Showing papers in "New Testament Studies in 1983"
TL;DR: The form-critical method has been used in the study of the New Testament in the recent decades of the present century as mentioned in this paper, and it has been acknowledged even in many quarters where at first it might have been vociferously rejected.
Abstract: Much of the study of the New Testament in the recent decades of the present century has emphasized that we encounter in scripture, not so much a record of the data on which opinion about Jesus and belief in him are grounded, as the forms which these traditions and affirmations have assumed in their use, transmission and development within the early church. From the first impact of the form-critical method, this emphasis has been made more and more until its validity has been acknowledged even in many quarters where at first it might have been vociferously rejected.
47 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the coexistence in Paul's letters of the two themes: justified by faith, judged by works, and that we will be judged by our works.
Abstract: Over the centuries the doctrine of justification by faith, itself first forged in controversy, has given rise to many controversies. One of these has to do with the coexistence in Paul's letters of the two themes: justified by faith, judged by works. Throughout Galatians and Romans Paul maintains that we are justified by faith, yet in these same letters, and indeed in all the major letters commonly acknowledged as Pauline, he affirms that we will be judged by our works.
40 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the raison precise de ces exemples (typoi) donnes aux vv. 6-11 and quels sont les precedes de lecture ici utilises a la suite de la synagogue.
Abstract: L'objet de ces lignes porte sur les examples du desert dont il est question dans 1 Co. 10. 6–11. Le but est de saisir la raison de cette etonnante presentation paulinienne, apparemment de type midrashique. Nous considererons d'abord ces versets en eux-memes, isoles arbitrairement de l'ensemble porteur, avant de preciser leur fonction au sein du chapitre ou ils se situent. Telles seront les questions essentielles: 1) Quelle est la raison precise de ces exemples (typoi) donnes aux vv. 6–11 et quels sont les precedes de lecture ici utilises a la suite de la synagogue? 2) Ensuite, quel est le lien et la coherence de ces elements, de prime abord disparates, dans le cadre du ch. 10?
21 citations
TL;DR: The history of the interpretation of Lk. 23.27-31 has been surveyed in this article, where the authors cite some of the major exegetical interpretations of this passage.
Abstract: The history of the interpretation of Lk. 23. 27–31 indicates that the address of Jesus to the Daughters of Jerusalem has been understood in ways which are totally contradictory and that the methodological approaches to its interpretation have not adequately indicated the direction of a surer exegesis. In lieu of a chronological survey of the interpretation of Lk. 23. 27–31, let me cite some of the major exegetical interpretations of this passage.
13 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the apocryphon de Jacques de Nag Hammadi is used as a source for the recherche des niveaux primitifs des traditions sur Jesus.
Abstract: L'A. se propose de montrer qu'un "apocryphe" tel que l'Apocryphon de Jacques de Nag Hammadi est une source legitime et valable pour la recherche des niveaux primitifs des traditions sur Jesus. Dans cette optique, il examine differents passages de cet apocryphe. 1 Un avertissement concernant le Royaume des cieux: NHC I, 2, 13. 17-19. 2 La parabole de l'epi: NHC I, 2, 12. 22-31. 3 La parabole de la feuille de palmier qui fane: NHC I, 2, 7. 22-35. 4 Un logion sur le Royaume: NHC I, 2, 2. 29-33.
9 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, Burchard assumes that Joseph and Aseneth was composed for Jews, both born and naturalized, including perhaps those "god-fearing" sympathizers who thought and lived Jewish, but never crossed the line formally and were seldom pressed to do so.
Abstract: One conclusion concerning Joseph and Aseneth on which recent scholarly studies are in agreement is that the literary model for this fascinating work is the hellenistic romance. In both European and American analyses that assumption is evident. But since the intention of a romance has not been agreed upon - either by literary historians in general or by biblical scholars assessing the aims of the writer of Joseph and Aseneth – the import of this judgment about the literary paradigm for our work varies widely. Burchard assumes ‘that Joseph and Aseneth was composed for Jews, both born and naturalized, including perhaps those “god-fearing” sympathizers who thought and lived Jewish, but never crossed the line formally and were seldom pressed to do so. The document reminds not only the Jews of the privileges they always enjoyed, but the converts of what they, or their forefathers, gained by crossing over to Judaism.’ This position is adopted in opposition to the notion that the work was a missionary tract, aimed at enticing non-Jews to convert.
