![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hgrэто, действительно, сложное место в Евангелии от Иоанна, и я бы не стал выносить обсуждение на публику, если бы не появившиеся теперь уже в нашей блогосфере "пидарские" (в плохом смысле слова) толкования.
под катом фрагмент моей статьи, где доказывается интуиция Анни Жобер, которая впервые связала эту евангельскую сцену с ее прообразами в "Завете Неффалима" и "Книге Юбилеев". календарная сторона моего доказательства из фрагмента ниже ясной не будет, но не она там главная. главное -- что сцена точно воспроизводит (почти дословно) сцену благословения Авраамом своего внука Иакова в "Книге Юбилеев". это особое благословение, которое передается через такого рода (а не другого рода!) телесный контакт. смысл благословения -- участие в Завете с Богом и, точнее, старшинство в этом Завете: Иаков становится новым Авраамом, отцом всех верных, всего народа Божия.
В контексте Евангелия эта сцена означает, что Возлюбленный Ученик (в Евангелии его имя нигде не называется) -- Иаков, т.е. отец, по отношению к Двенадцати. (что этот ученик, даже если его тоже звали Иоанн, не тождественен Иоанну Заведееву, единому от 12-ти, -- это предание ранней церкви и позднейшей науки вроде Бокэма, ему же и аз последую).
19.10. The Blessing of the Beloved Disciple and the Sabbath of New Covenant. Annie Jaubert seems to be the only scholar who recognised in the Johannine supper, despite its lack of the bread and wine rite, a ritual meal. There is a need to unpack her too condensed exposition.[1]
Jaubert discerns two different aspects of the ritual meaning of the Johannine meal. First, it is a kind of funeral repast performed when the person that is going to die is still alive; this person has to deliver a testament speech. Such repasts were rather common in the Second Temple Jewish literature, and Jaubert quotes a series of examples from the Book of Jubilees and the Testament of Naphtali.[2] Secondly, it is a banquet when a special blessing is transmitted with a physical contact such as reclining and/or sleeping closely to the blessing person, in an immediate contact with his body. Such a banquet was not necessarily coinciding with the farewell repast. Thus, in the Jubilees, Abraham transmitted his blessing to Jacob at the repast where he was going to die (Jub 22:1–23:2), but Isaac blessed his grandsons Levi and Judah at a banquet long before his farewell repast (Jub 31:9–23);[3] Isaac’s and Rebecca’s farewell repasts (Jub 36:1-18 and 35:1-27) do not contain a scene of transmitting the blessing, and the repast of Naphtali either.
The transmission of a special blessing through a close physical contact during a special banquet is exactly the same as Beloved Disciple’s “leaning on Jesus’ bosom (ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ )” (13:23) or “breast (ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος)” (21:20). The parallel with Abraham’s blessing of Jacob, as already noticed Jaubert, is especially revealing. Abraham makes a repast on the day of the festival of weeks, that is, the festival of the Covenant, when “…Jacob apporte à Abraham gâteaux nouveaux et boisson (du vin, d’après la traduction latine[4]). Abraham mange, boit et transmet à son petit-fils la bénédiction de l’Alliance et les Promesses.” Jaubert comments: “L’on ne saurait dire que nourriture ou contact servent de véhicule à la transmission (il n’y a pas là de caractère magique), mais ils l’accompagnent comme une sorte de support signifiant.”[5]
The description of the corporal contact between Abraham and Jacob (Jub 22:25-26) is exactly the same as that between Jesus and the Beloved Disciple according to 13:23. It becomes clear in retroversion from Ethiopic into Greek: “Then he finished commanding and blessing him. The two of them lay down together on one bed. Jacob slept in the bosom (ውስተ፡ሕፅነ፡ [= ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ] [6]) of his grandfather Abraham…”[7]
Here we have to recall the Ladder of Jacob imagery (1:51) and other Jacob motives accompanying Jesus (those focused on the Jacob’s well). The leaning of the Beloved Disciple on the bosom of Jesus seems to be one more Jacob motive, whereas inversed: Jesus as the New Abraham is now inaugurating the Jacob of the New Covenant, the father of the twelve tribes of the New Israel, and so, the common “father” of the Twelve. Indeed, this “leaning on the bosom,” “[c]e n’est pas une indication sentimentale. Rien n’est plus éloigné du IVe évangile que la mièvrerie qu’on lui a parfois prêtée. Il faut remonter à l’arrière-plan juif, où des repas d’adieu sont aussi des ‘testaments.’”[8]
This conclusion corroborates the view of those who, like Bauckham (even though unlike Jaubert), consider the figure of the Beloved Disciple as distinct from John the son of Zebedee and not included into the number of the Twelve.[9] Such a leadership of the Beloved Disciple would be hardly compatible with that of Peter and the Twelve, and this is why, I think the Johannine supper is completely absent from the Synoptic accounts.
