wheeeeeellllliiiiinnnnnn'
The last two books of George Jossa leave me quite unhappy about many points on which I would like, but unfortunately I do not have the time. I allow myself just a few comments from a statement that Joss is a step in his Jesus Story of a Man, where is the alleged "freedom" that Jesus is taken against the Mosaic law, and in this case the rules purity.
A page. 94 reads: "Jesus has shown little attention to these rules. Already sitting at table with publicans and sinners because these are probably impure, must inevitably pose problems of purity. " This reasoning, unfortunately, is completely vitiated by a fundamental confusion.
Jonathan Klawans ( Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism , 2000) has shown very well as a number of works and intertestamental Bible (Leviticus, Numbers, Ezra, Nehemiah, the Temple Scroll, Damascus Document , Book of Jubilees) are clearly distinguishable, and remain as such, two different types of impurities: a ritual impurity legata agli ambiti naturali della sessualità, della nascita e della morte; e una impurità morale causata da “abomini” come l’idolatria, l’omicidio e peccati sessuali.
Nel primo caso si tratta di una impurità non-peccaminosa, bensì inevitabile e perfino doverosa, che si propaga per contatto, ma in modo non-permanente e facilmente removibile, e che ha come effetto l’esclusione temporanea dal santuario o, in certi casi, dalla comunità. Nel secondo caso, si tratta di un’impurità peccaminosa, non trasmettibile e per nulla incompatibile con l’accesso al tempio (ma capace di contaminarlo moralmente – e non ritualmente - Even at a distance, as well as the land of Israel in general, to determine the exile), and not removable by washing, but only with the punishment (which may be the death) and the Atonement.
A merger of these two distinct forms of impurity, seems to be typical only of the Qumran community, which was considered a sin because of ritual impurity and, conversely, the ritual impurity sinful. In contrast to the Qumran, the next masters Tannaitic further developed the distinction in what biblical Klawans calls "compartmentalization" of the two impurities.
Returning to Joss, the problem in his statement is the failure to realize that, by itself, to attend a sinner in no way compromise the ritual purity. Generally speaking, Jesus would not have had to make any practice of purification for the fact of being in contact with a thief or a tax collector, as well as with a pagan (the concerns that many have written to the Gentiles as a source of concern because impurities the moral: their idolatry, their sexual perversions). And let alone Jesus, coming into contact with them, would have compromised his moral purity, since this was a really individual and non-transferable, and furthermore he was bound to them not to approve certain actions, but to correct them so as to restore those "lost sheep" in Israel-in-the-way restoration.
Nor can we assume that the free "sinners", for the mere fact of being such, were automatically disrespectful of the basic rules of ritual purity. What prevents you from thinking that a sinner like Zacchaeus he cared not to dive after having sex? Or why you should hire a sinner who does not care about kashrut and the banquet at the basis of pig and rabbit? And in any event, even if these people were sinners che se ne fregava completamente della purità rituale (o che, nel caso del prostitute, non potessero farci niente), per riguadagnare la purità perduta nell’accostarsi a loro, Gesù non avrebbe dovuto perdere che pochissimo tempo e fatica (il fatto che i vangeli non ci dipingano un Gesù nell’atto di immergersi è perfettamente spiegabile con l’assoluta banalità e non-memorabilità di tale pratica).
In conclusione: i contatti che Gesù ebbe con i “peccatori” - avessero o meno conseguenze per la sua purità rituale (ma non certo per il loro essere “peccatori”) - non costituiscono in alcun modo un argomento per stabilire quale opinion and attitude he had in relation to biblical standards of purity. Speaking on this subject of "taken for freedom" is completely misplaced, since the Torah does not require all impurities not to contract, but only how to purify once contracted. Not that he is a sinner in association with ritual uncleanness, and even though it had happened (and is likely), he would have easily been able to regain the state of purity, so that all that he could only conclude that concern for ritual purity was not such an obsession for him to prevent him from trying to convert a sinner. That is a very small thing.
|
| cotton grass in the region of Fjallabak |
A theologian lit a lantern in broad daylight, he reached the town square and began to shout: "I am looking for the man! Seeking man. " In a flash, doors and windows flew open on all sides and a chaotic swarm of voices and noises wrapped the theologian. After a moment of dismay, the theologian took courage, he polished his glasses and began to look a bit 'better around him.
