When Did we See You Naked?. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ dignity. No mention is made of the garment’s removal. It appears that it remains on Jesus as he is laid in the tomb and added to by the explicitly mentioned ‘linen’ cloth in which Joseph finally shrouds the body of Jesus (Luke 23.53). The Herodian garment and the linen shroud symbolizing eternity are the residual images in the Gospel’s passion narrative that communicate Luke’s Christology of Jesus’ regal and heavenly status.

Luke’s tendency to ‘cover up’ and dignify Jesus has mixed consequences. On the one hand, the evangelist offers a portrait of Jesus that would appeal to an elite audience far removed from the artisan and peasant world of the historical Jesus. The teachings of the Galilean Jesus offer Luke a way of socially reconstructing the Gospel household in terms of hospitality and friendship. On the other hand, Luke’s ‘cover-up’ also pushes the issue of societal abuse and sexual oppression – dominant in Luke’s world and a mechanism of control, especially within the Greco-Roman domestic scene – into the background.36

      Whatever the reason for Luke’s redactional predisposition to ‘cover up’ Mark’s Christological portrait, it reflects a tendency that has continued in the Jesus movement ever since. This is the inclination in ecclesial circles to conceal the truth and camouflage what is embarrassing, unpalatable and scandalous. Luke’s reformulation of Mark’s graphic and confronting portrait of a violated and sexually abused Jesus seeks to screen the Gospel audience from the reality of criminal execution in the Roman world. Rather, a more dignified figure emerges whose agenda is not to scandalize but affirm.

This is not to say that Mark’s Christology is better or more honest than Luke’s. Rather, the exercise of comparing Luke’s Gospel presentation of Jesus with that of Mark highlights the human inclination to paper over what is scandalous and confronting. Whatever the reason for Luke’s alteration of Mark’s portrait of the suffering and dying Jesus – whether to offer a palatable Christology for Luke’s more genteel audience or to reduce any possibility of scandal that Mark’s portrait might produce – the evangelist’s redaction of Mark does give us pause for thought, especially in the light of the present ecclesial situation in Australia. The Gospels are ‘windows’ and ‘mirrors’.37 They offer us a window into the social and cultural world in which they were written. They also reflect back to their readers/listeners insights and a hermeneutic pertinent for the realia of today’s Gospel audience. From the context in which I write, this study invites me to reflect again on the situation which the Australian Catholic Church faces and the scandal caused through the sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults within my ecclesial community. It took the work of a Royal Commission over years to allow the ‘mirror’ to expose what had been happening in the Church and to honour the stories of those who had been abused. The bishops and other faith leaders in the Australian Catholic Church have been called to account for what has happened historically and to put in place systems of transparency and accountability. What Luke has done to Mark – again, for whatever reason – mirrors what this leadership has also done. But in the present situation, we know the reasons for the cover-up: to avoid scandal, to protect the institution, to deflect responsibility, evade accountability and reinforce clericalism. A conspiracy of silence has accompanied this tragic situation within the Church. This ‘cover-up’ has been exposed. Its exposure now invites a move towards a more open, humble and transparent Church that welcomes the child – the Gospel’s theological metaphor for the estranged, abused and hurt.

      References

      Adamczewski, Bartosz, The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary, European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions, Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH, 2016.

      Anthony, Peter, ‘What are They Saying about Luke–Acts?’, Scripture Bulletin 40 (2010), pp. 10–21.

      Aristotle, Politics, 1, 2; 5, 2; De Anima 2, 1f.

      Berry, D. H., and Andrew Erskine, Form and Function in Roman Oratory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

      Briggs, Richard, Word in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation – Toward a Theory of Self-Involvement, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001.

      Brown, Colin, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1975, pp. 280–91.

      Brown, Raymond E., An Introduction to the New Testament, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.

      –––, An Introduction to the New Testament: The Abridged Edition, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016.

      Brown, Raymond E., and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, New York: Paulist Press, 1983.

      Byrne, Brendan, A Costly Freedom: A Theological Reading of Mark’s Gospel, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2008, pp. ix–21.

      Daniels, John W. Jr, ‘Gossip in the New Testament’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 42 (2012), pp. 204–13.

      Deacy, Susan, and Karen F. Pierce, eds, Rape in Antiquity: Sexual Violence in the Greek and Roman Worlds, London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 2002.

      Donahue, John R., ‘Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark’s Gospel’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57:1 (1995), pp. 1–26.

      Donahue, John R., and Daniel Harrington, The Gospel of Mark, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002.

      Ernst, Josef, Das Evangelium nach Markus, Regensburg: Pustet Verlag, 1998.

      Faggioli, Massimo, ‘Australia’s Findings on Clerical Sexual Abuse: A Report with Ramifications’, La Croix International, 22 December 2017, https://international.la-croix.com/news/australia-s-findings-on-clerical-sex-abuse-a-report-with-ramifications/6628.

      Gadenz, Pablo T., The Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016.

      Guelich, Robert A., Mark 1–8:26, Dallas, TX: World Publishing, 1989.

      Harrington, Daniel, The Gospel of Matthew, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991.

      Hengel, Martin, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1985.

      Hooker, Morna, ‘Trials and Tribulations in Mark XIII’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 65 (1982), pp. 78–99.

      –––, Gospel According to St. Mark, London: A & C Black, 1991.

      Kähler, Martin, ‘[D]ie Evangelien Passionsgeschichten mit ausführlicher Einleitung nennen’, in Der sogennante historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus, 2nd edn, Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1896.

      Karris, Robert J., ‘Windows and Mirrors: Literary Criticism and Luke’s Sitz Im Leben’, Society of Biblical Literature 1995 Seminar Papers, 115 (1979), pp. 47–58.

      Kelber, Werner H., Mark’s Story of Jesus, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979.

      Levine, Amy-Jill, and Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Luke, New Cambridge Bible Commentary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.

      Moloney, Francis, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

      Neyrey, Jerome, ‘The Absence of Jesus’ Emotions – the Lucan Redaction of Lk 22, 39–46’, Biblica 61 (1980), СКАЧАТЬ