Showing papers in "New Testament Studies in 1978"
67 citations
TL;DR: In this article, it is argued that the most natural date, the date indicated by the book itself and confirmed by outside sources, especially by the Roman historians of the early second century Tacitus, Suetonius and Plutarch, is the period immediately following Nero's death in June of 68, that calamitous time known as the Year of the Four Emperors.
Abstract: One of the thorniest questions in New Testament scholarship is the date of the composition of John's Apocalypse. Majority opinion now assigns that exotic book to the last decade of the first century A.D., ὸ , as Irenaeus says. But there are numerous problems with this date, and it is the contention of this study that the most natural date, the date indicated by the book itself and confirmed by outside sources, especially by the Roman historians of the early second century Tacitus, Suetonius and Plutarch is the period immediately following Nero's death in June of 68, that calamitous time known as the Year of the Four Emperors.
53 citations
TL;DR: The most recent attack on this diagnosis of the situation at Corinth comes from E. Earle Ellis as discussed by the authors, who argues, firstly, that the error in I Cor. 4. xv ‘offers doubtful support for an eschatological interpretation of I Cor 4. 8’, and secondly, that it is unlikely that Paul would criticize the Corinthians for appropriating an Eschatological perspective that he himself has taught.
Abstract: C. K. Barrett, F. F. Bruce and E. Kasemann very briefly state, almost in passing, that difficulties at Corinth arose from an over-realized eschatology. In C. K. Barrett's words, the Corinthians were behaving ‘as if the age to come were already consummated…For them there is no “not yet” to qualify the “already” of realized eschatology.’ This claim, however, needs to be argued more closely, and objections to it considered, since it remains a matter of controversy. The most recent attack on this diagnosis of the situation at Corinth comes from E. Earle Ellis. He argues, firstly, that the error in I Cor. xv ‘offers doubtful support for an eschatological interpretation of I Cor. 4. 8’, and secondly, that it is unlikely that Paul would criticize the Corinthians ‘merely for appropriating an eschatological perspective that he himself has taught’.
49 citations
27 citations
TL;DR: In the story of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple there are un-mistakable tensions as discussed by the authors : the surprising intelligence of the young Jesus (47), his awareness that God, as his real Father, has claims upon him, to which his parents have to take second place (49).
Abstract: Within the story of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple there are un-mistakable tensions. Two themes compete for the attention of the reader: on the one hand, the surprising intelligence of the young Jesus (47); on the other hand, his awareness that God, as his real Father, has claims upon him, to which his parents have to take second place (49). Luke could have given Jesus' statement on his obligations to his Father without describing the way in which he astonished the learned men in the temple. Alternatively, he could have brought out the intelligence of the child Jesus without quoting the words of 49, which seem to disparage his parents. One can see a relation-ship between the two themes, though it is not given in the narrative itself. The interpretation of the pericope stands or falls on the elucidation of the relationship between the two elements of the episode.
22 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigate the use of Ps. cx. 1 in relation to the development of Christological thought and examine the function and significance of its motifs at various points within a complex variety of NT christological traditions.
Abstract: No other passage of scripture recurs so frequently in allusion or quotation in the christological expressions of NT times as Ps. cx. I. In this expression we stand in continuity with christological thought from the very early beginnings of its development. The purpose of the following study is to investigate the use of Ps. cx. 1 in relationship to this development, and to examine the function and significance of its motifs at various points within the complex variety of NT christological traditions.
14 citations
13 citations
11 citations
TL;DR: The Church drew no distinction between utterances by Christian prophets (ascribed to the ascended Christ) and the sayings of Jesus in the tradition, for the reason that even the dominical sayings in the Bible were not the pronouncements of a past authority, but sayings from the risen Lord, who is always a contemporary for the Church as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The Church drew no distinction between such utterances by Christian prophets (ascribed to the ascended Christ) and the sayings of Jesus in the tradition, for the reason that even the dominical sayings in the tradition were not the pronouncements of a past authority, but sayings of the risen Lord, who is always a contemporary for the Church.
8 citations
8 citations
TL;DR: The Gedenken an diese beiden grosen Gelehrten ware gewis der gegebene Anlas, in dem Eroffnungsvortrag unserer diesjahrigen Konferenz ihr fur unsere Wissenschaft bahnbrechendes Werk angemessen zu wurdigen.
