Showing papers in "New Testament Studies in 1992"
TL;DR: In this paper, a contribution se situe dans le sillage d'un precedent travail qui portait sur les sources non-litteraires, archeologiques et epigraphiques, du judeo-christianisme ancien.
Abstract: Cette contribution se situe dans le sillage d'un precedent travail qui portait sur les sources non-litteraires, archeologiques et epigraphiques, du judeo-christianisme ancien.1
31 citations
TL;DR: For much of this century the notion of a Menschensohn, or Son of Man figure, loomed large in scholarly reconstructions of Jewish eschatological expectations in the time of Jesus as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: For much of this century the notion of a Menschensohn , or Son of Man figure, loomed large in scholarly reconstructions of Jewish eschatological expectations in the time of Jesus. The primary Jewish attestation of this figure was found, of course, in Dan 7.13, with complementary appearances in the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra 13. There was considerable diversity of opinion about the origin and precise nature of this figure. More imaginative scholars, like Sigmund Mowinckel, held that ‘Conceptions of a more or less divine Primordial Man were widespread in the ancient east. Apparently there is a historical connexion between the varying figures of this type, which seem to be derived, directly or indirectly, from Iranian or Indo-Iranian myths.’ 1 The Jewish conception of ‘the Son of Man’ was ‘a Jewish variant of this oriental, cosmological, eschatological myth of Anthropos’, 2 influenced by a syncretistic fusion of Iranian and Mesopotamian concepts. At the least, the phrase ‘Son of Man’ was thought to be a well-known, readily recognizable title for a messiah of a heavenly type, in contrast to the national, earthly, Davidic messiah. As recently as 1974 Norman Perrin could claim that all the recent studies of the ‘Son of Man Problem’ he had reviewed agreed on one point: ‘there existed in ancient Judaism a defined concept of the apocalyptic Son of Man, the concept of a heavenly redeemer figure whose coming to earth as judge would be a feature of the drama of the End time.’
24 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a more precise formulation of the plot of the Gospel of Matthew and present a review and critique of the work that has been done so far and then propose a new formulation.
Abstract: Narrative criticism has called our attention to the fact that the Gospels have plots. Still, the actual work of describing the plots of our various Gospels has only just begun. This article intends to further that project with regard to the Gospel of Matthew. It will review and critique work that has been done so far and will then offer a more precise formulation than has been proposed previously.
17 citations
TL;DR: It need scarcely be said that Christ's death constitutes the theological centre of gravity for Paul's entire soteriology (e.g., 1 Thess 510; 1 Cor 21-2; 123; Rom 56, 8; passim ) as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: It need scarcely be said that Christ's death constitutes the theological centre of gravity for Paul's entire soteriology (eg, 1 Thess 510; 1 Cor 21–2; 123; Rom 56, 8; passim ) One aspect of this is the atonement for humanity's sin In the past, the presupposition of many scholars has been that the concept of Christ's expiatory death (eg, Gal 313; 2 Cor 521; Rom 324–5; 83) is first and foremost a Jewish sacrificial idea, as defined in the Pentateuch
14 citations
TL;DR: In this article, les tendances de la recherche se dessinent avec suffisamment de precision for qu'il soit possible de suggerer des pistes de reflexion and des changements substantiels dans l'approche rhetorique des textes.
Abstract: Mon propos n'est pas de faire le status quaestionis sur les travaux qui, depuis maintenant deux decennies, ont systematiquement etudie le NT a l'aide de la rhetorique greco-romaine. Sans doute est-il encore trop tot pour dresser un bilan exhaustif. Malgre tout, les tendances de la recherche se dessinent avec suffisamment de precision pour qu'il soit possible de suggerer des pistes de reflexion et des changements substantiels dans l'approche rhetorique des textes – en particulier pauliniens.
9 citations
TL;DR: The majority of scholars interpret the narrative of the Cleansing of the Leper (Mark 1.40-45 par) as a miracle story in which Jesus cures a man sick with leprosy, and, in accord with the precepts of Leviticus 13-14, immediately sends him to the priest to have his cure verified as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The majority of scholars interpret the narrative of the Cleansing of the Leper (Mark 1.40–45 par) as a miracle story in which Jesus cures a man sick with leprosy, and, in accord with the precepts of Leviticus 13–14, immediately sends him to the priest to have his cure verified. The leper, however, despite Jesus' warning, spreads the word of his healing far and wide, so much so that Jesus is no longer able to enter into towns because of his great popularity. Such an interpretation seems to fit in well with what is often said to be Mark's concern, in the first part of his gospel, to present Jesus as a powerful miracle worker, under the thematic umbrella of the Messianic Secret.
