Much has already been written about the allegorical and typological interpretation of the Bible. It has long been commonplace to say that in fact they have little in common with the true meaning of the biblical text: allegorically, the interpreter sees in any detail an indication of an idea, and typologically - reduces any biblical plot to the story of Jesus Christ. For example, Augustine of Hippo understands the gospel parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:35) as follows: a traveler is a person who has left Paradise, the robbers who attacked him are demons who deprive him of eternal life, a priest and a Levite are Judaism that cannot save a person, a Samaritan is Christ, and the inn where he delivered the wounded person - Church (Quaest. Ev. 2.19).
Starting with Augustine, this interpretation has become normative in the West (to the point that in the Middle Ages it is depicted on the stained glass windows of cathedrals, for example, in Bourges in France). However, Augustine, in turn, borrowed it from his predecessors - Origen was the first to offer an allegorical interpretation (Volume 34.3). Even the smallest details get their own meaning from the allegorists, and different interpreters have different meanings: for example, for Origen, the innkeeper turns out to be an angel, and for Augustine-the apostle Paul; two coins that the Samaritan gives him, for Origen, mean the knowledge of the Father and the Son, and for Augustine - the promise of good in this and the future life.
Indeed, we can say that such an interpretation deliberately pulls the passage out of context and moves away from the meaning that the author puts into the text. Every reader can see from the context that the parable actually answers the question " Who is my neighbor? "and contains a clear moral imperative.
The author of the classic work on the Gospel parables, C. G. Dodd [Dodd, 2004, pp. 4-5], begins with such a categorical criticism of the interpretation of Augustine of Hippo. Works on this topic have recently appeared in Russia [Nesterova, 2005; Nesterova, 2006] 1.
But allegorists do not claim that the parable does not have such a meaning - they only imply that the parable can have different meanings at different levels. This interpretation is inextricably linked to the idea of several levels of meaning of the biblical text, and this idea was common to the Christian and Jewish exegetical traditions, despite all their other differences. Therefore, we can assume that this is part of a common heritage dating back to late antiquity, when the interpenetration of ideas between Christianity and Judaism was quite possible and common.
Jewish interpreters identified four main meanings of the Biblical text:
1 See also the fundamental work on this topic [Lubac, 1959-1964].
page 18
* pshat-literal meaning;
* remez - philosophical and allegorical interpretation, hint at other possible meanings;
* draghi - homiletic or aggadic interpretation, adding "implied" but not named details to the text, and explaining its theological meaning;
* sod - secret, mystical understanding.
We know these names from the mystical treatise " Zohar "(XIII century), where the initial letters of these words were composed of the word PaRDeS ("Garden of Eden"), and since then this designation has taken root in the Jewish tradition [van der Heide, 1983]. But it probably dates back to a much older time, because in the Christian tradition, such a theory of the four meanings existed much earlier. John Cassian was the first Christian expounder of the four senses theory (late fourth and fifth centuries), and it remained generally accepted in the Western Christian tradition until the Reformation, although it did not lose its significance even after it. These were:
* literal meaning;
* tropological or moral (moral) interpretation;
* allegorical or typological interpretation;
* anagogic interpretation related to the realities of the spiritual world.
Thus, the word "Jerusalem", according to Cassian, means (1) a city in Palestine; (2) a human soul that deserves God's reproach or praise; (3) The Church; (4) Heavenly Jerusalem, the city of God. The difference between these methods was briefly explained in a rhymed adage written in the thirteenth century. By Nikolai Lirinsky:
Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria,
Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.
The letter teaches what has been done; allegory - what to believe
; morality - how to act; anagogy-what to strive for.
This model, known as the quadriga, has become central to Western scholastic theology. However, medieval exegetes did not necessarily limit the number of possible meanings to four. So, in the margins of the Bible, which belonged to J. R. R. Tolkien. Savonarole (XV century), preserved in his own handwritten notes, in which he gives six interpretations of the six days of creation. He understands the first day as follows: (1) Literal interpretation: heaven, earth, light; (2) Spiritual interpretation: soul, body, moving mind; (3) Allegorical interpretation applied to the OT: Adam, Eve, ray (of future redemption); (4) Allegorical interpretation applied to New Zealand: the people of Israel, the Gentiles, Jesus Christ; (5) Moral interpretation: soul, body in the sense of reason and instinct, the light of redemption; (6) Anagogic interpretation: angels, people, vision.
However, this theory was by no means a medieval invention, it appeared in the time of antiquity. The first allegorist is traditionally called Philo of Alexandria (the first half of the first century A.D.). But isn't it the case that Philo was the first interpreter of the Bible, or rather, of the Old Testament? In any case, we cannot give an example of an earlier exegete who did not have allegories. Allegory for Philo was the best way to update the biblical text, to present it to the Hellenistic reader in such a way that he recognized its depth, significance and value. If he had only focused on the literal interpretation, then readers would probably have found that all these stories about the ancient Jews have nothing to do with them, and in artistic terms they are clearly inferior to Hellenic mythology and poetry. And yet Philo did not deny the literal meaning of the text. For example, in his treatise On the Confusion of Languages, which is devoted to the analysis of Genesis 11 (the Construction of the Tower of Babel), he specifically stipulates that one cannot literally understand the descent of God from heaven, but the story of the construction of the tower itself, apparently, he understands quite literally, as a narrative
page 19
about the actual construction of a very high tower that was interrupted by divine intervention.
Origen (first half of the third century), who in many respects continued and developed Philo's exegetical methods, spoke of the multiplicity of meanings in Scripture, highlighting historical, moral, and mysterious interpretations, which he likened to the body, soul, and spirit. He stated: "And in general, according to the apostolic command, in everything one should seek wisdom, hidden in the secret... Who is so stupid as to think that God, in the likeness of the husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden in the east, and in it created the tree of life, visible and sensible, so that whoever eats of its fruit with his bodily teeth thereby renews his life, and whoever eats of the fruit of the tree (knowledge) of good and evil would participate in good and evil?" (Starting from 4.13).
Origen's influence on early Christian exegesis was enormous (see first of all: Nesterova, 2006), and it can be said that starting with him, allegory becomes one of the main and then the most basic methods of interpretation, but this did not happen without some struggle, which is usually described as a dispute between supporters of the Alexandrian school (allegorists) and the exegetes of the Antiochian school, who preferred literal interpretations. Here is what the "Antiochian" Theodoret of Cyrrhus wrote, for example, on the same subject (the first half of the fifth century): "The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil should be called, whether mental or sensual trees? The divine Scripture says that these trees also grew out of the ground, and therefore have no other nature than that of other plants. Just as the tree of the Cross is a tree proper, and is called the tree of salvation for the sake of salvation gained by faith in its power, so these trees also grew out of the ground, but according to God's definition one of them is called the tree of life, and the other is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because.
Origen, however, no doubt recognizes that the literal meaning of the text also has its value: "We must clearly say that in some narratives we recognize historical truth. Such, for example, are the stories that Abraham was buried in Hebron in a double cave, just as Isaac and Jacob were, with one wife for each of them; that Shechem was given as an inheritance to Joseph, and Jerusalem is the capital of Judah, where Solomon built the temple of God, and many other things." 4.19).
At the same time, Theodoret easily resorted to allegory where he needed it. For example, speaking about the distinction between clean and unclean animals (those who have cloven hooves and chew cud are clean), he wrote: "The cloven hoof means, as I think, the distinction between good deeds and their opposite, but beyond this, life is not only in the present age, but also in the future... And regurgitating chewing denotes teaching in Divine words " (Explanation 11). So the difference between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian is not whether the allegorical interpretation is legitimate, but whether it is necessary to apply it to the passage in question. This difference is not qualitative, but rather quantitative: Origen has many more allegories than Theodoret.