Abstract: Vor reichlich 50 Jahren erschien M. Dibelius' ‘Formgeschichte des Evangeliums’ und R. Bultmanns ‘Geschichte der synopt. Tradition’. Das Gedenken an diese beiden grosen Gelehrten ware gewis der gegebene Anlas, in dem Eroffnungsvortrag unserer diesjahrigen Konferenz ihr fur unsere Wissenschaft bahnbrechendes Werk angemessen zu wurdigen. Doch habe ich es vorgezogen, nicht einen Gedenk-und schon gar nicht einen Jubilaumsvortrag zu halten, sondern mochte versuchen, auf dem von den Altmeistern der Formgeschichte (FG) offen gelassenen und nur ansatzweise bestellten Feld der sogenannten Redaktionsgeschichte einige Schritte weiterzugehen.
TL;DR: The use of the formula Memra (utterance, word) of ahweh in the first chapter of Genesis in place of the �lohim of the Massoretic Text, a feature encountered otherwise only in the Fragmentary Targum (FT), has led to renewed scholarly interest in the relationship of Memra to St John's Logos, so much so that A. Dez Macho, McNamara, and Domingo Muoz as mentioned in this paper are all prepared to consider Memra a key concept in any discussion of the prologue of St John
Abstract: It is now over twenty years since Alejandro Dez Macho announced his discovery of a complete text of the Palestinian Targum contained in the Codex Neofiti I of the Vatican Library. Even before the first volume of the editio princeps was published, the importance of Neofiti 1(N) and its marginal and interlinear glosses (Ngl) was apparent not only to specialists in the Aramaic language, Old Testament studies, and Jewish Literature of the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic times, but also to New Testament scholars. A particular feature of N which was bound to attract attention sooner or later is its frequent use of the formula Memra (utterance, word) of ahweh in the first chapter of Genesis in place of the Ἐlohim of the Massoretic Text, a feature encountered otherwise only in the Fragmentary Targum (FT). As we shall see presently, the exact significance of the term Memra was once a matter for keen scholarly debate, some asserting that it represented an entity separate from God, an intermediary between God and the created order, others roundly denying that it was any such thing, and regarding it only as a reverent means of avoiding pronunciation of the Holy and Ineffable Name. For reasons shortly to be described it was the latter opinion which finally prevailed and which is now generally accepted as established fact; but in the days before the scholarly debate on Memra was concluded it had been quite common for New Testament scholars to argue that, as an hypostasis and intermediary between God and the world, Memra had formed either the single antecedent, or one of the antecedents, to the Logos of the prologue of St John's Gospel. The presence of Memra in the text of N to Gen. i, and its frequent appearance in the Ngl, has led to renewed scholarly interest in the relationship of Memra to St John's Logos, so much so that A. Dez Macho, McNamara, and Domingo Muoz are all prepared to consider Memra a key concept in any discussion of St John's prologue. With the results of previous scholarship in mind, and in the light of new evidence, it would appear that the time is now right for a critical evaluation of these recent claims.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose an approach to the interpretation of the biblische Exegese of Paulus and Jesus in the context of modernen toposforschung.
Abstract: Die Gesetzesinterpretation bei Paulus und Jesus soll durch ein erstes Eingehen auf die Beitrage der modernen Toposforschung gefordert werden. Dieses Vorhaben ruht auf der Voraussetzung, das biblische Exgeten sich nach wie vor den Methoden der literaturwissenschaftlichen Forschung verpflichtet wissen, und das die moderne Toposforschung fur die Exegese von besonderem Interesse ist. Dieses Interesse wird allerdings im negativen Sinn dadurch bestimmt, das im Fall der Gesetzesinterpretation bei Paulus oder Jesus methodisch immer noch weitgehend einseitig, wenn nicht gar ausschlieslich historisch oder theologisch vorgegangen wird. Im positiven Sinn aber wird das Interesse an der modernen Toposforschung dadurch bestimmt, das man in der literaturwissenschaftlichen Arbeit, zu der ja die biblische Exegese gehort, neuerdings von ‘radikalen Veranderungen’ spricht, die angeblich notwendig sind angesichts der Forderung, das in dieser Arbeit ‘nach den Regeln eines expliziten Argumentationsschemas argumentiert… und uber den Status der verwendeten Daten, Begrundungen, Stutzungshypothesen etc. entschieden und die empirische Qualitat von argumentativen Ergebnissen diskutiert werden soll’.2 Beim Eingehen auf diese Forderung verdient der rhetorische Topos besondere Beachtung.
TL;DR: In this article, Bultmann's article "Zur Auslegung von Galater 2, 15, 18, 15−18" was published and discussed in the Ernst Wolf Festschrift.
