A preview of some songs from the Pope's book "Jesus of Nazareth"
Ecce homo
WHAT 'is the truth? Not only Pilate has set aside this question as intractable and, for his task, impracticable. Even today, in the political dispute as the debate about the formation of the right, the more you try to bother it. But without the truth the man does not grasp the meaning of his life to leave, ultimately, the stronger the field. "Redemption" in the full sense of the word can only consist in the fact that the truth becomes recognizable. And it becomes recognizable in Jesus Christ. In him, God came into the world, and thereby raised the criterion of truth in the middle of the story.
The fulfillment of the Passover
The Pope's book Jesus of Nazareth. The entrance to Jerusalem to the Resurrection, will be presented next March 10. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, in agreement with Herder, who edited the beginning of the work, he anticipates some tracks. The work originally released simultaneously in seven languages: German, Italian, English, English, French, Portuguese and Polish. We publish excerpts from the first point of the fourth chapter titled "The Last Supper."
John bay with care not to present at the Last Supper as a Passover meal. On the contrary, the Jewish authorities who bring Jesus before Pilate's tribunal avoid enter the praetorian "not defiled and unable to eat the Passover" (18, 28). Passover begins the evening and then only, when the process was still before the Passover, trial and crucifixion take place the day before Easter, in the "Preparation Day", not the party itself. Easter that year therefore extends from Friday evening to Saturday evening and by Thursday evening until Friday evening.
the remainder of the course of events remains the same. Thursday evening, the last supper of Jesus with his disciples, but it is not a Passover meal, Friday (the eve of the feast, not the party itself): the process and the execution, Saturday: rest of the tomb, Sunday: The Resurrection. With this history, when Jesus dies, which are sacrificed in the temple's Passover. He died as the Lamb's true that in lambs was just announced.
This coincidence theologically important that Jesus die simultaneously with the immolation of the paschal lamb, has led many scholars to dismiss the version history as Johannine theology. John would have changed history to create this theological connection, however, is not expressed explicitly in the Gospel. Today, however, we see ever more clearly that the chronology John's has historically been more likely than synoptic.
Because - as noted above - the process and execution on the day of celebration, would not appear to imagine.
On the other hand, the Last Supper of Jesus is so closely tied to the tradition of Easter that the denial of his paschal character is problematic.
This is always already have been made attempts to reconcile the two histories together. The most important attempt - and in many fascinating details - to achieve compatibility between the two traditions come from the French scholar Annie Jaubert, who since 1953 developed his thesis in a series of publications. We should not enter here into the details of this proposal, let us confine ourselves to the essential. In this way, the synoptic and the Johannine tradition appear equally correct based on the difference between two different calendars.
The French scholar, notes that the histories passed down (in the Synoptics and John) have put together a series of events in the narrow space of a few hours, the interrogation before the Sanhedrin, the transfer before Pilate, the dream of Pilate's wife, sent to Herod, back to Pilate, the scourging, the death sentence, the way of the cross and the crucifixion.
Place all this within a few hours it seems - according to Jaubert - almost impossible. Compared to what the solution offers a space-time that goes from the night between Tuesday and Wednesday until the morning of Friday. In that context, the researcher shows that in Mark's day, "Palm Sunday, Monday and Tuesday there is a precise sequence of events, but then he jumps directly to the Passover meal.
According to the date passed two days and then remain on anything that is not reported. Jaubert Finally note that in this way the project of the Jewish authorities, to kill Jesus on time even before the party, would not work. Pilate, however, with his hesitancy was then postponed until Friday crucifixion.
against changing the date of the dinner from Thursday to Tuesday talks, however, the old tradition of Thursday, however, that they clearly meet in the second century. But what Mrs. Jaubert argues, citing the second text on which his thesis: it is called Legend of the Apostles, wrote a beginning of the third century, setting the date of Jesus' dinner on Tuesday.
The researcher tries to prove that the book would have welcomed an old tradition, traces of which would find in other texts. To this we must, however, respond that the traces of tradition, manifested in this way are too weak to convince.
The other difficulty is that the use by Jesus of a calendar spread mainly in Qumran is unlikely.
For large parties, Jesus went to the temple. Although he predicted the end and confirmed with a dramatic and symbolic act, he followed the Jewish calendar of holidays, especially as evidenced by the Gospel of John. Sure, you can enable the French scholar on the fact that the calendar of Jubilees was not strictly limited to Qumran and the Essenes.
But this is not enough to be able to rely on the Feast of Jesus This explains why the view of Annie Jaubert, at first sight attractive, is rejected by most commentators.
I've shown in such detail, because it gives us some idea of \u200b\u200bthe multiplicity and complexity of the Jewish world at the time of Jesus - a world that we, despite all the broadening of our knowledge of the sources, we can reconstruct only poorly.
not to disregard, then, that argument is likely, although in view of its problems simply can not accept it.
What are we so mean? The more accurate assessment of all the solutions devised so far I've found in the book on Jesus by John P. Meier, who at the end of his first volume has laid out a comprehensive study on the chronology of the life of Jesus
He comes to the conclusion that we must choose between the Johannine and the synoptic history and it shows, according to all sources that the decision should be in favor of John.
John is right at the time of Jesus' trial before Pilate, the Jewish authorities had not yet eaten the Passover and we had to keep still worship as well. He reason: the crucifixion did not happen on the day of the festival, but in his eve.
This means that Jesus died in the temple at the hour when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. That Christians in what they saw after more than pure chance, which recognizes Jesus as the true Lamb, who just so they would find the rite of lambs led to its true meaning - everything is just normal then.
The question remains: Why, then, the Synoptics have spoken of a Passover meal? On what is behind this line of tradition? A really convincing answer to this question can not be given even Meier. It does, however, the attempt - Like many other commentators - through editorial and literary criticism. Try to prove that the songs Marco, 14, 1st and 14, 12-16 (the only passages in which Mark speaks at the Passover) would be inserted later.
The real story of the Last Supper does not mention Easter.
This - as many big names to support it - is artificial. However, it remains just an indication of which Meier is, in the narrative of the dinner itself from the Synoptics, the ritual Passover is as little as in John.
Thus, even with reservations, you can join statement: "The whole Johannine tradition (...) fully agrees with the original one in the screen with regard to the nature of the dinner as not belonging to Easter" (A Marginal Jew , I, p. 398).
But then, what was really the last supper of Jesus? And as it has been certainly very old conception of his character Easter?
Meier's answer is surprisingly simple and in many ways convincing. Jesus was aware of his impending death. He knew that he could no longer eat the Passover. In this clear awareness invited her to a last supper of a very particular a dinner that did not belong to any particular Jewish ritual, but it was his discharge, in which he gave something back, gave himself as the true Lamb, thereby establishing the Passover.
In all the synoptic Gospels are part of this meal Jesus' prophecy about his death and his resurrection on that. In Luke it has a particularly solemn and mysterious, "I longed to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for I say unto you, do not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (22, 15 s).
The word remains ambiguous: it can mean that Jesus, for once, eat the Passover with his usual. But can also mean that not eating more, but heads towards the new Passover.
One thing is evident throughout the tradition, the essence of this farewell dinner was not the ancient Passover, but the news that Jesus has done in this context. While this banquet of Jesus with the Twelve was not a Passover meal as prescribed rituals of Judaism, in retrospect it is evident the whole inner connection with the death and resurrection of Jesus was the Passover of Jesus in this way he celebrated the Passover and has not celebrated: the ancient rites could not be charged, and when their time came, Jesus was already dead. But he had given himself, and so they really had celebrated the Passover. In this way the old was not denied, but the only way leading to its full meaning.
The first evidence of this unifying vision of the new and the old, which makes the new interpretation of the supper of Jesus in relation to the Passover in the context of his death and resurrection, is found in Paul in 1 Corinthians , 5, 7: "Take out the old leaven, to be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed!" (See Meier, A Marginal Jew , p. 429 ff). As in Marco, 14, is a follow here the first day of Unleavened Bread and Passover, but the sense of ritual is then transformed into a Christological and existential meaning. The "unleavened bread" must now be made by the Christians themselves, freed from the yeast of sin. The Sacrificial Lamb, however, is Christ.
In this, Paul agrees completely with John's description of events. For him, death and resurrection of Christ became the Passover so that endures. On this basis we can understand how the Last Supper of Jesus, who was not only a foreshadowing, but in the Eucharistic gifts also included a preview of the cross and resurrection, were soon regarded as Easter - Easter as his. And it really was.
And Judah went into the night
from the fourth point of the third chapter entitled "The washing of the feet."
The passage of the washing of feet confronts us with two different forms of human reaction to this gift: Judas and Peter. Immediately after referring to the example, Jesus begins to talk about the case of Judas. John tells us in this regard that Jesus was deeply troubled and said: "Verily, verily I say unto one of you will betray me" (13, 21).
Three times John speaks of the "disturbance" or the "emotion" of Jesus at the tomb of Lazarus (see 11, 33. 38), the "Palm Sunday" after the word about the grain of wheat that dies, in a scene strongly reminiscent of the time of the Mount of Olives (cf. 12, 24-27), and finally here. There are times when Jesus meets the majesty of death and is touched by the power of darkness - a power that is his job to fight and win.
come back to this "emotion" of the soul of Jesus, when we reflect on the night of the Mount of Olives. Back to our text. The announcement of the betrayal understandably arouses excitement and at the same time curiosity among the disciples. "One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to Jesus to Simon Peter motioned to him to find out who it was that he was talking about. And he, leaning on Jesus' breast, said," Lord, who is ?''. Jesus replied: "He is the one for which dipped a bit''and give it to him" (13, 23 ff.) To understand this text we must first take into account the fact that for the Passover meal was required to be lying on the table.
Charles K. Barrett explains the verse just quoted thus: "The participants at a dinner party were lying on their left, the left arm used to support the body to destro era libero per essere usato.
Il discepolo alla destra di Gesù aveva quindi il suo capo immediatamente davanti a Gesù, e si poteva conseguentemente dire che era adagiato presso il suo petto. Ovviamente era in grado di parlare in confidenza con Gesù, ma il suo non era il posto d'onore più alto; questo era situato a sinistra dell'ospitante. Il posto occupato dal discepolo amato era nondimeno il posto di un intimo amico"; Barrett fa notare in questo contesto che esiste una descrizione parallela in Plinio (p. 437).
Così come è qui riportata, la risposta di Gesù è totalmente chiara. Ma l'evangelista ci fa sapere che, tuttavia, i discepoli did not realize who he was referring.
We can therefore assume that John, looking back at the event, gave a clear answer to it for the present, on time, did not have. Verse 18 puts us on the right track. Here Jesus says: "Scripture must be fulfilled: He who eats my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (cf. Psalms , 41, 10, 55, 14).
This is the typical style of talking about Jesus with the words of Scripture He alludes to his fate, placing it at the same time in God's logic, the logic of salvation history. Subsequently, these words become totally transparent, it Scripture makes it clear that truly describes his journey - but the moment remains the enigma. Initially, he argues that only one who will betray Jesus is one of the guests, it becomes evident that the Lord should suffer to the end and down to the details of suffering the fate of the righteous, a fate that seems in many ways especially in the Psalms. Jesus must experience the misunderstanding, infidelity the way into the most intimate circle of friends and so "fulfill the Scriptures." He reveals himself as the true subject of the Psalms, such as "David", in which it arises and by which make sense.
John, choosing instead the expression used in Bible Greek for "eating" the word-Gein against which Jesus in his great discourse on the bread means "eat" his body and blood, that is to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist (cf. John , 6, 54-58) , added a new dimension to the word of the shooting from the Psalm as a prophecy of Jesus on his journey.
So the words of Psalm casts its shadow over the early Church celebrates the Eucharist, as the Evangelist in time in all time: the betrayal of Judas's treachery to suffering is not over. "Even the friend in whom I trusted, who shared bread with me, against me raises his feet" (Psalms , 41, 10). The breaking of friendship comes from the sacramental community of the Church, where again there are always people who take "his bread" and betray him. The suffering of Jesus, his agony, endures until the end of the world, wrote Pascal based on these considerations (see Pensées, VII, 553). We can also express the opposite point of view: Jesus in that hour was charged with betrayal of all time, the suffering that is at all times from being betrayed, so enduring to the end the miseries of the story.
John does not give us any psychological interpretation of the action of Judah, the only reference point that gives us is the suggestion that Judas, as treasurer of the group of disciples, it would have taken their money (see 12, 6).
As for the context that interests us, the only evangelist says laconically: "Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him" (13, 27). What happened to John to Judas is no longer psychologically explicable. It came under the dominion of someone else who breaks his friendship with Jesus, who is shaking off its "sweet yoke", has not led to freedom, not become free, but instead becomes a slave to other powers - or rather, the the fact that he betrays that friendship comes now the intervention of another power, which opened.
However, the light that came from Jesus, she had fallen in the soul of Judas, was not extinguished altogether. There is a first step towards conversion: "I have sinned," he says to his clients. Jesus gives new and tries to save money (see Matthew, 27, 3 ff.) All that is pure and great had received from Jesus, remained in his soul in writing - could not forget.
his second tragedy - after the betrayal - is that he can no longer believe in forgiveness. His repentance becomes despair. He now sees only himself and his darkness, no longer sees the light of Jesus - the light that can illuminate and overcome the darkness. It makes them see the wrong way of repentance, a repentance that is no longer able to hope, but now sees only its own dark, destructive and is not a true repentance.
repentance is part of the just the certainty of hope - a confidence that comes from faith in the power greater than the Light made flesh in Jesus John concludes the song on Judas in a dramatic way with the words: "He took the bite , went out. It was night "(13, 30).
Judah comes out - in a deeper sense. Log into the night, goes away from the light into the darkness, the "power of darkness" grabbed him (see John , 3, 19; Luca, 22, 53).
(©L'Osservatore Romano - 3 marzo 2011)
0 comments:
Post a Comment