However, the same exegete could easily combine both approaches for a single episode. For example, Gregory of Nyssa (second half of the fourth century), in his treatise On the Life of Moses the Lawgiver, first gives a retelling of the biblical story, understood literally (this part of his work he calls i στop ia - "narration"), and then returns to each of the narrated episodes in order to interpret it allegorically or typologically (this part called θεωp ia - "contemplation") [Desnitsky, 2003]. Thus, each detail has both a literal and a" contemplative " symbolic meaning, but Gregory himself quite clearly points out that these symbols are somewhat conditional and arbitrary, that they should not be interpreted as something absolute and unshakable. For example, he interprets Aaron as the guardian angel of the human soul (it is symbolized by Moses himself), but then there is a reservation: in the sc-
page 20
not without the golden calf, this parallel should not be drawn. Such a small detail as sandals is sometimes interpreted in a negative sense, as the deadness of sinful human nature (in the scene at the burning bush), or in a positive sense, as an ascetic life (in the Passover precepts), depending on whether Moses should take off his shoes or put on his shoes.
Apparently, for Gregory of Nyssa, allegories did not so much explain the essence of the biblical narrative as help the reader, who was in completely different circumstances, to find a way to apply the biblical text to his own life, as he clearly stated in the introduction to his work: "... this book serves as an instruction in virtue on the example of Moses. And if we were to approach it with a question: so what do sandals really mean, sinful nature, or, on the contrary, ascetic life-we would probably hear the answer that everything depends on practical use." In fact, this is what he states at the very beginning of his work: "We can look at the life described, according to the purpose that I have defined for my story, and draw from it instructions that would help us to lead a virtuous life" (Life of Moses 1.77).
Perhaps these examples are enough to draw the following cautious conclusion. The quadriga model is a medieval invention, but from the earliest times - that is, from Philo of Alexandria - we see that Bible interpreters clearly distinguish between literal and non-literal interpretation (let's call it symbolic). They may disagree about the choice of literal or symbolic interpretation for a particular passage, just as the conclusions of the two exegetes may differ within the same method, but in principle both ways are recognized as valid and useful, although very different in their essence and in their tasks.
However, we cannot find any clear distinction between typology and allegory, let alone such subtleties as moral or anagogic interpretation. Of course, today we clearly see the difference between these methods: typology sees in some biblical characters, objects and events prototypes of other characters, objects and events, while in allegory characters, objects and events are not compared with each other at all, but become symbols of some other ideas external to the text. But this is our difference, and I have not been able to find a case in the late Antique Exegetes where one thing is clearly opposed to the other. Rather, they are combined in opposition to a literal interpretation.
It is worth saying a few words about other elements of the quadriga. As for the moral interpretation, it is not really an interpretation at all, but rather an instructive conclusion: after reading this text, we understand that we must act in such and such a way. The anagogic meaning of the text (like "sod" in Judaism) deals more with mystical insights than with clearly expressed and reproducible meanings of the text. So, in fact, only two methods can be considered exegetical: literal and symbolic (allegorical and typological) interpretation.
Does this approach have a foundation in the Bible itself, or is it just a later invention created by the temporal and cultural distance between the text and its readers?
O. E. Nesterova examines the arguments that Origen himself gave in defense of his allegories, and does not find them convincing. For example, Origen refers to 1 Corinthians 9: 9-10, where Paul, quoting Deuteronomy 25:4 ("You shall not stop the mouth of an ox when it threshes"), argues: "Does God take care of the oxen? Or, of course, is it said for us? So, it's written for us." From Nesterova's point of view, this is a sample of "halakhic exegesis" [Nesterova, 2005, pp. 31-32]. Apparently, this refers to one of the" middot " (exegetical techniques) attributed to the Rabbi
page 21
According to Hillel and those that have become normative in Judaism: if a certain conclusion is true for a less important case, then it will be all the more true for a more important one.2 Indeed, in the Halakhic tradition, such interpretations are very widespread. But we clearly see something different in Paul. It is not only that the commandment about animals is transferred to humans, which is not typical for Halakhic interpretations, but rather that the Hillel technique itself works differently. Its application would be ," If it concerns oxen, much less men, " but Paul asserts," It concerns not oxen, but men, " and thereby deliberately rejects the literal interpretation, which is completely unusual for Halakhic exegesis. It is precisely the reinterpretation of the text that is taking place here, and this case is far from the only one.
