scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "New Testament Studies in 1990"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the Book of Revelation, the hearing formula is used seven times in the second and third chapters in connection with the letters and once in the 13th chapter combined with an apocalyptic vision.
Abstract: The formula ’he or she who has an ear let him or her hear’ occurs eight times in the Book of Revelation. The formula will be called ‘Hearing formula’ (an invitation to hear). In German it is often called ’Weckformel’ or ‘Weckruf’. In the Book of Revelation the formula is used seven times in the second and third chapters in connection with the letters and once in the 13th chapter combined with an apocalyptic vision.

31 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, it was shown that the complete absence of allusions to synagogue in 1 or 2 Maccabees is the result of the author's primary concern for the purity of the temple ritual.
Abstract: It is instructive to see the similarities and the differences between the account of the origins of the synagogue in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1907 and the more extended discussion of the subject in the Encyclopedia Judaica of 1971. In the earlier work, Wilhelm Bacher observes that by the time the synagogue had become the central institution in Judaism, it was already regarded as of ancient origin, dating back to Moses.1 He was of the opinion that the synagogue as a permanent institution originated during the Babylonian captivity,2 and conjectured that the reference in Isa 56. 7 to the temple as a ‘house of prayer’ was to be understood as connected with the term for place of prayer, proseuche, which was used during the exile and among Jews in the diaspora in later centuries. Balcher's theory continues that it was Ezra and his successors who reorganized the religious life of Israel into congregational worship, with special place for prayers and the reading of the scriptures. This development, he proposed, took place in parallel with the revival of the temple cult and led to the building of synagogues. He finds evidence for synagogues in Palestine in the pre-exilic period in Ps 74. 8, although in fact this psalm comes from the Maccabean period or even later.3 Then, astonishingly and without any attempt to explain, he asserts that the complete absence of allusions to synagogue in 1 or 2 Maccabees is the result of the author's primary concern for the purity of the temple ritual.

31 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The internal literary structure of the proclamations to the seven churches in Rev 2-3 and the external literary form to which they have the closest generic relationship continues to challenge New Testament scholarship.
Abstract: A satisfactory solution to the twin problems of the internal literary structure of the proclamations to the seven churches in Rev 2–3, and the external literary form to which they have the closest generic relationship continues to challenge New Testament scholarship. It is of course theoretically possible to limit a literary analysis to the texts in Rev 2–3 based on intrinsic criteria alone. In practice, however, most analyses have been dialectical attempts to understand the intrinsic literary features of the seven proclamations in the light of the clues provided by one or another comparable literary form. This kind of contextual investigation is unavoidable for Rev 2–3 in view of the many repetitive and formulaic words and phrases which, in addition to denotative or designative meanings, have a variety of connotative or associative meanings requiring exploration and assessment. Some recent candidates include the revelatory letter, prophetic speech forms, the covenant formulary or one of the types of Greek oratory.

30 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Kasemann as discussed by the authors pointed out that the issue at stake in 2 Corinthians was Paul himself and that, of all the accusations being levelled against him, Paul was especially being blamed for his supposed "Selbstlob".
Abstract: In his now programmatic article, ‘Die Legitimitat des Apostels’, E. Kasemann drew attention to the fact that the issue at stake in 2 Corinthians was Paul himself and that, of all the accusations being levelled against him, Paul was especially being blamed for his supposed ‘Selbstlob’. From his opponents' perspective, Paul's μέτρον το κανόνος; (10. 12 ff.) and his δοκιμή (13. 3, 6) appeared questionable, lacking the obvious and objective power and authority associated with apostleship. His boasting was thus viewed to be irresponsible, illegitimate, and deceitful (5. 12; 11. 16; 12. 16). Specifically, Paul lacked a ‘fixed μέτρον’, i.e. an objective evidence for his legitimacy, which was ‘controllable’. For, in contrast to the apostles in Jerusalem, Paul could not point to a commissioning from the earthly Jesus, the miraculous signs of an apostle, or financial support from churches to support his claims. Hence, ‘seinem Apostolat fehlt die nachprufbare Eindeutig-keit’.

27 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article examined some of the Greek words used in Acts 28.30.1 and found that at least three of the terms used have clear and specific legal connotations in the present literary context of Acts, but they have a technical background in civil rather than criminal law.
Abstract: In this article I propose to examine some of the Greek words used in Acts 28. 30–31.1 shall argue that the associations of these words become more apparent when we search the Hellenistic sources which use them. This searching can now, with the aid of the compact disc supplied by the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, be done more thoroughly than before. Though the disc in use in 1988 at the time of writing is not complete, it does contain some 40 million words of Greek, and its predecessor also contains a substantial (but incomplete) collection of the papyri. Although I do not claim to have examined every use in Greek texts of the words discussed below, I have examined a very substantial proportion of them based upon a sample containing at least two thirds of the entire corpus. I argue that at least three of the terms used have clear and specific legal connotations. They do not all retain those connotations in the present literary context of Acts, but they have a technical background in civil rather than criminal law and there may be some echo here of details of Paul's stay in Rome. Though I am arguing for a technical background in civil law for some of the terms, I am ready to agree that the description of Paul's stay in Rome does also have implications for the leniency with which he was treated during proceedings on a criminal charge, and also significant theological resonances. These further connotations will emerge from a detailed discussion of some of the key words and phrases in the Greek of the closing verses of Acts.

23 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose that there is a common set of traditions to which all three of these texts are indebted, and identify a discussion on male sexuality that took place in Jewish and Christian circles sometime in the middle of the first century C.E.
Abstract: Matt 5. 27–32, from the Sermon on the Mount, and Mark 9. 42–10.12 are passages that contain similar material, although neither is directly dependent on the other. Both have sayings that deal with ‘offences’ caused by certain body members (the verb used is σκανδαλίζω), and both contain a version of Jesus' prohibition of divorce. Between these two passages and a third, b. Nid. 13b, from the Babylonian Talmud, there also exist several similarities. Despite this intriguing configuration of materials, which might indicate that all three passages are dependent on a common set of traditions, scholars have approached these texts from a very different perspective. Those who posit a connection between the synoptic and the rabbinic materials do so only with respect to Matt 5, never Mark 9; and several scholars have instead sought parallels to the synoptic passages in Hellenistic gnomic literature, disregarding or ignoring the rabbinic material altogether. In the present study I intend to challenge the validity of these approaches and propose that there is indeed a common set of traditions to which all three of these texts are indebted. I will begin my investigation by highlighting three peculiarities of Mark 9. 42–48, and then posit a relation between this passage and b. Nid. 13b. Following this I will bring the material from Matt 5. 27–32 and Mark 9. 49–10. 12 into consideration. One of the results of this study, as I shall explain more thoroughly in the conclusion, will be the identification of a discussion on male sexuality that took place in Jewish and Christian circles sometime in the middle of the first century C.E

23 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The problem of the discrepancy between Paul's general affirmation in Galatians 3 and the citation he introduces to support it in 3.10b has been studied extensively in the centuries that have followed as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Though Martin Luther was doubtless not the first student of the NT to notice the apparent discrepancy between Paul's general affirmation in Galatians 3. 10a and the citation he introduces to support it in 3.10b, his statement of the problem has scarcely been improved upon in the centuries that have followed. As it stands, the Pauline text does present something of a conundrum. Whereas Paul's own statement appears to pronounce a ‘curse’ upon anyone who would attempt to live by the Jewish Torah, the biblical text to which he appeals clearly affirms the opposite: its ‘curse’ falls not on those who do the Law, but on those who fail to do it. What is Paul trying to say? Does he simply misunderstand his citation at this point? Or is there an underlying link between text and ‘interpretation’ that is not evident at first sight?

21 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In an elegant discussion of the roles of women in the Pauline congregations, Meeks has drawn attention to Paul's apparently deliberate attempt to make parallel statements about the respective obligations of males and females in 1 Cor 7 and 1 Cor 11 as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: In an elegant discussion of the roles of women in the Pauline congregations, Wayne Meeks has drawn attention to Paul's apparently deliberate attempt to make parallel statements about the respective obligations of males and females in 1 Cor 7 and in 1 Cor 11. 2–16. In the same study, Meeks makes a second observation about 1 Cor 11. 2–16: ‘If the passage places most emphasis on the female, that must be because in Corinth it is the charismatic women who are donning the attire of the opposite sex’. There is indeed a fairly wide consensus that the problem underlying the instructions about head attire in 1 Cor 11 is with women. Is there a connection between the antics of the women of 1 Cor 11 and Paul's exhortations in 1 Cor 7? Are we to conclude that 1 Cor 7 also responds to a situation instigated by females? Or, does the fact that the parallelism in 1 Cor 7 is even more extensive than in 1 Cor 11 imply that, in his discussion of marriage and celibacy, Paul was equally concerned with the practices of men and women?

20 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the Golden Rule is put within a religious perspective, more precisely, within the perspective delineated by the symbolic network characteristic of the Jewish-Christian scriptures, and the problem of how to put this rule in a religious context is discussed.
Abstract: The problem which I offer for your discussion may be raised in the following terms: if one assumes that the Golden Rule constitutes the basic moral rule about which the wisest may agree, what happens to this rule when it is put within a religious perspective, more precisely, within the perspective delineated by the symbolic network characteristic of the Jewish-Christian scriptures?

17 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The most recent addition to the library of books on John the Baptist is that of Josef Ernst, Johannes der Taufer, Interpretation-Geschichte-Wirkungsgeschicht.
Abstract: The most recent addition to the library of books on John the Baptist is that of Josef Ernst, Johannes der Taufer, Interpretation-Geschichte-Wirkungsgeschichte. Like many of its predecessors, it is wide-ranging in scope, extensive in documentation, thorough in analysis, and clear inits conclusions. But also like them it has its blind spots. There are questions thatarenot asked, and answers that are given too glibly. In both cases we are deprived of valuable information.

13 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that Col 1.15.20 exhibits a clear structure which can, in some meaningful senses, be called "poetic" and read as a poem in the way I shall suggest, exhibits a characteristically Pauline form of what we may call Christological monotheism.
Abstract: In this article I shall argue for two points: first, that Col 1. 15–20 exhibits, without the deletion of any of its parts, a clear structure which can, in some meaningful senses, be called ‘poetic’; second, that the passage, read as a poem in the way I shall suggest, exhibits a characteristically Pauline form of what we may call Christological monotheism. This will point on to some further suggestions regarding the place of the passage within Colossians as a whole.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors focus on 1 Thess 5.14.15, Paul's command to the Thessalonians to "admonish the disorderly, comfort the faint-hearted, help the weak, be patient with all" and not to retaliate.
Abstract: This paper seeks to shed some light on 1 Thess 5.14–15, Paul's command to the Thessalonians to ‘admonish the disorderly, comfort the faint-hearted, help the weak, be patient with all’, and not to retaliate. In an earlier study, I focused primarily on Paul's role in nurturing the Thessalonian church. Here, I wish to develop what I discussed only very briefly in that study about the Thessalonians' own care for each other.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, Balch concludes that the Roman Stoic Musonius Rufus and the Apostle Paul agree that "marriage is helpful for some, not advantageous for others".
Abstract: In a recent article on ‘1 Cor 7:32–35 and Stoic Debates about Marriage, Anxiety, and Distraction’, David L. Balch offers a contribution to the debate whether Stoic ideas, are reflected in Paul's discussion. Balch concludes, in part, that the Roman Stoic Musonius Rufus and the Apostle Paul agree that ‘marriage is helpful for some, not advantageous for others’.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Luke 9 as discussed by the authors is the pivot of the first chapter of the New Testament, containing the transfiguration and marking the transition from the Galilee ministry to the journey to Jerusalem.
Abstract: Chapter 9 is the pivot of Luke's gospel containing, as it does, the transfiguration as well as marking the transition from the Galilee ministry to the journey to Jerusalem. Not only is it rich in incident, it is also rich in the range of titles given to Jesus. It includes the first recognition, outside the infancy narrative, of Jesus' messianic role (9. 20), the first passion prediction of the Son of Man (9. 22) as well as the first mention of the future Son of Man (9. 26). Furthermore, the chapter contains two titles peculiar to Luke, Master (έπιστάτeς, 9. 33, 49) and Chosen One (έκλeλγμένος, 9. 35). Luke presents this wealth of christological material in answer to the question posed by Herod, ‘Who is this about whom I hear such things?’ (9. 9). The complexity of the christology in Luke 9 stems not only from the variety of the explicit titles but also from Luke's direct mention of, or allusions to, OT prophets who are used as antetypes for the prophetic role of Jesus. The prophetic ideas in the Lucan writings have been set out by Tiede but the importance of the prophetic element in Luke 9 seems to have been somewhat overlooked in the more detailed studies of this chapter. Ellis, in his essay on the sources of the christology of Luke 9, has noted the Moses typology and possible allusions to Isaiah's servant, although it is doubtful whether the use of κλeλeγμέ in 9. 35 (cf κλeκτόζ, Isa 42. 1) and the prediction of Jesus' suffering and rejection are sufficient to make the presence of the servant idea here more than speculative.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the word of Matt 22.14 (l.v. 20.14) as discussed by the authors, Jesus himself speaks, and he seems to evoke election = predestination = salvation, to reduce the number of the elect = predested = saved to 'few' and to suggest that the differentiation between the called and the elect is not the outcome of human acts but of divine decision.
Abstract: The conviction that God is good, that he takes ‘no pleasure in the death of the wicked’ (Ezek 18. 23), that he ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2. 4), and that Christ ‘gave himself as a ransom for all’ (1 Tim 2. 4), belongs to the main thrust of Christian soteriology. Although there have been soteriological pessimists (Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, was an optimist on the salvation of the angels, but a pessimist on the salvation of human beings) and optimists (Karl Barth construed Paul's universalist teleology as a flat guarantee of universal salvation), most Christians have had to content themselves with an affirmation of God's at least antecedently universal salvific will, with the hope for the salvation of many and even of all, and with a straightforward agnosticism respecting whether the finally lost will be ‘any’ or ‘many’ or something in between. But, in the word of Matt 22.14 (l.v. 20. 16), Jesus himself speaks, and he seems (a) to evoke election = predestination = salvation, (b) to reduce the number of the elect = predestined = saved to ‘few’, and (c) to suggest that the differentiation between the called and the elect is not the outcome of human acts but of divine decision. All three factors — final salvation is at stake, few are saved, and this by God's sovereign decision — say why this word has been a crux interpretum .

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Within the story-world of Mark, the religious authorities (the scribes, Pharisees, Herodians, chief priests, elders, and Sadducees) form a united front opposed to Jesus and therefore constitute a single, or collective, character as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Within the story-world of Mark, the religious authorities — the scribes, Pharisees, Herodians, chief priests, elders, and Sadducees — form a united front opposed to Jesus61 and therefore constitute, literary-critically, a single, or collective, character. If Jesus is the protagonist, they are the antagonists, and both Jesus and they exhibit a ‘root character trait’, that is, a character trait from which all other traits spring. Thus, Jesus, as the Messiah Son of God, is characterized as ‘uniquely related’ to God. As such, he is endowed with divine authority and ‘thinks the things of God’, which is to say that he views reality from a divine perspective. In contrast, the religious authorities are characterized as being ‘without authority’, which is to say that they ‘think the things of men’ and view reality from a purely human perspective. Consequently, the conflict between Jesus and the authorities in Mark's story is an extended clash over ‘authority’. Instead of receiving Jesus as God's Messiah and Son, they oppose him throughout his ministry.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, an der Auslegung des Romerbriefs durch neue Gesichtspunkte anregt und vorantreibt, ist eine Diskussion erwachsen, in eben dem kirchlich-gesellschaftlichen Raum halten zu konnen.
Abstract: Zu den Vorarbeiten fur einen Kommentar zum Romerbrief gehort der Versuch, uber den Zweck und den Gesamtcharakter dieses Apostelschreibens Klarheit zu gewinnen. Darum gibt es von Ulrich Wilckens einen ‘Aufsatz Uber Abfassungszweck und Aufbau des Romerbriefs’, vier Jahre vor dem ersten Band seines Kommentars erschienen,2 und von Peter Stuhlmacher einen Vortrag ‘Der Abfassungszweck des Romerbriefs’,3 erwachsen aus der Vorarbeit fur seinen Romerbrief-Kommentar im ‘Neuen Testament Deutsch’, mit dessen Erscheinen bald zu rechnen ist. Einen ahnlichen Stellenwert und Sinn hat fur mich das folgende Referat im Blick auf die Kommentierung des Romerbriefs im Theologischen Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, die mir ubertragen worden ist. Dabei freue ich mich besonders, diesen Vortrag in eben dem kirchlich-gesellschaftlichen Raum halten zu konnen, in dem auch der Kommentar in erster Linie seinen Beitrag zum Verstandnis und zur Wirkung des Neuen Testaments leisten soil. Daraus konnte eine Diskussion erwachsen, die meine Arbeit an der Auslegung des Briefes durch neue Gesichtspunkte anregt und vorantreibt.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, it was shown that the contradiction between the two phrases could have arisen from the fact that the living creatures of Rev 4.6 could be at the same time "in the middle of the throne" and "around the throne".
Abstract: R. H. Charles, noting that no one had successfully explained how the living creatures of Rev 4.6 could be at the same time ‘in the middle of the throne’ and ‘around the throne’, boldly but logically throws out έν μέσῳ το θρόνου καί as a gloss. Since no manuscript omits the phrase έν μέσῳ το θρόνου, those with a literary conscience less robust than Charles' have tried to explain it. Yet attempts to interpret έν μέσῳ το θρόνου as ‘in the middle of each side of the throne’, ‘at the height of the middle of the throne’, or ‘in the center where the throne was’ heighten our surprise at the author's choice of words even as they explain his phraseology. Affirming that John has added ‘around the throne’ to the traditional ‘in the middle of the throne’ explains how the contradiction might have arisen but hardly lessens the tension between the two phrases.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argued that there are neither sufficient text-critical reasons nor sufficient contextual reasons for preferring μπιοι to νππικόφει, or νφόπιευει or μυυγόγει (gentle) in 1 Thess 2.7.
Abstract: There is a well known textual problem in 1 Thess 2. 7. The problem occurs in the second clause of the verse and concerns whether the text should read ν⋯πιοι (infants) or ἤπιοι (gentle). My aim in this short note is to argue that there are neither sufficient text-critical reasons, nor sufficient contextual reasons for preferring ἤπιοι to ν⋯πιοι. This argument swims against the tide of contemporary scholarly opinion. Almost all of the major commentators on this text read ἤπιοι, gentle. Further, all the standard English translations read ‘gentle’.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors discuss the compositional processes of the Gospel of Mark, and the extent to which the evangelist drew on earlier sources, but the details of this process of collection, redaction, and composition are not at all clear.
Abstract: When scholars discuss the compositional processes of the Gospel of Mark, one of the important questions is the extent to which the evangelist drew on earlier sources. Mark seems to have collected and reordered a great amount of disparate material and given it his own stamp in order to produce something new. But the details of this process of collection, redaction, and composition are not at all clear. To what extent were those traditions already gathered or collected before Mark? Were the pre-Marcan materials transmitted in oral or written form? What degree of freedom did the gospel writer employ in taking over, adapting, or rewriting earlier sources?

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the credal statement of 1 Corinthians 15.3 can be interpreted in both the vicarious and atoning sense, and it can be taken in both atoning and vicarious sense.
Abstract: Our redemption by the death of Christ on the cross is summed up in the credal statement of 1 Corinthians 15.3, ‘that Christ died for our sins (ύπέρ τν άμαρτιν ήμν)’, or very simply ‘for us (ύπέρ ήμ⋯ν)' (Rom 5.8). The meaning of this ύπέρ could be either vicarious: he died in our place; or atoning: he died on our behalf. But, whereas the ‘for our sins’ formula can be understood only in the atoning sense, the ‘for us’ one can be taken in both the vicarious and the atoning sense. Moreover, the ‘for us’ formula is logically — though not necessarily chronologically — prior to the ‘for our sins’ one. The latter might well have had its origin on Palestinian soil under the influence of Isaiah 53. 4–5,10.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The death of Christ has not been prominent in the significant recent debate about the centre of Paul's theology, between E. P. Sanders and H. H. Hubner as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The death of Christ has not been prominent in the significant recent debate about the centre of Paul's theology, between E. P. Sanders and H. Hubner. Sanders characterizes Paul's pattern of religion as a ‘participationist eschatology’ as compared to the ‘covenantal nomism’ of the contemporary Judaism. H. Hubner champions the centrality of ‘justification by faith’, over against a ‘mystical identification with the crucified and risen Christ’. The former comes from Luther, and the latter from Albert Schweitzer. Hubner says of Sanders' book that in several passages it sounds as if Schweitzer redivivus were speaking. Sanders tends to make Paul's religion too intellectual — a change of world view, rather than a response to experience. Hubner does not take seriously enough the convincing evidence that Paul's problem with the Mosaic law was not the same as Luther's, namely that it promoted a ‘works righteousness’ which caused pride, but rather that in its social role as the guardian of the boundaries of the Jewish community, it excluded the Gentiles. Both, however, do not take the Cross seriously enough.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of Prapositional verbindungen sichtbar, e.g., 1 Thess 3.4 and 2.1.
Abstract: 1. ‘Denn als wir noch bei euch waren, haben wir euch vorausgesagt, das wir in Bedrangnis geraten werden, wie es auch — das wist ihr ja — eingetroffen ist’, schreibt Paulus in 1 Thess 3.4 and die junge Christengemeinde in Thessalonich. Er konnte ihr demnach bereits bei seinem Grundungsaufenthalt kommende Leidenserfahrungen ankundigen, die sich offenbar dann auch umgehend eingestellt haben (vgl. noch 1. 6; 2. 13–14). In dieser Erinnerung an Anfange und Geschick der Gemeinde in Thessalonich spiegelt sich der auch anderswo im Neuen Testament belegte historische Sachverhalt, das die fruhen christlichen Gemeinden von Anbeginn an mit der Realitat des Leidens konfrontiert waren und das diese Leidenswirklichkeit ihren masgeblichen Grund in der Existenz der Gemeinden an sich, d.h. in ihrem Bekenntnis zu Jesus Christus und den daraus fur ihr Leben gezogenen Konsequenzen hatte. Insofern die christlichen Gemeinden als Minderheiten von den religiosen und sozialen Normen der nichtchristlichen Umwelt abwichen, teilten sie das typische Geschick gesellschaftlicher Minoritaten: Ihre Leidenserfahrungen konkretisierten sich vor allem in sozialer Isolation wie aggressiver Ausgrenzung, aber auch in blutiger Verfolgung. Dieser ursachliche Zusammenhang von Christsein und Leiden wurde auch von den fruhen Christen selbst als solcher wahrgenommen. Dies macht eine Reihe von Prapositionalverbindungen sichtbar, die die Erfahrung des Leidens als ein Leiden ‘um Christi willen’ u.a. bestimmen. Der damit gegebenen Gefahr, sich dem Leiden durch die Abwendung vom christlichen Bekenntnis zu entziehen (vgl. Mk 4.17; 8.34–38; Joh 12.42–43; 16.1; 1 Thess 3.3–4; 2 Tim 1.8, 12; 2.12–13; 1 Petr 4.16; Apk 2.13; 3.8 u.o.), versuchen die neutestamentlichen Autoren dadurch zu begegnen, das sie die Leidenserfahrungen ihrer Gemeinden in einer Weise theologisch deuten, die dem Leiden seinen Charakter als Differenzerfahrung nimmt und den Gemeinden eine positive Bewaltigung ihrer jeweiligen Leidenswirklichkeit ermoglicht. Diese Deutung zielt darauf ab, die Gemeinden trostend ihrer Identitat als von Gott erwahlter eschatologischer Heilsgemeinschaft zu vergewissern, indem sie die bedruckende Leidenswirklichkeit als ein konstitutives Element christlicher Heilswirklichkeit sichtbar zu machen sucht, d.h. als eine Erfahrung, die nicht einen heillosen Entfremdungszustand der Gottesferne markiert, sondern positiv in den Vollzug heilvoller christlicher Existenz hineingehort.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The bulk of these chapters is invariably understood as a general, or abstract, exposition of Christian virtues, without particular reference to a situation at Rome as mentioned in this paper, which leads to fussy, artificial or disjointed divisions of the chapters into a multiplicity of exhortations which fail to grasp the broad sweep of Paul's thought.
Abstract: The bulk of these chapters is invariably understood as a general, or as it were abstract, exposition of Christian virtues, without particular reference to a situation at Rome. We read in Luther, for example, that ‘the apostle is about to teach a Christian ethic’ when he begins chapter 12. Nygren states that none of Romans is aimed at circumstances peculiar to Rome, and that chapters 12–13 contain Paul's ‘central view of the ethical life of the Christian’. Kasemann regards 12–13 as general exhortation, only 14.1–15.3 being directed at problems in Rome. According to E. P. Sanders, nothing in Romans is called forth by the situation of the letter's recipients. ‘It seems best’, he writes, ‘to view Romans as being Paul's reflection on the problem of Jew and Gentile, in the light of the coming encounter in Jerusalem’. There are, however, several difficulties with this view. One is that the chapters do not include areas of Christian ethics with which we know Paul was concerned, such as marriage (1 Cor 7; Col 3.18 ff.), slavery (Col 3.22 ff.; Phlm), slander (1 Cor 6.10), suffering for Christ (2 Cor 1.7), generosity (2 Cor 8.6 ff.), avoiding witchcraft and gluttony (Gal 5.20; Phil 3.19), working hard (1 Thess 4.9–11). If Paul were writing a deliberately general ethic, we should have expected perhaps more system and certainly a greater range of items.6 More importantly, the view leads to fussy, artificial or disjointed divisions of the chapters into a multiplicity of exhortations which fail to grasp the broad sweep of Paul's thought. In particular the precise relevance of 13.1–7 is left obscure.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter has been studied, and it is shown that an extensive layer of Pastoral-type redaction overlies this literature.
Abstract: In my book Authority in Paul and Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter, I claim to have established not certainty, but a balance of probability, that an extensive layer of Pastoral-type redaction overlies this literature. I did so on the basis of an accumulation of converging lines of evidence which came to light in applying different kinds of criteria to relevant passages. Something I did not do, which I propose now to consider and illustrate, is how to weigh degrees of probability that particular passages are later addition or interpolations, whether they can be connected with the Pastoral Epistles or not.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For example, Bellinzoni as mentioned in this paper found that Justin's variant citations and harmonizations seemed especially close to those found in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, which had great influence on the later manuscript tradition of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Abstract: Because of their early date (mid-second century) and interesting variants, the gospel citations of Justin Martyr — he almost always refers to his source as άπομνημονeύματα τν άποστόλων (‘memoirs of the apostles’), and only rarely as a ‘gospel’ — have long attracted scholars’ attention. It is self-evident that the citations contain numerous variant readings and are frequently harmonized; the dispute has been over what best explains this phenomenon. Semisch and Zahn said that the variant readings and harmonizations were due to lapses of Justin's memory. Credner argued that Justin's non-standard citations were the result of his reliance upon extracanonical gospels. Bousset opined that Justin had access to presynoptic traditions; this explained both the similarities and the differences between Justin's text and the later (revised) synoptic text. Von Engelhardt suggested that Justin used a post-synoptic gospel harmony. This position found support in the researches of Bellinzoni, who investigated the ‘sayings of Jesus’ genre in Justin. He noted passages cited more than once in exactly the same harmonized form, suggesting a written document, and passages paralleled in other early Christian sources in very similar harmonized form. Bellinzoni interpreted this as indicating that Justin had used a gospel harmony, which was also used by other early Christian writers. He noted that Justin's variant citations and harmonizations seemed especially close to those found in the Pseudo- Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. Bellinzoni concluded that this harmony was post-synoptic, excluded John, and ‘had great influence on the later manuscript tradition of Matthew, Mark and Luke’. In the last paragraph of his book, Bellinzoni speculated that the harmony used by Justin might have links with the Diatessaron: ‘Tatian was a pupil of Justin, … It is now apparent that the concept of a gospel harmony did not originate with Tatian.’

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The opening words of 1 Corinthians 13 have undergone numerous translations since their initial composition in the first century C.E. Although translators have often differed in semantic emphasis, there is remarkable agreement regarding the function of ἤ.
Abstract: The opening words of 1 Corinthians 13 have undergone numerous translations since their initial composition in the first century C.E. Although translators have often differed in semantic emphasis, there is remarkable agreement regarding the function of ἤ. Indeed, in every translation ἤ has been rendered as a disjunctive conjunction, equivalent to the English ‘or’. Unfortunately, this consensus has never produced a wholly satisfactory translation, resulting instead in some rather creative etymological crusades.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors attribuees a Jeesus in divers lieux: au debut du discours apocalyptique de la triple tradition (Me 13.1−2 par); lors de la comparution de Jeesuss devant le Sanhedrin (Me 14.58 par); pendant la sceene de la deerision des passants (Me 15.29 par); and enfin lors du proces d'Etienne (Ac 6.14).
Abstract: Compte non tenu de la tradition attesteee en Q (Lc 13. 35 par.) sur la ‘maison’ abandonneee,1 des propos relatifs a la mine du Temple sont attribuees a Jeesus en divers lieux: au debut du discours apocalyptique de la triple tradition (Me 13.1–2 par.); lors de la comparution de Jeesus devant le Sanhedrin (Me 14. 58 par.); pendant la sceene de la deerision des passants (Me 15. 29 par.); dans le reecit johannique de la ‘purification’ du Temple (Jn 2.19), enfin lors du proces d'Etienne (Ac 6.14).2

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article argued for reversing that trend, and in the process sharpened our understanding of an important part of John's vocabulary, i.e., the use of the two verbs This article.
Abstract: Scholars who have commented on John's use of the two verbs range from those who view the words as having very different meanings to the recent trend of seeing no difference. The following analysis argues for reversing that trend, and in the process sharpens our understanding of an important part of John's vocabulary.