Abstract: Twenty-five years have now passed since R. Bultmann published his brief but stimulating study ‘Zur Auslegung von Galater 2, 15–18’ in the Ernst Wolf Festschrift. According to Bultmann v. 17ab is neither a rhetorical question nor an objection deriving from Paul's opponents; rather, it is an absurdity formulated by Paul himself and designed to function ‘in seiner gegen den Standpunkt des Petrus gerichteten Argumentation’. This absurdity would then be rejected by means of the μή γένοiτο of v. 17c. In Bultmann's opinion v. 17ab is a conditional period contrary to fact; the illative particle άρα is to be preferred to the interrogative άρα. The expression χρiστς άμαρτιαςδiάκονος may be paraphrased as follows: Christ is a minister ‘derer, die (immer noch, wie bisher) in ihren Sunden stecken; er hat sie nicht von der Sunde befreit’. It is to such an absurd conclusion, affirms Paul, that the opponents' goal of re-establishing the abrogated Law must lead. These and further aspects of Bultmann's article have been dealt with – critically in some instances – by several authors and so there is no need for us to discuss them again here.
TL;DR: The debate on the Synoptic Problem is worthy of thorough analysis and evaluation as mentioned in this paper, and it is worth noting that Baur answered Hilgenfeld in his Das Markuseaangeliwn, Tubingen, 1851 and the two carried on the debate for years in the Theologische Jahrbucher.
Abstract: William R. Farmer's history of the debate on the Synoptic Problem contains the following footnote:Baur answered Hilgenfeld in his Das Markuseaangeliwn, Tubingen, 1851, and the two carried on the debate for years in the Theologische Jahrbucher. This debate is worthy of thorough analysisand evaluation.When I was invited to read a paper at this year's meeting at Tubingen with the understanding that the paper should deal if possible with some aspect of the work of the Tubingen school of the mid-nineteenth century, this seemed to be an appropriate occasion to take up Professor Farmer's challenge.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the problem of Uberlieferung der Schriftzitate in the patristischen literatur, e.g. in the case of Justin (J) and Pseudoklemens (PsKl).
Abstract: Eines der schwierigsten Probleme der Uberlieferung der Schriftzitate in der patristischen Literatur stellt sich durch die Beobachtung, das Justin (J) und Pseudoklemens (PsKl) in nicht wenigen ‘Textmischungen’, d. h. Verbindungen von Zitattexten insbesondere aus den synoptischen Evangelien, zumindest teilweise miteinander ubereinstimmen. Zwar handelt es sich nur um sechzehn vergleichbare Zitate, so das angesichts der grosen Zahl von alttestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schriftbelegen bei J und PsKl man fragen konnte, ob dieses Phanomen in der Forschung nicht uberschatzt worden ist. Jedoch erhalt es ein besonderes Gewicht, wenn man den nach W. Sanday, W. Bousset, M. v. Engelhardt und E. Lippelt durch A. J. Bellinzoni gefuhrten Nachweis fur gelungen ansieht, wonach Justin neben den synoptischen Evangelien und anderen fruhchristlichen Uberlieferungen in seinen Zitaten eine schriftliche nachsynoptische Evangelienharmonie benutzte. Von hier aus ist dann der Schlus nahegelegt, das die Justin-Zitate zusammen mit den Paralleltexten bei spateren Kirchenvatern eine Vorstufe oder gar die Grundlage fur Tatians Diatessaron darstellen. Allerdings hangt fur die Bildung eines begrundeten Urteils viel davon ab, das nicht nur Justins Belege, sondern auch die Parallelen in der patristischen Uberlieferung eingehend beachtet werden. Dies ist in Bellinzonis breit angelegter Arbeit in Hinsicht auf PsKl nur eingeschrankt der Fall. Daher fullt die bei der Harvard University in Cambridge/Mass. eingereichte, kurzlich veroffentlichte Dissertation von L. L. Kline eine Lucke, indem sie die These Bellinzonis durch Untersuchung der Schriftzitate in den Pseudoklementinen zu bestatigensucht. Darf man sagen, das die Evangelienharmonie-Hypothese nunmehr uber ein solides Fundament verfugt, von dem die kunftige Forschung ausgehen kann? Diese Frage soll im folgenden kritisch untersucht und beantwortet werden.
TL;DR: Aufgaben des Urchristentums bestand darin, dem Leiden und gewaltsamen Tode Jesu von Gott her einen Sinn abzugewinnen.
Abstract: Eine der drngendsten Aufgaben des Urchristentums bestand darin, dem Leiden und gewaltsamen Tode Jesu von Gott her einen Sinn abzugewinnen. Da Jesus, der Sohn Gottes und Messias, leiden mute, konnte dem Willen Gottes nicht zuwiderlaufen, soundern mute im Wort der Schrift des Alten Testaments bereits verankert sein. So wurden im Laufe der Zeit nicht nur Gesetz und Propheten (so etwa das vierte Gottesknechtslied Jes lii. 13 liii. 12), sondern auch die Psalmen dazu herangezogen, das Leiden des gerechten Gottesknechtes Jesus als von Gott gewollt verstndlich zu machen (vgl. Lk. xxiv. 27 mit xxiv. 44, wo die Psalmen ausdrcklich neben Gesetz und Propheten genannt werden). Eine besondere Bedeutung fiel dabei schon frh, d. h. schon im markinischen, wenn nicht vormarkinischen Passionsbericht, den Psalmen lxix (lxviii) und xxii (xxi) fr die theologische Deutung des Leidens Jesu zu. Doch gab es daneben auch andere Psalmen, in denen die Urkirche bereits prophetisch das Wort des leidenden Jesus vernahm. Zu ihnen zhlt Ps xlii (xli): Wie der Hirsch drstet nach Wasserquellen, zu dem nach der Auskunft der Alttestamentler Ps xliii (xlii) ursprnglich mit dazugehrte. Zusammen ergeben beide Psalmen drei Strophen von je sechs bzw. fnf Versen, die jeweils durch einen gleichlautenden Kehrvers abgeschlossen werden, dessen Anfang Eingang in die markinische Getsemaniperikope gefunden hat: ἵ , ( xli. 6, 12; xlii. 5) ἐ ἡ (Mk xiv. 34).
TL;DR: In this article, the present-day situation of theology and the Church of the Lutheran Missouri Synod affirms: ‘We reject this erroneous doctrine as horrible and blasphemous, since it flatly contradicts Christ and His holy apostles, sets up men as judges over the Word of God, and thus overthrows the foundation of the Christian church and its faith.
Abstract: Four years ago Paul Ricoeur gave a lecture here in Tubingen on ‘Philosophische und theologische Hermeneutik’,and advised us theologians in particular to give thought to our current practice and teaching in regard to the understanding of the biblical text. A real understanding of texts means, according to Ricoeur ‘to understand oneself in the light of the text. It does not mean imposing upon the text one's own limited capacity for comprehension, but exposing oneself to the text…It is not the (understanding) subject who forms…understanding, but … the self is formed by the “subject matter” of the text’ If we follow Ricoeur and attempt to practise such a form of understanding of the biblical text, then in the present-day situation of theology and church we fall all too quickly into a dilemma. The splendid tradition of modern biblical criticism, founded in Tubingen above all by F. C. Baur, seems to conflict with Ricoeur's proposal. How are we, trained and dedicated as we are to the historical and critical investigation and analysis of the biblical texts, to return again to that readiness and capacity for exposing ourselves to the texts and understanding ourselves anew in the light of them, i.e. before the tribunal of the Bible? Would that not mean precisely to abandon the scientific ethos to which we have so long considered ourselves bound? It is a searching question and, as we well know, a source of distress to many. This distress is intensified when today we hear not a few Christians pronounce a decisive ‘No!’ to all scientific biblical criticism. For them ‘understanding oneself in the light of the text’ of the Bible is only possible when all the historical insights we possess in regard to the Bible have first been rejected. A study document of the Lutheran Missouri Synod affirms: ‘We reject the doctrine, which under the name of science has gained wide popularity in the church of our day, that Holy Scripture is not in all its parts the Word of God, but in part the word of man and hence does, or at least might, contain error. We reject this erroneous doctrine as horrible and blasphemous, since it flatly contradicts Christ and His holy apostles, sets up men as judges over the Word of God, and thus overthrows the foundation of the Christian church and its faith.’
TL;DR: In this article, a mot, quoique trs utilis en linguistique, n'a pas encore reu dans ce domaine les conditions d'une dfinition precise, i.e., the reconnaissance de l'objet dcrire comme une unit; d'autre part, a l'intrieur de cette unit, l'existence d'un autre unit, beaucoup plus petite, mais qui, associe un certain nombre de fois a elle-meme
Abstract: Ce mot, quoique trs utilis en linguistique, n'a pas encore reu dans ce domaine les conditions d'une dfinition precise. Dcrire suppose en effet deux donnes prliminaires: d'une part, la reconnaissance de l'objet dcrire comme une unit; d'autre part, a l'intrieur de cette unit, l'existence d'une autre unit, beaucoup plus petite, mais qui, associe un certain nombre de fois a elle-meme, compose la grande unit. La premiere unit, c'est Ia macrostructure; la seconde unit, c'est la microstructure. Dcrire, c'est toujours dcrire une macrostructure; la description d'une macrostructure consiste a partir de la microstructure pour retrouver la macrostructure.