Download - Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
1/29
Lucrare de Seminar la N.T.
in limba engleza intocmita destudentul Popovici Eugen
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
2/29
Cuprins
1) Dating the Death of JesusA report on a paper given by Dr. Helen Bond (SeniorLecturer in New Testament, University of Edinburgh)at the Biblical Studies Seminar at New College, theUniversity of Edinburgh, 2 December 2011 .
2) Eucharistic Symbolism in theGospel ofJohn
David E. Fredrikson prof. at the Luther Seminary
St. Paul, MinnesotaI JESUS SHOCKS MANY OF HIS HEARERS, BOTH ANCIENT AND
MODERN
II HOW IS THIS ONE ABLE TO GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?
III LIFE IN YOURSELVES
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
3/29
Dating the Death
of Jesus
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
4/29
Helen Bond,
Ever since I first encountered
historical criticism I have been
fascinated by the documents that
make up the New Testament,
particularly the gospels.
Who wrote these texts, and why? And towhat extent are they historical?
I'm interested in most aspects of the
social, cultural and religious context of
Second Temple Judaism and earlyChristianity, though I have a particular
interest in the recent explosion of
literature on the 'historical Jesus' and the
debates over sources and methods
associated with it.
Senior Lecturer in NewTestament, University of
Edinburgh
Dating
the Death
of Jesus
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
5/29
Dr. Bond presented a clear and persuasive argument
against the certainty with which numerous scholars date
the death of Jesus to 7 th of April 30 CE. Her paper first
set forth the reasons for this consensus, the implications
of the date, a reflection on the nature of the
chronological data in the Gospel of Mark, and her own
suggestion, which affirms the basic historicity of theGospel accounts but which also detaches the event from
the specific date of 7 th April 30 CE. She concluded by
pre-emptively answering some common objections to
her position. Central to her thesis was a contemplationon the nature of human remembrance and its tendency to
shift to infuse meaning in subjectively significant events.
Dating
the Death
of Jesus
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
6/29
The paper's impetus is a scepticism towards the apparent
certainty a large number of scholars exhibit in dating
Jesus' death. This date emerges from the scholarly
awareness of apparent contradictions between,
especially, the crucifixion accounts in the Gospels of
Mark and John. The Gospel of Mark in its final form
presents the Last Supper as a Passover meal (occurringFriday evening, since the Jewish day was considered to
begin with sundown), thus making Jesus' crucifixion and
death occur on the day of Passover, Saturday the 15 th of
Nisan. On the other hand, the Gospel of John presentsJesus' crucifixion as occurring at the same time as the
slaughter of the Passover lamb, on the day of
Preparation, Friday the 14 th of Nisan, with the Last
Supper occurring on Thursday evening.
Dating
the Death
of Jesus
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
7/29
Scholars have dealt with this discrepancy in several different
ways. Some have attempted to harmonise the data, usually positing
some kind of alternative or dual calendrical system (eg as opposed
to using the dominant Babylonian lunar calendar the disciples used
either an old solar calendar, as found at Qumran, or a pre-exiliclunar calendar). Against these harmonising efforts, Dr. Bond raised
several objections: 1) there is little evidence for widespread use of
alternative calendars for religious use in 1 st century Palestine; 2) the
old solar calendar in evidence at Qumran is now thought to be
schematic rather than practical, relating to a future age; 3) there isnot the slightest indication in Jesus' preserved teachings that
contention about the religious calendar was an issue; 4) according to
either alternative calendar, the 14 th or 15 th of Nisan, and hence the
Last Supper, would have happened on a Tuesday or a Wednesday
rather than a Thursday or Friday, so reconciliation along these lines
introduces other problems. Others have posited a difference in
dating between diaspora and Palestinian Jews, but one would think,
according to Dr. Bond, that anyone making the journey to Jerusalem
would have needed to use a Jerusalem calendar.
Dating
the Death
of Jesus
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
8/29
Rather than attempting to harmonise the data, more recent scholars have usually
given preference to the account in the Gospel of John over that in the Gospel of
Mark for two reasons: 1) John's account is internally consistent, whereas Mark's
is not, and 2) the trial makes more sense in the Gospel of John. The evidence of
astronomy has also been garnered to support the Johannine chronology. But this
preference is immediately questionable given that the Gospel of John is at thesame time generally considered to be the least historically reliable of the four
Gospels.