Even within the Old Testament, we encounter situations (although quite rare) when a later text clarifies the meaning of an earlier one. In Genesis 32, a mysterious story is told about Jacob's duel with a stranger who did not identify himself, but gave Jacob a new name - Israel. But the prophet Hosea (12:3-4) reveals the Stranger's identity quite clearly: "While still in the womb of his mother, he trampled on his brother, and when he grew up, he fought with God. He wrestled with the Angel and prevailed." Hosea gives the mysterious text a completely unambiguous interpretation, and this interpretation is quite symbolic, because this story is not given as an episode from the life of Jacob-Israel, but as evidence of the constant God-fighting of the Israeli people. Hosea does not answer the question "who fought with Jacob?" but " what does this episode tell us about the future of the Israelites?"
In general, we clearly see in the Bible that the authors themselves distinguished metaphorical or symbolic speech from literal speech. Thus, many times we have already come across statements that God lives in heaven and that the temple in Jerusalem is His earthly home. But already at the consecration of the very first temple, King Solomon makes a very clear reservation: "Verily, is it possible for God to live on the earth? Heaven and the heavens of heavens cannot contain You, much less this temple that I have built; but consider the prayer of your servant and his supplication, O Lord my God "(1 Samuel 8: 27-28). That is, Solomon was very far from thinking that God really dwells in this temple or even in the visible sky in the same sense that Solomon himself dwelt in his palace. But the image of heaven as the" main dwelling "of God and the image of the temple as His" earthly residence " quite clearly and fully expressed the idea of a transcendent and all-powerful Creator who does not leave His chosen people in His care.
Another interesting example is Acts 2: 16-21, where Peter quotes the prophecy of Joel (2: 28-32). Literally, this prophecy was fulfilled only in one respect: the apostles, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, began to speak in new languages. But Joel's words, "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood," and some other symbolic details were not fulfilled, and yet Peter quoted the prophecy in full, without omitting them. Did he mean that they had yet to be fulfilled, or did he see them as some kind of poetic exaggeration? We don't know for sure, but in any case we can see that Peter was not at all afraid to distance himself from the literal meaning of these words in Luke's retelling, and his listeners did not seem to object to this approach either.
Of course, this is highly characteristic of prophetic speech. In general, when New Testament authors turned to the Old Testament, they did not hesitate to give familiar words a meaning that seemed very different from the original one, and this is typical for most cases of direct quotation. Thus, New Testament authors update the Old Testament text. For example, Mark begins his Gospel with two quotations that clearly relate to John the Baptist [Bascom,
2 This technique is already used at the very beginning of the Old Testament:"....if her father had spat in her face, shouldn't she have been ashamed for seven days? So let her be imprisoned seven days outside the camp" (Numbers 12: 14, about Miriam, who received the punishment of the Lord).
page 22
1988]. The first, "Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way before you" (1: 2), is taken from the prophet Malachi (3:1). In its original historical context, this quote is rather cryptic; it is very likely that Malachi is referring to Exodus 23: 20 ("Behold, I send an angel before you to keep you on the way, and to bring you into the place that I have prepared"), which refers to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.
And the second quote - "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight" (1:3), taken from the prophet Isaiah (40:3) - in its immediate context clearly refers to the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity. But by the time the Gospel was written, this return had already taken place, and it could only be described as a historical fact, and not as the subject of prophecy. Therefore, to perceive a quote from Isaiah as prophetic, it needs to find some application that goes beyond the narrow scope of the time when it was first spoken or written. This is exactly what the evangelist does, and it seems that this is quite normal for his audience: we find this in other gospels, in the Qumran manuscripts, and in many theological works from different historical eras, both Jewish and Christian.