9 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe the Urchristentum as one of the wichtigsten texts in the history of Christendrum, with a "grund" that is, "Erheblichen Schwierigkeiten belastet".
Abstract: Die Verse Apg. 6.1–7 ‘gehoren zu den wichtigsten Texten fur die Geschichte des Urchristenturns, sind … aber auch von erheblichen Schwierigkeiten belastet’. So urteilte jungst W. Schneemelcher in seinem Buch uber ‘Das Urchristentum’ – mit gutem Grund, wie wir sehen werden.
8 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the delimitation of the pre-Pauline element in Rom. 3.24 and 26 is discussed. But the authors do not consider the original context of the PrePauline elements of the text.
Abstract: This study deals in turn with (a) the delimitation of the pre-Pauline element in Rom. 3. 24–26 as proposed first by Bultmann, then Kasemann, then Lohse; (b) considerations on how to construe the text and on how to delimit and understand its pre-Pauline element, concluding with a new proposal; and (c) the original context of the pre-Pauline element of the text.
8 citations
7 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose an interpretation of the text in Rom 13.1.7 as a Stuck naturlicher Theologie interpretiert werden.
Abstract: Soll im Rahmen einer ‘Politischen Theologie’ nach deren neutestamentlichen Grundlagen gefragt werden, dann ist implizit immer auch nach dem Stellenwert der paulinischen Mahnung zur Unterordnung unter die ubergeordneten Gewalten in Rom 13. 1–7 gefragt. Die Relevanz gerade dieses Textes ist vornehmlich auch durch seine ausgepragte Wirkungsgeschichte mitverursacht. Die Definition der Relation von Gott und weltlicher Obrigkeit mit Hilfe einer Verbindung profaner und theologischer Topoi last den Text in der Kirchengeschichte zu einem ‘locus classicus’ der Auseinandersetzung von Staat und Kirche werden. Die differente Rezeption der Textaussagen umreist den Problemhorizont jeder heutigen Auslegung: Im Sinne der klassischen katholischen Exegese kann der Text als ein Stuck naturlicher Theologie interpretiert werden. Aus den die Mahnung zur Unterordnung begriindenden Versen lb–3a kann demzufolge eine Staatslehre mit metaphysischem Gehalt deduziert werden. Diese Auslegungstradition setzt sich als Nebenlinie in dem Interesse konservativ-lutherischer Theologie an einer biblischen Legitimation fur die Rekonstituierung der augustinischen Trennung des ‘regnum civile’ von dem ‘regnum Christi’ fort. Beide Interpretationsmodelle werden auch in der heutigen exegetischen Forschung vertreten.
7 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigate the question of Paul's indebtedness to Hellenistic traditions and above all to the theology of the mystery religions in the New Testament and conclude that Paul was directly influenced by either Hellenism or Hellenized predecessors in the Christian faith.
Abstract: My primary purpose in handling this topic is to investigate the question of Paul's indebtedness to Hellenistic traditions and above all to the theology of the mystery religions. Not that I think it likely that he was directly influenced by the latter; it seems to me that A. D. Nock's arguments from the vocabulary of the New Testament, and particularly from that of the Pauline homologoumena, are too cogent for that. Rather the question must be one of the indebtedness of Paul to this milieu via Hellenistic Judaism or his more Hellenized predecessors in the Christian faith or both. And for investigating this problem Romans 6 is of prime importance, being one of the principal strands of evidence for some that the Christian beliefs of some predecessors of Paul were characterized by ‘Hellenistic enthusiasm’, beliefs which Paul then countered in this chapter. For it is widely held that Paul here corrects an enthusiastic view of an already realized resurrection, usually regarded as derived, at least indirectly, from the sacramental theology of the mysteries. Others, however, play down the clash, arguing that Paul simply assimilates such traditions, from whatever source, into his own theology; others, as we shall see, go further still and squeeze out the traces of traditional material from this chapter almost to vanishing point.
