but I’d say usually comparisons.
М.Г. Селезнев: Данный стих, 6:30, одновременно закрывает "сэндвич" и служит моментом перехода к следующей перикопе. Происходит одновременно движение по лесенке, на ступеньках которой выстраивается все Евангелие от Марка, которая должна венчаться тем, что мы прочтем в конце. Уже за пределами Евангелия от Марка должно венчаться миссией апостолов-язычников. Этот стих — первое место, где ученики Иисуса называются ‘απόστολοι'. Перед этим говорится, что он избрал таких-то, и назвал их апостолами, но в речи рассказчика это слово не как намерение Иисуса избрать каких-то главных учеников своих и наименовать апостолами, а чтобы это появлялось в речи рассказчика. <…>
Joel Marcus: So we have the Apostles of Jesus gathered back together with him. Is that meant to be a contest to the apostles of John, who just buried him? A connection, but also a difference because John is dead now, his story is over, but now the ones, who are following the one whose story will not end they gather back with Jesus, so again it might be a subtle assertion of the superiority of Jesus and his apostles to John and his disciples.
М.Г. Селезнев: It also gives one more dimension to the comparison between the two stories sandwiched within one another, that we talked, because the story sandwiched inside is the story about the end of John’s career and the last mention of John’s disciples, while the story within, which this farewell to John and his disciples is mentioned, the story that frames this farewell to John is the story of Jesus disciples continue, that work John and Jesus according to the gospel of Mark.
Отправляйтесь вы одни в безлюдное место, отдохните немного
(столько народа приходило и уходило, что им некогда было даже поесть)
Joel Marcus: κατ᾽·ἰδίαν — "одни" is a characteristic phrase in Mark, it occurs there’s several passages where he takes the disciples and segregates them by themselves almost in a kind of secret way. And I’m just wondering does "одни"convey that sense of his kind of separating them off from the crowd. I think I generally translated it ‘by themselves', so maybe that should be criticized in the same way I’m questioning "одни". I think it does have some implication of forming, you’re forming a little secret group, but I’m not sure how to get that into one or two words. I mean sometimes I think I translated it ‘privately'.
М.Г. Селезнев: The first occurrence of ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν' in Mark then in the next verse we read, that they followed Jesus order and that they went to a desert place ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν'.
Joel Marcus: They’re trying to escape from the crowd right, so they’re trying to be private and to screen themselves off from others.
М.Г. Селезнев: The next occurrence of this is the story of one of Jesus miracles, where the deaf one is brought to Jesus and he wants to perform a miracle not in public, but ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν' in Russian "наедине". What is especially important is that the scene of transfiguration is also said to have taken place ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν'. Then after the transfiguration and the next miracle of Jesus, when he cast out a demon the disciples ask Jesus ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν', what was the reason they couldn’t do this and also the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13 is also introduced by the setting, that he’s setting ‘κατ᾽ἰδίαν' with his disciples.
Joel Marcus: There is also in addition chapter 4 verse 10 or 11, where you don’t have ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν', but you have ‘κατάμόνος' and that’s scene before the parable theory, he says parable then he takes the disciples ‘κατά μόνος' and he says to you has been given the mystery, but not those outside so there’s definitely a sense of esoteric revelation. It’s interesting, that then in 92 you have both ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν' and ‘μόνος' right so that’s like doubly emphatic before the transfiguration.
М.Г. Селезнев (про ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν' and ‘μόνος') We see, that it occurs in the most important places like parables transfiguration, eschatological discourse and it would be nice to translate it in the unified way.
Joel Marcus: If you can although Mark’s usages are not totally unified. ‘Κατά μόνος' in 4:11, ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν μόνος' in 9:2. I think it goes with the picture of Jesus as somebody, who says and does very important things, that not everybody is allowed to see.
М.Г. Селезнев считает, что в русском переводе нет лучшего варианта, чем "одни" или "наедине", однако может здесь обязательно в сопровождении комментария насчет того, что здесь не просто проходное выражение, а целая цепочка вещей, связанных друг с другом, которая важна для автора Евангелия.