9 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, ausfuhrungen als Motto voranstelle, dann nicht, um mich selbst als Propheten anzupreisen, sondern, um anzuzeigen, daβ unter dieser Rucksicht auch Paulus seiner Aufmerksamkeit verdient.
Abstract: Wenn ich dieses Wort vom Ende des ersten Thessalonicherbriefes meinen Ausfuhrungen als Motto voranstelle, dann nicht, um mich selbst als Propheten anzupreisen, sondern um anzuzeigen, daβ unter dieser Rucksicht auch Paulus selbst unsere Aufmerksamkeit verdient.
8 citations
TL;DR: In their recent survey of the synoptic problem as discussed by the authors, Sanders and Davies argue that a complicated solution must be held to be the most likely, and conclude,Mark probably did sometimes conflate material which came separately to Matthew and Luke (so the Griesbach hypothesis), and Matthew probably did conflate materials which came separate to Mark andLuke (the twosource hypothesis), thus they think that Luke knew Matthew and that both Luke and Matthew were the original authors of some of their sayings material.
Abstract: In their recent survey of the synoptic problem E. P. Sanders and M. Davies argue that a complicated solution must be held to be the most likely, and conclude,Mark probably did sometimes conflate material which came separately to Matthew and Luke (so the Griesbach hypothesis), and Matthew probably did conflate material which came separately to Mark and Luke (the twosource hypothesis). Thus we think that Luke knew Matthew (so Goulder, the Griesbachians and others) and that both Luke and Matthew were the original authors of some of their sayings material (so especially Goulder). Following Boismard, we think it likely that one or more of the gospels existed in more than one edition, and that the gospels as we have them may have been dependent on more than one proto- or intermediate gospel.
8 citations
TL;DR: When Paul interprets "Do not muzzle the ox while threshing" as "do not neglect to pay Christian ministers" as mentioned in this paper, some commentators have quite naturally assumed that his exegesis was allegorical.
Abstract: When Paul interprets ‘Do not muzzle the ox while threshing’ as ‘do not neglect to pay Christian ministers’, commentators have quite naturally assumed that his exegesis was allegorical. However, comparisons with contemporary rabbinic exegesis suggest that this would have been regarded as a literal interpretation of the plain meaning of the text.
8 citations
7 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the relation of the logion to certain OT prophetic themes is discussed, and the suitability of positing any connection between the Logion and the Sirach is questioned.
Abstract: The description of Wisdom in Sirach has exercised a profound influence on the interpretation of Matt 11.28–30. Many scholars, impressed with the evident parallels between Sir 51.23–7; 6.23–31 and the Matthean logion,1 have regarded the latter as dependent on the former.2 Others, taking a further step, have felt justified in interpreting the logion with reference to a wisdom christology. According to this view, Jesus, represented as Wisdom incarnate,3 offers rest to those burdened by the legal interpretations of the Pharisees4 through his yoke, which stands for his teaching, or, more precisely, for his interpretation of the law.5 This approach to the logion has had its detractors,6 and some scholars have questioned the suitability of positing any connection between Sirach and the logion.7 It is not the purpose of the present discussion to enter into this debate, but rather to draw attention to what might be termed a neglected feature in the discussion of Matt 11.28–30, namely the relation of the logion to certain OT prophetic themes.8
TL;DR: In Gal 3.11.5 and Rom 10.5, Paulus stellt two Schriftworte einander entgegen, and spielt das zweite gegen das erste aus as mentioned in this paper, weil er die Erkenntnis der iustificatio impii als einen Kanon im Kanon gebraucht.
Abstract: In Gal 3.11–12 und Rom 10.5–10 stellt der Apostel Paulus Lev 18.5 in Beziehung zu jeweils einer anderen Schriftstelle, in Gal 3 zu Hab 2.4 und in Rom 10 zu Dtn 30.12–14. In der Exegese wird die Beziehung oft als eine hermeneutische Antinomie dargestellt. So schreibt Ph. Vielhauer1 zu Rom 10.5–8: ‘Hier stellt Paulus zwei Schriftworte einander entgegen … und spielt das zweite gegen das erste aus …’ Nach Vielhauer kann Paulus das tun, weil er die Erkenntnis der iustificatio impii als einen Kanon im Kanon gebraucht. Nach E. Kasemann2 ubt Paulus an einer Stelle wie dieser die Unterscheidung der Geister der Schrift gegenuber und verwendet dabei die Rechtfertigungsbotschaft als Kriterium. Zu Gal 3.11–12 schreibt J. Chr. Beker:3 ‘In a daring move, Paul opposes Scripture to Scripture … and thus splits Scripture apart, because Lev 18.5 is antithetical to God's will in Christ.’4
TL;DR: Schlatter made three basic observations as discussed by the authors : Satan's power stands in opposition to the disciples: directly in 22.31−32; indirectly through the demons in 10.17−19; and Jesus is not a mere spectator, but in some way has a hand in resolving the situation in each case.
Abstract: Few investigations in biblical studies begin with utterly unique ideas. We all stand upon the shoulders of our predecessors. This study is no exception. There is nothing new about this paper's claim that Jesus' prayer for Peter, referred to in Luke 22.31–32, is thematically related to Satan's fall from heaven, narrated in Luke 10. 18. Adolf Schlatter articulated the similarities between these two texts, which have given rise to similar interpretative suggestions made more briefly by others. Schlatter made three basic observations. Firstly, in both scenes Satan's power stands in opposition to the disciples: directly in 22.31–32; indirectly through the demons in 10.17–19. Secondly, Satan has been in heaven before God: implied in 22.31–32; the point of origin for his fall in 10.18. Thirdly, Jesus is not a mere spectator, but in some way has a hand in resolving the situation in each case. While Schlatter did not elaborate on the final point, any more than he did the others, the remainder of this study will try to demonstrate more clearly what Schlatter seems to have sensed. Just as Luke 22.31–32 portrays Jesus-the-Advocate standing against Satan-the-Accuser in heaven, so 10.18 offers a picture of the decisive overthrow of this accuser from heaven. Furthermore, the implication is that this heavenly overthrow has been accomplished through the prayers of the scribal-intercessor, Jesus.
TL;DR: In this article, a Darstellung der Ereignisse wahrend des Zwischenbesuches in der Sicht des Paulus is presented, which lassen sich nur indirekt aus dem 2 Kor erschlieβen (neben 2 Kor 10−13 bes. in den Kapiteln 1−7; vgl 7.8).
Abstract: Im folgenden wird vorausgesetzt, daβ 2 Kor 10–13 dem sogenannten Tranenbrief, den der Apostel nach dem in Korinth unglucklich verlaufenen Zwischenbesuch geschrieben hat, zugehort. Dabei soil nicht bestritten werden, daβ einige Aussagen, die man in diesem Zusammenhang erwarten wurde, nicht nachzuweisen sind. So vermiβt man eine Darstellung der Ereignisse wahrend des Zwischenbesuches in der Sicht des Paulus. Diese lassen sich nur indirekt aus dem 2 Kor erschlieβen (neben 2 Kor 10–13 bes. in den Kapiteln 1–7; vgl. 7.8). Daruber hinaus wird man zugestehen, daβ der Tranenbrief nur unvollstandig uberliefert ist (es fehlt zumindest der Anfang), so daβ die Moglichkeit nicht abgewiesen werden kann, daβ wesentliche Stucke der Abrechnung des Paulus mit seinen Gegnern der redaktionellen Zensur zum Opfer gefallen sind.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors show that the miraculous signs mentioned in the quotation in v. 18 are specifically rejected as manifestations of the Spirit and only authoritative preaching is regarded as the fulfilment of the prophecy.
Abstract: In his influential article in TDNT, E. Schweizer was to claimLuke adopts the typically Jewish idea that the Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy…. This may be seen in Lk 4:23–27, where the miraculous signs mentioned in the quotation in v. 18 are specifically rejected as manifestations of the Spirit and only authoritative preaching is regarded as the fulfilment of the prophecy.
[...]
TL;DR: The Sayings Gospel Q is notable for lacking an account of Jesus' death as mentioned in this paper, and many have come to believe that these references are casting an implicit glance at the death of Jesus himself.
Abstract: The Sayings Gospel Q is notable for lacking an account of Jesus' death 1 It is surprising that one early Christian document is apparently so indifferent to an event which plays a profound role in others (eg, Romans, Mark) Scholars have, to be sure, observed that the issue of persecution and/or death is often referred to in Q, and many have come to believe that these references are casting an implicit glance at the death of Jesus himself According to this line of thought, early Christians would have used the deaths of the prophets to connect Jesus' death with those of his followers I do not intend to argue against this Rather, I will propose that there is also another view according to which Q related Jesus' death and those of his followers This view involved common, Cynic-Stoic ideas of the time
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider the stages in the development of the genre of Q and suggest that a consensus is not yet emerging, but they do not discuss the role of the temptation story in this process.