The main thing is that some deep inner meaning coincides: the quotations from Malachi and Isaiah speak about the saving intervention of the Lord in the life of His people, which must be prepared for people to accept it properly. This fits perfectly with the mission of John the Baptist.
By the way, it is worth noting that citations are not always given with literal accuracy, which is quite natural for a time when there were no publications with a reference device, so it was almost always necessary to quote from memory. But even expressions passed verbatim can be syntactically re-structured. Thus, the Evangelist's words "in the wilderness" answer the question: "Where is the voice crying?" (which is very appropriate to the circumstances of the life of John the Baptist), but in the prophet Isaiah they should rather be understood as an answer to the question: "Where should we prepare the way?" (it was through the desert that the road from Babylon to Jerusalem ran.)
Let us now pay special attention to the two most common symbolic methods of interpretation, typology and allegory. Typology is widely represented in the Bible itself, especially in the way the New Testament reads the Old: the brazen serpent of Moses (Numbers 21:8) is a type of the cross (John 3: 14); the three days spent by Jonah in the belly of a fish (Jonah 2:1) is a type of Christ's three - day sojourn in the tomb (Luke 11: 29-30), etc. Such typological comparisons can be extended and detailed, and in the 10th chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul explains in detail the essence of this approach: events from the life of the ancient Israelites are repeated in their own way, on a new level, in the life of the first Christians, so they can take the stories of the Old Testament as a model that clearly shows what to follow and what to avoid: "... all these things happened to them as images; and they are described for the instruction of us who have reached the last ages " (10: 11). So Gregory of Nyssa, in his treatise On the Life of Moses, simply developed the method clearly stated by the Apostle Paul.
At the same time, a true typological interpretation knows its limits and never asserts the complete identity of the prototype with the image itself. An example of this is found in Hebrews 5 to 7, where Melchizedek, the priest and king of Salem (described in Genesis 14:18-20), is seen as a type of Christ. It would seem that the author is close to completely identifying them, but this is absolutely not part of his plan. He only contrasts the Melchizedek priesthood with that of the descendants of Aaron: Melchizedek is both a king and a priest, although he is not descended from Aaron and, in general, unlike the other heroes of the OT, has absolutely no genealogy, and at the same time he accepts tithes from Abraham and blesses him as superior to him. This perfectly explains the author's point:
page 23
Christ is also a king and priest, although not descended from Aaron, and His priesthood is much more significant than that of Aaron's descendants. The absence of references to the birth and death of Melchizedek is also an appropriate parallel - just as Christ is born before all time and eternal - but of course we can hardly say that the author wanted to claim that Melchizedek himself was also born before all time and eternal. No, it's more of a convenient illustration for him. In the following centuries, this tendency became popular among Christian theologians: to see almost all the images and events of the OT as references to Christ, sometimes reaching the point of absurdity, but it must be admitted that the Epistle to the Hebrews itself quite freely uses this technique.
In general, it is usually necessary to connect the "near" and "far" meanings of biblical prophecies (the one that comes true immediately, with the one that is to come true in the distant future) by means of typology: different events in world history are united according to the principle of a common meaning, a single spiritual orientation of these events. Typology is particularly common in the analysis of eschatological passages of Scripture (such as those that speak of the end of the world, such as the Book of Revelation).
As for the allegory, it was often found in the Old Testament, especially in the prophetic speech. Thus, in the prophet Nathan, "poor man's sheep" means Uriah's wife, whom David illegally took for himself, and David, listening to his speech, does not even realize at first that this is an allegory (1 Samuel 12: 1-9). In the first chapters of the book of Hosea, we find an exceptionally long and detailed allegory: the unfaithful wife of the prophet symbolizes the people of Israel who have broken their loyalty to God.