TL;DR: One of the more neglected pericopes in the Fourth Gospel is the so-called "Walking on the Water" (John 6.16-21) as discussed by the authors, which has been extensively studied in the context of the debate concerning John's sign source or his dependence on the Synoptics.
Abstract: One of the more neglected pericopes in the Fourth Gospel is the so-called ‘Walking on the Water’(John 6. 16–21). Scholars have discussed the passage largely in the context of the debate concerning John's sign source or his dependence on the Synoptics, notably Mark, and have done so with an eye not so much to the substance of John's account as to its importance in the sequence of events in John 6.1 Treatment of the passage in itself has occurred almost exclusively in commentaries.2 The miraculous crossing of the lake has regularly been judged to be merely ‘a miracle within a miracle’, so that the main point of the passage remains Jesus' walking on the water3 or his epiphanic self-manifestation (έγώ eίμι).4
TL;DR: Cohn-Sherbok as discussed by the authors argued that the cup of Mt. 26. 27 does not refer to any particular cup of the Seder, and might mean generally a cup consecrated by Jesus.
Abstract: The problem of whether the meal conducted by Jesus (Mt. 26. 17–30: Mk. 14. 12–26; Lk. 22. 7–22; Jn. 13), was a Passover Seder is a matter of long-standing discussion and need not be entered into or documented here. 1 What deserves further attention, however, is the light shed on this question by 1 Cor. 10. 16, which was recently considered in the pages of this journal. 2 In this discussion the author cites the view of others that the cup of Mt. 26. 27 refers to the cup of blessing accompanying the Grace After Meals, birkhat hamazon, or in terms of the cup-sequence of the Passover Seder, the third cup. 3 The author further indicates that the same scholars generally view ‘the cup of blessing’ at 1 Cor. 10. 16, to be the kosshel berakhah, and take this term to be a technical one that refers to the cup of thanksgiving for food, birkhat hamazon, or again, the third cup of the Passover Seder. Cohn-Sherbok argues, however, that Mt. 26. 27 refers to the fourth cup of the Seder, which accompanies the birkhat hashir, the blessing of song, which comes at the end of Hallel (M. Pes. 10. 7; B. Pes. 118 a). 4 Finally, in discussing Paul's phrase, to poterion tes eulogias (1 Cor. 10. 16), Cohn-Sherbok argues that it need not refer to any particular cup of the Seder, and might mean generally a cup consecrated by Jesus. 5 16, to be the kosshel berakhah, and take this term to be a technical one that refers to the cup of thanksgiving for food, birkhat hamazon, or again, the third cup of the Passover Seder. Cohn-Sherbok argues, however, that Mt. 26. 27 refers to the fourth cup of the Seder, which accompanies the birkhat hashir, the blessing of song, which comes at the end of Hallel (M. Pes. 10. 7; B. Pes. 118 a). 4 Finally, in discussing Paul's phrase, to poterion tes eulogias (1 Cor. 10. 16), Cohn-Sherbok argues that it need not refer to any particular cup of the Seder, and might mean generally a cup consecrated by Jesus. 5
TL;DR: In this paper, the author verlagert sich das Begrundungsgewicht auf das einschlagige Q-Material: ‘Fur ein offentliches Auftreten Jesu erst nach dem Tode des Taufers spricht’ fur Thyen darum vor allem ‘auch der archaische “Sturmerspruch” (Mt 11.12par), der wohl auf Jesus selbst zuruckgeht and
Abstract: Nach der jungsten Lexikon-Auserung zu Johannes dem Taufer ist es weitgehend ubereinstimmende Uberzeugung auch der kritischen Forschung, das Jesus ‘bis zum Tode des Taufers zu dessen engeren Jungerkreis gehort haben’ durfte. Fur dieses von den synoptischen Jesusbiographien her eingepragte Bild scheint die Begrundung selbstverstandlich, weshalb H. Thyen an der genannten Stelle argumentierend fortfahrt: ‘Jedenfalls wird’ Jesus ‘erst nach diesem Martyrium selbst offentlich aufgetreten sein, denn nur so konnte er in seiner Umgebung fur den Johannes-redivivus gehalten werden (Mk 6.14ff; 8.28)’. Danach ware also ein mk Beleg masgebend. Doch wenn dieser als mk Redaktion erkennbar wurde und Mk zu solchen wie anderen Aussagen erst durch seine Auseinandersetzung mit der Q-Redaktion inspiriert ware, so verlagert sich das Begrundungsgewicht auf das einschlagige Q-Material: ‘Fur ein offentliches Auftreten Jesu erst nach dem Tode des Taufers spricht’ fur Thyen darum vor allem ‘auch der archaische “Sturmerspruch” (Mt 11.12par), der wohl auf Jesus selbst zuruckgeht und auf das Wirken des Taufers als auf eine abgeschlossene Ara zuruckblickt’.
TL;DR: There are at present two ways in which genre of the gospels is defined as discussed by the authors, in the first an evolutionistic model is used while in the second the genre is explained with an analogy model by comparing it to other literary forms.
Abstract: The Enlightenment, and as a result of that, the rise of historical awareness created grave problems in interpretation of the gospels. Various attempts have been made to 'solve' this problem, ranging from the suggestion that the gospel narratives are factually true to the opinion that factual history has to be reconstructed from narratives by separating fact from fiction or myth. It is regrettable that research on genre of gospels has been dominated for more than half a century by controversy about the gospels and history. There are at present two ways in which genre of the gospels is defined. In the first an evolutionistic model is used while in the second the genre is explained with an analogy model by comparing it to other literary forms. This chapter gives a survey of the problem and its development. It then discusses kerygma and history with reference to the gospels as narratives. Keywords: analogy model; evolutionistic model; gospel genre; gospel narratives; kerygma and history; literary forms
TL;DR: It is a curious fact that very often the official and administrative language of foreign rulers, even where they were seen as oppressors, keeps being used by their former subjects for a long period after these rulers themselves have gone, however unwelcome their rule otherwise may have been.
Abstract: It is a curious fact that very often the official and administrative language of foreign rulers, even where they were seen as oppressors, keeps being used by their former subjects for a long period after these rulers themselves have gone, however unwelcome their rule otherwise may have been. In our own time and age we have witnessed, for instance, how English until 1980 has been India's second official language after Hindi, in accordance with the Official Language Act of 1963, how English was chosen as the official language of the state of Ghana, rather than one of the fifty languages and dialects spoken there, how French was maintained in the same function in Togo, Benin, Cameroon and several other countries, and Portuguese stayed in use in Angola after the factual repatriation of the former colonizers. And all this happens for obvious reasons.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the significance of the Son of Man in Jewish eschatological speculation and as an Aramaic idiom, and the contribution of the early church to the Son-of-Man sayings in the synoptics.
Abstract: Perhaps it is foolhardy at present to attempt to understand what the first evangelist means when he uses the term Ό υίoς το άνωρώπου. Scholars are divided about the significance of the term both in Jewish eschatological speculation and as an Aramaic idiom. They are divided over the contribution of Jesus and of the early church to the Son of man sayings in the synoptics. Did Jesus preach about a future Son of man who would play a role in the eschatological drama and the church identify Jesus with that figure? Did Jesus use an Aramaic idiom which was misunderstood by a church interpreting their experience of the resurrection in the light of Daniel 7? Is ‘the Son of man’ a title, and is it a Christological title or a symbol for the saints? It is not surprising that articles are appearing with titles like: Can the Son of man problem be solved?
TL;DR: In this article, it was suggested that one way of explaining these phenomena was to suppose the existence of a Proto-Matthew, of which the extant Matthew's Gospel contains revisions made in part under the influence of Mark's Gospel.
Abstract: In an earlier paper, one of the co-authors pointed out that the extant Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Thomas employed a common source which contained a certain series of parables and sayings of Jesus concerning John the Baptist. The basic structure of this ‘Baptist-sequence’ is best preserved by far in Matthew's Gospel, although various details of the original wording are better preserved in Luke and Thomas. It was suggested that one way of explaining these phenomena was to suppose the existence of a Proto-Matthew, of which the extant Matthew's Gospel contains revisions made in part under the influence of Mark's Gospel.
TL;DR: In the case of 3.1.8, as commonly interpreted, the objections are stated in detail, and Paul's replies are brief and inadequate as mentioned in this paper. But they fail to explain why Paul should state at this stage in the epistle detailed objections to which he is either not willing or not able to give an immediate answer.