Dall’osteria a due passi, un gruppo di persone, tutti intenti a giochicchiare con palloncini colorati, tra cui spiccava un certo Funky Bob, gli si rivolgeva animatamente: “E’ qui, è qui al party che scherza e si sollazza con vino e porchetta insieme a tutti noi!”.
E subito la voce gentile di un omino esile di nome Dominique Croissant, lo corresse affettuosamente: “Dai vecchio Bob, non essere così gretto! Sì, d’accordo, cibo, bere e perfino cure gratis per tutti sono una gran cosa. Ma non banalizziamo: quello che veramente accade qui dentro è molto di più: è una rivoluzione, è un mondo alternativo in cui tutti siamo fratelli. Un mondo proprio as it would a good God. "
BUUURP! Suddenly, the friendly words of Dominique were interrupted by a noise cavernous, coming just two steps away, out the door of the inn, where two individuals were looking messy and not very reassuring. One pissed against the wall, the other he was crouched in a barrel, imperturbable whistling a tune, regardless of all the fuss going. The first turned out, listless, half a word to the theologian: "Burp ... my name is Burton Crack. Who is he likely to try - said, nodding with a slight movement of the head to his friend in the barrel - or maybe not. For each so, who cares. "
"But shut up, talking head! - Interrupted him to turn another guy coming from the center of the square - with the farce of this your elusive middle-class indifference, do not you do that the game of the powerful. " "Good day, mate! - Then turned to the theologian - My name is Richard, Richard "the horseman," and who are looking for is there, in the midst of that crowd, you see? We are making a popular assembly, is all over the country ... or so ... because we are one - so he says -, end our disputes, and understand that only gaining a true class consciousness farmers will be able to resist .... "
"But resist what, who, good man? Fees, the oppression of the wicked priests subservient to the king, not to mention the bigottume men of the law? "- He added ironically an elegant man, well educated, though with a Texas accent jarring - but come on, look around: do you really believe that life here is worse and more intolerable than elsewhere? And then where would all these taxes and this phantom angry crowd of which you are talking about? Good man, everything I can to see it instead of the big and little look at the same law, attend the same communal bathrooms, and when time e impegni lo permettono, salgono sullo stesso autobus per andare alle grandi celebrazioni in città!”.
“Buongiorno! – disse a quel punto l’uomo ben educato, rivolgendosi al teologo -. Il mio nome è Edoardo Parrocchia S. e non ho potuto fare a meno di sentire che stavate cercando qualcuno. Purtroppo non so dirvi dove ora si trovi. Tutto ciò che so, e che ritengo sia possibile sapere con un ragionevole grado di probabilità, è che è stato qui e che si è creato un piccolo seguito a cui promise un grande destino in un qualche “regno” che si sarebbe dovuto manifestare molto presto. Certo era un sognatore, ma non mi risulta in ogni caso che abbia mai avuto grane con nessuno, e, checché what is said by others, the last time we saw him - at the temple down in the town, intent, apparently, to overturn two or three tables - I doubt that really meant to make trouble or controversy, rather than simply giving vent some utopian impulse of his spirit. Although perhaps, after all, that could not have been the most prudent of ideas .... " "Provided that it has actually done something in the temple, Ed!" - Interrupted by a passer-by looks very nice. "All right, Paula, all right" - he replied, smiling good-naturedly.
And then a man came up immediately and soft-eyed sad, named Dale Jr., or just Junior, who, nodding, followed on the words of the Texas gentleman, "Yes, I saw it too. It was just a dreamer, and his words of hope I was enchanted. We were all filled with the highest enthusiasm, and it was as if his promises of bliss and solution of all evil and injustice, a world completely renovated and transformed, with no more tears and mourning, they were already materializing in front of us. But everything is over and everything has remained exactly the same as before. And though all those hopes were not in fact nothing more than dreams, I believe, however, that it is precisely in the name of these dreams, and only them, that worthwhile to continue to live. "
"Oh, stop whining Dale with them - broke a vigorous man of large tonnage from the oval head and bald, who advanced in ecclesiastical dress, strode from the cathedral -. But it is possible that you're still so soaked in crass literalism that he sees everywhere the end of the world of space-time, and men flying in the clouds? On the Come with me, and so you too - flying back to the theologian said - inside the church, we sit in the chapel of San Schweitzer and you re-explain again the story of its founding. Yes, because you need to know that our church was actually born to the man whom you seek, rather, is veramente la piena, perfetta e insuperabile realizzazione di tutte le sue profezie di redenzione e di giudizio che erroneamente tu, Dale, intendevi in senso cosmico. Ma fidati di me, che so riconoscere una buona metafora quando ne incontro una: lui non parlava d’altro che dell’abbattimento del vecchio tempio giù in città, ormai troppo logoro per poter essere restaurato, e della conseguente erezione della nostra bellissima cattedrale e della nascita del vero popolo di Dio, che io, vescovo Nicola Tommaso il Giusto, ho la grazia di poter guidare”.
Il teologo si fermò a contemplare ammirato la grandiosa maestà della cattedrale, ma dopo poco il suo sguardo non poté fare a meno di spostarsi su di un altro edificio, ancora più monumentale del primo, ma che a differenza di questo non aveva per nulla l’aspetto di un luogo sacro. Era piuttosto un palazzo immenso, composto di quattro enormi piani, e che al tempo stesso sembrava però essere ancora incompiuto, un cantiere aperto, quasi che non potesse smettere di continuare a crescere all’infinito, fino a toccare la cupola del cielo.
D’un tratto, da ognuno dei balconi dei piani del palazzo, si affacciarono quattro omini tutti uguali, magri e dal volto pallido, con enormi paia di occhiali demodé, e tutti portavano sul capo una strana mitra non-papale. “Salve!” – esclamarono in coro, sorridenti e affabili, i sedici omini -. “Io sono Giovanni Paolo il Cattolico” – soggiunsero i primi -; “Io sono Giovanni Paolo il Protestante” – fecero eco i secondi -; “Io sono Giovanni Paolo l’Agnostico” – aggiunsero i terzi; “Io sono Giovanni Paolo l’Ebreo” – dissero infine i quarti. “Siamo chiusi qui dentro da sedici anni in conclave – proseguirono tutti all’unisono – con lo scopo di ricreare in laboratorio l’uomo che anche tu stai cercando. Entra pure se vuoi: al primo piano potrai trovare il suo scheletro, al secondo la sua bocca e qualche suo sputo misto a fango, al terzo ci sono gli elenchi di tutti numeri telefonici che ha chiamato e di quelli che non ha chiamato. Al quarto, poi, i cui lavori sono da poco terminati, potrai udire spezzoni di noiose discussioni legali che ti consentiranno di apprezzare la nostra più certa e straordinaria conclusione: l’uomo che cerchi, non era americano! Ma se vuoi saperne di più, ti consigliamo di accomodarti nell’atrio e aspettare che terminiamo il nostro conclave. Ci metteremo un po’ forse, ma presto o tardi ne usciremo, non temere!”.
A queste ultime parole, il teologo cominciò a sentirsi mancare. Aveva le traveggole e gli pareva di delirare. Vedeva i sedici omini occhialuti guardarlo dall’alto con il loro imperturbabile sorriso, e, girandosi intorno a sé, si accorse che anche tutti gli altri interlocutori precedenti had never ceased to follow him and whispering in the ears of their speeches. And, worse still, as far pushed his eyes, and a lot more people saw flowing from every direction, and everyone is waving and shouting: "It 's here! And 'here! You can find it from us. "
Finally, everything started to blur the theologian and the last thing he saw was the flame of his lantern off.
If there is anything in the world of studies on the historical Jesus that I find difficult to understand is the timeless mania historiographical periodization and systematize storia della ricerca.
Illuminante da questo punto di vista è il nuovo libro di Giuseppe Segalla La ricerca del Gesù storico (Queriniana), che riprende il diffuso schema First/Old Quest – No Quest - Second/New Quest – Third Quest, incentrandolo non più diacronicamente sulla successione di “fasi” quanto piuttosto sull’individuazione di paradigmi metodologici ed epistemologici che possono ripresentarsi in epoche diverse.
Essi sarebbero essenzialmente tre: 1) il paradigma illuministico (prima ricerca); 2) il paradigma kerygmatic (new research), and 3) the paradigm of postmodern Jewish (third study), which adds a Segalla chronological stage of transition between the Enlightenment and the paradigm kerygmatic (corresponding to the so-called period of "no quest").
The first of these would be representative as well as the pioneering work of Strauss and Reimarus and the lives of Jesus "liberal," even by the reaction to these Eschatological by Weiss and Schweitzer. And not only following, perhaps James Dunn (see The memory of Jesus vol. 1, pp. 69-74), Segalla in this paradigm also includes the recent sociological interpretations of Jesus by Horsley, Theissen and Herzog and anthropological to Crossan, Fish and Aguirre, just as examples of "social liberalism".
kerygmatic The paradigm includes the two movements instead of reverse and complementary kerygmatic succeeded in theology: an escape from history (Kähler, Bultmann and his recent recovery from Luke Timothy Johnson) and a return to history, known to be represented by the work of the disciples of Bultmann (Käsemann, Bornkamm, Robinson), but also from a recent scholar of Japanese artist Takashi Onuki ( Jesus. Geschichte und Gegenwart , Neukirchener Verlag, 2006).
Finally there is the general paradigm of postmodern Jewish Third Quest, which according to the author, presents a clear and distinctive identity in historiography, as well as methodological and theological.
From historical point of view, this paradigm would be characterized by the recognition of the impossibility of a purely objective of the historical attitude towards its subject (objectivity that can not therefore be claimed by more than historical non-believer believer, in fact) is no longer monolithic and pluralistic vision the Judaism of Jesus' time, holistic approach (sayings and deeds) and abandonment of the analytical treatment of the individual traditions about Jesus in favor of a comprehensive view of him and each other (Segalla but note that this is not the case of Meier).
From methodological point of view, the new paradigm is characterized by the use of a wider range of sources, both indirect (the writings of Qumran, Nag Hammadi, literature intertestamental) and direct (non-canonical gospels, which, however, are not felt by Segalla, in the wake of Meier, historically unreliable, or irrelevant) to the rethinking of the traditional criteria of authenticity and methods for the contribution of sociological, anthropological and literary. Finally, from a theological point of view, the paradigm of the Third Research is characterized by the distinction, but at the same time for the link between method el'inseparabilità historical and theological method, since faith is an integral part of the historical evidence about Jesus and that historical investigation helps to understand the development of Christological faith.
Segalla is instead a bit 'vague when it comes to illustrate the characteristics but not the real players in this paradigm. Certainly not the Jesus Seminar scholars belonging, which are instead classified as a recovery Before the search, with influences of the Second. Without a doubt are Sanders and Charlesworth, and Meier, whose work is explicitly judged the best of the Third Research, despite the fact that his analytical approach is diametrically opposed to the "overview" (the Sanders) that should be typical of the Third Research. Segalla probably include, among the members of the paradigm and also Puig i Tarrech Pagola, as well as Dunn and Bauckham, though about the latter he is uncertain whether we should speak of a "second front of the Third Research" or a true quarter paradigm.
Now, one can be more or less agree or disagree with this historiographical representation of the proposed research by Segalla and that he identifies with the characteristics listed in the different paradigms (and limiting myself to just one of the alleged third search, I doubt that we can actually recognize all those convergences in historiographical, methodological and theological Segalla that it has identified.) But what I wonder is, even if we accept it, what do I gain? What is its usefulness? My opinion is that it does not lead to anything other than a series of labels that will not only greatly abstract provide no insight positive, but even likely to be ambiguous and misleading.
What I gained when I put in the same pot Enlightenment and liberal (or neo-liberal) Reimarus, Strauss, Renan, Weiss, Schweitzer, Theissen, Horsley and Crossan, and in another pot postmodern Sanders , Meier, Puig i Tarrech, Dunn and Bauckham? These traverse help to better understand the positions of the scholars in question? Or rather, are made at a level of abstraction that represent little or nothing of them, or worse, to lead the reader to specialized reviews with no real foundation?
