NOTIZIARIO 1998-1999

Tesi di baccellierato

Tesi di licenza

Tesi di laurea

Chapter One: In chapter one which treats the Status Quaestionis of 1 Pet 2:1-10, I examined the different scholarly opinions concerning the entire pericope. Here I have paid particular attention, however, to the different points of view on the theme of the Royal Priesthood and the exercise of it. In that discussion, I have observed how up to now, the present Pope John Paul II, has continued to express the necessity for the further clarification of this concept which is too often dampened by disuse or misuse or outright incom-prehension. My effort here is just one little contribution to the clarification which has continued to be necessary.

Chapter Two: Chapter two takes up the consideration of the textual criticism of the pericope (1 Pet 2:1-10) and ends with the translation of the text.

Chapter Three: In chapter three of the thesis, I have tried to make an analysis of the vocabulary and the syntax of the entire section, i.e. 1 Pet 2:1-10. I sought by this means first to identify what the words and expressions, by which the section is composed, mean in themselves according to normal rules of exegetical procedure.
Now, the most important Greek expression which translates (a royal priesthood) the theme of this work, is basileion ierateuma and this occurs in v. 9. Earlier in 2:5, ierateuma (i.e. priesthood) had appeared and in fact, that v. 5 is seen to have a parallelistic relatedness to v. 9. Both verses talk about the priesthood which is a general one and both verses embody the cultic responsibility of the general priesthood. There is a chain of dependence here. 1 Pet depends on LXX translation of Ex 19:6 for this expression and the LXX used that expression to translate the Hebrew text of Ex 19:6 mamlechet cohanim. The translation differs in both LXX and MT but the meaning remains essen-tially the same. The LXX has profitably employed its facility and amplitude in lingual constructions to clarify the ambiguity that could be created by the MT expression mamlechet cohanim. As both mamlechet cohanim in the MT and basivleion iJeravteuma in the LXX, the reference is to the collective priesthood of the people of Israel as God’s elected people.
Peter in 1 Pet 2:9, absorbing entirely the clearer notion of the LXX Ex 19:6 basivleion iJeravteuma, refers by this expression to the priesthood which be-longs to the community of Christians as a group and the two words basivleion iJeravteuma therefore, refer to the Christian community as a body of priests in the service of God their king who has chosen them for that purpose. The totality of this image of rights and duties is encapsulated in the expression Royal Priesthood (basivleion iJeravteuma). One thing that characterises this royal priesthood is its collectivity. It is communitarian. It is a group. It is differentiated from the levitical priesthood by this fact of its being communitarian.

Chapter Four: In chapter four, I discussed the different hypotheses that are proposed by scholars that account for the literary forms underlying this passage. This passage is indeed seen to have been composed of different traditional forms, and discussions here and in this matter are as long and winding as the exact and successful isolation and differentiation of these traditional forms are intricate and uncertain. But I have analysed all the different hypotheses rather exhaustively and conclusively.
In this discussion, there are many scholarly opinions, each of which is supported by some elements from this passage of 1 Pet. It could have been a baptismal liturgy or baptismal homily. It could have been a testimonia collection. It could have been some fragments of some ancient credal forms and it could have been an early Christian hymn. Each of these propositions or a combination of some, have a number of scholars with very plausible arguments behind them.
At the end, however, I personally opted for integrity and inclusiveness. I believe that whereas the forms underlying the passage of the letter under consideration could not have derived from only and any one of the invoked traditions, all of them, in fact, have had their part to play in the letter, catechetical and liturgical materials which could be very wide and diverse in shapes and forms. I also believe that the author has written the letter as someone who has a sufficient knowledge of material over which he has as much authority to manipulate to the advantage of the message of consolation and exhortation that he wants to give.

