stepsШаги/StepsShagi / Steps2412-94102782-1765The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public AdministrationIMPAUQ.steps-1042Research ArticleМИФ, ПОЛИТИКА, ИДЕОЛОГИЯ В КУЛЬТУРАХ ВОСТОКАMYTH, POLITICS, IDEOLOGY IN THE CULTURE OF THE ORIENTПроблема ритуальной чистоты в Мк 7:1–23: новый взглядThe problem of ritual purity in Mark 7:1–23: A new lookhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7404-4143ЯстребовГ. Г.YastrebovG. G.

Глеб Гарриевич Ястребов, научный сотрудник, отдел истории и культуры Древнего Востока; научный сотрудник, Лаборатория востоковедения и компаративистики, Школа актуальных гуманитарных исследований, Институт общественных наук

107031, Москва, ул. Рождественка, д. 12 

119571, Москва, пр-т Вернадского, д. 82 стр. 1 

Gleb Garrievich Yastrebov, Research Fellow, Department of Ancient Orient; Research Fellow, Center for Oriental Studies, School of Advanced Studies in the Humanities, Institute for Social Sciences

107031, Moscow, Rozhdestvenka Str., 12 

119571, Moscow, Prospekt Vernadskogo, 82, Bld. 1 

gleb.iastr@list.ruИнститут востоковедения РАН ; Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте РФРоссияInstitute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences ; The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public AdministrationRussian Federation202507092025113143157Copyright © Ястребов Г.Г., 20252025Ястребов Г.Г.Yastrebov G.G.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://steps.ranepa.ru/jour/article/view/1042

Мк 7:1–23 содержит знаменитый crux interpretum: в ходе полемики с фарисеями Иисус превращает дискуссию об омовении рук (7:1–13) в учение об источниках внутренней скверны (7:14–23). Согласно традиционной интерпретации, последнее содержит завуалированную критику установлений о кашруте (7:15); во всяком случае, таково понимание самого Марка (7:19в). Это толкование предполагает противоречие в логике Иисуса: 7:1–13 обвиняет фарисеев в подрыве авторитета Писания, тогда как нападки на кашрут разрушают этот авторитет еще сильнее. В статье взвешиваются за и против недавнего альтернативного подхода (Й. Фурстенберг, Д. Боярин): Иисус критикует омовение рук как новшество, лишенное библейской основы, ратуя за более консервативный подход (люди как источник, а не адресат ритуальной чистоты). Подход Фурстенберга и Боярина критиковался Ш. Коэном, Дж. Маркусом и другими, но неубедительно. Однако Фурстенберг и Боярин переоценивают значение галахической проблематики для Марка: хотя материал 7:1-13 взят из предания, для Марка вопрос об омовении рук вторичен, а на первый план выходит общая критика фарисейской концепции Устной Торы. Возможно, он уже не помнит, что представление фарисеев о передаче ритуальной нечистоты через еду содержит новшество, а не древнюю традицию. Марк также может несколько дистанцировать Иисуса от его иудейской среды на уровне редакции.

Mark 7:1–23 contains a notorious crux interpretum: in the course of his anti-Pharisaic polemic, Jesus turns the debate about unwashed hands (7:1–13) into a teaching about things that defile from within (7:14–23). According to the traditional interpretation, the latter contains a veiled attack on kashruth laws (7:15), or at least this is Mark’s understanding (7:19c). This reading presupposes a profound contradiction in Jesus’ logic: 7:1–13 accuses the Pharisees of undermining the authority of the Scripture, while attacks on kashruth destroy this authority even more. If this interpretation is correct, 7:1–13 is a pastiche of mutually contradictive and partly anachronistic traditions. The paper weighs the pros and cons of a recent alternative approach (Y. Furstenberg, D. Boyarin): Jesus attacks the washing of hands as a Pharisaic novelty without a biblical basis and stands for a more conservative approach (humans as a source of ritual impurity, rather than its target). Furstenberg’s approach was criticized by Sh. Cohen, J. Marcus and others, but these criticisms are difficult to sustain. However, Furstenberg and Boyarin might overestimate the halakhic concerns of Mark: though 7:1–13 reflects mostly traditional material, Mark is no longer concerned with hand washing per se. Rather, he uses the tradition to oppose the Pharisaic concept of the Oral Torah. It is possible that he no longer remembers that the Pharisaic idea of the transfer of ritual impurity through food is a novelty, rather than an old teaching. Mark might also distance Jesus from his Jewish milieu at the level of redaction.

