Papers by Jonathan Bersot
Études théologiques et religieuses, 2012
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Science et Esprit, 2010
La quasi-totalité des exégètes s‘accorde pour considérer le chapitre cinq de l‘épître aux Romains... more La quasi-totalité des exégètes s‘accorde pour considérer le chapitre cinq de l‘épître aux Romains comme une transition entre deux blocs majeurs de l‘épître, le premier traitant de la justification par la foi (Rm 1,18–4,25) et le second, du passage de l‘esclavage de péché à la vie de l‘Esprit, sans oublier le rôle de la Loi (chapitres 6 à 8). L‘analyse structurelle de Rm 5,1-11 permet de mettre en évidence la transition : de la justification à la réconciliation. Mais c‘est en partant de quelques observations narratologiques concernant la temporalisation, la spatialisation et la mise en intrigue que le rôle de la « paix », ainsi que celui de la « foi », permettent d‘expliquer la déclaration « nous avons la paix avec Dieu » du verset premier, considérant la paix avec Dieu comme un passage obligé de la justification vers la réconciliation.
Most scholars agree to view chapter five of Romans as a transition between two main parts of the Epistle: the first part deals with Justification by faith (Ro 1:18-4:25) and the second is about the change from slavery of Sin to life in the Spirit, including an explanation of the function of the Law (chapters 6 to 8). A sound structural analysis reveals then this transition from Justification to Reconciliation. Moreover, it is the function of ―Peace‖ and ―Faith‖ brought out by some narrative observations concerning temporal framework, spatial environment and plot, that can explain the statement ―we have peace with God‖ of Ro 5:1 This Peace with God is therefore a required stage between Justification and Reconciliation
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Études théologiques et religieuses, 2012
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Si la théologie lucanienne de la résurrection a largement été étudiée dans le livre des Actes des... more Si la théologie lucanienne de la résurrection a largement été étudiée dans le livre des Actes des Apôtres, Jésus n’a jamais été considéré comme personnage principal, à l’inverse des apôtres, de l’Esprit saint ou même de Dieu. Pourtant, le premier verset des Actes laisse entendre que Jésus va continuer de faire et d’enseigner ce qu’il avait commencé dans l’évangile, même si, peu de temps après l’ouverture du récit, il quitte la scène. Pour chercher à comprendre ce paradoxe, une analyse approfondie de la mise en récit du personnage Jésus dans les Actes était nécessaire. Le premier chapitre de cette thèse introduit le sujet, l’état de la question et deux approches méthodologiques empruntées aux experts de la caractérisation narrative. Au chapitre deux, après avoir introduit la difficulté d’identification du personnage qui se trouve derrière le titre Seigneur des Actes, le cadre épistémologique d’Elizabeth Struthers Malbon permet d’observer le comment en classant toutes les péricopes qui participent à la rhétorique de la caractérisation christologique en cinq catégories : (1) la christologie représentée qui montre ce que Jésus fait, (2) la christologie détournée qui permet d’entendre ce que Jésus dit en réponse aux autres personnages, (3) la christologie projetée qui laisse entendre ce que les autres personnages ou le narrateur disent à Jésus et à son sujet, (4) la christologie réfléchie qui montre ce que les autres personnages font en reflétant ce que Jésus a dit et (5) la christologie reflétée qui montre ce que les autres personnages font en reflétant ce que Jésus a fait. Ensuite, avec le chapitre trois, l’approche de John Darr donne à comprendre le pourquoi de la caractérisation par l’observation de quatre activités cognitives du lecteur : (1) l’anticipation et la rétrospection, (2) la recherche de cohérence, (3) l’identification et/ou l’implication et (4) la défamiliarisation. Enfin, au chapitre quatre, les résultats des deux méthodes sont comparés pour proposer une solution au cas de l’ouverture paradoxale des Actes. D’abord les différentes observations de la thèse montrent que le personnage Jésus n’est pas si absent du récit; puis la rhétorique narrative de la caractérisation conduit le lecteur à comprendre que c’est essentiellement au travers des personnages du récit que Jésus est présent en actes et en paroles.