Abstract: Recent discussion of the genre of Q suggests that a consensus is not yet emerging. On the one hand there is the view of John Kloppenborg that the stages in the development of Q were, firstly, the assembling of a number of wisdom speeches followed by, secondly, an expansion by various groups of sayings, many formed as chriae, and then, thirdly, a move in the direction of a bios by means of an historicizing tendency and the addition of the temptation story (Q 4.1–13). 1 Within this approach traditions which seem prima facie to exhibit prophetic form or content are strictly subordinated to, or at least controlled by, their setting in a wisdom collection. That is, the wisdom Makrogattung determines how any prophetic Mikrogattungen are to be viewed. On the other hand there is the view of Migaku Sato that Q should be compared with prophetic books, and that it grew in several redactional stages, each of which was informed by the prophetic tradition and conditioned by prophetic mission. 2 On this view the prophetic Makrogattung determines how any sapiential Mikrogattungen are to be viewed.
TL;DR: Hemer as discussed by the authors explains the use of Σeβατός in Acts as the formal rendering of the imperial title in Greek and Acts 25.21, 25, 25.
Abstract: Recent commentators on the works of Luke, the Gospel and Acts, make remarkably similar statements regarding the transliteration of the Latin title Augustus into Greek. All agree that Luke used Αύγοΰστο, in the Gospel as a personal name and all agree that in Acts 25.21, 25, he used the Greek form of the Latin title, Σeβαστός. Only one of these commentators, however, goes beyond this simple observation to deal with the questions that must arise from such selective use by Luke of Αὐγο⋯στος and Σeβαστ⋯ς. Colin Hemer attempts to go slightly beyond this to explain Luke's use of Σeβατός in Acts as the formal rendering of the imperial title. It is not clear what Hemer means by his use of the words ‘rendered formally’ because Σeβαστός is no more formal than Αὐγο⋯στος. The point is simply that the former is the correct form of the imperial title in Greek and the latter is the correct form in Latin. Unless Luke had an ulterior motive these words should not have been used in any other sense. Moreover, if one detects some new or special use of Αὐγο⋯στος by Luke, one certainly should ask what this means? Such a question is especially pertinent when one notes that, according to Blass and Debrunner, Luke was ‘inclined to remove Latinisms’.
TL;DR: The story of the raising of Lazarus (John 11.1.1-44) is one of the most dramatic and impressive of the compositions in the Fourth Gospel and it raises a host of problems for the biblical critic as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The story of the raising of Lazarus (John 11.1–44) is one of the most dramatic and impressive of the compositions in the Fourth Gospel. For this very reason it raises a host of problems for the biblical critic. There can be no dispute that it has a theological purpose which dominates the whole narrative. This is clearly set out in the first words attributed to Jesus: ‘This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it’ (v. 4). The same point is referred to again just before the climax of the narrative in v. 40. But the more prominent the theological aim, the more difficult it becomes to view the narrative simply in terms of history. It must surely be the case that John has based his composition on a source, which was probably much simpler and briefer than the splendid story which it has become in his hands. But the source must be reconstructed before we can begin to think of it in historical terms. The modern tendency is to give up such attempts as hopeless, and to concentrate on the meaning of the text as it stands. But even that presents pitfalls to the critic. All seems well until we come to v. 33: ‘Jesus…was deeply moved in spirit (ένeβριμήσατο τῷ πνeύματι) and troubled.’ Unfortunately the Greek words do not mean ‘deeply moved in spirit’ (RSV). In his recent commentary on John in the Word Biblical Commentary, G. R. Beasley-Murray marshalls a great array of evidence to show that the meaning must be ‘became angry in spirit’. But why should Jesus be represented by John as angry? The effort to answer this question affects the interpretation of the whole story.
TL;DR: In this article, eine Vereinbarung zwischen Paulus und Petrus darstellt, die auf den ersten Besuch Pauli in Jerusalem zuruckgeht.
Abstract: Ich mochte versuchen darzulegen, daβ Gal 2.7–8 eine Vereinbarung zwischen Paulus und Petrus darstellt, die auf den ersten Besuch Pauli in Jerusalem zuruckgeht.
TL;DR: The authors showed that while the majority text is a valuable asset for the study of texttypes, the theory which motivated its editors does not stand up to the rigour of this preliminary collation study.