Frankly non mi riesce proprio di capire come si possa pretendere di dare un contributo positivo di conoscenza, quando si sussumono 230 anni di ricerca e centinaia di studiosi in tre grandi barattoli. Penso che si possa fare della buona storiografia rinunciando a grandi generalizzazioni e limitandosi a fare accostamenti, individuare filoni e tracciare tendenze nella misura in cui ciò si rivela effettivamente significativo. L’identificazione di modelli e paradigmi può essere utile solo entro un certo grado di astrazione, oltrepassato il quale si ha solo il flatus vocis .
Nel complesso, l’impressione che mi sono fatto di questa schematizzazione Research (consciously teaching) offered by Segalla, is that is nothing but a handbook for use by theologians who have not or the time or desire to engage with the great diversity, plurality and inconsistency of approaches and results that characterize the landscape inevitably research. As a recognition of the research for what it really is, would be virtually useless for the theologian, then you try to pack a ghostly third research which shows a much clearer identity as non-existent at the level of historiographical assumptions, methodologies and epistemological relationship with faith, so that the theologian is satisfied and can begin to build on it.
Why Mc 1.10 sec. the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus is compared to the descent of a dove? This dilemma has tortured generations of commentators, unable to find appropriate analogies for such a biblical metaphor, and therefore forced to "explain it using the most strange parallel in the history of religions" (J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology , Paideia, Brescia, 1976, p. 65).
We wanted the head of an Australian scholar, Joan Taylor, to solve the riddle. And saying no head I refer to both the intellect but the end of the Lady, but rather to his tawny hair. So the same
Taylor relates the genesis of his discovery, that the sacred writer, far from wanting to make the symbolism was referring to a well-known and shocking experience:
"In 1986 , I was walking across Jaffa Road in Jerusalem When a chamber where flying out of the sky and the top of my head brusched before disappearing again over the rooftops. Perhaps It Was A mother bird Whose nest nearby and Was She Was Protecting her young. At Any rate, it Seems to me that the experience of Being hit by a where Might Have Made a good parallel to being hit by the Spirit of God, if the Spirit was understood to have been like a rushing wind. (…) I can verify that a dove coming down on someone with wings flapping is something like a very powerful rush of wind striking one’s head, with a noise of windy flurry and flapping. It is quite a shock and is certainly not a gentile experience” (J. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist in Second Temple Judaism , Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1997, p. 274).
Altro che il bucolico “frusciando dolcemente come una colomba” che cerca di propinarci Jeremias (op. cit., p. 66)! La mia esperienza ravvicinata (sebbene non così tanto) with the flight paths of the inane and disgusting nefarious creature known as "pigeon" or "pigeon", leads me to take sides without hesitation for the exegesis of the Taylor unclean (pigeon) or white (dove) that is, a bird that will flicker over the head is not pleasant experience for everyone.
My only disagreement is about the motivations of the dove, far from interpreting the mane of the Australian scholar as a threat to their nest, the bird of Jerusalem thought most likely to land on its nest precisely ...
That John had to have a huge ego: you can only be saved through my dive. (...) But if Jesus allowed himself to be baptized by this self-centered, will have been convinced he was right: that the Dies Irae was around the corner. (...) In that period of his life, Jesus considered himself a disciple of John the Baptist and, briefly, I admire him a lot (...).
He was forced he [Jesus] to admit what kind of sins he had committed so far (...). It is no longer possible to ascertain what those sins were. Maybe it was a pimp, later it seems that I would ask prostitutes to their collective lunches.
also When Jesus began to baptize, by itself, undermines the outstanding position which was cut John. Today we would call it plagiarism, because Jesus "stole" the baptism of John.
It seems clear that the disciples of John had discovered that Jesus had set up their own version of the baptismal rite of their teacher and that, consequently, went on a rampage and rushed from the Baptist to complain: "Here [Jesus] is baptizing and all are coming to him."
(...) I think just the first part of the verse is the most important one: "Here is baptizing." Which means: "Look ', the bastard of Jesus also has the chutzpah to get to baptize." The hostility of the disciples of John oozes from every pore.
(by P. Verhoeven, the man Jesus The true story of Jesus of Nazareth , Marsilio, Venice, 2010, pp. 71-83)
Penso che questi pochi estratti rendano bene l’atmosfera del recentissimo libro su Gesù scritto da Paul Verhoeven, meglio noto come regista di immortali capolavori della cinematografia quali Robocop, Basic Instinct e Starship Troopers.