Dr. Bond next re-examined the evidence in the Gospel of Mark and noted that
the two passages which make the link with the Passover (14:1 and 14:12-16) are
considered redactional. If one does not take these two passages intoconsideration, a possibly pre-Markan chronology emerges. The evidence for an
alternative date comes especially from three places. First, the release of
Barabbas in 14:2 makes more sense at the beginning of the week of preparation,
not on the day of Passover itself, as Mark's Gospel would have it.Second, in
15:21 Simon of Cyrene is coming in the from the field, perhaps indicating a
distance of travel longer than was deemed permissible on the Sabbath. Third,
Joseph of Arimethea's activities in 15:42-46 would have been difficult to
impossible on the Passover (especially the commerce indicated in the purchase
of a linen shroud for Jesus). In fact, Dr. Bond notes, Mark's entire portrayal of
Holy Week is organised by subject rather than chronology. Rather than giving
an indirect confirmation of the Johannine chronology, Dr. Bond seeks a thirdbut less specific way to deal with the data
Dating
the Death
of Jesus
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
9/29
Her proposal is that in historical fact, the Last Supper was not
a Passover meal, it was simply a meal that Jesus shared with
his disciples some time before Passover, possibly the Thursday
evening of the week before Passover, and in any year between27 and 34 CE.This allows for a connection of the event with
the Passover celebration, and makes the most sense of the
types of activities said to have occurred, including the release
of Barabbas. The connection of the Last Supper and Jesus'
death more specifically with Passover celebrations was a result
of later remembering and theological reflection which took
two directions (meaning argument for specific dates from
details included in either text or from astronomy misses the
point). In one of the two directions (that of John and Paul),Jesus was equated with the paschal lamb and was crucified the
day before Passover.In the other (seen especially in Mark), the
Last Supper is connected with the Passover celebration itself,
so that Jesus is remembered as having been crucified on thevery day of Passover.
Dating
the Death
of Jesus
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
10/29
Dr. Bond tied in this process of remembering withsome discussion of scholarly work done on thefragility of human memory and with a personalanecdote (with which she had introduced her paper)wherein she had misremembered the death of her
grandmother as having occurred on the 31 st ofDecember when it had actually occurred on the27 th of December.
This misremembrance she attributes to the fact thatthe death had occurred near the new year and to her
desire to find some solace in associating that deathwith the end of one year and the beginning ofanother.
Dating
the Death
of Jesus
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
11/29
To conclude her paper, Dr. Bond addressed three
objections to her kind of suggestion raised by John P.Meier inA Marginal Jew . In response to the mostsignificant of those objections, that text criticism shouldonly in the rarest cases reject all extant readings infavour of a hypothetical one, Dr. Bond differentiated her
work from text criticism. She was not attempting toargue that the original or most-authoritative reading ofMark is one which excises 14:2 and 14:12-16. Rather,she is formulating an explanation for psychological andsociological forces in the early Church which could haveled to the development of two irreconcilable and equally
problematic chronologies of Jesus' Last Supper anddeath, both of which relate the passion to the Passoveralbeit in different ways.
Dating
the Death
of Jesus
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
12/29
EucharisticSymbolism in the
Gospel of John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
13/29
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
David E. Fredrickson,
Professor of New Testament
Luther Seminary
St. Paul, MN
David E. Fredrickson is Professor of New
Testament at Luther Seminary where he has
been teaching since 1987. He is a graduateof Carleton College and holds advanced
degrees from Luther Seminary and Yale
University. An ordained pastor of the
ELCA, his research and writing interests in
the Pauline Epistles led him into ancient
Greek philosophy and poetry. Currently, he
is concluding a year-long sabbatical and is
completing his book,Eros and Absence:
Longing in Paul's Letter to the Philippians.
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
14/29
I. Jesus shocks many of his hearers, both ancient andmodern:
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink his blood, you have nolife in you. Those who eat my flesh anddrink my blood have eternal life,and I
will raise them up on the last day.
(JOHN 6:53-54)
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
15/29
1) How are we to understand this apparent
exhortation to cannibalism? Two very different
ways of interpreting Jesus' words have been
proposed. Some scholars have asserted that here
we encounter an especially vivid metaphor. They
reason that when Jesus says eat my flesh and
drink my blood what he really means is believe
in me and the efficacy of my death for your
salvation.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
16/29
2) In quite a different move, other scholars referJesus' words to the practice of the Lord'ssupper in the early church. In thisinterpretation, it is assumed that original
readers would have a metaphorical reading ofeating Jesus' flesh in John 6 is insufficient. Itkeeps the reader from seeing the connection
between Jesus' self-giving and his divinity; it
does not reckon with the communication ofdivinity to communicants; it does not allow forour participation in the life of God through theascent of the incarnate Word.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
17/29
3) In what follows I propose a series of objections tothe metaphorical interpretation. At the heart ofeach of these objections is my conviction that thesixth chapter of John, particularly verses 51-65,
makes more profound truth claims about God andthe redemptive work of Christ than themetaphorical approach logically allows. At stakein the eucharistic interpretation of John 6 are thefollowing items: the relation between Jesus
divinity and his ability to impart himself to others;Christs redemptive work as communication ofdivinity; and, finally, the meaning for God of themutuality of Christ and the church.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
18/29
II. HOW IS THIS ONE ABLE TO
GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
19/29
The first problem with understanding Jesus exhortation
to eat and drink as a metaphor of belief is that it keeps
the reader from seeing the connection between Jesusself-giving and his divinity. This connection is at the
heart of Johns understanding that the Son shares fully in
the Fathers divinity.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
A d i d i h h h h l f J h 6 h
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
20/29
A paradox winds its way through the whole of John 6: that
which gives itself away for others to consume does not
perish but persists, even increases. Think of the bread in
6:12-13: When they were satisfied, he told his disciples,
Gather up the fragments left over so that nothing may belost. So they gathered them up, and from the fragments of
the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten, they
filled twelve baskets. This is an anticipation of the true
bread, Jesus, who is not diminished as he is consumed. Animpossibility? Readers will remember Nicodemuss
puzzlement in 3:4 concerning the possibility of rebirth .