Abstract: In a recent edition of New Testament Studies D. B. Wallace has argued for a procedural change in New Testament textual criticism, namely that textual critics consider using the recently published The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text as a baseline for collation studies. The following study demonstrates the sound value of such a move for intra-Byzantine studies. It further shows that while the Majority Text is a valuable asset for the study of texttypes, the theory which motivated its editors does not stand up to the rigour of this ‘preliminary’ collation study.
TL;DR: In the third chapter of 2 Thess, the author addresses himself to the problem that some members of the church behave ἀτάκτως, "in a disorderly way" and not according to the tradition as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: In the third chapter of 2 Thess, the author of this letter addresses himself to the problem that some members of the church behave ἀτάκτως, ‘in a disorderly way’, and not according to the tradition (3.6). As it seems, this behaviour amounts to a refusal to work for a living. The brothers in question take advantage of others (cf. 3.8), and busy themselves with useless things, causing unrest (3.11–12).
TL;DR: The ending of 1 Peter includes greetings from a person or group designated by an adjective, συνeκλeκτός (co-elect, 5.13), found no where else in the New Testament.
Abstract: The ending of 1 Peter includes greetings from a person or group designated by an adjective, συνeκλeκτός (co-elect, 5.13), found no where else in the New Testament. The adjective as it stands in 1 Peter is preceded by a singular feminine article and has a singular feminine ending. It functions as a substantive and has a modifying prepositional phrase, ν Bαβυλ νι (in Babylon), sandwiched between the article and the adjective. The complete phrase reads: ν Bαβυλ νι συνeκλeκτή literally, ‘the (feminine) in Babylon co-elect (feminine)’.
TL;DR: Bornkamm as mentioned in this paper, der als erster den Nachweis dafur fuhrte, daβ die Ekklesiologie im Matthausevangelium eine zentrale Stellung einnimmt, ja vielleicht sogar dessen Hauptthema ist.
Abstract: Dieses Thema bietet Anlas zum dankbaren Gedenken an Gunther Bornkamm. Er war es, der als erster den Nachweis dafur fuhrte, daβ die Ekklesiologie im Matthausevangelium eine zentrale Stellung einnimmt, ja vielleicht sogar dessen Hauptthema ist. ‘Kein anderes Evangelium ist so wie Matth. vom Kirchengedanken gepragt, fur den kirchlichen Gebrauch gestaltet.’ Dieser Satz steht in Bornkamms erstmals 1956 erschienener Studie ‘Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthausevangelium’.1 In ihr hat Bornkamm auch als erster jenen methodischen Weg beschritten, der es ermoglicht, dem Kirchenverstandnis des Evangelisten nachzu-spuren: es ist der Weg der Redaktionsgeschichte. Vor ihm war es lediglich Adolf Schlatter gewesen, der in seinem groβen Matthaus-kommentar einige Hinweise in die gleiche Richtung gegeben hatte, die allerdings wegen der noch fehlenden methodischen Absicherung in der damals noch vollig anderen Forschungslage kaum zur Kenntnis genommen worden waren.
TL;DR: ErErnst as discussed by the authors first dealt with the Baptist in the Markan gospel and only then, in his second chapter, with the prophet in Q, although it is generally recognized that Q is older than Mark.
Abstract: In the most recent monograph on John the Baptist Josef Ernst first deals with the Baptist in the Markan gospel and only then, in his second chapter, with the Baptist in Q, although it is generally recognized that Q is older than Mark.1 Moreover, in Ernst's opinion there is no contact between Mark and Q. Ernst does not even consider that Mark 1.2bc may be taken from Q (cf. Matt 11.10 = Luke 7.27),2 nor does he see in Mark 1.7–8 a more recent, re-written text of a more original version of Q.3 The extent of Q in John's preaching is, as in many Q studies, limited to Matt 3.7–12=Luke 3.7–9, 16b–17. In this text Matt 3.11=Luke 3.16 is ‘trimmed’: ‘I baptize you with water, but the Most Powerful One (= God) is coming … He will baptize you with a holy Spirit and fire.’ Thus neither ‘after me’ nor the qualification of John's unworthiness is retained.4
TL;DR: The Frage nach der literarischen Struktur der sogenannten groβen Einschaltung im Lk-Ev is bis heute noch nicht uber-zeugend beantwortet worden as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Die Frage nach der literarischen Struktur der sogenannten groβen Einschaltung im Lk-Ev ist bis heute noch nicht uber-zeugend beantwortet worden. Sie wird jedoch so lange in regel-maβigen Abstanden auf die Tagesordnung zuruckkehren, bis sich uber sie eine gewisse communis opinio gebildet hat, auch wenn wir davon heute noch weit entfernt sind.