М.Г. Селезнев затрагивает еще один вопрос, релевантный и для переводчика, и для читателя. Кажется, греческий текст 31 стиха, исходя из семантики 2 лица мн. числа в греческом языке, предполагает, чтобы ученики, те, к кому Иисус обращается во 2 лице, куда-то пошли и там отдохнули. It looks as if Jesus is not going to follow them or to take a rest with them, but then we see that in fact ‘not you', but ‘we are going somewhere'. At first glance, it looks like some kind of attention within the text.
Joel Marcus: This one never bothered me, but maybe it should. Generally when Jesus says something about ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν'the idea is that he wants to segregate the disciples from a larger group to be with him. So I mean I wonder if ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν'by itself conveys this idea of that I will be with you in this secret place, but it’s a good question.
М.Г. Селезнев: We have quite a lot of other places where Jesus is asking his disciples to go somewhere and, for example, Mark 4:35, which is quite close to our place. ‘Let us to' — the searching is almost the same, they are going to cross the sea and to go to another place in the boat, but here that’s the normal way of saying ‘let us do something'.
(RSO) Вечером того дня сказал им: переправимся на ту сторону.
(CRV) Вечером того же дня Иисус говорит им:
— Давайте переправимся на тот берег.
Joel Marcus: That’s a good point, but what’s your theory about why this awkwardness arose, I mean I don’t think we can say, that this is because Mark has some previous story, that he’s doing something with, because this is one of those linking passages, it links probably separate stories, that he had, but this in editorial connection. My theory is that these are usually just composed by Mark out of his own head, so it’s editorial work, but maybe it shows us that Mark’s own syntax sometimes is awkward. He’s not the most fluid writer and you can see Mathew and Luke edit Mark; they smooth out some of these awkwardness. Do you have a theory about where the awkwardness comes from?
М.Г. Селезнев: I think that there is something in this construction that asks for explanation, the only thing that occurs to me, but probably, maybe that’s not right. In Mark 1:35 sometimes when we see, that something is being done in the gospel of Mark ‘κατ᾽ ἰδίαν', this includes Jesus and the closed circle of his disciples, but sometimes he leaves his disciples. For example in 1:35 he goes by himself as ‘εις τόπον', and his disciples then are to look after him or another passage, which is probably even more interesting. That’s the story of Jesus going on the waters:
(RSO) И тотчас понудил учеников Своих войти в лодку и отправиться вперед на другую сторону к Вифсаиде, пока Он отпустит народ.
(CRV) Затем Иисус велел ученикам сразу же сесть в лодку и плыть на другой берег, к Вифсаиде, не дожидаясь, пока Он отправит народ.
6:46 καὶ ἀποταξάμενος αὐτοῖς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ὄρος προσεύξασθαι ‘И, отпустив их, пошел на гору помолиться' - once again the same motive, that we have in Mark one, the place we just saw, he leaves the apostles and he goes completely [μόνος'] to pray in the mountain.
(RSO) А утром, встав весьма рано, вышел и удалился
в пустынное место, и там молился.
(CRV) А рано утром, еще до света, Он вышел из дому, отправился
в уединенное место и там молился.
Joel Marcus: Yeah, I mean, of course these stories, these introductions, they’re setting up the rest of the story where, so they’re in the sea and on the land, how is he going to be reunited with them? It’ll be by walking on the sea.
М.Г. Селезнев: We see later what happened, she had to reunite with them by walking on the waters. It makes me think, that maybe in Mark 6:31, when he asks his disciples to go to another place in the boat and I think, that the implication of using second plural here is that he is going to remain here, while sending them away the boat, maybe at that juncture in the plot.
(RSO) Он сказал им: пойдите вы одни в пустынное место и отдохните немного,
— ибо много было проходящих и отходящих, так что и есть им было некогда.
(CRV) Он говорит им: — А теперь отправляйтесь куда-нибудь в безлюдное место, побудьте там одни и немного отдохните. Действительно, люди непрерывно сменяли друг друга, и им некогда было даже поесть.
М.Г. Селезнев отмечает также, что there is no ‘boat', but the ‘boat' appears in the next 6:32, so it looks as if versus 6:31 and 6:32 tell us that following Jesus' command the disciples go somewhere without Jesus.