Nicodemus did not factor in the Spirit, who makes the
impossible possible. Neither do Jesus interlocutors in 6:52
consider the divinity of Jesus as they puzzle over his power
to give himself to be eaten: The Jews then disputed
among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his
flesh to eat?
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
21/29
Yet the same Jesus who gives himself away to beconsumed will also on the last day raise the ones who
have consumed him (6:54). Only God has the power to
raise the dead. Jesus can give his flesh to be eaten and
yet continue to exist because he is God. If eating Jesus only means to believe in him then
there is no paradox in chapter 6no being consumed
yet persisting. Without the paradox, there is no need for
Jesus divinity, since belief alone does not threaten hisflesh.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
22/29
III. LIFE INYOURSELVES
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
23/29
So far we have drawn attention to the role Jesus divinity
plays in allowing him to give his flesh to be consumed. I
have argued that the emphasis the narrator EucharisticSymbolism in the Gospel of John 3A nuanced analysis
along these lines is found in C. K. Barrett, Essays on
John (Westminster: Philadelphia, 1982) 80-92.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
24/29
4) For the centrality of Jesusequality with God in Johns
Gospel, see J. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt: JohnsChristology in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988) 9-93.places on Jesus divinity would be
pointless if eating Jesus flesh simply meant believing in
him. If he is not really to be consumed, he has no need to bedivine. We move now to the related observation that a
metaphorical reading fails to account for the Johannine
theme of the communication of divinity to those who
consume Jesus flesh. Belief in the proposition that Jesus
death is efficacious for salvation, no matter how ferventlyheld, does not have the power to communicate divinity
from Jesus to the one who holds the proposition to be true.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
25/29
There must be something bodily going on betweenChrist and believers (starting with Christ andmoving to believers!) in order that the life of God,which is fully present in the Son, becomes their life
as well. Such a communication of divine life isindeed the promise given by Jesus to all who eat hisflesh and drink his blood. We see this in the namingof the benefit of this eating and drinking in 6:53-54:to have life in yourselves and to have eternal life .
Both phrases describe in Johannine parlance the lifeof God. The Father is the only one to have life inhimself, but he grants the same life to the Son.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
26/29
5) The Son gives it to those whom the
Father draws to him.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
27/29
6) The means through which the life of Godcomes to believers in 6:53-54 iscommunion. We need to define with moreprecision the nature of the divine life thatcomes to believers through the eating and
drinking. This is necessary because thenotion of life (whether it is Gods life or thelife of the world) remains vague throughoutmost of chapter six. Furthermore, if we donot refine the concept of life, there is a
danger that John could be interpreted asadvocating a view of the Lords supperwhich turns it into the food of immortalityplain and simple.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
28/29
7) Rightly offended by the magical overtones of this way of
thinking about the Lords supper, some interpreters reject the
sacramental background altogether in favor of the
metaphorical reading. In spite of its dangers, however, there is
good reason to stay with the idea of communication of divine
life through the bread and wine. The interpretive task is to
show how the very notion of divinity is transformed in theevangelists discourse. There is a movement in the text away
from thinking about God in terms of substance and towards
relationality. It is this transformed divinity that is
communicated through the supper.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John
-
7/29/2019 Popovici Eugen PowerPoint Presentation
29/29
Admittedly, the underlying logic of consuming doestake the reader in the direction of thinking of Jesus as a
substance. Yet, in an abrupt shift away from the theme of
consumption, which dominates the preceding discourse
(the believer is related to Jesus as a person is related tobread), in verses 56-57 we encounter two striking
expansions of what it means for the Son to live: Those
who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I
in them Just as the living Father sent me, and I live
because of the so whoever eats me will live because of
me.
Eucharis
tic
Symbolis
m in the
Gospel of
John