Showing papers in "New Testament Studies in 1979"
••
TL;DR: A. T. Milik's view that the Parables are Christian and date from around A.D. 270 has such enormous implications for our understanding of the development of intertestamental Judaism and of the use of the term ‘Son of Man’ in the gospels that it demands very careful consideration.
Abstract: Amongst the many incidental issues raised by J. T. Milik in his edition of the Aramaic fragments of Enoch from Qumran1 that of the date of the Parables of Enoch is perhaps one of the most important. Although there has never been anything approaching a consensus as to the exact date of this work, I would think it fair to say that many scholars in this century, if not the majority, have taken the view that the Parables are Jewish in origin; many have also argued that they date from before A.D. 70.2 Milik's view that the Parables are Christian and date from around A.D. 270 has such enormous implications for our understanding of the development of intertestamental Judaism and of the use of the term ‘Son of Man’ in the gospels that it demands very careful consideration. It also suggests that the evidence on which the Jewish origin and pre-A.D. 70 dating has been based needs to be re-examined.
42 citations
••
22 citations
••
19 citations
••
TL;DR: The third-day experience of the Third Heaven has been studied extensively in the literature as mentioned in this paper, with a focus on the effects of drugs on Paul's experience of Christ's ascent to the third heaven.
Abstract: II Corinthians xii. 1–1O gives us a glimpse into the life of Paul the visionary and the resurgence of interest in transcendental experiences has brought new attention to Paul's experience of the third heaven. Research into drug-induced experiences sheds no greater light on Paul's account but, as might be expected, relating the episode to ‘charismatic’ experiences has proved more fruitful.
17 citations
••
16 citations
••
Abstract: L'A. traite d'abord de la tradition et de la redaction de 22a, 26, 22b-25 et de leur place dans l'Evangile de Marc. Puis il examine la terminologie se rapportant a la cecite et a la vue, et sa signification pour Marc et son Eglise: la myopie des disciples, devenant parfaite vision lors de leur seconde rencontre avec Jesus (lors de la resurrection) peut s'appliquer aux chretiens de l'Eglise.
15 citations
••
TL;DR: The authors preconise un dialogue entre exegese traditionnelle (historico-critique) and l'exegese structurale, celle-ci lui paraissant a priori specialement bien adaptee a un livre aussi decousu, logiquement, que l'Apocalypse.
Abstract: L'A. preconise un dialogue entre exegese traditionnelle (historico-critique) et l'exegese structurale, celle-ci lui paraissant a priori specialement bien adaptee a un livre aussi decousu, logiquement, que l'Apocalypse. Il se refere a des travaux recents (J. Calloud, J. Delorme, J.-P. Duplantier) sur ce texte johannique. En fin de compte, le parti pris des structuralistes d'ignorer les acquis de la critique litteraire est insoutenable et nuit a l'ensemble de leurs resultats, dont certains sont pourtant positifs. Une synthese entre les deux types d'exegese permet, selon l'A., de toucher du doigt le but ultime de l'auteur de l'Apocalypse: s'il a recouru a des categories temporelles ou meme chronologiques avec tant de perseverance pour parler toujours a nouveau de la meme periode actuelle, c'est qu'il entend donner une revelation du temps present, determine par la victoire du Christ.
13 citations
••
TL;DR: The authors examined the NT picture of the Pharisees, and in practice this means the Gospel picture, for elsewhere they are named once only, in Phil. iii.d. 5, and they showed that this picture is strange and by no means uniform.
Abstract: The reasonably clear picture of the Pharisees at the time of Jesus which we thought we had is now looking decidedly unclear. J. Bowker's work questions whether the Pharisees were the predecessors of the Rabbis, and J. Neusner's massive researches have shown how precarious are statements about the Pharisees before A.d. 70 when once critical techniques long used in Gospel criticism are employed on Rabbinic sources. It therefore seems appropriate to examine afresh the NT picture of the Pharisees, and in practice this means the Gospel picture, for elsewhere they are named once only, in Phil. iii. 5. I shall hope to show that this picture is strange and by no means uniform. We may conveniently attack the problem through Luke-Acts, partly because of the time-span involved, and partly because of the often noticed fact that Luke is rather less hostile to the Pharisees than the other evangelists are.
12 citations
••
TL;DR: In II Cor. ii. iii. 9, 12, 12 betont Paulus den Korinthern gegenuber, das er von ihnen bisher keine finanzielle Unterstutzung angenommen habe und dieses Verhalten beizubehalten gedenke as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: II Cor. ii. 9, 12 betont Paulus den Korinthern gegenuber, das er von ihnen bisher keine finanzielle Unterstutzung angenommen habe und dieses Verhalten beizubehalten gedenke. Dies ist eine merkwurdige Absicht, zumal er doch sonst durchaus bereit war, Unterstutzung anzunehmen, ja sic geradezu erwartete (vgl. Phil. 4. 10 if.). Der Frage nach dem Verhalten des Paulus bezuglich der Annahme bzw. Ablehnung von Unterstutzung durch seine Gemeinden soil im folgenden nachgegangen werden.
11 citations
••
••
TL;DR: The authors argued that the author of the Epistle to the Colossians took his great Christological statements in i. 9−23 and ii. 6−15 direct from Jewish sources.
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to argue that the author of the Epistle to the Colossians took his great Christological statements in i. 9–23 and ii. 6–15 direct from Jewish sources. I am denying on the one hand the thesis that he was writing as a creative theologian who drew from time to time on a store of theological ideas which he made his own, and on the other hand the thesis that he was citing ‘hymns’ that were already complete entities. He neither created a Christology nor cited one or two commonly agreed pieces of liturgy; rather, he put together a great number of distinct but related statements which already existed in his sacred traditional sources.
••
TL;DR: The relationship of the assertions made about tongues and prophecy in υ. 22 to the quotation of Isa. xxviii. 20−25 has long posed several cruces interpretationis for commentators as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: I Corinthians xiv. 20–25 has long posed several cruces interpretationis for commentators. The basic problems concern the relationship of the assertions made about tongues and prophecy in υ. 22 to the quotation of Isa. xxviii. 11–12 in υ. 21 and to the illustrations concerning tongues and prophecy in υυ. 23–5. As to the quotation, J. Ruef remarks that most commentators admit to the difficulty of seeing how it substantiates Paul's conclusion that tongues are meant as a sign for the unbeliever. Concerning the illustrations, both J. Hering and J. P. M. Sweet note that in the light of the assertions we would expect them to be the reverse of what they are. While tongues are asserted to be meant as a sign for unbelievers and prophecy for believers, the illustrations depict the negative effect of tongues upon unbelievers and the positive effect of prophecy not on believers but upon unbelievers. The second assertion (υ. 22b) in particular contradicts the second illustration (υυ. 24–5) in that it clearly states that ‘prophecy is meant as a sign not for unbelievers but for believers’. This is so if σημeĩον is taken in a positive sense. If, on the other hand, it is taken in a negative sense, the logical relation of this second illustration to the second assertion becomes ambiguous.
••
TL;DR: In this article, ausdrucken "Gesetz des Glaubens" (Rom. 3. 27) und "das Gesetz des Geistes des Lebens"(Rom. 8. 2) are gebraucht.
Abstract: Was meint Paulus mit den Ausdrucken ‘Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Rom. 3. 27) und ‘das Gesetz des Geistes des Lebens’ (Rom. 8. 2)? Lange Zeit waren die Interpreten fast einmutig: Paulus spielt mit Worten und gebraucht den Terminus νόμος in einem allgemeinen, ubertragenen bzw. uneigentlichen Sinne. Das Wort bezeichnet an beiden Stellen nicht die alttestamentliche Torah, sondern es ist etwa mit ‘Regel’, ‘Ordnung’, ‘Norm’, ‘System’ oder ‘ ‘Prinzip’ wiederzugeben. Das sind die hauptsachlichen Ubersetzungsvor-schlage zu 3. 27. Zu 8. 2 wird ein noch weiteres Spektrum geboten. Auser den schon genannten werden u. a. ‘Herrschaft’, ‘Religion’, ‘Kraft’, ‘Autoritat’, ‘Aone’, ‘Sphare’, ‘regime’ und ‘pattern’ vorgeschlagen. An 3. 27 geben auch einige moderne englische Bibelausgaben νόμος mit ‘principle’ wieder ( RSV, NEB ); an 8. 2 sind die Ubersetzungen mehr reserviert.
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the situation in Leiden, in which sich die Briefempfanger befinden, wird oft von i.5.9 ausgegangen: ‘Dem widersteht fest im Glauben in dem Wissen, das dieselbe Art von Leiden wie in aller Welt sich an eurer Bruderschaft vollzieht.
Abstract: Zur Erhellung der Situation, in der sich die Briefempfanger befinden, wird oft von i. Petr. 5. 9 ausgegangen: ‘Dem widersteht fest im Glauben in dem Wissen, das dieselbe Art von Leiden wie in aller Welt sich an eurer Bruderschaft vollzieht’. Was bedeutet παθήματα? 1st an eine weltweite Verfolgung zu denken, und mussen also die Leiden von 5. 9 im Blick auf die Johannes offenbarung oder das bekannte Reskript Trajans an Plinius gedeutet werden, wenn auch aus diesen Zeugnissen wohl Verfolgung, aber nicht ohne weiteres im Masstab des Mittelmeerraumes hervorgeht? Gegen eine rasche Kontexter weiterung ist einzuwenden, das der erhellendste Kontext von i. Petr.5.9 der i. Petrusbrief selbst ist. Nun kann παθήματα sehr vieles bedeuten, und es ist daher zu fragen, weiche Konkretionen de Brief selbst anbietet und auf diese Weise jenen Ausdruck inhaitlich naher bestimmt. Wir stosen auf folgende Angaben:λυπηθέντeς έν πeιρασμοĩς,betrubt in mannigfachen Anfechtungen, i. 6 (vgl. 4. 12);καταλαλισθαι ς κακοποιοί,schlecht gemacht werden als Ubeltater, 2. 12;πα043Eσχολαόμeνοι (72)nach dem Zusammenhang Bestrafung des Sklaven, 2. 20;πτόησις, die Einschuchterung, 3. 6;ϕόβος ατν,der von den Gegnern ausgehende Schrecken bzw. Terror, 3. 14;βλασϕημeĩσθαι, verlastert werden, 4. 5;πύρωσις Drangsalshitze, 4. 12;
••
TL;DR: This paper examined the evidence for both positions and concluded with a discussion of pseudonymity in the ancient world and concluded that the issue of authorship is evidently by no means settled, but concluded that pseudonymity is still open.
Abstract: Since World War II a considerable number of New Testament scholars (many of them German) have come to the conclusion that Paul did not write II Thessalonians. Among these the names of Rudolf Bultmann, Gunther Bornkamm, Willi Marxsen, and Helmut Koester come to mind. What is curious is that to date no single commentary has appeared in any major European language which interprets II Thessalonians as pseudonymous. C. Masson in the introduction to his commentary decides against Pauline authorship, but in the commentary itself interprets as though Paul were the author – an anomaly perhaps related to his view of pseudonymity. The forth-coming commentaries of Marxsen and Koester will therefore provide scholars with the first examples of exegesis of the letter as non-Pauline. Since the issue of authorship is evidently by no means settled, the present article examines the evidence for both positions and concludes with a discussion of pseudonymity in the ancient world.
••
TL;DR: Aged Griesbach turns in his grave, refusing to stay defeated as mentioned in this paper, and the enemy has returned to the field in the persons of Dom Butler of England and W. R. Farmer of the United States, who has succeeded in mustering a force of young and dynamic researchers.
Abstract: Twenty years ago we could assume that the Two-Source theory, as the decisive solution to the synoptic problem, had won the day. An unassailable dogma in Germany, on the front lines in Louvain, well positioned in England and the United States, it had little to fear from the last spasms of its opponents, and could view them as the final stand of the rearguard. But times have changed. Aged Griesbach turns in his grave, refusing to stay defeated. After two centuries he has returned to the field in the persons of Dom Butler of England and, especially, of W. R. Farmer of the United States, who has succeeded in mustering a force of young and dynamic researchers. Even in Germany the enemy has gained a foothold. Already in 1971 A. Fuchs saw that a large number of the Matthew/Luke agreements against Mark could not be explained in terms of the Two-Source theory. More recently, H. H. Stoldt has affirmed his preference for the Griesbach theory.
••
TL;DR: In the case of the early chapters of Acts, Harnack may be taken as typical of the older approach, which was confident of being able to practise source-analysis and to assign material by chapter and verse to a 'Jerusalem-Caesarea source' and an 'Antioch source' as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Since it is generally agreed that the author of Luke–Acts was not an eye-witness of the life of Jesus or of the beginnings of the Christian church, the question of the sources he employed has always loomed large in critical studies of his work2 In the case of the early chapters of Acts, Harnack may be taken as typical of the older approach, which was confident of being able to practise source-analysis and to assign material by chapter and verse to a ‘Jerusalem–Caesarea source’ and an ‘Antioch source’3 Especially since the studies of Martin Dibelius, there has been a tendency on the part of many scholars to ascribe much more to the creative hand of Luke himself, above all in the speeches of Acts, which are held to have been freely composed by Luke in the manner of Greek and Roman historians4
••
Abstract: A systematic investigation is called for into Luke xv. 3–10. No study in depth has been given to it, and this is sad since it has some relationship to Matt. xii. 11–12, and to the Johannine account of the so-called Cleansing of the Temple, which last, though it is based on a narrative resembling Mark's, contains many unexplained elements. It may be granted that Luke keeps before his mind the general pattern of Deuteronomy, and that we have here Jesus' proclamation of material transcending Moses'. But a true placing of the whole against the background of scripture and the practice of the times has not been attempted, and when this is done some astonishing things emerge, for which readers of the present author's contributions will not be entirely unprepared.
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors define a Voraussetzetzung ausdrucklich zu formulieren, weil the Sprach-und Literaturwissenschaft heute mittels eines Stratifikationsmodells die verschiedenen Ebenen eines sprachlichen Gebildes deutlicher unterscheidet, and so einer synchronen Beschreibung eines Textes einen genaueren und vor allem geordneteren und nach
Abstract: Unsere Uberlegungen gehen von der Voraussetzung aus, das vor der Untersuchung der Diachronie eines Textes, vor dem Versuch also einen Text aus seinem geschichtlichen Werden zu verstehen, eine Beschreibung des Textes in seiner Synchronie zu erfolgen hat. Diese Voraussetzung wurde eigentlich bei der Textbehandlung immer schon gemacht, wenigstens da, wo man einen eher philologischen, der konkreten sprachlichen Gestalt des Textes zugewandten Schritt von einer den Bezug des Textes zur Geschichte im weitesten Sinn untersuchenden Perspektive unterschied. Dennoch hat es Sinn, diese Voraussetzung ausdrucklich zu formulieren, weil die Sprach-und Literaturwissenschaft heute mittels eines Stratifikationsmodells die verschiedenen Ebenen eines sprachlichen Gebildes deutlicher unterscheidet, und so einer synchronen Beschreibung eines Textes einen genaueren und vor allem geordneteren und nachprufbaren Weg weist, als ihn die altere Forschung ging. Weil sie haufig, von heute aus gesehen vorschnell von der Inhaltsebene eines Textes ausging, kam sie zu Textgliederungen, innerhalb derer die einzelnen Elemente in Spannung zueinander standen, und wertete diese Spannungen, in die Diachronie ubergehend, als Anzeichen literar-kritischer Einschnitte bzw. traditionsgeschichtlicher Verwerfungen, und zwar auch in Fallen, wo eine eingehendere, die verschiedenen sprachlichen Ebenen berucksichtigende Beschreibung eines Textes in seiner Synchronie diese Spannungen als nichtexistent nachweisen kann.
••
TL;DR: The parable of the scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven in υ. 52 was probably intended by Matthew to be regarded as a parable, although it has often not been recognized as such.
Abstract: The parable of the scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven Most commentators who have attempted to analyse the structure of Matthew xiii have argued that in this chapter the evangelist has deliberately brought together seven parables,1 seven being one of his favourite numbers. This view, however, deserves to be questioned, since, although it has often not been recognized as such, the saying about the scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven in υ. 52 was probably intended by Matthew to be regarded as a parable. He thus has eight parables, not seven.2
••
TL;DR: In this paper, a double question is posed: (i) Le participe κατοπτριℑoμeνοι signifie-t-il ‘refletant (comme un miroir) la gloire du Seigneur’ ou ‘contemplant(comme) dans unmiroir the gloire de Dieu ou a celle de son image (le Christ d'apres II Cor. 4. 4 et 6)?
Abstract: Le verset 3. 18 de la Seconde Epitre aux Corinthiens a ete et est encore l'objet de beaucoup de controverses. Rappelons-en le libelle en grec, constant dans toutes les editions critiques modernes du Nouveau Testament, Tischendorf, Westcott–Hort, Nestle, Merk, Aland: ‘Ημeιδς δ πντeς νακeκαλυμμνᾠ προσώπᾠ τν δoξαν Κυρiου κατοπτριℑoμeοι τν αὐτήν eἰκoνα μeταμορ-φοὑμeθα πo δoξης eἰς δoξαν καθπeρ πo Κυρiου πνeὑματος. Dans ce verset, l'interpretation de deux details en particulier a oppose, depuis le debut de ce siecle, les exegetes qui, comme l'a mis recemment en evidence la savante synthese de J. F. Collange, se sont pose une double question: (i) Le participe κατοπτριℑoμeνοι signifie-t-il ‘refletant (comme un miroir) la gloire du Seigneur’ ou ‘contemplant (comme) dans un miroir la gloire du Seigneur’? (2) La locution τήν αὐτν eἰκoνα vise-t-elle notre assimilation a la gloire de Dieu ou a celle de son image (le Christ d'apres II Cor. 4. 4 et 6)?
••
••
••
TL;DR: In this article, a paraphrase of the logion de Jesus correspondant to the paraphrase faite par Paul des paroles eucharistiques in ICorinthiens 11: 27ss.
Abstract: L'A. developpe la these suivante: Jean12: 44-50 cite un logion traditionnel d'une maniere qui correspond a la citation par Paul de la tradition eucharistique en I Corinthiens 11: 23ss. Jean12: 46-50 est une paraphrase du logion de Jesus correspondant a la paraphrase faite par Paul des paroles eucharistiques en ICorinthiens 11: 27ss. et en 10: 16-17, 21.