библеистикаиудаикаисториографияЕвангелие от Маркагалахапоиск исторического Иисусаиудаизм Второго Храмаиудео-христианские отношенияbiblical studiesJewish studieshistoriographyGospel of Markhalakhahquest for the historical JesusSecond Temple JudaismJewish-Christian relationsСтатья подготовлена в рамках выполнения научно-исследовательской работы государственного задания РАНХиГС.The article is a part of the RANEPA state assignment research programme.ReferencesBoyarin D. (2012). The Jewish Gospels: The story of the Jewish Christ. The New Press.Boyarin D. (2012). The Jewish Gospels: The story of the Jewish Christ. The New Press.Boyarin D. (2019). Moses and Jesus against the Pharisees: Mark and Paul on Moses. In J. Timbie, & P. Roussear (Eds.). The Christian Moses, from Philo to the Qur’an (pp. 1–24). The Catholic Univ. of America Press.Boyarin D. (2019). Moses and Jesus against the Pharisees: Mark and Paul on Moses. In J. Timbie, & P. Roussear (Eds.). The Christian Moses, from Philo to the Qur’an (pp. 1–24). The Catholic Univ. of America Press.Bultmann, R. (1963). The history of the Synoptic tradition. Blackwell.Bultmann, R. (1963). The history of the Synoptic tradition. Blackwell.Cohen, Sh. (2013). Antipodal texts: B. Eruvin 21b–22a and Mark 7:1–23 on the tradition of the elders and the commandment of God. In R. Boustan et al. (Eds.). Envisioning Judaism: Studies in honor of Peter Schäfer on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (pp. 965– 983). Mohr Siebeck.Cohen, Sh. (2013). Antipodal texts: B. Eruvin 21b–22a and Mark 7:1–23 on the tradition of the elders and the commandment of God. In R. Boustan et al. (Eds.). Envisioning Judaism: Studies in honor of Peter Schäfer on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (pp. 965– 983). Mohr Siebeck.Furstenberg, Y. (2008). Defilement penetrating the body: A new understanding of contamination in Mark 7.15. New Testament Studies, 54(2), 176–200. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688508000106.Furstenberg, Y. (2008). Defilement penetrating the body: A new understanding of contamination in Mark 7.15. New Testament Studies, 54(2), 176–200. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688508000106.Markus, J. (2014). Mark — interpreter of Paul. In J. Dunn et al. (Eds.). Mark and Paul: Comparative essays, Pt. 2: For and against Pauline influence on Mark (pp. 29–50). De Gruyter.Markus, J. (2014). Mark — interpreter of Paul. In J. Dunn et al. (Eds.). Mark and Paul: Comparative essays, Pt. 2: For and against Pauline influence on Mark (pp. 29–50). De Gruyter.Meier, J. P. (2009). A marginal Jew: Rethinking the historical Jesus, Vol. 4: Law and love. Yale Univ. Press.Meier, J. P. (2009). A marginal Jew: Rethinking the historical Jesus, Vol. 4: Law and love. Yale Univ. Press.Reynolds, S. (1966). Πυγμῃ̑ (Mark 7:3) as “cupped hand”. Journal of Biblical Literature, 85(1), 87–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/3264360.Reynolds, S. (1966). Πυγμῃ̑ (Mark 7:3) as “cupped hand”. Journal of Biblical Literature, 85(1), 87–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/3264360.Sanders, E. P. (1985). Jesus and Judaism. Fortress Press.Sanders, E. P. (1985). Jesus and Judaism. Fortress Press.Sanders, E. P. (1993). The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin Books.Sanders, E. P. (1993). The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin Books.Wills L. (2016). The Jewishness of the Gospel of Mark. In I. Kalimi (Ed.). Bridging between sister religions: Studies of Jewish and Christian scriptures offered in honor of Prof. John T. Townsend (pp. 69–86). Brill.Wills L. (2016). The Jewishness of the Gospel of Mark. In I. Kalimi (Ed.). Bridging between sister religions: Studies of Jewish and Christian scriptures offered in honor of Prof. John T. Townsend (pp. 69–86). Brill.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.