But these allegories in the Old Testament, as you can easily see, are explained within the text itself. There are also cases in the Bible (quite rare) when a long-existing text suddenly gets a completely new allegorical reading: for example, when Paul compares Abraham's wife Sarah and heavenly Jerusalem to the New Testament, and the Old One - Hagar's concubine and Mount Sinai (Galatians 4: 21-31). True, such examples are quite rare in the Bible, and most importantly, here Paul does not seek to interpret the text of the Old Testament - he simply uses it as an illustration of his thoughts. It is inconceivable that Paul did not believe in the real existence of Sarai and Hagar, considering them only allegorical figures - therefore, here he is actually asserting the possibility of two parallel interpretations of the same story about Abraham's wife and concubine: on the historical level, these are two real women, on the symbolic level-two Testaments, the Old and the New. This allegory, of course, is quite similar to the Melchizedek typology: on the one hand, it is a historical figure, on the other - the image of Christ.
This freedom of interpretation makes allegory a universal means of updating and popularizing the Bible: It is so easy to lead the reader from almost any bible text to the problems that are pressing for them, even if this text initially had nothing to do with them. As we can see, this is what made the allegory so popular in the future.
A special case of allegorization (usually immoderate) is numerology, i.e. interpretation in which numbers get independent meanings. For example, the 318 servants with whom Abraham went to rescue his nephew Lot (Genesis 14:14) point to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This interpretation is first found in the Epistle of Barnabas (9.7), written no later than the middle of the second century: the numerical value of the first letters of the name of Jesus, I and H, respectively, is 10 and 8, and 300 is the value of the letter T, symbolizing the cross. Together, it turns out just 318. Later, this game of numbers (as well as the rearrangement of letters and other formal operations on the text in order to extract hidden meaning from it) became highly characteristic of Jewish mysticism, but it was also well known to Christians of the Middle Ages.
page 24
It would seem that this is clearly beyond the limits of the actual biblical worldview, but after all, numbers (primarily 3, 7, 12, 40) and in fact often have symbolic meanings in the Bible. For example, we are all used to hearing about the twelve tribes of Israel, but how many were there really, if Jacob-Israel had 12 sons, from Joseph came two tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh), and from his brothers - one each? Thirteen, apparently. But whenever the tribes are listed, there are 12 of them: for example, Ephraim and Manasseh are united under the name of Joseph (this is how the names of the tribes are usually depicted on the breastplate of the high priest, cf. Exodus 28: 21), although in all other cases Ephraim and Manasseh appear completely independently. And there is no doubt about the symbolic nature of such numbers in the book of Revelation as 144,000, "sealed" (7:4; 14:1), or a wall 144 cubits thick (21:17), for 144 is 12 squared.
In general, we can say that the Bible initially has a certain symbolism, but typological and especially allegorical interpretation often went from exegesis to rather arbitrary eisegesis (reading into the text of the meanings desired by the interpreter). However, such an eisegesis is not entirely alien to the biblical authors themselves - the question, apparently, is in the measure and relevance, but not at all in its fundamental inadmissibility.
Let's sum up some results. So, in the Bible books themselves, we can find both literal and symbolic (primarily typological and allegorical) interpretation of the Biblical texts, although in comparison with the literal interpretation, it is quite rare and serves rather the purpose of updating the text, its application in the lives of people who are far removed from it in time and cultural and historical context. the original audience. Moreover, we have every reason to believe that the Apostle Paul may have interpreted the text symbolically in some cases, but without giving up the literal meaning of the text. Thus, the rapid rise of symbolic interpretation in late antiquity and the Middle Ages was a quantitative rather than a qualitative change, and even the theory of multiple meanings has some biblical roots.
The very idea that the same text can have more than one meaning (for example, a prophecy can be understood in the immediate historical perspective and in the context of the "end times"), and the literal meaning is less significant for the reader than the non-literal one, may well be accepted by modern scholars (see, for example: [Childs, 1977]). Today we can meet, on the one hand, such exegetes who study and systematize multi-level interpretations of Christian exegetes, for example, on the Song of Songs [Fast, 2000], and on the other - modern researchers who defend the fundamental ambiguity of this book: even at the level of its primary understanding as love poetry, we see a vivid play on words and images [Zakovitch, 2000, p. 11-23 (for a retelling, see Desnitsky, 2007, p. 163-167)], and in addition, a picture of ideal relationships, a kind of restored Garden of Eden [Patmore, 2006].
