Στο τρέχον τεύχος του ASE / In the current issue of ASE

Annali di storia dell' esegesi 33:2 (2016)

Fernando Bermejo Rubio, "Between Gethsemane and Golgotha, or Who Arrested the Galilean(s)? Challenging a Deep-Rooted Assumption in New Testament Research," 311-339

There is a striking imbalance in the scholarly treatment of the Golgotha and Gethsemane episodes, insofar as the fact that critical scholarship has detected deep ideological bias in the Gospel accounts of the Jews as “Christ-killers” and has abandoned any idea of Jews crucifying Jesus as a serious distortion of historical reality has not entailed the abandonment of the notion that Jesus was arrested by his coreligionists. This state of affairs is quite odd, not only because, if the surest item of the Passion accounts is that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, a scenario in which he could have been arrested by them would make sense, but also because modern scholarship has produced compelling research allowing us to carry out a historical reconstruction which is very different to that conveyed in the Gospels. By building on such research and providing some new insights, this article argues that the responsibility for the arrest of Jesus rests on the Roman authorities.

Simon Butticaz, "The Construction of Apostolic Memories in the Light of Two New Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 Tm and 2 Pt)," 341-363

The disappearance of the apostolic generation in the course of the sixties (first century C.E.) plunged emerging Christianity into a profound “crisis of memory” (cf. Jan Assmann). Indeed: how was a foundational tradition to be managed or established in the absence of those who had been bearers of the memory of the beginnings? The classical thesis on this subject is well-known: in the absence of established ministries, it was apostolic pseudonymity, the only available authority, which made it possible to reinterpret the memory of the beginnings and adapt it to new socio-historic circumstances. In the footsteps of other scholars, the present article re-examines this hypothesis with the help of sociological theories and tools devoted to collective memory. If the disappearance of the apostles certainly confronted the early Church with a Traditionsbruch (Jan Assmann), it is unwarranted to suppose that the first generation enjoyed from the start a normative and undisputed authority. On the contrary, first and second centuries pseudepigraphy signicantly contributed to the construction of the memories of authoritative apostles, as can be seen with 2 Timothy and 2 Peter.

Joseph Grabau – Anthony Dupont, "How Pauline Was  Augustine’s John Commentary? On the Use of Romans 5:14 in Augustine’s Reading of John 19:34," 365-394

The authors examine here Augustine’s frequent use of Romans 5:14 in order to interpret John 19:34, on the generation of the Church from the “side of Christ.” Such an image carried through Augustine’s career, and reveals important features about his own synthesis of Johannine and Pauline elements. We aim to demonstrate the wide-ranging significance of Saint Paul in Augustine’s treatment of the Johannine passion (Jn 19:28–34), and aim to account for his changing points of emphasis on this chain of verses over the course of his early career as an episcopal exegete.