Chapter Five: The Royal Priesthood that appears as it is in 1 Pet has a long history. In chapter five of the thesis, I have tried to trace this history from Old Testament times, through Jewish and Hellenistic interpretation of its precedents. I seek by this means to discover what redactional sediments might have accumulated by the time of 1 Pet.
It is clear that the formulation of 1 Pet 2:9, especially with regard to the basileion ierateuma, has its origin in the LXX Ex 19:6. But it is also obvious that the LXX Ex 19:6 is a translation of the historically earlier and primary source of the Hebrew text upon which it depends. Because of this, I first began with analysing the way mamlechet cohanim is understood in the Hebrew text of Ex 19:6.
The examination of the textual formation and transmission of this expression basivleion iJeravteuma reveals two main text modes. On the one hand, there are the cases where this binominal expression appears to be mutually dependent. In other words, these are the cases where the basivleion is seen as an adjective that qualifies the noun iJeravteuma. This is the position I take side with. This is how I understand the LXX’s use of the expression and this is how I could only see Peter to have understood the LXX that he followed. But many more texts and version see it otherwise. It is now clear that the variations in the translation are backed up by a variation in theological interpretation too. For Peter, for the Septuagint, for the Vulgate and for the RSV, the general priesthood is kingly, Yahweh being the referent. That is what accounts for its distinctiveness, namely, that the people of God are a priesthood that is at the service of God their king.
On the other hand, there is another text mode that sees basivleion iJeravteuma as two independent substantives, juxtaposed in an uncharacteristic grammatical manner but all the same, so accepted as the nearest to what the Hebrew text intends in the construct and absolute states of mamlechet and cohanim. And while already at this stage, variety of translations and meanings multiplied. So, Some Targumim translate "kings and priests", others "kings, priests". It can be seen here, that the emphasis is on kings not kingdom or kingly, and this "kings" is in reference to the people of Israel not Yahweh. Now, it is not certain whether this transference of king(ship) from Yahweh to Israel by the targumic translations of basivleion iJeravteuma is reflective of a theological intention or just a terminological accommodation.
On the whole, the LXX’s basileion ierateuma, (a royal priesthood) which 1 Pet followed, subsumes the totality of the priestly image that the original Hebrew Ex 19:6 was talking about. And despite all these variations and particular nuances, a fundamental significance of the expression of Ex 19:6 can still be found underlying and relating all reference to this verse. Israel is God’s special people. They are his priestly people who have a missionary duty to the whole world.

Chapter Six: The passage of 1 Pet 2:1-10 that I have studied has a number of references which occur also in some other New Testament texts, especially in some of the letters of St. Paul. In some cases, the resemblances are so close that an obvious case of dependence, either of one on the other, or of both on another must be established. In chapter six of the thesis, I have tried to examine all cases of this relatedness of Peter to Paul or Paul to Peter or Peter and Paul to other sources in some details. I am led to conclude, after a thorough examinations of these cases, that Peter actually carved out his originality by what he said differently, by what he wrote differently, and by what he reconstructed differently even from an obvious common tradition.
I have maintained that Peter purposely planned the letter to convey the inevitable message, namely, that this people of God have it as a duty to proclaim the wonders of God and that this would essentially be within the context of the Eucharistic celebration. However, even though the Eucharistic sacrifice is the peak, the witnessing that is required and that Peter describes (2:4-5, 9) cannot be confined to the actual celebration of the liturgy itself except in the sense that liturgy is considered as embracing all activity of human beings, which should glorify God in any case, and that liturgy is considered as a lifelong activity.
The way in which lay Christians in the context of the Christian Community may more fruitfully actualise this duty deriving from their incorporation into Christ in Baptism, an act by which they would be participating in the one priesthood of Christ, and indeed how this actualisation can be further enhanced, is what I have tried to map out in the final chapter.
Finally, the Royal Priesthood about which Peter talks in his first letter 2:1-10, is a doctrine in the church which bears repetition, which bears re-emphasising, not only because of pastoral exigency but also because of theological necessity. The arrangement that God himself made to ensure that human beings remain dedicated to their maker, express their appreciation through dedicated worship and faithful witnessing to him, is considered too great to be side-tracked by human beings’ negligence. To sharpen the focus of this reality and arouse the dynamism with which it should be characterised, is all I am trying to do in this effort. It is my hope that with the successful implementation of these proposals, the church everywhere, so filled with dynamic and committed Christians, will bubble with such vitality as can only be characteristic of a people who are actively conscious of their royal priestly dignity (M. E.).