Abstract: Romans 3. 1–8 is one of the most puzzling passages in the epistle. It is commonly assumed that Paul is here using the ‘diatribe’ style of contemporary philosophers. In the diatribe, arguments are put into the mouth of imaginary objectors, and the writer replies to them in the form of a dialogue. But we must confess that, if Paul is really using the diatribe style in this passage, he is using it in a very strange way. Normally, in the diatribe, the objector's point is stated briefly, and replied to in detail. But in Romans 3. 1–8, as commonly interpreted, the objections are stated in detail, and Paul's replies are brief and inadequate. Various explanations are given for this by the commentators. According to Dodd, ‘the whole argument of 3. 1–8 is obscure and feeble’ because Paul is ‘defending a poor case’. Other scholars are more charitable, saying that the questions raised by the imaginary objector are in fact adequately answered later in the epistle. But they fail to explain why Paul should state at this stage in the epistle detailed objections, to which he is either not willing or not able to give an immediate answer.
TL;DR: In this article, a moglichst prazise Gliederung kann zugleich auch eine wichtige Vorklarung uber die inhaltliche Zielsetzung der betreffenden Schrift darstellen.
Abstract: Der Versuch, eine sachgemase Gliederung fur eine Schrift der Antike zu finden, hat nicht nur pragmatische Bedeutung, etwa um dem heutigen Leser eine Ubersicht uber den darin enthaltenen Stoff zu verschaffen. Eine moglichst prazise Gliederung kann zugleich auch eine wichtige Vorklarung uber die inhaltliche Zielsetzung der betreffenden Schrift darstellen. Hinsichtlich der Gliederung des Markusevangeliums (MkEv) konkurrieren in der Literatur eine Reihe unterschiedlicher Entwurfe miteinander, die sich jedoch auf zwei klar unterscheidbare Gliederungsprinzipien zuruck-fuhren lassen, auf eine rein geographische Einteilung und eine (mehr oder minder) rein inhaltliche bzw. thematische.
TL;DR: In a previous article as mentioned in this paper, we discussed the tradition-history of three parousia parables: the Thief, the Servant in Authority, and the Watching Servants.
Abstract: In a previous article, ‘Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse’, I discussed certain features of the tradition-history of three parousia parables: the Thief (Matt. 24. 43 f. par. Luke 12. 39 f.; Gosp. Thomas 21 b, 103), the Watching Servants (Luke 12. 35–38; cf. Matt. 24. 42; Mark 13. 33–37;Gosp. Thomas 21 b, 103), and the Servant in Authority (Matt. 24. 45–51 par. Luke 12. 42–48). In the cases of the Thief and the Watching Servants, there is remarkably good evidence outside the Gospels for the popularity of these parables in the early church (1 Thess. 5. 2; 2 Pet. 3. 10; Rev. 3. 3, 20; 16. 15; Did. 16. 1), and on the basis of this evidence, as well as the Gospels, I suggested that the forms in which these parables and allusions to them occur can best be explained by a process of ‘deparabolization’, in which the narrative form of a parable is partly or wholly replaced by more direct application of the imagery of the parable to the hearers or readers, as metaphor or simile. Both because of their extensive use in early Christian paraenesis and because of their amenable subject-matter, the parables of 130 the Thief and, especially, the Watching Servants were subject to considerable deparabolization.
TL;DR: Wenham as mentioned in this paper unraveled the formerly obscure variants in Mark 14, 30, 68 and 72, and found that the shorter readings are right with the use of common sense and a detective skill with traces of alternative readings.
Abstract: In NTS 25/4 (1979), pp. 523–525 John W. Wenham attempts to unravel the formerly obscure variants in Mark 14. 30, 68 and 72. With the use of common sense, and a detective skill with the traces of alternative readings, he finds that the shorter readings are right. At verse 30 one should understand ‘before the cock crows, thou shalt deny me thrice’; at verse 68 no reference to the cock should appear; and at verse 72 we read ‘and the cock crew’ and ‘before the cock crows, thou shalt deny me thrice’. This is, after all, what St John says.