now it has become customary to warn against excessive use of the criterion of discontinuity or double dissomiglianza. Ma che cosa in consisterebbe quest'uso esagerato? Ernst Käsemann it does offer a esempio eccellente. If he considers breve passo seguente:
The difficult problem of preaching as this was conditioned by an apocalyptic expectation. This problem is also difficult because we can not prove with certainty the authenticity, where there is an agreement with Judaism or with late post-Easter community.
dunque, per Käsemann, the collocare annuncio di Gesu sul regno di Dio nell'alveo apocalyptic eschatology (or, loosely, "apocalyptic") would be problematic for the simple reason that you can not be sure where the tradition of Jesus is shown in accordance with the "late Judaism" (today: mediogiudaismo or Second Temple Judaism) or the post-Easter community. This position will be completely reversed from EP Sanders, who, so far more sensible, considers that the only way to get to the historical Jesus is to follow the traces of man by whom Jesus was the starting point (the Baptist) and of those who in turn began with Jesus (the early community). Now, Since the profile of one and the case has marked apocalyptic-eschatological, the sense of the historian concludes that the same was true for Jesus This topic is now tagged by Bart Ehrman as follows: the beginning and the end as the key I'm the middle .
What Käsemann, instead, I call it the 'Bratwurst argument: if there is only about Jesus, apocalyptic eschatology, it follows that Jesus had to be ... a Bratwurst. A supporter of today's Bratwurst-Jesu is JD Crossan, who responded to the continuity sanders (Obiettatogli by Allison), referring to Gandhi, who was an island of peace in a context of violence and oppression before and after him. But in the case of Gandhi talking about a general climate, or macrocontesto, from whom he differs; the speech is much different for Jesus who was a disciple of disciples and had an apocalyptic doomsday.
But the last straw was that after clearing the apocalyptic eschatology-the preaching of Jesus, because we can not be entirely sure that it was his own, ends up Käsemann attributed to Jesus's conception most likely of all ( worse, the "kingdom of wisdom" of Crossan!) ossia the ermeneutica escatologica di Rudolf Bultmann!
But, unlike the excesses of Dodd and his assertion of eschatology already completed, it will be necessary to grant that Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God in the future. The problem is only in what sense he's right. In the words of Jesus, it is clear however that seems Basileia making their way on land, and placing men in front of their news and before the decision between obedience and disobedience. (...) Because Jesus came not to preach the truths générales, Religieuses ou morales, corn pour ce qu'il en est de say the Basileia here commence à paraître, c'est-à-say que Dieu s'est approche de l'homme dans la grâce et l'exigence
Exaggerations and paradoxes of the criterion of discontinuity or double dissimilarity, right now reinterpreted by Gerd Theissen as "contextual plausibility (ie, its originality in a fundamental affinity) and Tom Holmen dissimilarity as" one way ", ie exclusively from the community after Easter, and not in relation to Judaism of the time.
( citazioni riprese da: E. Käsemann, Essais exégétiques , Delachaux & Nestlié, Neuchatel, 1972, p. 171)
0 comments:
Post a Comment