Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne

Stały URI zbioruhttps://theo-logos.pl/handle/123456789/40864

Przeglądaj

Przeglądaj Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne wg Autor "Banaszek, Andrzej"

Wpisz kilka pierwszych liter i kliknij przycisk przeglądania
Teraz wyświetlane 1 - 5 z 5
  • Miniatura
    Pozycja
  • Miniatura
    Pozycja
    Tożsamość skazańców ukrzyżowanych z Jezusem w świetle próby rekonstrukcji pierwotnego źródła perykopy Łk 23,39-43
    Banaszek, Andrzej (Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 2005)
    One of the intriguing problems in the New Testament historical studies is almost complete silence about the identity of the criminals crucified together with Jesus. The commentaries to these texts usually stress the moral and ethical message but they disregard the historical aspects of the pericope about the criminals. Mark and Matthew call them: Xporai, (brigands, robbers, rebels) and Luke uses the name κακοῦργοί (evil-makers, villains). In Mathew’s and Mark’s versions both criminals rail at Jesus while in Luke’s text only one of them does so – the other defends Jesus and asks Him to remember him when He comes in his kingly power (Lk 23,39-40). Mark’s description is commonly regarded as original and followed by Mathew’s (Mk 15,27.32b). The Synoptic Gospels researchers do not mention the criminals’ names but apocryphal traditions mention many: Zoathan and Chammatha, Dyzma, Gestas, Duma, Titus, Mata and Joca. Josephus Flavius calls the insurgents of the Jewish-Roman war: Àparài, that is why some wanted to identify the criminals with the groups of Rome’s political opponents, or even with the Barabbas’s group. However, they should rather be treated as common robbers, even criminals who were crucified as an example deterring the prospective followers. Pilate placed them on both sides of the cross to show his contempt for the Jews, especially for their leaders. The Gospel writers used this fact to help the reader identify Jesus with the Suffering Servant of Yahweh who was numbered with the transgressors (Is 53,12). Only Luke expanded the small reference about the criminals into a pericope. However, the origin of the source he used is problematic. Some believe Luke used his own source (Sondergut - SLk). some claim he created it himself, others believe he had found the original material in source SLk, and adapted it to his own theological ideas and the perception of the audience. Moreover, he showed crucified Jesus as the prototype of the martyr who patiently bears mockery and blasphemy and pleads for forgiveness for his torturers. Luke used the dialogue – literary means often used in the Bible. In Luke’s version, the ancient paradigm containing the authentic reminiscence of the witnesses was enriched with theological reflection about the effects of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. The criminals’ remarks recorded by Luke make it possible to assume that they both show the desire of salvation that can be given only by God. One of them is ironic about the Messianic dignity of Jesus, the other recognizes it and believes in His innocence. In the original source SLk (paradigm), the “good” criminal probably saw in Jesus simply a just martyr, who would be able to intercede effectively for him to God (“Testament of Job” 33,3). In Jesus’ times the Messiah was expected to free the Judaic capital form the pagans (the political aspect). These expectations dominated especially in Pharisaic circles. It is clearly expressed by “The Third Book of Sybill” and “The Salomon’s Psalms”, especially Ps 17,21-26. We can detect similar expectations in the blaspheming criminal’s claims. The “good” criminal offers trustful prayers to Jesus, as he believes He will definitely be in the Kingdom of God. In these statements, we can trace the image of the Messiah present in apocalyptic or essenic circles. Luke’s soteriology and the theology of the crucifix were dramatically expressed in the crucifixion scene. The “good” villain opened the list of those who positively answered the call of Jesus. In the invocation Jesus (Lk 23,42) Luke stresses the meaning of the crucifixion because there is salvation in no other name (see Acts 4, 12). The Kingly rule of Jesus begins with His death and resurrection (compare Lk 24,26). That is why the criminal, who deeply believes that Jesus is the king who can grant mercy and grace, experiences the fruits of this victory as the first one. The words of absolution are uttered to the contrite sinner by the one who is ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10,42). His redemptive death brings back the “unclean” to the society of the redeemed, which is richly expressed by the meaningful image of the “Paradise” appearing at the end of Jesus’ statement. The gates of Paradise are open again thanks to the faith and obedience of the new Adam.
  • Miniatura
    Pozycja
    Uniwersalizm perykopy o nielitościwym dłużniku w świetle analizy narracyjnej (Mt 18,23-35)
    Banaszek, Andrzej (Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 2004)
    Matthew’s narrative about merciless servant is reckoned as Matthew’s ecclesiological speech (18,1-19,1). Compared to Mark’s and Luke’s texts it contains the elements partly derived from Mark, partly from the so-called Q source and the source reached only by Matthew (SMt). The speech is concentrated around three basic topics: childlike attitude, forgiveness and fraternal love making it an instruction about the crucial elements in the Church’s functioning. A problem aroused in Matthew’s environment concerning the range of forgiving, expressed by the question: how many times should I forgive? Through the parable about merciless debtor the editor of the First Gospel tried to explicate this question in the light of Lord Jesus’ allegorized parable. The first level of this parable shows the story of a king settling the accounts with his servants. The deeper allegorical level shows the truth about the kingdom of heaven. Allegory is Matthew’s subtlest editing contribution into the story. It enabled the reader to focus the attention on the king’s mercy in the beginning of the story, not only the “judgment” at the end. As a result three topics were emphasized: judgment, mercy, forgiveness. Line 18,33 became the parable’s point: and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant? The allegorized parable masterly joined two moments of Jesus’ teaching, often treated as contrary i.e.: God’s infinite mercy with rejection, condemnation followed by punishment. The parable also contains a hidden warning for those who would like to pass judgments on their neighbor (fellow servant) - condemn him or accuse as the servants did before the king (God). The story’s social structure assumes all people to be fellow servants who are debtors before God. Accusing each other, even rightfully, may turn out to be a subtle trap, as forgiving is the life’s norm in kingdom of heaven. Refusing to forgive pushes one out of the kingdom, outside the realm of God’s forgiving love. One who accuses demanding justice instead of mercy, provokes God to be just, not merciful to him as well (Mt 6,15). The supreme power of God demands His mercy to be the measure of forgiving in human relations and infinite readiness to forgive becomes the sign of His universal love. Forgiving everyone irrespective of time, place, circumstances and society may become possible only for those who experienced God’s forgiveness themselves – the forgiveness that may change human heart and conscience.
  • Miniatura
    Pozycja
  • Miniatura
    Pozycja
    Zakres misji chrześcijańskich na podstawie nakazów misyjnych Ewangelii Mateusza (10, 5b-6; 28, 19)
    Banaszek, Andrzej (Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 1990)