|
Марка 6:3
"Сын Марии"
--
Believers Church Bible Commentary: Mark
Mark’s first readers might have heard echoes here of Jesus’ virgin birth (if they knew the traditions Matthew and Luke incorporate). But Mark is surely not attributing such an intention to those rejecting Jesus in Nazareth. Far more likely, they are obliquely reflecting rumors that his birth was illegitimate.
...
Baker New Testament Commentary: Mark
What the detractors wanted to say was on this order: “What does a mere carpenter know about oratory and particularly about prophetic interpretation and fulfilment?” Is he not “the son of Mary?” Joseph is not even mentioned, probably because by this time he had died.
...
The Bible Knowledge Commentary
Despite His impressive words and deeds, He was too ordinary for them. The derogatory question, Isn’t this the carpenter? implied, “He is a common laborer like the rest of us.” All His immediate family—mother, brothers, and sisters—were known to the townspeople, and they were ordinary people. The phrase Mary’s Son was also derogatory since a man was not described as his mother’s son in Jewish usage even if she was a widow, except by insult (cf. Jud. 11:1-2; John 8:41; 9:29). Their words, calculated insults, also suggested they knew there was something unusual about Jesus’ birth.
...
The Bible Guide
He is too ordinary. They refer to him as ‘Mary’s son’ — a little joke they have about his father. For them Jesus is far from unique. For a start, he has brothers and sisters…
...
The Bible Exposition Commentary
Jesus returned to Nazareth where a year before He had been rejected by the people and evicted from the synagogue (Luke 4:16–30). It was certainly an act of grace on His part to give the people another opportunity to hear His Word, believe, and be saved; and yet their hearts were still hard. This time, they did not evict Him: they simply did not take Him seriously. [...] What was their problem? Why were they unable to trust Him and experience the wonders of His power and grace as had others? They thought that they really knew Him. After all, He had been their neighbor for nearly thirty years, they had seen Him at work in the carpenter’s shop, and He appeared to be just another Nazarene. [...] The people who called Him “the son of Mary” were actually insulting Him; because in that day you identified a man by calling him the son of his father, not the son of his mother.
[И, похоже, что намекали на то, что знали его не просто как Назарянина, а как человека с сомнительным прошлым(видимо, известны были слухи о том, что Мария прелюбодействовала)]
...
Believers Church Bible Commentary: Mark
They thought of Him as the carpenter, the Son of Mary, whose brothers and sisters were still there. Had He returned to Nazareth as a mighty conquering Hero, they might have accepted Him more readily. But He came in lowly grace and humility. This offended them.
[авторы толкования тонко отмечают, что Христос своим появлением их разочаровал: они ожидали действительно грандиозного явления, ведь слухи у Егочудесах ходили по Израилю, а он пришел тихо и мирно, чем оскорбил своих односельчан]
...
The College Press NIV Commentary: Mark
When Jesus taught in the synagogue at Capernaum the audience was amazed at his teaching and his ability to heal (1:21–28). In 6:2 Mark uses the same word as in 1:22 to describe the amazement in the synagogue at Nazareth. However, the amazement at Capernaum had positive connotations and resulted in Jesus performing many miracles there (1:32–34). The Nazareth crowd was offended. In Capernaum they spoke about his teaching; in Nazareth they spoke about his wisdom. In both places they spoke about his miraculous powers. But in Nazareth they remembered him as the carpenter (τέκτων, tektōn)1 whose mother, brothers, and sisters they knew.2 They were offended at the hometown boy who seemed to them to be claiming too much for himself.
...
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St Mark
The dropping out of Joseph in the gospel narrative probably indicates his death before this time of Jesus’ ministry
...
Life Application Bible Commentary, Mark
When the townspeople called him the son of Mary, it may have been a derogatory remark. While it may have been true that Joseph was already dead, in any normal situation Jesus would still have been called “son of Joseph.” But Jesus was conceived prior to Joseph and Mary’s wedding (while they were engaged, Matthew 1:18), and perhaps the townspeople saw Jesus as not even being Joseph’s son. Such was the stigma Mary continued to carry, even when Jesus was almost thirty years old. Apparently people saw Mary as less than honorable. Mary’s obedience to God in carrying his blessed Son had changed the course of her life (Luke 1:26–38).