Both Abraham’s farewell repast according to the Jubilees and Joshua’s farewell speech in Shiloh (Shechem), the two prototypes of the Johannine supper, are procedures of transmitting the Covenant. Joshua, too, after having started with recalling the history of salvation from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob to Moses and himself (Josh 24:2-13), arrived to “making a covenant with the people that day and making statutes and ordinances for them” (Josh 24:25). “That day” of Joshua remained unspecified in the calendar, whereas the Abraham’s repast is dated exactly to the “festival of weeks” (Jub 22:1). The Johannine supper is certainly preceding the annual festival of weeks, but it falls on the seventh Sabbath after the six Sabbaths of signs. This is an Exodic pattern: the Covenant is given after the seven-week interval from the crossing the Red Sea, which corresponds, in the Fourth Gospel, to the seven-week interval after the Sabbath of crossing the Sea of Galilee. The Sabbath of the Johannine supper is a kind of the festival of weeks, one of the different kinds of such pentecontad festivals known from the Second Temple period. And this is also an explanation why the number of signs is six and not seven or other: there are only six Sabbaths free to performing such signs.
Therefore, both rite performed at the Johannine supper and its calendrical place indicate that the meaning of this event consisted in establishing a covenant, in continuation with the analogous and prefigurating actions of Abraham (according to the Jubilees) and Joshua.
под катом фрагмент моей статьи, где доказывается интуиция Анни Жобер, которая впервые связала эту евангельскую сцену с ее прообразами в "Завете Неффалима" и "Книге Юбилеев". календарная сторона моего доказательства из фрагмента ниже ясной не будет, но не она там главная. главное -- что сцена точно воспроизводит (почти дословно) сцену благословения Авраамом своего внука Иакова в "Книге Юбилеев". это особое благословение, которое передается через такого рода (а не другого рода!) телесный контакт. смысл благословения -- участие в Завете с Богом и, точнее, старшинство в этом Завете: Иаков становится новым Авраамом, отцом всех верных, всего народа Божия.
В контексте Евангелия эта сцена означает, что Возлюбленный Ученик (в Евангелии его имя нигде не называется) -- Иаков, т.е. отец, по отношению к Двенадцати. (что этот ученик, даже если его тоже звали Иоанн, не тождественен Иоанну Заведееву, единому от 12-ти, -- это предание ранней церкви и позднейшей науки вроде Бокэма, ему же и аз последую).
19.10. The Blessing of the Beloved Disciple and the Sabbath of New Covenant. Annie Jaubert seems to be the only scholar who recognised in the Johannine supper, despite its lack of the bread and wine rite, a ritual meal. There is a need to unpack her too condensed exposition.[1]
Jaubert discerns two different aspects of the ritual meaning of the Johannine meal. First, it is a kind of funeral repast performed when the person that is going to die is still alive; this person has to deliver a testament speech. Such repasts were rather common in the Second Temple Jewish literature, and Jaubert quotes a series of examples from the Book of Jubilees and the Testament of Naphtali.[2] Secondly, it is a banquet when a special blessing is transmitted with a physical contact such as reclining and/or sleeping closely to the blessing person, in an immediate contact with his body. Such a banquet was not necessarily coinciding with the farewell repast. Thus, in the Jubilees, Abraham transmitted his blessing to Jacob at the repast where he was going to die (Jub 22:1–23:2), but Isaac blessed his grandsons Levi and Judah at a banquet long before his farewell repast (Jub 31:9–23);[3] Isaac’s and Rebecca’s farewell repasts (Jub 36:1-18 and 35:1-27) do not contain a scene of transmitting the blessing, and the repast of Naphtali either.
The transmission of a special blessing through a close physical contact during a special banquet is exactly the same as Beloved Disciple’s “leaning on Jesus’ bosom (ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ )” (13:23) or “breast (ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος)” (21:20). The parallel with Abraham’s blessing of Jacob, as already noticed Jaubert, is especially revealing. Abraham makes a repast on the day of the festival of weeks, that is, the festival of the Covenant, when “…Jacob apporte à Abraham gâteaux nouveaux et boisson (du vin, d’après la traduction latine[4]). Abraham mange, boit et transmet à son petit-fils la bénédiction de l’Alliance et les Promesses.” Jaubert comments: “L’on ne saurait dire que nourriture ou contact servent de véhicule à la transmission (il n’y a pas là de caractère magique), mais ils l’accompagnent comme une sorte de support signifiant.”[5]
The description of the corporal contact between Abraham and Jacob (Jub 22:25-26) is exactly the same as that between Jesus and the Beloved Disciple according to 13:23. It becomes clear in retroversion from Ethiopic into Greek: “Then he finished commanding and blessing him. The two of them lay down together on one bed. Jacob slept in the bosom (ውስተ፡ሕፅነ፡ [= ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ] [6]) of his grandfather Abraham…”[7]
Here we have to recall the Ladder of Jacob imagery (1:51) and other Jacob motives accompanying Jesus (those focused on the Jacob’s well). The leaning of the Beloved Disciple on the bosom of Jesus seems to be one more Jacob motive, whereas inversed: Jesus as the New Abraham is now inaugurating the Jacob of the New Covenant, the father of the twelve tribes of the New Israel, and so, the common “father” of the Twelve. Indeed, this “leaning on the bosom,” “[c]e n’est pas une indication sentimentale. Rien n’est plus éloigné du IVe évangile que la mièvrerie qu’on lui a parfois prêtée. Il faut remonter à l’arrière-plan juif, où des repas d’adieu sont aussi des ‘testaments.’”[8]
This conclusion corroborates the view of those who, like Bauckham (even though unlike Jaubert), consider the figure of the Beloved Disciple as distinct from John the son of Zebedee and not included into the number of the Twelve.[9] Such a leadership of the Beloved Disciple would be hardly compatible with that of Peter and the Twelve, and this is why, I think the Johannine supper is completely absent from the Synoptic accounts.
