popovici eugen powerpoint presentation

Upload: popovici-eugen

Post on 04-Apr-2018

230 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 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