Читать «Еврейские Евангелии. История еврейского Христа.» онлайн - страница 64

79

From here on, I will be following Marcus quite closely. Marcus, Way of the Lord, 106

80

It should be noted that in some respects the Matthean parallel goes in quite a different direction from Mark, especially by leaving out the crucial "It is written" statements in both instances. There is no midrash in Matthew here at all. For other entailed differences in this passage between the second and the first Gospels, see W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 712. If Marcus and I are right, then Mark is much closer to a Jewish hermeneutical form than Matthew at this point.

81

Origen, Contra Cekum, trans, with an introduction and notes by Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 50.

82

The word for "disease" here means "leprosy" throughout rabbinic literature and is translated leprosus by Jerome as well (for the latter reference, see Adolph Neubauer, The Fifty—Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (Oxford: J. Parker, 1876-1877), 6.

83

I am not claiming that therefore the followers of Jesus did not originate this particular midrash, rather, if and when they did so, the hermeneutical practice they were engaged in bespoke in itself the "Jewishness" of their religious thinking and imagination.

84

Martin Hengel, "Christianity as a Jewish—Messianic Movement," in The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles, ed. Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor (Jerusalem: Yad Ben—Zvi Press, 2005), 85, emphasis in original.