Showing papers in "New Testament Studies in 1985"

Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul's Letter to the Galatians*

Abstract: At several junctures in the history of its interpretation Paul's letter to the Galatians has been seen as the embarrassing member of the Pauline letter-family, the one refusing to be brought into line with the others, and even, in some regards, the one threatening the unity and good-natured comradery of the family. Luther, to be sure, called on the familial image in an entirely positive sense, when he confessed himself to be happily betrothed to the letter. Others have considered that betrothal the prelude to an unfortunate marriage, in which Luther was led astray, or led further astray, by this intractable and regrettable letter.

The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence

Abstract: Despite the relative brevity of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, there is little scholarly consensus today concerning their interpretation. Whether the issue is the integrity of 1 Thess 2. 13–16 or the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians, whether the problem involves the interpretation of the so-called ‘apology’ in 1 Thess 2. 1–12 or that of τὸ κατέχον of 2 Thessalonians, whether the question deals with the eschatology of 1 Thess 4. 13–5. 11 or of 2 Thessalonians, or whether the query involves the form-critical analysis of either document, there is little agreement among contemporary New Testament scholars.

Das Bekenntnis des Paulus zur Hoffnung Israels nach der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas

Abstract: An vier Stellen der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (Apg 23. 6; 24. 15 f.; 26. 6 f.; 28. 20) beteuert der angeklagte Apostel Paulus, das er nur ‘wegen der Hoffnung Israels’ vor Gericht stehe. Wie ist diese Beteuerung zu verstehen? Was besagt sie im Kontext der erzahlten Handlung? Und was bedeutet sie fur den Erzahler Lukas und fur die Leser seines Werkes? – Eine Klarung dieser Fragen ist exegetisch geboten; denn die auffallige Wieder-holung ist ja als schriftstellerischer Hinweis auf die Wichtigkeit der Sache zu werten.

Making Mary Male: the Categories ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in the Gospel of Thomas

Abstract: The Coptic Gospel of Thomas is one of the most spectacular of the fifty-two tractates filling the thirteen codices of the Nag Hammadi library. Discovered in December 1945 by several Egyptian fellahin, the Nag Hammadi tractates were subjected to a variety of political and scholarly ploys, and were not made available in their entirety until the very end of 1977, when the last of the volumes of manuscript pages in the Facsimile Edition and the one-volume edition of The Nag Hammadi Library in English finally appeared.1 One of the very first of the documents to be published was the Gospel of Thomas, and its appearance has already stimulated the production of numerous articles and monographs by the scholars who have recognized its significance for our knowledge of Christian origins and early church history. Since the time of its initial publication scholars have suggested a variety of interpretations of the Gospel, and to date no consensus has been reached. Yet, in my estimation, a reasonably strong case can be made that the Gospel of Thomas, in its present form, belongs at least on the periphery of Christian Gnosticism, and to that extent the Coptic text may be termed a gnosticizing gospel.2

Aspects of Early Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic*

Abstract: Writing about 177 AD Celsus claimed that Christians and Jews quarrel with one another very foolishly. ‘Their wrangle with one another about Christ is no different from that called in the proverb a fight about the shadow of an ass.’ Celsus continues: ‘There is nothing worthy of attention in the dispute of Jews and Christians with one another.’

Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10–14)

Abstract: The two most recent studies of Paul and the law both show a large measure of agreement in criticizing Paul's treatment of the law as inconsistent and self-contradictory. E. P. Sanders argues that Paul's ‘break’ with the law gave rise to different questions and problems, and that his ‘diverse answers, when set alongside one another, do not form a logical whole’.1 So, in particular, Paul's ‘treatment of the law in chapter 2 (of Romans) cannot be harmonized with any of the diverse things which Paul says about the law elsewhere’; in Romans 2 ‘Paul goes beyond inconsistency or variety of argument and explanation to true self-contradiction’.2 More thoroughgoing is H. Raisanen, who can see only one way to handle what Paul says: ‘contradictions and tensions have to be accepted as constant features of Paul's theology of the law’.3 Again and again he finds himself driven to the conclusion that Paul contradicts himself. So, for example, with Rom 13. 8–10: ‘Paul seems here simply to have forgotten what he wrote in ch. 7 or in 10. 4’; ‘(Romans) 2.14–15,26–27 stand in flat contradiction to the main thesis of the section’; Paul puts forward ‘artificial and conflicting theories about the law’.4 The artificiality and tension is evident not least in Gal 3. 10–12, where Raisanen finds the argument of 3. 10 to be at odds with the argument of 3. 11–12.5

Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with Judaism

Abstract: In his Manson Memorial Lecture for 19821 James Dunn credits E. P. Sanders2 with ‘breaking the mould of Pauline studies’ and giving us ‘what amounts to a new perspective on Paul’, not least by showing that the traditional Christian picture of Judaism is ‘fundamentally mistaken’.3 Dunn agrees with Sanders' characterization of ancient Palestinian Judaism as ‘covenantal nomism’, in the framework of which ‘Israel's covenant relation with God was basic’.

The Suffering Servant between the Testaments

Abstract: Traditionally Christians have interpreted Isaiah 52. 13–53. 12 as a prophecy of the passion of Christ,1 but modern biblical scholars have disagreed about how this identification of the suffering servant with Jesus arose. In particular, those who have investigated the question of whether Jesus saw himself as occupying the role of the servant have reached conflicting conclusions.2 In the background of this discussion is another contentious issue, namely, whether a messianic interpretation of the suffering servant had already been adopted in pre-Christian Judaism. Representative of a negative response to this question is H. H. Rowley, who writes: ‘There is no serious evidence … of the bringing together of the concepts of the suffering servant and the Davidic Messiah before the Christian era.’3 A much more positive assessment is given by Jeremias, who has championed the view that the first and fourth servant songs were consistently interpreted messianically in Palestinian Judaism, and that it is highly probable that a messianic interpretation of the sufferings of the servant was associated with this.4

The Nature of Paul's Early Eschatology

Abstract: It is fairly common today to explain the development of New Testament thought along the lines of an early fixation on the future and progressive shifts brought about by the parousia's delay. On such a view, it was apocalyptic eschatology that dominated Paul's outlook in his early days, while soteriology, christology, ecclesiology and ethics came to assume importance only later. Few scholars, of course, lay out Paul's thought quite so explicitly as that. Yet it is something like that which has become fairly fixed in the minds of many.

Spirit and Community in the Johannine Apocalypse

Abstract: In the history of interpretation of Rev the expression έν πνeύματι, as used in 1. 10; 4. 2; 17. 3; and 21. 10, has been accepted so categorically as a signal of a unique state of personal visionary consciousness that other alternative meanings have been left relatively unexplored. The purpose of this paper is to inquire whether this expression is meant to describe an actual condition of ecstasy experienced by the author either previous to or during his writing activity, or whether έν πνeύματι should be seen as a different kind of component within the complex of symbolism shared by the author and his original readers.

Expressions of Double Meaning and their Function in the Gospel of John

Abstract: Throughout the history of Johannine studies the fact has been noted repeatedly that John employs numerous ambiguous expressions or terms of double meaning. Nonetheless, this topic has attracted surprisingly little attention, while the function these expressions serve within the gospel has gone virtually unexplored. It will, therefore, be the goal of this study to present a brief list of important contributions to this area, then to explore a substantial number and variety of ‘expressions of double meaning’ in view of understanding their nature, structure, and function, and finally to dwell in summary fashion upon more general considerations: the nature and origin of these expressions, sources, and theology.

Paulus und die urchristliche Jesustradition

Abstract: In der Arbeit der Seminargruppe 8 soll nach ‘Paulus und Jesus’ unter dem besonderen Aspekt von ‘Grundproblemen der Beziehungen Pauli zur Jesus-tradition’ gefragt werden.1 Gibt es zu diesem so viel diskutierten Thema noch neue Aspekte, die eine erneute Diskussion lohnen? Vor allem: Was macht das Thema erneut so aktuell, das sich eine Arbeitsgruppe unserer SNTS gerade ihm widmen will?

Daniel 7, 12 and the New Testament Passion-Resurrection Predictions

Abstract: In this article I hope to show that a careful reading of Daniel 7, 12 and of aspects of the midrashic traditions associated with that text can throw new light on the Synoptic and Johannine passion-resurrection predictions. It suggests that an early interpretation of elements of these sayings can be recovered, an interpretation based on an implicit identification of one like a son of man with those whom the author of Daniel considers the members of the true Israel, in their suffering and in their triumph.

