Bishop Gregory (hgr) wrote,
Bishop Gregory
hgr

лекционарная гипотеза

промежуточные итоги.

Лекционарная гипотеза означает, что данное произведение изначально составлено как серия литургических чтений в календарном порядке, и этим определяется последовательность и состав эпизодов. Напр., апостольские послания составлялись иначе (хотя насчет Евр я не уверен, но это и не послание, а переделанная в послание проповедь), но они просто дошли до нас в литургически препарированном виде, в разбивке на зачала.


1. Мф: form-critical study gives a key to original subdivisions which are mostly different from the ancient 69 kephalaia. However, this study (Goulder in my recension) gives the total number of pericopes, 66, which is not so distant from 69. What is more important, the most important reading in the middle of the gospel, that of Transfiguration, is placed in both cases very closely (according to the 2nd law of Baumstark).

2. Mk: the kephalaia give a simplified picture (e.g., the Last Supper on Thu; ignoring time divisions on Great Fri...). Thus, the number of pericopes 49 is, most probably, not genuine. Any further study would require to establish the subdivisions on form-critical ground.

3. Lk: The ancient 84 kephalaia look as more or less rational subdivisions for liturgical needs, which seem to me implying the original calendar of this gospel. The period from the Transfiguration to the Easter forms one Journey and one pentecontad.

4. Jn: nothing clear so far. its ancient kephalaia seem to me too long for liturgical purposes...

-----------------

Calendriacal scheme is, in all Synoptics: John/Baptism -- Transfiguration -- Passover.

Luke adds Birth but on the same day(s) as Baptism, that is, without any difference in the core of calendrical structure.

John has no Transfiguration. Instead, he has a story of choosing of the five, wich seems to be a rendering of 4 Ezra 14 (cf. also Nathanael as "a Scribe of Israel" in Diatessaron). Anyway, his three Passovers pose a problem.

Nevertheless, John has a calendar of his own, even if there is no sign (to my knowledge) that this implied calendar was used for creating of a lectionary structure. (See my next posting).

UPD Morris p. 29-30: против гипотезы Гоулдера -- проблема различия календарей. Гоулдеру еще надо было бы доказать, что используется именно синагогальный календарь (а это и невозможно -- добавлю аз).
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment