I neglected a little 'blog' cause last week I was briefly in Italy, invited to attend an interview on the Second Epistle of Peter organized at the Faculty 'theological di Sicilia "San Giovanni Evangelista" in Palermo . The trip 'was very tiring, but I have to thank the organizers (in particular, Rosario Pistone, Professor of New Testament), for giving me the opportunity' to visit once a city 'beautiful and, above all, to take part a very stimulating and interesting discussions. I must say I was very impressed by the atmosphere of great vitality 'intellectual that I found in Palermo.
Among the many issues discusse nel colloquio, e' emersa piu' di una volta quella, metodologicamente fondamentale, delle comunita' che gli studiosi di Nuovo Testamento tendono a ricostruire "dietro" i testi. Avendo insegnato, negli ultimi due anni, corsi su i Vangeli di Giovanni, Tommaso e Matteo ho avuto modo di confrontarmi spesso con questo tipo di opzione esegetica e le mie perplessita' sono andate via via crescendo. Do qui conto, in breve, dei maggiori problemi che mi si presentano quando comincio a sentir parlare di comunita' giovannea, matteana e cosi' via.
Una prima difficolta' dipende dal fatto che, spesso, quando un esegeta parla di comunita' tende a prendere questo termine in un'accezione molto "forte": si arriva quindi a postulare un group that has a common feel and share ideas and experiences monolithically. However, all groups that we know directly or by historical evidence to the contrary: each group member's perceptions and beliefs, influenced by the many differences in social status, culture, gender, ethnicity and so 'on. Exegetes tend to project on the community ', entirely reconstructed from the text by the one in our possession, their respective interpretations of the text itself, more often forgetting that the interpretations of the Gospel must have been many already' at the level of " community 'original'. Things get even worse when this' community 'original' is used to solve steps exegetically difficult, as if it were an actual historical evidence and not a convenient case of investigation (Luz's commentary, while very beautiful, and 'full of passages in which a certain interpretation is ruled out, because' the 'community' not Matthean would have thought this!).
My second perplexity 'and' tied to what we just said, as I find more and more 'community problem in the habit of postulating' hidden 'behind' the characters in the NT and then to write the history of their relations based on historical relations between the fictional characters of a script. Sensational cases are those of Peter, Thomas and the "beloved disciple" in John's Gospel. In Palermo, during a discussion, and I 'was the question of Chapter 21, which concludes the fourth Gospel and seems to introduce a reconciliation between the characters of Peter and the beloved disciple. I'm not saying it can not be assumed that the chapter was added to the end as an attempt to bring the community '"Johannine" and communities' "Petrine", but who tells us (since we have no other information about these two hypothetical communities') but that is not simply a chapter written to teach how to involve community leaders must '(Peter) and some other doctrine eschatological prophecies linked to the death of the "beloved disciple"?
0 comments:
Post a Comment