The Son of Man Saying in Stephen's Witnessing: Acts 6.8–8.2

Abstract: Of all the special-L Son of Man logia, that in the Stephen-unit (Acts 6. 8–8. 2) is the most important for an understanding of Luke's work. The whole account is properly a unity, and the legion's meaning emerges from the meaning of the whole. For reasons which are merely noted at this stage, some interesting features of the unit are ignored in this discussion. For example, in the following paragraphs there is no examination of Luke's sources for his speech. Whatever they once were, the sources have been worked over so thoroughly that they are now linguistically and conceptually indistinguishable from the rest of Lk-Acts. Similarly, whatever form of Christian theology underlay those sources is not now available for the reconstruction of a stage in Christian history. Some writers have detected links between Stephen and the Samaritans, the Qumran writings, the Letter to the Hebrews or the community for which John the Evangelist wrote. None of these is discussed here, because Luke made this unit his own, functioning in the way he intended, achieving his purposes for his age.

The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus

Abstract: Until recently the empty tomb has been widely regarded as both an offence to modern intelligence and an embarrassment for Christian faith; an offence because it implies a nature miracle akin to the resuscitation of a corpse and an embarrassment because it is nevertheless almost inextricably bound up with Jesus's resurrection, which lies at the very heart of the Christian faith. But in the last several years, a remarkable change seems to have taken place, and the scepticism that so characterized earlier treatments of this problem appears to be fast receding. Though some theologians still insist with Bultmann that the resurrection is not a historical event, this incident is certainly presented in the gospels as a historical event, one of the manifestations of which was that the tomb of Jesus was reputedly found empty on the first day of the week by several of his women followers; this fact, at least, is therefore in principle historically verifiable. But how credible is the evidence for the historicity of Jesus's empty tomb?

The Preface of Luke-Acts and Historiography

Abstract: It has long been almost taken for granted that Luke-Acts is a historical work. Recently, however, C. H. Talbert has argued that Luke-Acts is biography rather than history, thereby re-opening the question of the genre of Luke-Acts. In what follows I will discuss one feature of Luke-Acts which does not support the contention that it is biography. I will argue that the preface of Luke-Acts resembles the prefaces of histories more than those of biographies or any other ancient prose writings. And I will further attempt to specify what historical prefaces it most resembles, and thus what sort of historian, on the evidence of the preface, the author of Luke-Acts was Comparison of prefaces cannot by itself settle the question of the genre of Luke-Acts, but it may make an important contribution. It is often true (and certainly true in the case of Luke-Acts) that the author speaks most directly in his preface. Because of this the preface may provide the best indication of the writer's own understanding of what he is doing, which is an important consideration in addressing the question of genre.

The Origin of the Title ‘King of Kings and Lord of Lords’ in Revelation 17. 14

Abstract: The purpose of this note is to discuss the christological title ‘King of kings and Lord of lords’ in Rev 17. 14. Most commentators have generally understood the title to have its broad background in intertestamental Judaism and the Old Testament. The title is also attested in Babylonian and Egyptian tradition, but such an influence is unlikely here since John usually limits his sphere of reference to the Old Testament and its related literature and traditions. Among the possible above-mentioned references in Judaism and the Old Testament, 1 En 9. 4 bears closest resemblance to Rev 17. 14. The 1 En reference could be in mind, not only because of its similarity of wording, but also because its context concerns eschatological judgment (i.e. of the fallen Watchers), as does that of Rev 17.

Paul's ‘Robust Conscience’ Re-Examined

Abstract: For centuries most Protestant churches, true to the Reformers' understanding of man and the Law, have preached the Christian message by presenting first the Law, so that the hearer would come to recognize his or her sinfulness, and then the Gospel, that the hearer might be brought to hope, and eventually to faith, in Jesus Christ. As the New Testament begins with the stern exhortations of John the Baptist, so, it has been argued, the Christian proclamation should always and everywhere commence with God's command. But now, in seminaries and churches, some have seized upon new expositions of the Law and used them to oppose this preaching scheme as unworkable, since not all will have any sins against the Law to recognize; and even as wrong, on the grounds that this approach inevitably lapses into trying to make people ‘feel guilty’. The result is that many of the new generation of ministers are learning to preach only consolation, or, at most, the judgment upon certain social orders pronounced by popularized liberation theology. It is with this homilectical situation in mind that I offer the following remarks on Paul's understanding of man's relationship to the Law, and through the Law to sin.

Proportional Analogy in the Gospel Parables

Abstract: In its original application to literary language παραβολή evidently denoted analogy: ideas ‘laid side by side’ for comparison or contrast. In the Budding Fig Tree (Mk 13. 28–9; cf. Mt 24. 32–3, Lk 21. 19–31) the form of statement makes this rhetorical juxtaposition most obvious:

Matthew 5.32 and 19.9 – Exception or Exceptional Situation?

Abstract: There is a danger when dealing with a crux interpretum of assuming that because old solutions do not appear satisfactory, then a new view is more likely to be true than the standard interpretations. One must be wary, however, of replacing an unsatisfactory old view with an equally unsatisfactory new one. If, however, one can find a view that satisfies the usual objections to the traditional view without resorting to exegetical gymnastics, then it is certainly worth close scrutiny. There appears to be just such an interpretation of Mt 5. 32 and 19. 9 arising among scholars of varying points of view, though it is too early to speak of a new consensus. Thus, it seems worthwhile to examine once again these problematic texts in light of recent scholarship.

Patristic Quotations and Gospel Sources

Abstract: Years of research on the sources of the gospels of Matthew and Luke led long since to three conclusions which many of us still find valid, first, that both these authors used our gospel of Mark; second, that they both used another source, commonly called Q; third, that each also used a source unknown to the other, and these two sources have been named M and L respectively. But about the nature of Q, M and L there are plenty of unanswered questions - such as, were they single sources or does each name cover several sources which we cannot easily disentangle from one another? Were they written or oral? How accurately do Matthew and Luke, who abbreviate Mark, quote their other sources? The language of Q was Aramaic; was the same true of other sources?

The Three Variant Accounts of Peter's Call: a Critical and Theological Examination of the Texts

Abstract: The variant accounts of Peter's call as recorded by the four Evangelists constitute a major problem in the New Testament. Can we dismiss as incredible the accounts of his call on the basis of the Gospels' inconsistencies? Fuller has pointed out that the best way to discredit a witness in court is for the cross-examiner to tie him up in knots and make his evidence to appear to be such a tissue of inconsistencies that the jury becomes convinced that he is entirely untrustworthy. But in spite of their differences, the four Gospels are united in reporting that Peter became a follower of Jesus in the very early days of his ministry. They differ, however, as to the time, place and circumstances of his call.

Paul: Law and Salvation

Abstract: From F. Chr. Baur and onwards, New Testament scholarship has laid strong emphasis on the difference between the Paul of the letters and the Paul of Acts. A few examples will suffice to illustrate this approach. The real Paul, the Paul of the letters, claims to be an apostle. In Acts he is depicted as subordinate to the Twelve, for whom the title apostle is reserved. In Galatians and Romans Paul takes up a strongly polemical attitude to the Jewish torah and to circumcision. The Paul of Acts circumcizes Timothy (16. 3). And he declares his solidarity with the law, the prophets and the people of Israel (23. 6; 24. 14 f.; 26. 6, 23; 28. 21). In his epistles Paul strongly emphasizes the significance of the death of Christ. He proclaims its atoning effect for all mankind (Rom 3. 24 ff.; 5. 6 ff. 1 Cor 1. 18 ff.; 15. 3; 2 Cor 5. 18 ff.; Gal 3. 13). The author of Acts seems to regard the suffering and death of Jesus, the servant of God, almost as a test, which he had to undergo before ‘entering upon his glory’. To be sure, the death of Christ is also by Luke described as the act through which he won the church for himself (20. 28). And the missionary message in Acts contains the statement that he died according to the Scriptures (3. 18; 13. 27–29). It is, nevertheless, obvious that the death of Christ does not receive the same comprehensive interpretation in Acts as in the Pauline epistles.