Joel Marcus: This is very interesting and I mean actually you could say you know if you didn’t have the intervening stuff he would say this is the beginning of the story of Jesus walking on the water.
М.Г. Селезнев: That’s exactly what I’m thinking about. Maybe at this juncture in writing history Mark wanted to seed to the miracle of Jesus walking on the waters and the beginning of this story, that he started to write was pointing towards this continuation of the story, but then later on Mark as the gospel writer decided, that at this point of this junction he should introduced the story of miracle, feeding of the people with bread and fish. And then in Mark 6:45 he resumes the story that he wanted to start in Mark 6:31, but later abandoned in favor of a different turn in the plot.
Резюме М. Г. Селезнева: Кажется необычным, что в Марк 6:31 Иисус говорит ученикам: ‘Пойдите вы одни в пустынное место и отдохните немного'. По нормам русского, английского и греческого языков тогда, когда говорящий обращается к кому-то во втором лице мн. числа: ‘Идите вы туда', — то тут это подразумевает, что сам я, говорящий, скорее всего, с вами не пойду, значит было сказано: ‘Давайте мы с вами вместе куда-то пойдем'. Дальнейшее продолжение этой истории, Марк 6:32, тоже вроде бы продолжается эта же идея (хотя здесь, конечно, 3 лицо мн. лица может восприниматься эксклюзивно или не эксклюзивно: 1) Иисус не входил в число тех, кто отправились в пустынные места; 2) Иисус входил. Дальше мы однозначно видим, что Иисус-таки оказывается вместе с учениками. Дальше, в 6:45, мы видим нечто очень похожее: Иисус понудил учеников своих войти в лодку и отправиться на другую сторону, сам он с ними не отправляется. Они плывут в лодке, и он, видя, что на море буря, встречныйветер, идет к ним по воде. Джоэль отметил, что он этой идеи не встречал в комментариях или другой литературе, хотя она кажется очень интересной и красивой. В этот момент написания своего Евангелия Марк 6:31 автор как бы начал писать ту историю, которая будет написана позже. Марк 6:45, дальше про то, как, отправив сначала учеников через море, Иисус потом догоняет их, идя по воде. Начав эту историю, Марк как бы меняет свои писательские планы: нужно упомянуть про чудесное умножение хлебов и рыб. Он говорит про чудесное умножение, а дальше, когда, как только эта история кончается, снова возвращается к сюжету учеников, которые отправлены куда-то дальше. Если мы задумываемся как перевести прямую речь 6:45: ‘ευθέως ηναγκασεν τους μαθητας αυτού εμβηναι εις το πλοιον και προάγειν' - ‘что он должен был сказать, чтобы понудить учеников своих войти в лодку и отправиться на другой берег', то что это будет что-то вроде такого: ‘Δευτε υμεις αυτοί κατ ίδιαν'.
Joel Marcus: If you’re right about this, then we can see Mark in the process of creating another Mark in sandwich.
М.Г. Селезнев: Yes, here it is a bit different kind of sandwich, because the second of the sandwich is not a direct continuation of the first part of the sandwich, but it’s rather a second attempt to start what was start in the first part, but then abandoned in favor of what is inside the sandwich. М.Г. Селезнев отметил, что обсуждаемые в настоящий момент вопросы никогда раньше не затрагивались исследователями Марка.
Joel Marcus: Well and it reminds me of one thing my doctoral advisor said to me. The most important thing in exegesis is coming up with the right exegetical questions. We are so used to these texts and we think we know they make perfect sense but when you start to think about them… I read this many-many times, I’ve never seen that problem but now that you pointed out to me it’s obvious that it’s a problem. So the critical point is coming up with the questions and and not trying to answer them too quickly.
М.Г. Селезнев: Это страшно любопытно, мы как бы наблюдаем за написанием Евангелия от Марка в прямом эфире, следим за его писательской стратегией
Л.Ю. Мусина (про место, где собрались апостолы): Вы сказали, что перед этим Марк сказал, что поставил 12, которых и назвал апостолами. Дело в том, что это удивительная особенность Марка: у него никогда не было "12 апостолов", "12 учеников" или чего-то подобного, всегда бывает здесь просто ‘δώδεκα' или ‘οἱ δώδεκα'("двенадцать").
