novo_testamento

O artigo

The Logic of Jesus’ Resurrection – By Bruce Chilton – The Bible and Interpretation: October 2019

A apresentação convencional da ressurreição [túmulo vazio] tornou-se tão comum que precisa ser mencionada para ser deixada de lado, porque se opõe ao fato de que “o túmulo vazio” é uma tradição tardia entre as várias tradições sobre como Deus ressuscitou Jesus dos mortos. Segundo os textos do Novo Testamento, a ressurreição foi concebida como corpórea pelos discípulos de Jesus, mas eles afirmaram isto de modos diferentes e nem sempre conceberam seu corpo de maneira física.

The conventional presentation [empty tomb] has become so prevalent that it needs to be mentioned in order to be set aside because it flies in the face of the fact that “the empty tomb” is a latecomer to the traditions regarding how God raised Jesus from the dead. The resurrection was conceived of as bodily by Jesus’ disciples, but they did not all assert a single origin story, nor did they always conceive of his body in a physical way.

O livro

CHILTON, B. D. Resurrection Logic: How Jesus’ First Followers Believed God Raised Him from the Dead. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019, 319 p. – ISBN 9781481310635.

Bruce Chilton investigates the Easter event of Jesus in Resurrection Logic. He undertakes his close reading of the New Testament texts without privileging the exact nature of the resurrection, but rather begins by situating his study of the resurrection in the context of Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, and Syrian conceptions of the afterlife. He then identifies Jewish monotheistic affirmations of bodily resurrection in the Second Temple period as the most immediate context for early Christian claims. Chilton surveys first-generation accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and finds a pluriform–and even at times seemingly contradictory–range of testimony from Jesus’ first followers. This diversity, as Chilton demonstrates, prompted early Christianity to interpret the resurrection traditions by means of prophecy and coordinated narrative. In the end, Chilton points to how the differing conceptions of the ways that God governs the world produced distinct understandings–or “sciences”–of the Easter event. Each understanding contained its own internal logic, which contributed to the collective witness of the early church handed down through the canonical text. In doing so, Chilton reveals the full tapestry of perspectives held together by the common-thread confession of Jesus’ ongoing life and victory over death.

A perícope da adúltera (em latim: pericope adulterae) está em Jo 7,53-8,11. Mas muitos estudiosos pensam que o relato não faz parte do texto original do evangelho de João.

O livro To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story apresenta os resultados de mais de dez anos de pesquisa na história de transmissão e recepção da perícope da adúltera por Jennifer Knust, professora de Estudos Religiosos na Universidade Duke, USA, e Tommy Wasserman, professor de Estudos Bíblicos da Ansgar Teologiske Høgskole, Noruega.

A obra é composta de uma introdução, quatro seções contendo oito capítulos e algumas reflexões finais.

KNUST, J. ; WASSERMAN, T. To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019, 464 p. – ISBN 9780691169880.

The story of the woman taken in adultery features a dramatic confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees over whether the adulteress should be stoned as the law commands. In response, Jesus famously states, “Let him who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” To Cast the First Stone traces the history of this provocative story from its first appearance to its enduring presence today.

Likely added to the Gospel of John in the third century, the passage is often held up by modern critics as an example of textual corruption by early Christian scribes and editors, yet a judgment of corruption obscures the warm embrace the story actually received. Jennifer Knust and Tommy Wasserman trace the story’s incorporation into Gospel books, liturgical practices, storytelling, and art, overturning the mistaken perception that it was either peripheral or suppressed, even in the Greek East. The authors also explore the story’s many different meanings. Taken as an illustration of the expansiveness of Christ’s mercy, the purported superiority of Christians over Jews, the necessity of penance, and more, this vivid episode has invited any number of creative receptions. This history reveals as much about the changing priorities of audiences, scribes, editors, and scholars as it does about an “original” text of John.

To Cast the First Stone calls attention to significant shifts in Christian book cultures and the enduring impact of oral tradition on the preservation―and destabilization―of scripture.

 

Resenha na Bryn Mawr Classical Review em 07.10.2019 por Timothy N. Mitchell, Universidade de Birmingham, Reino Unido

The story of the woman caught in adultery (pericope adulterae, hereafter PA) has sparked devotion, art, and scholarship throughout the Christian ages. Even though it has traditionally been located in the Gospel of John, the account has an abnormal transmission history. Because of this, the story has been at the center of many debates involving the text and canon of the Gospels.

To Cast the First Stone codifies the results of more than ten years of research into the transmission and reception history of the PA by Jennifer Knust, Professor of Religious Studies at Duke University, and Tommy Wasserman, Professor of Biblical Studies at Ansgar Teologiske Høgskole in Norway. The work is comprised of an introduction, four sections containing eight chapters, and some “Concluding Reflections.”

Part I is composed of chapter 1 only which surveys modern scholarship on the PA. The emergence of modern methods of textual criticism and critical approaches to the study of the Gospels have often centered on this account. Even though modern textual criticism regards the story as not originally Johannine, scholars, pastors, and teachers continue to study and draw theological principles from the passage.

Part II consists of chapters 2-4 and discusses the development of the “Gospel book” and its connection with the gospel message. It is clear that the PA was not originally contained in the Gospel of John, and was not connected with any of the other canonical Gospels. Yet this did not prevent the account from being highly popular which resulted in its preservation. Whatever its origin, considering the scribal culture of the time, it is highly unlikely that the PA was deliberately suppressed or deleted from a gospel book.

Part III comprises chapters 5-6 and analyzes the preservation of the PA in the manuscript tradition and its representation in the art and teaching of the late antique and medieval periods. The evidence tells against the popular notion that the account was marginal to Christian belief. This section also considers Greek manuscript evidence such as the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the canon tables of Eusebius which do not contain the account. The Latin tradition, however, such as Codex Bezae, and the Latin fathers Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, accepted the story as authentically Johannine. All of this reinforces the knowledge that, even in the post Constantinian age, there were different Gospel texts circulating, those that included the passage and others that did not.

Part IV contains chapters 7-8 that consider the residue of the story that is located in the paratextual notes, headings and marginal comments in the Old Latin and Byzantine manuscript traditions. In the Old Latin, the paratextual features indicate the PA’s earlier absence from tradition, even though the account is retained in most Latin manuscripts. In the Greek tradition, the story is mentioned in chapter headings in late antiquity revealing that the PA was revered even in Greek contexts. The liturgical history of the account in the Latin and Greek traditions is also analyzed in this section. The liturgy ensured the PA’s textual preservation in both the Roman and Byzantine manuscript traditions.

There is one potentially confusing aspect of the book. At the end of chapter 1 the authors state clearly that they do not intend to solve “the textual standing of the passage” (46). This report appears to contradict their ‘Concluding Reflections,’ however, where Knust and Wasserman assert that “it is almost certainly correct that the story cannot be Johannine in its initial framing” (343). A little later they give a lengthy summary of the data, stating that, “Our survey of the evidence has convinced us that the story was interpolated into a Greek copy of John in the West,” and concluding that “the story was not actively suppressed on theological grounds, . . . despite the custom among some Byzantine scribes and scholars of identifying the passage as spurious.” (344).

Readers who are looking for a decision on the historical authenticity of the passage will be disappointed. Knust and Wasserman explain that, in the same spirit as Chris Keith’s treatment of the pericope, their book does not address the account’s canonicity or historicity (46).1 Yet there are hints that the passage may have emerged as an apocryphal account. This is because “the story of Jesus and the adulteress would have had a wide currency that could have served ancient Christians quite well, as the extensive second- and third-century Christian appreciation of the story of Susanna also demonstrates” (139).

The extent of Knust and Wasserman’s research is wide ranging, and space prevents a thorough overview of all the beneficial features. Thus, the following paragraphs will merely highlight a few examples that stood out as innovative to this reviewer.

The overview of the history of modern scholarship is rich in detail to such an extent that even Hitler and the Nazis receive a mention in a footnote discussing the scholarship of Walter Grundmann (37, n. 73). Knust and Wasserman insightfully compare the reception of the PA and the Longer Ending of Mark (hereafter LE) in modern scholarship. For example, though Samuel Tregelles viewed both the PA and LE as not original to the Gospels, he opted for treating both passages differently (18-19). The LE was inauthentic, yet “canonical,” and the PA was a “true narration” and a valid source for the “historical Jesus” (19). As modern criticism progressed into the mid-twentieth century, these attitudes became more widespread, the PA was increasingly viewed as a legitimate source for the “historical Jesus” and the LE was regarded as less and less historical (40). Because the LE contains material more difficult to assess historically, such as miracles and prophecies, this passage was “far less attractive” for those scholars reconstructing the “historical Jesus” (40). This comparison between the reception of the PA and the LE highlights the ways in which scholarly desires, such as a search for an “historical Jesus,” can deeply affect research outcomes.

Along with an overview of modern scholarship, book history and scribal practices are employed in reconstructing the history of the PA. Ancient book making, publication, circulation, borrowing, and collecting practices have rarely been brought to bear in discussing individual variation units. In a refreshing look at the evidence, Knust and Wasserman consider the private, and ad hoc circulation of books within Christian communities and the impact this would have had on the transmission of the story (70-76). Other features of Christian book making are examined as well, such as nomina sacra, and the early Christian preference for the codex format for their Gospel books (78-82). These features reveal that “convention, consensus, and the setting for which a book was produced” affected its “final form apart from any institutional check” (82). Even though an understanding of Christian book culture does not solve the mystery of when the account became Johannine, this knowledge “has helped us understand a book culture where such an event could have taken place” (83-84). Knust and Wasserman demonstrate that an understanding of Christian book culture can and should take an essential role in the study of textual variants and reconstructing a transmission history.

The scholarship of Origen is ingeniously utilized in order to test the plausibility of the PA being intentionally omitted from John (122). It is possible that the account was removed in late antiquity during the process of correcting (διόρθωσις) an edition (ἔκδοσις) of John (122). In his commentary on Matthew, Origen indicates that it was his practice not to delete a textually suspect passage from his edition of the Greek Old Testament, rather, he would retain variant readings and indicate where they were sourced, the Hebrew or other Greek editions (130). Origen’s response to Julius Africanus’s enquiry into the history of the Susanna story in Daniel is particularly relevant to the PA in John. Though the account of Susanna was indeed spurious, Origen was reluctant to athetize the story from his own Greek edition of Daniel because the account had a long standing in Christian worship (131-134). Knust and Wasserman rightly see this as evidence against the theory that the PA was deliberately removed from some additions of John.