Both Abraham’s farewell repast according to the Jubilees and Joshua’s farewell speech in Shiloh (Shechem), the two prototypes of the Johannine supper, are procedures of transmitting the Covenant. Joshua, too, after having started with recalling the history of salvation from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob to Moses and himself (Josh 24:2-13), arrived to “making a covenant with the people that day and making statutes and ordinances for them” (Josh 24:25). “That day” of Joshua remained unspecified in the calendar, whereas the Abraham’s repast is dated exactly to the “festival of weeks” (Jub 22:1). The Johannine supper is certainly preceding the annual festival of weeks, but it falls on the seventh Sabbath after the six Sabbaths of signs. This is an Exodic pattern: the Covenant is given after the seven-week interval from the crossing the Red Sea, which corresponds, in the Fourth Gospel, to the seven-week interval after the Sabbath of crossing the Sea of Galilee. The Sabbath of the Johannine supper is a kind of the festival of weeks, one of the different kinds of such pentecontad festivals known from the Second Temple period. And this is also an explanation why the number of signs is six and not seven or other: there are only six Sabbaths free to performing such signs.
Therefore, both rite performed at the Johannine supper and its calendrical place indicate that the meaning of this event consisted in establishing a covenant, in continuation with the analogous and prefigurating actions of Abraham (according to the Jubilees) and Joshua.
[1] S. an important and largely unnoticed two-page sketch in Jaubert, Approches…, 43–44. I recall that Jaubert considered the Johannine Last Supper narrative as a partial description of the Last Supper described, also partially, by the Synoptics, whereas I consider the two as quite different events.
[2] For the Testament of Naphtali (esp. 1:2-4), s. now M. de Jonge et al., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graecae, I,2; Leiden: Brill, 1978, 112–124, esp. 112. The relevant passages of the Jubilees are the following: 22:1–23:2 (Abraham), 35:1-27 (Rebecca), and 36:1-18 (Isaac); J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, CSCO, vols. 510–511; Scr. Eth., tt. 87–88; Louvain: Peeters, 1989, 119–125/277–278/127–135 (Eth/Lat/Eng), 190–196/289/230–237 (Eth/Lat and Heb 1Q18/Eng), and 196–200/289–290/237–240 (Eth/Lat/Eng), respectively; references to the English translation imply the pages of the vol. 511, the others—of the vol. 510.
[3] VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 170–173/285–286/202–206 (Eth/Lat/Eng). The description of the exact mode of the corporal contact (31:22-23) is available only in Ethiopic: “They ate and drank happily. He [sc., Isaac] made Jacob’s two sons sleep, one on his right, one on his left” (p. 173/205).
[4] Here (22:5) the Ethiopic text is corrupted and omits several words, but the Latin version is intact: “Isaac, too, sent through Jacob [his] excellent peace offering [and wine (et uinum) to his father] Abraham for him to eat and drink” (VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 120/277/127–128); cf. VanderKam’s note to 22:5 in his translation (p. 127).
[5] Jaubert, Approches..., 43 and 43–44.
[6] For this idiom, s. Dillmann, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae, cols. 137–138.
[7] VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 124/133. This verse is available in Ethiopic only.
[8] Jaubert, Approches…, 43.
[9] Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses..., esp. 402–403.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 02:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 02:14 pm (UTC)вышли из употребления и перестали быть авторитетными ранние церковные историки -- Папий и Егесипп... и вообще историческая картина упростилась, как всегда бывает. лишние сущности выпали, даже если они исторически существовали.
no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 02:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 02:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 02:20 pm (UTC)А чем эти два понимания различаются?
Имеется ввиду, что "Иоанн" имел верховенство над 12? Это главное отличие? Или еще какое-то институциональное различие?
no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 02:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 02:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-03 07:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-03 08:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-03 11:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-03 06:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-03 08:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-03 09:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-08 04:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 05:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 06:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 06:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 06:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 08:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 08:56 pm (UTC)но кого называть Иоанном Богословом -- так это, скорее, именно его.
no subject
Date: 2014-01-02 09:00 pm (UTC)да, поправка принимается! - это я по темноте своей; имел в виду, конечно, Иоанна сына Зеведеева (которого до сих пор считал, как это принято, и тем же Иоанном, который Богослов) -- но только сейчас понял до конца, что он, да не тот )