Sarebbe fin troppo facile puntare il dito sulle numerose esagerazioni e le ipotesi peregrine che si incontrano ad ogni pagina. Sarebbe facile e anche un po’ ingiusto. Perché, a dispetto di tutti gli aspetti coloriti e un po' dilettantistici del libro, almeno due meriti vanno riconosciuti a Verhoeven.
1. L’essersi cimentato in modo approfondito con la storia della ricerca su Gesù, da fine Ottocento ad oggi. I riferimenti bibliografici e gli studiosi di time to time mentioned in the book, are quite serious and respectable, and the author shows the ability to move with a certain familiarity in the literature. In short, Verhoeven is at least one first have to write, had the decency to go and read a bunch of stuff, and this is something extremely valuable in those who have an easy matter to be passionate and non-professionals.
2. Verhoeven has actively participated in meetings of the Jesus Seminar (the book is also dedicated to the memory of Robert Funk), yet has no scruples to go against the Seminar on certain key issues, such as attributing to Jesus a strong eschatological expectation imminent, to the point that Verhoeven himself, after acknowledging his debt to the Californian group, writes: "I do not think that the Jesus Seminar is very happy with this book" (p. 16).
Ultimately, I think the book could be a tasty Verhoeven beach reading (or the toilet), for those who felt the need to relax a little more challenging tomes.
Per l'avvio del video è necessario qualche secondo
A Jesus who rejects the temple.
A Jesus who rejects the laws of purity.
A Jesus who rejects the sacrifices.
A Jesus that is presented publicly as the Son of man-in-ground, Messiah, the eschatological judge (and possibly be pre-existing).
E 'Ratzinger's Jesus?
Nooo, it's Jesus' Enoch!
(theologian, my fact hut!)
John Bazzana on his blog commented on a discussion of Bond Helen topicality of the apocalyptic Jesus, a Jesus, according to Bond, now no longer qualifies as a guarantee against the suspicion of subjective projections by the historian.
fact, since the scenarios of environmental disasters are now on the agenda, that's a perspective like that of Mk 13 (earthquakes, famines, cosmic collapse) sounds very familiar today. The Apocalyptic Jesus, in short, no longer comes to us as a foreigner, pace of Schweitzer.
What to say? Helen Bond in my opinion is too good not to notice that that you have raised can be a very interesting question for Christian theology (and I believe that Moltmann has taken plenty of this report between Christian eschatology and the future of creation, even in the context of today's environmental issues), but certainly not concerned with the historical figure of Jesus
Leaving aside the question of how the apocalypse marciana material likely to be traced back to Jesus (and dell'apocalyptic Jesus even supporters tend to recognize only a few historical reminiscences lines), the key point is that the eschatological view of the historical Jesus was not focused on the end of the world, but on the coming of the kingdom of God (+ revelation of the Son man, court etc.).. And the kingdom of God had to do with the restoration of Israel (and the end of domain Rome and its employees), and a utopia of social justice especially for the benefit of poor and oppressed. The eschatology of Jesus, in short, his feet firmly on the ground, and the precision in the land of Palestine and especially in the first century Galilee. ev
Although quite likely that the solution of problems specific to that particular historical context, it rivestisse cosmic colors of their eyes (that which would have entailed a profound transformation of the reality and, in so-called "metaphysical") itself or environmental disasters or the destruction of life on earth, were the object of his reflection and its ad.
But the most striking difference is that while the apocalyptic Jesus "current" referred to earlier Bond is an ecologist its time, namely one that warns of the end of the world to avert the apocalyptic Jesus "historic" was the opposite, a deeply hoped that the advent of next Eschaton and found that rejoice.
So do not say that the historical Jesus apocalyptic can not be co-opted from the debates, ideologies and theologies of our time, but it certainly is not (at least directly) with respect to environmental issues (as well as those war, see nuclear wars, clashes of civilizations, etc..) endangering the life or habitability of our planet.
From this point of view it's me the first to say that: the end-of-the-world-Jesus is not the historical Jesus .
PS Meanwhile we have, I should disclose that Helen Bond a popular book on the historical Jesus at the end of this year. Those who wanted to know its scientific or see what he looks, it also serves here.