*скрин экрана Л.Ю. Мусиной*
Выделенное серым цветом — результат гармонизации, видимо, этого стиха по Луке. Марк, который употребляет числительное ‘δώδεκα' десять раз и первый раз в месте 13:14, никогда не прибавляет никакого существительного к нему, то есть это для него важный экклезиологический момент. Об этом было много споров в рамках критики редакции, это, вероятно, уподобляет Церковь новому Израилю, поэтому делает акцент на "двенадцати". Это также, видимо, не очень хорошо с точки зрения языка — ‘καὶ ἐποίησεν δώδεκα', потому что Матфей — ‘τοὺς δώδεκα μαθητάς', а Лука — ‘δώσεκα, οὔς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν'. Во всех десяти случаях, когда ‘δώδεκα' есть у Марка, никогда не бывает "кто" эти самые ‘δώδεκα'. То есть такое впечатление, что на фоне он как-то отделяет их от учеников, потому что есть ученики, и есть среди них эти ‘δώδεκα', поэтому большой вопрос: кто возвратился? Конечно, это sandwich structure, и возвратились апостолы, чтобы показать, как у них все замечательно получилось, но большой вопрос нет ли тут какого-то шва, что идет ли речь о "двенадцати" или может быть о более широком?
Joel Marcus: Yeah, I noticed, that in my commentary I didn’t translate these words and I have a note on it, in which I say, that I mean the attestation is good for the whom they also called apostles, but some manuscripts leave it out, and I guess I concluded, that it was an assimilation to Luke and the only other time, that Mark uses the word is in 6:30, where it’s not entirely clear, that ‘απόστολος' has this big magnified significance, that it has in the later texts in Paul and in Luke, so it may not be part of the original text in chapter 3.
М.Г. Селезнев: If we take away the term ‘απόστολοι' in Mark 3:14 is included in square brackets and which Joel on his own translation and commentary has left out then the verse, that we dealt with today Mark 6:30 is the only one occurrence of the term of ‘απόστολοι' in the whole gospel of Mark.
Л.Ю. Мусина But without the word ‘δώδεκα'
Joel Marcus: That plays into the whole debate about the meaning of ‘απόστολος' elsewhere in the New Testament and it always coterminous with the ‘δώδεκα'.
М.Г. Селезнев: The reader of the gospel of Mark having met the word ‘απόστολος' now for the first time in Mark’s 6:30 should have had some key to understand, whom the gospel writer was referring to and probably the only key for this was supplied by the verb ‘αποστέλλειν', that we have in 6:7. In the second part of the sandwich here refers to this ‘δώδεκα' as ‘ἀπόστολοι' having in mind this verb. It means, that in his lexicon, which is strange by the way ‘ἀπόστολος' is not yet a terminus technicus.
6:7 Καὶ προσκαλεῖται τοὺς δώδεκα καὶ ἤρξατο αὐτοὺς ἀποστέλλειν δύο δύο
Joel Marcus: Maybe though I mean Paul is a lot earlier than Mark and he’s already using it as a terminus technicus, so maybe it was, I mean I don’t think you can necessarily assume, that the readers are coming to what Mark is saying with a blank slate, tabula rasa, and this becomes important at the end of the Gospel, where there is a question about whether Mark narrates, resurrection appearances just ends it with the women running away, but even if he doesn’t describe them, don’t the readers know about them from just being Christians, so I mean, it is again a really good question, is he assuming the technical significance, but just not doing much with it, is it involved by his uses of the verb ‘αποστέλλω'or is he deliberately avoiding the term.
М.Г. Селезнев: That’s exactly the question, that I wanted to rise, because, of course, it seems that it’s the mainstream in Mark scholarship, that both Mark and his audience they belonged to that trend and group within the early Christianity, that was linked with the legacy of Paul, so that and within the genuine Paul’s letters, the term ‘απόστολοs'is so prominent, that it would be strange if Mark and his audience were ignorant of this. But still Mark construes his narrative as if ‘ἀπόστολος' is not Terminus technique.