This is especially true for typological interpretation: it is largely " rehabilitated "(see, for example, [Danielou, 1959]) in comparison with the times of classical "biblical criticism", when it was completely denied. Supporters of the allegorical method in its pure form among modern scholars are difficult to meet, but we can say that it is somewhat related to certain modern schools that see in the biblical text a symbolic, mytho-poetic reflection of some general ideas - these include, first of all, supporters of "demythologization", according to R. Bultman. However, this is too big and independent a topic to cover in this article.
page 25
PRIMARY SOURCES
1. Augustine of Hippo
Quaest. Ev. = Quaestiones Evangeliorum
Sancti Augustini Quaestiones Evangeliorum / Ed. A. Mutzenbecher A. Turnholti : Brepols, 1980. Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina ; 44 B, pars XIII, 3.
2. Gregory of Nyssa
The Life of Moses = On the life of Moses the Lawgiver
St. Gregory of Nyssa. O zhizni Moisei Zakonodatelya [On the Life of Moses the Lawgiver]. Kosma and Damian, 1999.
3. Origen
Beginnings= About beginnings
Origen. About the beginnings. St. Petersburg: Amphora Publ., 2007.
Gom. = Homilies on the Gospel of Luke.
Origène. Homélies sur S. Luc / Ed. M. Rauer. P.: Éd. du Cerf, 1998 (Sources chrétiennes).
4. Theodoret of Cyrrhus
Explanation = Explaining the difficult passages of Divine Scripture. Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Explanation of difficult passages of Divine Scripture. Moscow: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2003.
list of literature
Desnitskiy A. S. Poetika bibleskogo parallelizma [The Poetics of Biblical Parallelism]. Moscow: BBI, 2007.
Desnitsky A. S. Exegesis of St. Gregory of Nyssa ("On the Life of Moses"): notes in the margins / / Alpha and Omega. 2003. N 2(36).
Dodd C. G. Proverbs of the Kingdom. Moscow: Hilltop Publ., 2004.
Nesterova O. E. Allegoria pro typologia: Origen and the fate of allegorical methods of interpreting the Holy Scriptures in the Early Christian Era. Moscow: IMLI, 2006.
Nesterova O. E. Teoriya mnozhestvennosti "smyslov" Sv. Pisaniya v srednevekovoi khristianskoi ekzegeticheskoi traditsii [Theory of plurality of "meanings" of Holy Scripture in the medieval Christian exegetical tradition].
Fast G. Interpretation of the book Song of Solomon. Krasnoyarsk: Yeniseyskiy blagovest Publ., 2000.
Bascom R.A. Preparing the. Way - Midrash in the Bible // Issues in Bible translation / Ed. by Ph.С. Stine. London-New York-Stuttgart, 1988.
Childs B.S. The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: an Ancient and Modern Problem // Beitrage zur Alttestamentli-chen Theologie / her. bei H. Donner. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.
Daniélou J. Sacramentum futuri: étude sur les origins de la typologie biblique. P.: Beauchesne, 1959.
Lubac H. Exégèse médiévale. Vol. 1. P. 1 - 2. Vol. 2. P. 1 - 2. P.: Aubier, 1959 - 1964.
Patmore H. "The Plain and Literal Sense": on Contemporary Assumptions about the Song of Songs // Vetus Testamentum. 2006. N 61.
van der Heide A. "Pardes": Methodological Reflections on the Theory of the Four Senses // Journal for the Study of Judaism. 1983. N34:2.
Zakovitch Y. Song of Songs - Riddle of Riddles // The Art of Love Lyrics / Ed. by K. Modras. P.: Gabalda, 2000.
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
Editorial Contacts | |
About · News · For Advertisers |
Swedish Digital Library ® All rights reserved.
2014-2024, LIBRARY.SE is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Serbia |