Though Luke’s theology of resurrection is widely studied in the Book of Acts, Jesus is never seen as its main character, unlike the apostles, the Holy Spirit or God. However, the first verse of Acts suggests that the Jesus character will continue to do and teach what he began in the Gospel, even if soon after the opening, he leaves the scene. To resolve this paradox, a thorough analysis of Jesus characterization in Acts is needed. The first chapter of this dissertation introduces the subject, what has already been said, and two narrative scholars’ methodologies selected for this study. In chapter two, the difficult identification of the Lord of Acts is discussed. Then, the epistemological framework of Elizabeth Struthers Malbon is considered. It shows how characterization works, by ranking all episodes involving Jesus in five groups : (1) enacted Christology : what Jesus does; (2) deflected Christology : what Jesus says in response to other characters; (3) projected Christology : what other characters and the narrator say to and about Jesus; (4) mirroring Christology : what other characters do that mirrors what Jesus says and (5) reflected Christology : what other characters do that mirrors what Jesus does. Chapter three discusses the method of John Darr which helps us to understand the why by observing four cognitive activities of the reader: (1) anticipation and retrospection; (2) consistency-building; (3) identification and (4) defamiliarization. In the conclusion in chapter four, the results of the two systems are compared to resolve the case of the paradoxical opening of Acts. The main conclusion of the different observations of this thesis shows that Jesus is not so absent from the story. Thus the narrative rhetoric of characterization leads the reader to understand that Jesus is mainly present through the characters of the story in acts and words.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Jonathan Bersot
Most scholars agree to view chapter five of Romans as a transition between two main parts of the Epistle: the first part deals with Justification by faith (Ro 1:18-4:25) and the second is about the change from slavery of Sin to life in the Spirit, including an explanation of the function of the Law (chapters 6 to 8). A sound structural analysis reveals then this transition from Justification to Reconciliation. Moreover, it is the function of ―Peace‖ and ―Faith‖ brought out by some narrative observations concerning temporal framework, spatial environment and plot, that can explain the statement ―we have peace with God‖ of Ro 5:1 This Peace with God is therefore a required stage between Justification and Reconciliation
Though Luke’s theology of resurrection is widely studied in the Book of Acts, Jesus is never seen as its main character, unlike the apostles, the Holy Spirit or God. However, the first verse of Acts suggests that the Jesus character will continue to do and teach what he began in the Gospel, even if soon after the opening, he leaves the scene. To resolve this paradox, a thorough analysis of Jesus characterization in Acts is needed. The first chapter of this dissertation introduces the subject, what has already been said, and two narrative scholars’ methodologies selected for this study. In chapter two, the difficult identification of the Lord of Acts is discussed. Then, the epistemological framework of Elizabeth Struthers Malbon is considered. It shows how characterization works, by ranking all episodes involving Jesus in five groups : (1) enacted Christology : what Jesus does; (2) deflected Christology : what Jesus says in response to other characters; (3) projected Christology : what other characters and the narrator say to and about Jesus; (4) mirroring Christology : what other characters do that mirrors what Jesus says and (5) reflected Christology : what other characters do that mirrors what Jesus does. Chapter three discusses the method of John Darr which helps us to understand the why by observing four cognitive activities of the reader: (1) anticipation and retrospection; (2) consistency-building; (3) identification and (4) defamiliarization. In the conclusion in chapter four, the results of the two systems are compared to resolve the case of the paradoxical opening of Acts. The main conclusion of the different observations of this thesis shows that Jesus is not so absent from the story. Thus the narrative rhetoric of characterization leads the reader to understand that Jesus is mainly present through the characters of the story in acts and words.
Most scholars agree to view chapter five of Romans as a transition between two main parts of the Epistle: the first part deals with Justification by faith (Ro 1:18-4:25) and the second is about the change from slavery of Sin to life in the Spirit, including an explanation of the function of the Law (chapters 6 to 8). A sound structural analysis reveals then this transition from Justification to Reconciliation. Moreover, it is the function of ―Peace‖ and ―Faith‖ brought out by some narrative observations concerning temporal framework, spatial environment and plot, that can explain the statement ―we have peace with God‖ of Ro 5:1 This Peace with God is therefore a required stage between Justification and Reconciliation
Though Luke’s theology of resurrection is widely studied in the Book of Acts, Jesus is never seen as its main character, unlike the apostles, the Holy Spirit or God. However, the first verse of Acts suggests that the Jesus character will continue to do and teach what he began in the Gospel, even if soon after the opening, he leaves the scene. To resolve this paradox, a thorough analysis of Jesus characterization in Acts is needed. The first chapter of this dissertation introduces the subject, what has already been said, and two narrative scholars’ methodologies selected for this study. In chapter two, the difficult identification of the Lord of Acts is discussed. Then, the epistemological framework of Elizabeth Struthers Malbon is considered. It shows how characterization works, by ranking all episodes involving Jesus in five groups : (1) enacted Christology : what Jesus does; (2) deflected Christology : what Jesus says in response to other characters; (3) projected Christology : what other characters and the narrator say to and about Jesus; (4) mirroring Christology : what other characters do that mirrors what Jesus says and (5) reflected Christology : what other characters do that mirrors what Jesus does. Chapter three discusses the method of John Darr which helps us to understand the why by observing four cognitive activities of the reader: (1) anticipation and retrospection; (2) consistency-building; (3) identification and (4) defamiliarization. In the conclusion in chapter four, the results of the two systems are compared to resolve the case of the paradoxical opening of Acts. The main conclusion of the different observations of this thesis shows that Jesus is not so absent from the story. Thus the narrative rhetoric of characterization leads the reader to understand that Jesus is mainly present through the characters of the story in acts and words.