Joel Marcus: Maybe there is a relationship between the fact, that Mark he’s the most negative about the disciples of Jesus of any of the gospel writers and he also avoids the term ‘ἀπόστολος', which as you say he should have known in its technical significance from Paul, but also the most negative about the twelve so maybe, that’s why he avoids it if he’s avoiding it.
М.Г. Селезнев: Exactly what you said, when may ask whether this has something to do with his almost negative relation of the institutions of Apostles.
Краткое резюме М.Г. Селезнева: Л. Ю. Мусина справедливо обратила внимание на то, что слово "апостол"встречается в Евангелие от Марка всего дважды (Марк 3:14 и 6:30). При этом в 3:14 "апостол" взят в скобки и, несмотря на хорошее подтверждение в рукописях, очень правдоподобно представляет собой гармонизацию с Евангелием от Луки, а в Марке ряд пускай небольшой, но значимой рукописи эти слова опускает.
Если действительно считать, что это у нас гармонизация с Лукой, то получается, что у нас "апостолы"встречаются в Евангелие от Марка в 6:30 и причем это вторая часть sandwich structure, в первой части, как бы предваряя использование слова "апостолы", у нас есть глагол ‘αποστέλλω': ‘Иисус начинает посылать'. Хотя с одной стороны, практически никто не сомневается к современной науке, что и сам автор Евангелия от Марка и его аудитория принадлежали к школе, движению внутри раннего христианства, которое было связано с апостолом Павлом, а для Павла слово ‘ἀπόστολος' (важный terminus technicus), именно посланник Христа, который обладает некоторой властью, Христом данной, но Марк это слово употребляет один единственный раз и то вводит его таким образом, будто этого не было и это всем известный terminus technicus. Здесь на глазах он его создаёт, отталкиваясь от глагола ‘αποστέλλω'. Встает вопрос: насколько можно связать неиспользование в Евангелии от Марка слова ‘ἀπόστολος' в качестве термина terminus technicus с тем достаточно негативным изображением апостолов и учеников Христовых, которых мы видим у Марка?
Joel Marcus: I just add I mean, who was and who was not an apostle in early Christianity was a matter of controversy? Because I think Paul didn’t invent the term either, it was already there in the formula in 1 Corinthians 15 then he appeared to all of the apostles, but I think Paul’s claiming the title of apostle even though he wasn’t one of the followers of Jesus during his lifetime, is was controversial and his insistence, that he is an apostle was I’m sure not everybody agreed with it. So it’s a matter of dispute and controversy, who is an apostle and who isn’t. It appears in polemical context sometimes.
М.Г. Селезнев: Очень важный момент, о котором говорит Джоэль, который я кратко просуммирую по-русски. В том употреблении слово ‘апостол', которое мы видим в посланиях Павла, это не совсем то употребление слова ‘апостол' которое мы видим в тех Евангелиях, которые эксплицитно отождествляют ‘апостолов' и ‘двенадцать'. Павел говорит о том, что он, Павел, является апостолом, кроме того, про других апостолов, которые тоже несут евангельскую весть по разным частям римской ойкумены, но при этом кажется не везде предполагается, что эти ‘апостолы', которые являются, с одной стороны, сотрудниками, с другой, — соперниками Павла, что не относится к числу этих ‘12', то есть у Павла в его письмах ‘апостол' — термин принятый ранней церковью, но не факт что речь идет про ‘12'. Это может объяснять нам тоже ситуацию с Марком: он в отличие от Матфея и Луки, которые проводят приравнивание понятия ‘апостолы' и ‘12', Марк же здесь употребляет слово ‘апостол' только в одном месте, как производное от глагола ‘αποστέλλω'.
Joel Marcus: It’s interesting and just one more thing I’m realizing: even in Luke, even in the book of Acts, which has a lot of stories about Paul generally the ‘ἀπόστολοι' are the 12. There is only one or two passages, in which I think there’s one, in which Barnabas and Paul are ‘ἀπόστολοι' and that may mean, that they have been sent out by another church right rather than the technical term.
