style="font-size:15px;"> Orlov Andrei. Moses Heavenly Counterpart in Jubilees and Exagoge // Selected Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha. Leiden-Boston, 2009. P. 198–200.
49
Baum Armin D. Revelatory Experience and Pseudoepigraphical Attribution in Early Jewish Apocalypses // Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.1 (201 1). P. 90–91.
50
Charles Robert H. Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity. London, 1913; Charles Robert H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Vol.2. Oxford, 1913.
51
Rowland Cristopher. Op. cit. P. 66–70.
52
Согласно выражению О.Х. Штека «оригинальный смысл текста» (Steck Odil Hannes. Old Testament Exegesis. A Guide to the Methodology. Atlanta, 1998. P. 1–2).
53
Steck Odil Hannes. Op cit. P. 19–20.
54
Bockmuehl M. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of Biblical Commentary // Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity. Leiden, 2009. P. 3.
55
Тексты Кумрана. Вып. 1. М., 1971.
56
Относительно возможности эллинистического влияния на кумранские комментарии см. Pieter B. Hartog. Pesher and Hypomnema: A Comparison ofTwo Commentary Traditions from the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Leiden-Boston, 2017.
57
Machiela Daniel A. The Qumran Pesharim as Biblical Commentaries Historical Context and Lines of Development // Dead Sea Discoveries 19 (2012). P. 313–362; Collins John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Michigan-Cambridge, 2016. P. 189.
58
Elliger K. Studien zum Habakkuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer. Tübingen, 1953. S. 1 18–64; Machiela Daniel A. Op. cit. P. 357; Fishbane Michael. The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics // Proceedings ofthe World Congress of Jewish Studies. Vol. I. Division A. Jerusalem, 1973. P. 1 14.
59
Stehndahl Krister. The School ofSt. Matthew and Its Use ofthe Old Testament. Uppsala, 1954.
60
Tracy David, McQueen Robert. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible. Minneapolis, 1988. P. 66.
61
Священник Тимофеев Борис. Диодор Тарсийский. Предисловие к толкованию на 118-й псалом. // Святоотеческая экзегетика. 2016. № 2. С. 220.
62
Childs Brevard S. ‘The Sensus Literalis’ ofScripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem // Beitrage zur Alttestamentliche Theologie: FS Walter Zimmerli. Göttingen, 1977. P. 89.
63
Fernández F. Andre. Hermenéutica. Rome, 1927. P. 306.
64
Coppens J. Les harmonies des deux Testaments. Tournai-Paris, 1949.
65
Brown Raymond E. The Sensus Plenior ofSacred Scripture. Baltimore, 1955. P. 92.
66
Williamson Peter S. Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture. A Study ofthe Pontifical Biblical Commission’s “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”. Roma, 2001. P. 206.
67
Reventlow Henning Graf. History of Biblical Interpretation. Volume 1. From the Old Testament to Origen. Atlanta, 2009. P. 30–31.
68
Williamson Peter S. Op. cit. P. 169.
69
Fabiny Tibor. The Literal Sense and the “Sensus Plenior” Revisited // Hermathena. No. 151 (Winter 1991). P. 21.
70
Frye Northrop. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature. New York-London, 1982. P. 220– 221.
71
Добыкин Д.Г. Православное учение о толковании Священного Писания. Лекции по библейской герменевтике. СПб., 2016. С. 147.
72
Fitzmyer Joseph A. Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, 1997. P. 56–58.
73
Brown Raymond E. Op. cit. P. 122.
74
Goldingay John. Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Toronto, 2002. P. 107–109.
75
Brown Raymond E. The Sensus Plenior in the Last Ten Years // The Catholic Biblical Quaterly. P. Vol. 25. 1963. P. 274; Bergado G.N. The Sensus Plenior as a New Testament Hermeneutical Principle. Master’s Thesis. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1969). P. 27; Williamson Peter S. Op. cit. P. 204–205.
76
Обсуждение см. в работе Brown Raymond E. The History and Development of a Theory of Sensus Plenior // The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Vol. 15, No. 2 (April, 1953). P. 157–158.
77
Girdlestone Robert B. The Grammar of Prophecy: A Systematic Guide to Biblical Prophecy. Grand