The listing of the brothers (probably some of whom had come earlier to try to take Jesus by force in 3:21, 31) indicates that the people knew the family well—the mother, the brothers, the sisters. Apparently they were all ordinary people and Jesus had experienced an ordinary childhood. Thus for Jesus to claim to be someone special (especially with what they considered his less than honorable beginnings) caused them to take offense at his words, meaning they stumbled over them and could not accept them. They were offended that others could be impressed by Jesus and follow him. Their rejection was complete and absolute; he was one of their peers, and their preconceived notions about who he was made it impossible for them to accept his message. Jesus had come to them as a prophet, but they saw only a hometown boy.
...
The MacArthur Study Bible
Son of Mary. Only here is Jesus called this. The normal Jewish practice was to identify a son by his father’s (Joseph’s) name. Perhaps that was not done here because Joseph was already dead, or because Christ’s audience were recalling the rumors concerning Jesus’ illegitimate birth (cf. John 8:41; 9:29)—a man was called the son of his mother if his father was unknown—and were purposely insulting Him with this title as a reference to illegitimacy
...
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible : Complete and Unabridged in One Volume
Another thing they upbraided him with, was, the meanness of his relations; "He is the son of Mary; his brethren and sisters are here with us; we know his family and kindred;’’ and therefore, though they were astonished at his doctrine (v. 2), yet they were offended at his person (v. 3), were prejudiced against him, and looked upon him with contempt; and for that reason would not receive his doctrine, though ever so well recommended. May we think that if they had not known his pedigree, but he had dropped among them from the clouds, without father, without mother, and without descent, they would have entertained him with any more respect? Truly, no; for in Judea, where this was not know, that was made an objection against him (Jn. 9:29); As for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. Obstinate unbelief will never want excuses.
...
The New American Commentary: Mark
Deciding whether Mark wrote, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?” or, “Is not this the son of the carpenter and Mary?” is very difficult. The textual evidence heavily favors the former, which is the reading of the NIV as well as the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, and GNB and the UBS Greek text. It is most unusual, however, to refer to a Jewish man as the son of his mother even if she was a widow.40 Furthermore Origen (d. 254) insisted that Jesus is nowhere called a carpenter in the Gospels,41 which implies that none of his manuscripts had the reading that later came to dominate. As a result some have concluded that Mark wrote “son of the carpenter and Mary” and that later scribes changed it to “the carpenter, the son of Mary” in order to add support to belief in the virgin birth.
The textual problem in Mark is not solved by the fact that Matt 13:55 has “son of the carpenter.” Matthew may have followed his Markan source, or he may have altered Mark to prevent misunderstanding and offense. The best approach in this instance is to accept the reading that has overwhelming external evidence. The reference to Jesus as the son of Mary may reflect rumors that he was illegitimate and may have been a deliberate slur by the townspeople. If so, Mark accurately reported the statement even though it may have been offensive to some of his readers/hearers.42 As for Origen, he may have forgotten about Mark 6:3, or his manuscripts may already have been assimilated to the Matthean parallel.
...
The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Mark
There is no suggestion that local gossip had any inkling of anything unusual about his origin—and indeed if Mark knew of the tradition of Jesus’ virgin conception he has kept it very quiet. The designation ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας occurs nowhere else in the NT (whereas Jesus is described as υἱὸς (τοῦ) Ἰωσήφ in Lk. 4:22; Jn. 1:45; 6:42), and the unusual use of the mother’s name has been read as Mark’s cryptic way of indicating that he (and/or the villagers?) knew that Jesus was not actually the carpenter’s son.2 But Mark never mentions Joseph, and the absence of a father in 3:31–35 (see comments ad loc.) suggests that a simpler explanation is the traditional view that by the time of Jesus’ ministry Joseph had died, and therefore featured nowhere in the story outside the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke; in that case he was simply not a part of the tradition known to Mark. The absence of Joseph’s name even in this verse, where members of the family are listed explicitly, supports this view. In that case Jesus, as the eldest son, would naturally have taken over the family business as ὁ τέκτων.
...
The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark
The skepticism of Nazareth is most evident in v. 3: “ ‘Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son?’ ” The earliest versions of this verse alter the wording, making Jesus neither a carpenter nor Mary’s son, for example, “ ‘Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?’ ” (Matt 13:55).56 The Greek word for “carpenter,” tektōn, literally means one who makes or produces things — usually of wood, but sometimes also of stone, hence a stonemason (2 Sam 5:11, LXX). Given the scarcity of wood and prevalence of stone in Palestine, it would not be surprising if Jesus’ trade included stonework as well as woodwork.57 In Jewish society there was absolutely nothing demeaning about manual labor. Hence, it was not an insult to call Jesus a carpenter. Among the duties a father owed his son, according to the Talmud, were circumcision, instruction in the Torah, teaching a manual trade, and procural of a wife.58 But in the Gentile world — and this included the world of Mark’s readers — designating Jesus a “carpenter” was not particularly complimentary and could have been regarded as an attempt to discredit him.59
Even more questionable is the expression “the son of Mary.” Judaism was a patronymic culture. The name of a father attached to the name of a male child was as usual and necessary as is a surname today (e.g., Luke 4:22; John 6:42), and the father’s name was retained, as is a family name today, even when the father was no longer living. The absence of Joseph’s name in v. 3 may indicate that Joseph had died, although this is not as certain as many commentators suppose, for John 6:42 assumes that he is still alive. In Jesus’ day men were occasionally called by the names of their mothers, particularly when the woman was the better-known parent, and evidently without the opprobrium of illegitimacy attached to it.60 In the OT, for instance, Joab, Abishai, and Asael are repeatedly (twenty-six times) referred to as “the three sons of Zeruiah” (2 Sam 2:18), who was David’s sister (1 Chr 2:16). One suspects, however, that the name of Zeruiah owes its presence in this instance to her famous brother. Even the obvious narrative link with David is not sufficient to remove suspicions about the reference in the minds of most modern scholars.61 In actual practice, calling a person the son of a woman, as the Nazarenes do here, was not normal in Judaism, and was almost certainly insulting. The claim of some scholars that calling Jesus “son of Mary” was tantamount to calling him a bastard is probably overstated,62 but “son of Mary,” along with the rebuff that Jesus otherwise receives at Nazareth (see vv. 5–6), is clearly questionable, probably disrespectful, and may even insinuate illegitimacy. Subsequent Jewish polemic will indeed accuse him of illegitimacy when, in answer to the Christian teaching of the virgin birth, it charges that Jesus was born out of wedlock, his mother having been seduced by a Gentile named Pandera.63
It is sometimes supposed that Mark’s reference to Jesus as the “son of Mary” is an oblique reference to the virgin birth. This seems doubtful, however. Otherwise in Mark there is no reference to the virgin birth, nor does the present text attempt to explain Joseph’s role in the family, as in Luke 3:23, for instance.64 Moreover, the dismissive context in which “son of Mary” occurs scarcely comports with the honor of the virgin birth.
...
The Pulpit Commentary: St. Mark (Vol. I)
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Some have thought that these were literally brethren of our Lord, sons of Joseph and Mary. Others have considered that they were his legal half-brothers, sons of Joseph by a former marriage. This view is held by many of the Greek Fathers, and has something to recommend it. But, on the whole, the most probable opinion is that they were cousins of our Lord—sons of a sister of the Virgin Mary, also called Mary, the wife of Cleophas, Clopas, or Alphжus. There is evidence that there were four sons of Clopas and Mary, whose names were James, and Joses, and Simon (or Symeon), and Judas. Mary the wife of Clopas is mentioned by St. Matthew (27:56) as the mother of James the Less and of Joses. Jude describes himself (Jude 5) as the brother of James; and Simon, or Symeon, is mentioned in Eusebius as the son of Clopas. It must be remembered also that the word ἀδελφός, like the Hebrew word which it expresses, means not only “brother,” but generally “a near kinsman.” In the same way the “sisters” would be cousins of our Lord. According to a tradition recorded by Nicephorus (ii. 3), the names of these sisters or cousins were Esther and Tamar.
...
Spirit Filled Life Study Bible
The people were perplexed because they knew about the background of Jesus, whereas the coming of the Messiah was supposed to be shrouded in mystery. The reference to Jesus’ brothers and sisters clearly shows that following Jesus’ birth as Mary’s “firstborn Son” (Luke 2:7), she and Joseph entered into normal marriage relations (see Matt. 1:25). The failure to mention Joseph probably indicates that he had already died.
...
The Teacher's Commentary
After Jesus’ reputation had been well established, He returned to His hometown of Nazareth. When Jesus taught in the synagogue, His words created the familiar “amazement,” an amazement linked with doubt rather than faith. As Jesus’ fellow-townsmen listened they began to resent Him. How was Jesus better than they? Wasn’t He just the village carpenter? Didn’t His mother and brothers live next door? Why should Jesus be given such wisdom, and the power to do miracles?
...
Willmington's Bible Handbook
Their use of the title “son of Mary” (6:3) was probably derogatory, since in Jewish culture a man was never referred to as his mother’s son, even if she was a widow. By not mentioning Joseph, they were probably intimating that there was a real question concerning who his father was. If they had heard anything of Christ’s supernatural origin (see Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18), they had chosen not to believe it. [Matt. 13:53–58] Luke tells about an earlier rejection of Christ at Nazareth (Luke 4:16–30).
...
Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 34a: Mark 1-8:26
“Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary?” The variant readings for this passage (see Note c*) reflect a concern about the awkward “son of Mary,” a rare way of identifying someone. Matt 13:55 has “the son of the carpenter” and his mother’s name, Mary. Mark’s text has received various explanations: (a) theologically motivated by the virgin birth (Klostermann, 55), (b) a reference to Jesus as being illegitimate (Stauffer, Neotestamentica, 121–22), (c) Mary was a widow (e.g., Schweizer, 124), or simply (d) Mark was not “interested” in Jesus’ father whom he never mentions (Crossan, NovT 15 [1973] 102).
McArthur examines the various alternatives by seeking parallels in the OT and Judaism and concludes that none can be supported by the evidence (NovT 15 [1973] 55). Thus, he concludes that “son of Mary” represents an “informal descriptive” rather than a “formal genealogical” way of identifying Jesus by his well-known mother, since his father was “presumably long since dead” (NovT 15 [1973] 55). He supports this usage by OT and NT examples (Judg 11:1–2; 1 Kgs 17:17; Luke 7:12; Acts 16:1; 23:16; Gal 4:21–31). Whatever the answer, “son of Mary” need not be a cruel insult. Neither the reference to his trade nor his brothers and sisters connotes anything pejorative.
[этот комментарий один из самых интересных (приводится обзор всех вышеприведенных толкований): [1] богословски мотивировано (исходя из девственного рождения); [2] обращение к Иисусу, как незаконнорожденному (мол да кто ты такой, знаем всю твою подноготную); [3] свидетельство того, что Мария к тому времени была вдова; [4] Марку «неинтересен» Иосиф, поэтому и не упоминал
Один из толкователей, МакАртур, говорит о том, что возможно это неформальное обращение, ввиду известности его Матери.]
В совокупности можно сделать след вывод:
Согласно большинству комментаторов, обращение было нетипичным, народ был оскорблен, что обычный человек, с сомнительным прошлым (что и подчеркивается именованием «сын Марии», как бы блудницы), может обрести такую известность. Христос уже приходит к ним во второй раз и отношение не меняется со временем. Следовательно, ожесточение сердец слушающих симовлически (это уже отсебятина, в толкованиях нет) может быть уподоблена реакции всего народа Израиля. Причем Христос удивился их неверию, так же как до этого удивился вере языческого сотника (одно и то же слово употребляется). Никто не упоминает о еврейском обычае именования генеалогии по матери.
P.S. Народ, я инглиш плохо знаю, если кто знает и захочет некоторые толкования перевести (я понимаю лишь общий смысл), будет только лучше. Как я люблю в них копаться!!!
|
Вход
Регистрация
Библиотека
Правила
FAQ
Поиск
