Иносказательная интерпретация рассказа о входе Господнем в Иерусалим в христианской традиции: ослица с осленком как образ иудеев и христиан

Abstract

The article contains an overview of Christian commentaries on the Gospel accounts about Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, presenting a particularly noteworthy case of intersection of two principal exegetical traditions, namely the typological and the allegorical one. The story is cited in the Gospels as an incontestable proof of the literal fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic prophecy on the forthcoming King, sitting upon a donkey and its colt (Zech 9:9 according to Matth 21:1-11). Later exegetes come to search a figural meaning of this story by associating two mounts respectably with the Jewish people and the Christians (representing the new God’s chosen people). Such an interpretation was obviously inspired by the solid tradition typological exegesis, where the topic of two rival peoples, represented by the pairs of the biblical patriarchs’ rival sons, have being treated constantly. But the formal transferring of the standard typological meaning to the Gospel story on the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem attested a lacking comprehension of the practical value of the typological method, which was primary aimed to reveal the hidden prophetic and not simply symbolic sense of the Sacred history. The only attempt to connect these interpretations with a typological norm was made by John Chrysostom, who admitted the possibility of discovering a particular kind of prophecies, announced through deeds, not only in the Old, but also in the New Testament. However, even he does not take in account another essential feature of typological interpretations, which not only expanded the range of the so called Tesimonia, proving the validity of Christian belief in the actual coming of the Messiah, but also aimed to provide a justification of Christian claims to the role of the new God-chosen people for the Jewish opponents, for whom the reference to the allegorical meaning of the events of the New Testament history could not have served as a convincing argument.