One of the more fascinating elements of the book is the discussion centering on the liturgy, both in the Latin West, and in the Greek East and its role in shaping the text of John’s Gospel. In Byzantine manuscripts of John, the account is often marked with the indication “υπ(ερβαλε) (skip), identifying it as external to the Pentecost lection” (269-270). In the Greek tradition the Pentecost reading ran from John 3:37 to John 7:52, at which point the “skip” notation jumps over the PA and continues the lection at John 8:12 (269-270). This “skip” lection likely indicates that the story did not “enter Byzantine copies of John until the close of the fourth century, or even later” (299). The oldest Latin capitula known, “Type Cy,” has an abbreviated summary of the PA which stands in contrast to the other lengthier summaries (263). This feature may or may not indicate a later addition to these Latin capitula; it could also suggest that the story was present in contexts where Greek-Latin diglots were used (263-266). Along with this, Family 1 manuscripts, Codex 1 and 1582, give evidence of Greek kephalaia that included the PA as early as the 5th century (279-284). Though much more could be said in this review, Knust and Wasserman reveal that the Greek liturgy is a mine rich in data that assists in locating when an important textual reading may have entered into the Gospel of John.

To Cast the First Stone manages to be both exact in detail and broad in its use of data. Readers will both gain a deeper understanding of the transmission history of the PA and be exposed to a breadth of information on early Christian book culture, scribal and scholastic conventions, and lectionary practices. Knust and Wasserman’s work is a model of seemingly disparate elements being brought together in order to carefully examine an important textual variant.

This study differs from other books on the PA, such as Chris Keith’s, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus, in that Knust and Wasserman do not attempt answer the question of origins of the PA, as Keith’s work attempts to answer. To Cast the First Stone also does not engage in an exegetical analysis of the theology or vocabulary in the text of the passage.

This work will appeal to a wide audience. Christian historians, theologians, textual scholars, and interested lay readers may find the work helpful. In the book can be found careful historical analysis of early Christian; attitudes towards “sinning” women and their influence on receiving or rejecting a passage of “scripture;” scribal culture and the probability of theologically motivated textual changes; and the role of book production and publication in shaping the text. This book is will likely become the standard reference for the textual history of the story of the woman caught in adultery.

Notes:

1. Chris Keith, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus (New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents 38; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2009).

Por que Jo 1,1c está invertido em grego? Veja no curso de grego como Jo 1,1 foi analisado.

καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

Deve ser traduzido por:

E Deus era o Verbo

ou

E o Verbo era Deus?

 

Algumas observações

1. Do ponto de vista literário, para fazer sentido, é preciso ler os versículos 1 e 2 juntos. Pois os dois versículos estão encadeados em um formato literário conhecido como paralelismo de escada ou gradual. Neste paralelismo, cada linha acrescenta um elemento novo à linha anterior, refinando a compreensão do assunto. Como em uma caminhada, passo a passo, ou em uma escada, degrau após degrau, onde se avança gradualmente.

Veja os degraus em negrito:

1a ‘Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,
1b             καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν,
1c                                            καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
2                                                                 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.

2. Esta escada se cria pela repetição de ὁ λόγος – ὁ λόγος | τὸν Θεόν – Θεὸς | ὁ λόγος – οὗτος   Por isso o texto inverte a ordem dos substantivos em 1c sem prejuízo do significado.

3. No grego, e em outras línguas que possuem declinação, a posição das palavras em uma oração varia sem que isto determine a sua função gramatical, dado que as funções gramaticais são identificadas pelos casos, onde a palavra tem sua grafia modificada de acordo com a função que desempenha na oração.

4. O prólogo de João é um hino e o paralelismo é um recurso literário muito utilizado na poesia bíblica. Há, na Bíblia, paralelismos de escada, como o acima, e há paralelismos sinonímicos, antitéticos e sintéticos.

5. Olhando de outro jeito, pode-se dizer que estes dois versículos estão organizados em uma estrutura quiástica, no formato a-b-a’. Numa estrutura destas, o a e o a’ formam uma moldura em paralelo, enquanto o b é o elemento central, sem paralelo, o mais importante, para onde o olhar deve se dirigir. O quiasmo é uma construção literária em que os elementos são dispostos de forma cruzada, sendo o mais conhecido o a-b-b’-a’, como (a) João ama (b) Maria, (b’) Maria ama (a’) João. O nome quiasmo vem da letra grega X – ki.

Assim:

a. ‘Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν,

b. καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

a’. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.

6. Esta afirmação central καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος é bastante interessante, pois temos aí dois substantivos no caso nominativo unidos por um verbo de ligação. Enquanto o primeiro substantivo, Θεóς está sem artigo [dizemos, do grego, que ele é anártrico = sem artigo], o segundo, ὁ λόγος tem artigo.

7. Assim, ὁ λόγος é sujeito, enquanto Θεóς é o predicativo para o substantivo anterior. A gramática fala de predicado nominal, onde o predicativo do sujeito é um termo que caracteriza o sujeito, tendo como intermediário um verbo de ligação.

8. O Θεóς anártrico não pode ser nome próprio em grego, donde resulta que Θεóς não pode ser o assunto deste texto, não podendo ser o sujeito desta oração. Ele é o predicativo do sujeito. Portanto, a tradução correta é: E o Verbo era Deus.

9. WALLACE, D. B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996, p. 42-43, aponta três critérios para se distinguir o sujeito do predicativo:
1. O sujeito deve ser um pronome determinado ou implícito no verbo, ou
2. O sujeito deve ter artigo, ou
3. O sujeito deve ser um nome próprio.

10. Lembrando que Jo 1,1-5, a primeira seção do prólogo, trata da relação do Verbo com Deus, com a criação e com a humanidade.

Referência
Byung Chan Go, ‘Belief’ and ‘Logos’ in the Prologue of the Gospel of John: An Analysis of Complex Parallelism. Thesis DTh – University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2009.

Disponível em https://scholar.sun.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10019.1/1383/go_belief_2009.pdf

Larry W. Hurtado escreve, em 23 de agosto de 2019, em seu blog, sobre as origens da devoção a Jesus nos primórdios do cristianismo. Um tema no qual ele é especialista.

The Origins of Devotion to Jesus in its Ancient Context

(Several months ago, I was asked to write a contribution to a multi-author work on Jesus to be published in French, my contribution to deal with the origins of Jesus-devotion. I was given a word-limit, and so had to be brief. The result is something of a capsulized treatment of the matter. I post below the English version, which will be translated for the French publication. As will be clear from this posting, I’m still around and actually feeling better than expected, at least for now.)

Reverencing Jesus in prayers, hymns, and other devotional actions may be so familiar a part of Christian life and worship that we may not realize how much it was an innovation in the historical setting in which it first appeared. To be sure, in the larger Roman religious environment of the early first century A.D. there were many deities and divinized human figures, all of whom received worship of various types in the general populace. But the Jesus-movement (which became “Christianity”) emerged in the more specific setting of ancient Jewish tradition, in which the exclusivity of the one biblical deity was of paramount concern. In Jewish practice, public worship, including especially sacrifice, was to be restricted solely to the God of Israel, and it was considered idolatry to worship any other figure. The many gods and deified heroes of the larger Roman world were regarded in Jewish tradition as false and blasphemous. In this context, the inclusion of Jesus in the worship practices of the early circles of the Jesus-movement was a remarkable and, indeed, unique development.

This gave earliest Christian devotion a distinctive “dyadic” shape, with God and Jesus both featuring centrally in beliefs and worship. Over against the polytheistic pattern of the larger pagan world, early Christian teaching advocated an exclusivity, with solely one God, and this same exclusivity applied to the one Lord Jesus. In the context of ancient Jewish tradition, the duality in early Christian beliefs and devotional practice was also distinctive. The duality did not comprise a di-theism of two deities, however. Instead, Jesus was reverenced in his relationship to God “the Father,” as the unique Son of God, the Image of God, and Word of God, who had been exalted by God to be Lord of all creation.

It is also important to note that this development happened quite early and quickly, and was more like a volcanic explosion than an incremental process. Already, in the earliest Christian texts, the undisputed letters of the Apostle Paul, we see reflected a body of christological claims and beliefs, and a pattern of devotional practices that are more taken for granted than explained. This indicates that by the time of these letters (from ca. 50 A.D. and thereafter) all these phenomena were familiar features of the religious life of circles of the Jesus-movement, both in the various diaspora cities where Paul founded his congregations and also in the Jewish homeland. So, for example, in these letters Paul refers to Jesus as God’s unique “Son,” indicating a distinctively close relationship of Jesus with God (e.g., Galatians 2:20; Romans 1:4, 9; 8:32. He also still more frequently refers to Jesus as “Christ” (= Messiah), indicating Jesus’ role and status as the agent of divine redemption (among many examples, Romans 1:1, 8, 21. Moreover, some two-hundred times Paul refers to Jesus as “the Lord” (Greek: Kyrios) who has been exalted to supremacy over all things by God (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11). In these texts, for believers in particular, the exalted Jesus is their Lord to whom they owe obedience and reverence.

Moreover, Paul’s letters also reflect the understanding of Jesus’ crucifixion as part of the divine plan of redemption, and foretold in the Old Testament scriptures (e.g. Romans 3:21-26; 4:24-25; 1 Corinthians 15:1-7). Already by the time of these Pauline letters, believers had been searching their scriptures and discovering foreshadowings of Jesus in them. As well, Paul’s letters show the belief that Jesus had been designated from before creation, and, indeed, had been “pre-existent” and was the agent through whom all things were created (e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:4-6).

In addition to these titles and christological claims, Paul’s letters also reflect a developed devotional practice in which Jesus was integral and central. This included, for example, the invocation and ritual confession of Jesus in early Christian circles. We see this reflected in Paul’s reference to the confession “Jesus is Lord” and to the ritual invocation of Jesus: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:9-13). In this statement we have a biblical expression (“call upon the name of the Lord”) that originally referred to the invocation and worship of God, adapted here to designate the invocation of Jesus (e.g., Genesis 13:4; 21:23; Psalm 116:4, 13). Indeed, Paul refers to believers simply as “all those in every location who call on the name of our Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:2), and this ritual acclamation of Jesus as Lord is also reflected in 1 Corinthians 12:3. Note also Acts 2:21. Moreover, Paul also refers to this invocation or acclamation of Jesus in an Aramaic expression in the concluding lines of his letter to the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 16:22). The expression used here, “Marana tha,” (“Our Lord, come!”), reflects the ritual appeal to the risen Jesus as “Lord” in circles of Aramaic-speaking Jewish believers as well as his own Greek-speaking churches. Paul does not translate the Aramaic expression here, probably because he had conveyed it to the Corinthians earlier in his time with them. Similarly, in other texts Paul refers to the practice of addressing God prayerfully in the Aramaic expression “Abba” (“Father,” Galatians 4:6; Romans 8:15). Paul apparently used these two Aramaic expressions and practices, one addressing God as “Father” and one addressing Jesus as “Our Lord,” to give verbal links between his Greek-speaking converts and the devotional practices of their Aramaic-speaking brothers and sisters.

To cite other devotional practices, the early Christian initiation rite, baptism, was from the first distinguished from other water rituals such as the baptism of John the Baptizer by being done “in Jesus’ name” (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). This likely meant that those who were baptized called upon Jesus by name as part of the ritual, and were thereby marked as belonging to him. Unlike many other water rituals, early Christian baptism was a one-time rite of initiation into Christian fellowship, which was identified specifically with reference to Jesus.

Early Christian circles also typically had a shared meal as part of their gatherings. In a text where Paul addresses some problems about this meal in the Corinthian congregation, he refers to it as “the Lord’s supper,” and connects it specifically with Jesus’ redemptive death and his future return (1 Corinthians 11:17-34, especially v. 20). He also likens this corporate meal that honors Jesus to the sacrificial meals in honor of pagan deities, the cup and bread of the Christian meal comprising a sharing (koinōnia) in the blood and body of Christ. As a further indication of the strong liturgical meaning of the Christian meal, he demands an exclusivity of believers, who are to desist from all such pagan rites and participate only in “the table of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 10:14-22).

In other early Christian texts, we have references to ritual healings and exorcisms done “in the name of Jesus,” which likely means that they too involved calling upon the risen Jesus to effect these deeds (e.g., Acts 3:6; 16:18). As noted already, the Gospels portray Jesus as himself a healer and exorcist, and the early Christian healing and in one sense exorcism practices are a continuation of his ministry. But, whereas the Gospels accounts have Jesus healing and exorcising without invoking any other name or power, the early Christian practice of invoking Jesus by name means that his name and power were regarded as the power by which they were able to perform these acts.

As further reflection of the high and central place of Jesus in the early Christian circles, notice the dyadic formula of greeting in Paul’s letters, “grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2). Similarly, he refers to “the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 1:1). These formulae link God and Jesus uniquely as the sources of grace and the basis of the churches. Paul’s letters also typically conclude with a benediction from Christ, as in 1 Thessalonians: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you” (1 Thessalonians 5:28, with slight variations also in Philippians 4:23; Galatians 6:18; 1 Corinthians 16:23; Romans 16:20, and there is also the triadic benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:10). These expressions at the beginning and ending of his letters are now commonly thought to be Paul’s use of phrases that originated in group worship settings, and Paul appears to have used them to fit his letters for reading in the churches to which the letters were sent. On this basis, these expressions also give us glimpses of how Jesus was included with God in liturgical practices of greeting and blessing in early Christian circles.

Indeed, Paul’s letters also reflect the practice of including Jesus in prayer-appeals as co-recipient with God, as in 1 Thessalonians, “Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus direct our way to you.” And Paul continues with a prayer-wish that “the Lord” (Jesus) may cause the Thessalonian believers to increase in love and be strengthened in holiness (1 Thessalonians 3:11-13). In another letter, Paul refers to his own repeated prayer-appeals directly to Jesus to remove an affliction (2 Corinthians 12:8). In still another context, where he directs the Corinthian church to discipline an erring believer, Paul refers to pronouncing judgment “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” and to acting “with the power of our Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:3-5). This apparently involved a ritual expulsion of the offender from the church, but the point here is that the authority and power of the ritual is ascribed to the risen Jesus.

In all of these beliefs and devotional practices (and still others) the risen and exalted Jesus is central, and is joined with God as unique focus of faith and co-recipient of reverence. Note, for example, how Acts refers to the church in Antioch “worshipping the Lord” (Jesus), who is then depicted as speaking through Christian prophets, directing that Paul and Barnabas should be commissioned for the ensuing mission-travels related in the ensuing chapters (Acts 13:2-3). In a vision-scene, the book of Revelation portrays heavenly worship of God (“he who sits on the throne”) and the risen Jesus (“the lamb”) jointly, which likely reflects the sort of dyadic worship pattern long familiar to the author (Revelation 5:9-14). To underscore the chronological point here, this body of beliefs and practices clearly emerged and became familiar features of circles of believers within the scarcely two decades between Jesus’ crucifixion and the earliest of Paul’s letters.

Indeed, we should probably judge that this remarkable development emerged within the very earliest years, perhaps more accurately within the earliest months, after Jesus’ death, ca. 30 A.D. For prior to the experience that produced his profound religious re-orientation, Paul (then a zealous Pharisee) was a determined opponent of the young Jesus-movement seeking, in his own words, to “destroy” it (Galatians 1:13-16; Philippians 3:4-6). Paul refers to the “Damascus road” experience that produced his remarkable change in his religious stance as a “revelation” of Jesus as rightfully God’s unique Son (Galatians 1:16). This suggests that the core content of the experience was a radical revision of his view of Jesus in particular, whom Paul may initially have regarded as a false teacher and perhaps even as accursed by God. Now Paul’s revelatory experience is commonly dated within one to two years after Jesus’ crucifixion. So, already at that point, in the earliest years after Jesus’ crucifixion, this young Pharisee, who professes to have been exceptionally zealous for his ancestral tradition, found the young Jesus-movement sufficiently offensive to generate his outrage and his efforts to oppose it strenuously.

As to what may have generated his outrage, it is a reasonable proposal that the sort of strong claims about Jesus and the devotional practices that are reflected in his letters were at least one factor. That is, initially he likely found these christological claims and practices to be blasphemous infringements on the exclusivity of the one God that all Jews were expected to maintain, but his revelatory experience led him to embrace the very stance that he had opposed. In his sense of being specifically called to conduct an evangelical mission to gentiles, Paul seems to have felt a distinctive role. But in the core christological beliefs and devotional practices reflected in his letters, Paul was neither distinctive nor creative. Instead, he reflects beliefs and devotional practices that he accepted as part of his religious re-orientation from opponent to proponent of the gospel message.

One of the factors that generated this remarkable devotion to Jesus in earliest Christian circles was, of course, the impact of the historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth. During his own lifetime he generated and became the leader of a movement that was identified specifically with him. Jesus was regarded by his immediate followers and more widely as an authoritative teacher, a healer exercising miraculous power, a prophet sent from God, and perhaps God’s Messiah. But he also generated opposition. With the collusion of the Jerusalem temple authorities, Jesus was executed under the authority of the Roman governor. This appears to reflect the judgement that he claimed to be, or at least was acclaimed by his followers as, the Messiah-king, which amounted to sedition against Roman rule. On the other hand, his followers especially, but also others such as those who sought his favour in healing, revered him, as reflected in the many Gospels scenes where supplicants approach him. But there is no indication that this reverence included the sort of devotional practices that we see reflected in Paul’s letters. In short, although Jesus became the polarizing issue for followers and opponents already during his earthly activity, and was even held to be Messiah by at least some of his followers, he was not given the remarkably high level of reverence that appears to have erupted quickly and early after his crucifixion.

So, additional factors and forces must have played a role in generating what was an unprecedented “mutation” in Jewish devotional practice. Indeed, it is likely that self-identifying Jews could have given Jesus the sort of devotion that we have noted only if they believed that God demanded it. The conviction that God had exalted Jesus to a supreme status and now required him to be reverenced accordingly is reflected in texts such as a passage in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, which declares, “God highly exalted him [Jesus] and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11). Similarly, the Gospel of John makes the claim that God requires “that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father,” and that “anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him” (John 5:23). So, how could early believers have come to this remarkable conviction?

At the earliest stage, we should probably posit powerful experiences as a factor. These likely included visions of the risen and exalted Jesus, perhaps prophetic oracles declaring his exaltation, and also a fervent searching of scriptures to find the meaning and validation of their experiences. As noted already, Paul certainly claimed that his own affirmation of Jesus’ high status was generated in an experience that he took to be a divine revelation. The early encounters with the resurrected Jesus such as those recounted by Paul to the Corinthians likely conveyed more than simply the joy that he had been made alive again (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). Those who had these experiences seem to have been convinced that Jesus’ resurrection also included his installation as Lord over all things. This seems reflected, for example, in Paul’s linkage of Jesus’ resurrection and his supreme rule in a passage in 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:20-28).

But the exaltation of Jesus to such a lofty status did not involve any diminution of the primacy of God. In fact, practically every christological claim in the New Testament texts is at the same time a theo-logical statement. It is, for example, God who raised Jesus and installed him as supreme Lord. Jesus did not displace God in the beliefs and devotional practices of early believers. Instead, as noted already, their beliefs and practices formed a dyadic pattern involving both the one God and the one Lord, and their reverence of Jesus was understood as obedience to God, and to the glory of God.

For further reading:

Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003). French edition: Le Seigneur Jésus Christ: La devotion envers Jésus aux premiers temps du christianisme. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2009.

Larry W. Hurtado, God in New Testament Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010). French edition: <<Dieu>> dans la théologie du Nouveau Testament. Lectio Divina. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2011.

 

Lembro que o primeiro livro acima citado está traduzido para o português:

HURTADO, L. W. Senhor Jesus Cristo: Devoção a Jesus no cristianismo primitivo. São Paulo: Paulus/Academia Cristã, 2012, 936 p. – ISBN 9788598481494.

Este excelente livro apresenta um estudo histórico detalhado sobre a posição de Jesus na vida religiosa, fé e adoração dos cristãos desde os primórdios do movimento cristão até o fim do segundo século. Ostentando uma abrangência sem precedentes (o livro trata com propriedade desde a história do cristianismo primitivo passando por temas relacionados aos estudos bíblicos até a cristologia do novo Testamento). O livro Senhor Jesus Cristo de Larry Hurtado é de grande importância para diversos estudiosos e bastante acessível para o grande público interessado nas origens cristãs.

Leia também Hurtado Books on Jesus-Devotion – Larry Hurtado’s Blog: December 12, 2017.

O tema do Mês da Bíblia 2019 é “Para que n’Ele nossos povos tenham vida – Primeira Carta de João”. Trata-se do quarto e último ano do ciclo do tema “Para que n’Ele nossos povos tenham vida”. No primeiro ano em 2016 refletiu-se sobre a Profecia de Miqueias. No segundo ano em 2017 foi a Primeira Carta aos Tessalonicenses. Em 2018 no terceiro ano foi o Livro da Sabedoria. Neste quarto ano 2019 é a vez da Primeira Carta de João.

O lema do Mês da Bíblia 2019 é “Nós amamos porque Deus primeiro nos amou” (1Jo 419). O verbo amar é uma palavra chave da Primeira Carta de João. O lema recorda que o amor provém de Deus e chega a todas as criaturas. O amor é convite que pede uma resposta que é amar. Assim a resposta ao amor de Deus é o amor aos irmãos.

O mês de setembro se tornou referência para o estudo e a contemplação da Palavra de Deus, tornando-se em todo o Brasil, desde 1971, o Mês da Bíblia. Desde o Concílio Vaticano II, convocado em dezembro de 1961, pelo papa João XXIII, a Bíblia ocupou espaço privilegiado na família, nos círculos bíblicos, na catequese, nos grupos de reflexão, nas comunidades eclesiais.

Este ano, 2019, será o 48º em que a Igreja no Brasil comemora o Mês da Bíblia. Neste sentido, a Comissão Episcopal Pastoral para a Animação Bíblico-Catequética da Conferência Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil (CNBB), dando continuidade ao ciclo do tema “Para que n’Ele nossos povos tenham vida” propôs para o Mês da Bíblia o estudo da Primeira Carta de João, com destaque para o lema “Nós amamos porque Deus primeiro nos amou” (1Jo 4,19).

Dom Peruzzo, presidente da Comissão ressalta que o texto-base não se trata de um livro para especialistas, tampouco para quem desconhece a Primeira Carta de João. “Certamente servirá de aprofundamento para agentes de pastoral, para animadores de comunidades, para catequistas (…)”, afirmou o bispo.

Ele garante também que a boa didática e a sensibilidade pedagógica presentes nas páginas escritas pelo autor, o professor Cláudio Malzoni, de Recife, ensejarão grande apreço por este escrito do Novo Testamento. “Que o estudo da Primeira Carta de João mova-nos e comova-nos a diálogos fraternos e a convivências pacificadoras, amando-nos uns aos outros”, exorta o bispo.

No texto-base, lançado pela Editora CNBB, logo em suas primeiras páginas são dadas algumas orientações básicas sobre a Primeira Carta de João, importantes para situá-la em seu contexto histórico, literário e teológico. À medida que o leitor avança poderá encontrar informações básicas referentes ao gênero literário, ao autor e aos interlocutores, aos temas teológicos principais, à época e ao lugar de composição da Carta. Nos capítulos seguintes, o autor busca fazer uma exposição passo a passo.

O subsídio pode ser adquirido no site da Edições CNBB: www.edicoescnbb.com.br

Fonte: CNBB

 

Primeira carta de João. Vida Pastoral, São Paulo, n. 329, 2019.

A primeira carta de João é o texto escolhido para estudo no mês da Bíblia deste ano. Vida Pastoral traz até você nossa colaboração para reflexão, aprofundamento e vivência da riqueza deste escrito sagrado.

Sabe-se que a carta é um dos meios de comunicação mais antigos do mundo. Foi também a principal forma de comunicação entre as primeiras comunidades cristãs. A carta geralmente leva em conta circunstâncias próprias e contém informações de interesse específico do destinatário.

Escrita por volta dos últimos anos do século I, a primeira carta de São João se destina a um grupo de igrejas ligadas diretamente ao apóstolo, especificamente a um público misto de pagãos e de judeus convertidos ao cristianismo. O tema central diz respeito à fé na encarnação do Filho de Deus e ao amor ao próximo.

Havia nas primeiras comunidades cristãs uma confusão imensa acerca da identidade de Jesus Cristo. Certos grupos dissociavam o Jesus histórico do Cristo da fé, de modo que separavam a fé da vida como ela é. Alguns, inclusive, tinham uma visão totalmente negativa sobre a condição humana, concepção que os levava a não admitir que Jesus fosse verdadeiramente humano. Isso gerava a mentalidade de que não era necessário o amor ao próximo, mas somente o amor a Deus, bem como o conhecimento que a pessoa tinha de sua origem e destino. A primeira carta de João se insere justamente nessas circunstâncias, com o objetivo de conscientizar as mentes e resolver os conflitos na comunidade. O que interessa a João é esclarecer seus leitores sobre o verdadeiro Jesus. “Quem reconhece que Jesus Cristo veio na carne, esse vem da parte de Deus” (1Jo 4,2).

Em posse do texto da primeira carta de João, o leitor pode notar que cada capítulo é uma espécie de homilia ou meditação, exortando a comunidade sobre os perigos de uma concepção errada de Jesus e a necessidade de conversão; isto é, para um testemunho autêntico da fé, é necessário que cada cristão testemunhe em palavras e atitudes Jesus Cristo feito carne. Isso se dá mediante a experiência do amor ao próximo. O amor nos aproxima de Deus. “Quem não ama não conhece a Deus, porque Deus é amor” (1Jo 4,8). Quem ama não nega Jesus feito homem, verdadeira carne humana.

O amor é a verdadeira luz que ilumina a comunidade e a faz capaz de dissipar a treva da divisão. Portanto, no mundo os cristãos são chamados a realizar aquilo que Jesus realizou. O sopro de Deus que levou Jesus a realizar sua obra está também em nós. O sopro é o que nos faz perceber e sentir que no amor não há o medo. Em tempos de ódio e de imposição de medos, a leitura e meditação da primeira carta de João nos inspiram a ternura e a alegria de viver no amor.

Fonte: Carta do editor – Vida Pastoral: Setembro-Outubro de 2019

O debate sobre o fragmento de Marcos voltou.

Do que se trata?

Especialistas avaliam que o P137 foi escrito entre 150 e 250 d.C. O manuscrito mede apenas 4,4 x 4 cm, e contém algumas letras dos versículos 7–9 e 16–18 do capítulo 1 do evangelho de Marcos. Mesmo que não seja tão antigo quanto muitos esperavam – fora divulgado que seria do século I -, o P137 ainda é uma descoberta significativa, pois é provável que este seja o mais antigo fragmento do evangelho de Marcos até agora descoberto.

Para entender o caso, três posts podem ser lidos:

Descoberto fragmento de Marcos do século I?

Esclarecimentos sobre o fragmento de Marcos do século I

Fragmento de Marcos foi escrito entre 150 e 250 d.C.

Jim West fez um apanhado das várias intervenções no Biblical Studies Carnival 160, publicado ontem. É preciso conferir o original para os links. Ele diz:

So called ‘First Century’ Mark has returned… blerg. It is worth noting that the Green Collection, though having received title to the fragments (see point 10 of the purchase agreement), never took physical possession of the fragments. Instead, in accordance with other terms of the agreement (see points 10.1-10.2) the fragments were left in Obbink’s custody for research and publication (the intended venue of initial publication being specified in 10.3). You’ll have to read the post and its attachments to figure out what all that is supposed to mean. Blerg.

Larry Hurtado writes in connection with the scandal (this is as close to scandal as scholarship gets, unless you count Richard Pervo…): This new evidence is personally dismaying, as it raises questions about the actions of Obbink, in whom I placed trust earlier (as in my blog posting here). It now appears that my confidence may have been misplaced. In a comment on Nongbri’s posting [NB- It’s actually a comment on Elijah Hixson’s post, not Nongbri’s][JW], Peter Head says these developments now make me and Ehrman look “stupid”. I’m not clear how he reached that judgment. I may have been mistaken in my trust in Obbink, but trusting someone until there is reason to think otherwise is hardly stupid, Peter. Also chiming in is Elijah Hixson over on ETC. Enjoy the comments there too.

But the best analysis of the whole debacle is by Bart Ehrman. His take is here. And his response to demonstrably false claims and statements is here.

And then there’s this analysis of the receipt for the documents. Gonzo work! This first century (not) Mark thing will be made into a mystery film before long. I suggest ‘On the Trail of Mark: Fraud for Profit’…

But if you want a more Obbink friendly take on the whole thing, don’t worry. There’s this guy. He seems to think the whole thing is a setup…. And Larry Hurtado thinks the fragment probative. Allow me to remind you, however, that it is unprovenanced.

And, finally, as the month drew to a close, this shows up in Christianity Today. What a bunch of shady characters doing shady things. And worst of all, they knew they were.

Whew… That’s a lot of talk about an unprovenanced trinket. Hey, you know how these problems and scandals can be avoided in the future? Scholars can decide to have NOTHING to do with anything unprovenanced! ‘Oh, hey Bob, you have a trinket you think is ancient and you want me to stake my reputation on it but you got it from some dude in a back alley? Nah, hard pass, dude. You go ruin your reputation, I think I’ll keep mine’.

A isto acrescento algo que li hoje no blog Kiwi Hellenist e que nos ajuda a entender o imbróglio de 1903 até 29 de junho de 2019: The ‘FCM’ scandal: a timeline.

Vi a dica em Larry Hurtado’s Blog: New Resource of Johannine Studies – May 18, 2019

Ele indica

LIEU, J. M. ; DE BOER, M. C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, 496 p. – ISBN 9780198739982.

:. Offers a comprehensive introduction to current scholarship on the Gospel and Letters of John

:. Features chapters written by leading researchers in the field covering major issues of background, ways of reading, style, and theology

:. Provides an authoritative guide for non-specialists and those in the early stages of study of the Johannine Literature, as well as offering new insights to stimulate further thought for those more familiar with the field

:. Suggestions for further reading and full bibliographies of works cited enable readers to pursue their interests further

The contribution of the Johannine literature to the development of Christian theology, and particularly to Christology, is uncontested, although careful distinction between the implications of its language, especially that of sonship, in a first century ‘Jewish’ context and in the subsequent theological controversies of the early Church has been particularly important if not always easily sustained. Recent study has shaken off the weight of subsequent Christian appropriation of Johannine language which has sometimes made readers immune to the ambiguities and challenging tensions in its thought. The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies begins with chapters concentrating on discussions of the background and context of the Johannine literature, leading to the different ways of reading the text, and thence to the primary theological themes within them, before concluding with some discussion of the reception of the Johannine literature in the early church. Inevitably, given their different genres and levels of complexity, some chapters pay most if not all attention to the Gospel, whereas others are more able to give a more substantial place to the letters. All the contributors have themselves made significant contributions to their topic. They have sought to give a balanced introduction to the relevant scholarship and debate, but they have also been able to present the issues from their own perspective. The Handbook will help those less familiar with the Johannine literature to get a sense of the major areas of debate and why the field continues to be one of vibrant and exciting study, and that those who are already part of the conversation will find new insights to enliven their own on-going engagement with these writings.

Sobre Oxford Handbooks Online já falei aqui.

James F. McGrath, Professor de Língua e Literatura do Novo Testamento na Universidade Butler em Indianápolis, Indiana, publicou hoje em seu blog um apanhado do que andam falando sobre Paulo e seus escritos na blogosfera.

Paul around the Blogosphere – April 30, 2019 by James F. McGrath

Ele diz: Here is a collection of blog posts related to Paul and his writings that I hope you’ll enjoy!

Leia Mais:
Novo Testamento no Observatório Bíblico

Sobre o seminário, leia aqui.

Para os interessados na obra lucana – Evangelho de Lucas e Atos dos Apóstolos, uma dica: as palestras principais estão disponíveis em vídeo.

Na página do seminário estão os links para os vídeos no YouTube.

Há também uma galeria de fotos do seminário.

O capítulo 6 do livro Luta de classes no Novo Testamento foi publicado pela revista online The Bible and Interpretation.

Fishing for Entrepreneurs in the Sea of Galilee? Unmasking Neoliberal Ideology in Biblical Interpretation – By Robert J. Myles, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

Rather than emphasize the fishermen’s moral decision to follow Jesus and its associated economic cost, I implore we instead read these narratives as embedded within a broader context of widespread social upheaval and as gesturing towards unrest among the lower classes.

Em vez de enfatizar a decisão moral dos pescadores de seguir Jesus e seu custo econômico associado, sugiro que leiamos essas narrativas inseridas em um contexto mais amplo de agitação social generalizada e como gestos de insatisfação existente entre as classes mais baixas.