М.Г. Селезнев: Даже в Деяниях, которые относятся к традиции того движения, которое восходит к апостолу Павлу, у нас здесь слово употребляется как terminus technicus по отношению к "двенадцати". In this regard the acts are different from Paul’s letters.
Joel Marcus: Even though Luke, he obviously thinks Paul is a really important figure, but he generally doesn’t call him an apostle.
(RSO) Но Апостолы Варнава и Павел, услышав о сем, разодрали свои
одежды и, бросившись в народ, громогласно говорили:
(CRV) Апостолы Варнава и Павел, узнав об этом, разодрали на себе
одежды и с громкими криками бросились к толпе:
М.Г. Селезнев: The next chapter in 15:2 it seems, that the syntax of this verse rather presupposes, that Paul and Barnabas are not among, because they are being sent ‘πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους':
(RSO) Когда же произошло разногласие и немалое состояние у Павла и Варнавы с ними, то положили Павлу и Варнаве и некоторым другим из них отправиться по сему делу к Апостолам и пресвитерам в Иерусалим.
(CRV) У Павла и Варнавы было с ними немало стычек и горячих споров по этому поводу, и наконец было решено, что Павел, Варнава и еще несколько человек из числа братьев отправятся в Иерусалим к апостолам и старейшинам, чтобы обсудить этот вопрос.
And the very last occurrence is that the Christian missionaries ask the faithful to be to follow ‘τὰ δόγματα τὰ κεκριμέναὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων τῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις':
(RSO) Проходя же по городам, они предавали верным соблюдать определения, поставленные Апостолами и пресвитерами в Иерусалиме.
(CRV) Обходя города, они убеждали братьев твердо держаться правил, предписанных апостолами и старейшинами в Иерусалиме.
This addition to ‘Ἱεροσολύμοις' seems to limit the circle of apostles and elders, whose teaching to be followed by those in Jerusalem. So you’re right in 14:14 is the only place in Acts, where people outside of the circle of 12, are called ‘ἀπόστολοι':
(RSO) Но Апостолы Варнава и Павел, услышав о сем, разодрали свои
одежды и, бросившись в народ, громогласно говорили:
(CRV) Апостолы Варнава и Павел, узнав об этом, разодрали на себе
одежды и с громкими криками бросились к толпе:
Joel Marcus: The conclusion is there were different definitions of ‘ἀπόστολος' some more restrictive than others, that were circulating in early Christianity and Paul has a problem, because he wants to claim this term for himself, even though he wasn’t one of the original 12, and even thought he had some dissension with the group in Jerusalem, headed by James, who also wasn’t a follower of Jesus, during his lifetime, but who was already apparently included in the circle of the apostles by many within the church early on, because you have, that back in 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul is citing a formula about Resurrection appearances, which probably goes back to before him.
М.Г. Селезнев: Can we ask ourselves whether Mark’s non-usage of the word ‘ἀπόστολοι' with regard to the 12, as different to the usage of Luke, can be regarded as a kind of as a sign, that some polemics in Mark’s gospel with regard to the notion of apostleship as an institution, that we have in Acts and Luke, so that within the heritage of Paul we have different interpretations one interpretation, that regards apostleship more as a quite fixed institution, 12 apostles, and another tendency presented by Mark, which is probably quite deliberately try not to use this word at least in its meaning as terminus technicus.
Joel Marcus: I mean I think maybe what I’d prefer to say is like as you say Mark is avoiding maybe deliberately avoiding the term and Paul is trying to broaden the term, so they’re both directed maybe against the institution of the 12, but Mark us avoiding it and Paul is redefining. To include himself.
М.Г. Селезнев: Paul is redefining the notion of apostle or the tradition, that limited the apostleship to ‘οἱ δώδεκα' was redefining the earlier understanding of ‘ἀπόστολος'.
Joel Marcus: That would be an alternate interpretation and in favor of that again 1 Corinthians 15:9 or whatever it is James is one of the apostles and as I said most people take this as a list of resurrection appearances, that is from before Paul 1 Corinthians 15:7: