scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "New Testament Studies in 1996"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors give great attention to the New Testament text of the Acts of the Apostles, and especially to the Greek Acts of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, which is enriched by the principal representative of the so-called ‘Western’ text.
Abstract: Over the years textual critics have given great attention to the New Testament text of the Acts of the Apostles. Like all New Testament texts, it merits particular attention, but especially because its textual tradition is enriched by the principal representative of the so-called ‘Western’ text, the Greek Acts of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. The presence of this defining element of the ‘Western’ text has made the Acts of the Apostles an exceptionally fertile environment for the production, evaluation, and refinement of theories about the history of the Greek New Testament text. The favoured status of the Greek Acts extends to the ancient versions as well. Even the Old Georgian version of Acts has been grouped with ‘Western’ witnesses – F. C. Conybeare studied a few chapters of one manuscript of the Georgian Acts and concluded that it had many ‘Western’ readings.

43 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Bruce N. Fisk1
TL;DR: A number of interpretations of 1 Cor 6.18 can be found in the literature, e.g., this article, where a majority of interpreters continue to identify all of v. 18 with Paul's own position, although there is little agreement over the nature of Paul's contrast between sexual sin and other sins.
Abstract: Scholars continue to puzzle over the meaning and rhetorical function of 1 Cor 6.12–20. For many, the burning question is historical: what prompted some Corinthian Christians to defend the use of prostitutes?1 Others have suggested that the rhetoric of the argument works only when certain Corinthian ‘slogans’ are identified and decoded. Still others ponder the predominantly individualistic focus of this section, within a letter labouring at almost every turn to shape Christian community. For several, the stumbling stone is Paul's ‘body’ language. In all of this, the precise contribution of v. 18 has been elusive.2 Increasingly popular is the view that 18b – every sin a man commits is outside the body – is a Corinthian ‘slogan’ known and cited by Paul only to be soundly debunked or at least substantially modified.3 The chief advantage of this view is obvious: a notorious Pauline crux becomes a mere Corinthian quirk. Nevertheless, a majority of interpreters (probably rightly) continue to identify all of v. 18 with Paul's own position, although there is little agreement over the nature of Paul's contrast between sexual sin and other sins. Some take Paul to be arguing for a ‘quantitative’ difference: sexual sin belongs toward the end of a continuum; whatever damage sin causes is intensified in the case of sexual sin. Others detect a sharper, ‘qualitative’ difference: sexual sin is different in kind, not just in degree, from other sins. The chart below (see over, pp. 542–3) collects and orders the principal alternatives we have outlined.4

25 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the gegenwartige Exegese nimmt mehrheitlich an, dass die johan-neische Literatur in ihrer kanonischen Form (Joh, 1 Joh, 2 Joh, 3 Joh) das Resultat eines langen Prozesses der Ausgestaltung darstellt, der sich im wesentlichen der Tatigkeit einer Schule verdankt.
Abstract: Die gegenwartige Exegese nimmt mehrheitlich an, dass die johan-neische Literatur in ihrer kanonischen Form (Joh, 1 Joh, 2 Joh, 3 Joh) das Resultat eines langen Prozesses der Ausgestaltung darstellt, der sich im wesentlichen der Tatigkeit einer Schule verdankt. Diese Annahme wirft zwei Fragen auf: Wie hat die johanneische Schule die Traditionen, deren Verwalterin sie war, aufgenommen und weitergegeben? Und welcher hermeneutischer Verfahren hat sie sich bedient, um die verschiedenen Ausformun-gen dieser Traditionen zu interpretieren und zu aktualisieren? Im Sinne einer Arbeitshypothese schlagen wir vor, im Prozess der Relecture eines der wichtigsten Verfahren zu sehen, das die theo-logische Arbeit der johanneischen Schule auszeichnet. Dieser Prozess der Relecture ist keine Erfindung der johanneischen Kreise; er ist bereits sowohl im Alten Testament, insbesondere in den prophetischen Buchern,4 als auch in den paulinischen und synop-tischen Traditionen belegt. Das Ziel der folgenden Ausfuhrungen besteht darin, die unterschiedlichen Aspekte dieser Arbeit der Relecture, die wir in der johanneischen Literatur und insbesondere im vierten Evangelium wahrnehmen, zu beschreiben.

23 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
L. L. Welborn1
TL;DR: In this article, a connection between 2.13 and 7.5 has been made between the two works, showing that the account of Paul's anxious search for Titus breaks off at the decisive point (2.13) and resumes only four chapters later (7.5) at the very point where it had broken off.
Abstract: Johannes Weiss was the first to suggest that 2 Cor 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 was once an independent work.1 Weiss saw that the tone of these chapters varied, not only from chapter 10–13, but also from the intervening text, 2.14–7.4. Here the reconciliation is not apparent, which, in chapters 1–2 and 7, is the presupposition of Paul's joy. On the contrary, Paul must still answer charges that he has wronged, corrupted, and defrauded the Corinthians, and must plead with the Corinthians to open their hearts (2.17; 4.1–2; 6.3–13; 7.2–4). This passage must have been written at the height of the conflict, before the successful conclusion of peace. Then, Paul wrote again in a cordial manner, to assure the Corinthians of his confidence, and to remove the lingering traces of doubt. The proof of this analysis Weiss discovered in the connection between 2.13 and 7.5: the account of Paul's anxious search for Titus breaks off at the decisive point (2.13) and resumes only four chapters later (7.5) at the very point where it had broken off. ‘This separation of what belongs together is unheard of and intolerable, from a literary point of view, since 2.13 and 7.5 fit onto each other as neatly as the broken pieces of a ring.’2

21 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The neutestamentlichen Schriften blicken mehrheitlich with erheblichem zeitlichem Abstand auf die Anfange des fruhen Christentums zuruck as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Die neutestamentlichen Schriften blicken mehrheitlich mit erheblichem zeitlichem Abstand auf die Anfange des fruhen Christentums zuruck. Dieser Blick ist in keinem Fall von einem ausschlieβlich historischen Interesse geleitet, er dient vielmehr durchgehend der Selbstvergewisserung der eigenen Gegenwart. So erscheint die Verhaltnisbestimmung zum Judentum in fast alien Schriften durch eine klare Abgrenzung gekennzeichnet. Der weitgehend negative Verlauf der christlichen Mission an Juden einerseits und der Fall Jerusalems im Jahr 70 n.Chr. andererseits haben diese neutestamentliche Sicht im wesentlichen gepragt.

18 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, it is shown that the Son of David is a low-key term, divested of all political overtones, but it is none the less important for that.
Abstract: How significant is the Son of David tradition for Mark? At first blush the answer to that question would seem to be: not very significant at all. The title ‘Son of Man’ is, after all, far more frequent, and can be applied to Jesus in no fewer than three guises his earthly authority (Mark 2.10, 28), his suffering servanthood (8.31; 9.9, 12, 31; 10.33–4, 45), and his apocalyptic glory (8.38; 13.26; 14.21, 41, 62).1 The term ‘Son of God’, while used less frequently, appears at theologically strategic points in the narrative (1.12; 3.H; 15.39; See also 1.11, 24; 5.7; 9.7), and is clearly Mark's controlling title for Jesus, in whose light all the others are to be understood. ‘Son of David’, by contrast, while characteristic of Matthew (1.1, [20]; 9.27; 12.23; 15.22; 20.30–1; 21.9, 15), appears as a title for Jesus only twice in Mark (10.47, 48) – although its underlying concept is found in 11.9–10, and its messianic significance is briefly considered by Jesus in 12.35–7. So, to return to our initial question: does this infrequency of occurrence imply that the title is not important for Mark? On the contrary, one full section of the gospel, at least, 10.46–12.44, appears to be characterised by what one might call Jesus' ‘Son of David activity’. The illusion that Mark lacks interest in this field is created in two ways. First, the Evangelist quite conventionally confines this Son of David activity to the environs of Jerusalem, but in his scheme, Jerusalem does not loom into view until the last week of Jesus' life (10.46–16.8), so it is clear that the Son of David concept could not have been introduced prior to his entry into Judea (10.1). Secondly, it will be shown that, for Mark, the Davidic title is a low-key term, divested of all political overtones – but it is none the less important for that.

13 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The early Christians, and especially Paul, taught that salvation was to be received solely as a result of the gracious action of God himself and consequently by faith alone; such faith was in no sense some kind of human achievement but rather a dependence upon God himself as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Until 1977 it was commonly believed that when New Testament writers affirmed that justification or salvation was not by works but by faith, they were opposing a view that was assumed to be held by first-century Jews, namely that admission to the saved community could be achieved on the basis of conditions which included performing good deeds or fulfilling the duties required by the Jewish law; the effect of these was to acquire merit on account of which God would accept the person and not take their sins into account. Over against this view the early Christians, and especially Paul, taught that salvation was to be received solely as a result of the gracious action of God himself and consequently by faith alone; such faith was in no sense some kind of human achievement but rather a dependence upon God himself.

12 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For instance, the authors argued that rhetorical interpreters have difficulty tracing a logical argument throughout the letter: most bracket off the hortatory section of Galatians; Joop Smit has argued on rhetorical grounds that Galatenians 5.13.6.10 is a later addition.
Abstract: George Kennedy affirms that Galatians rests on ethos, that Paul maintains the appearance of logical argument ‘perhaps more to seem to recognize the possibility of objections and to be prepared to answer them confidently than to provide a developed response’. Kraftchick concurs: ‘Since Paul's case is no more logical than his opponents’ the argument depends on non-logical factors: ethos and pathos.’ Rhetorical interpreters have difficulty tracing a logical argument throughout the letter: most bracket off the hortatory section of Galatians; Joop Smit has argued on rhetorical grounds that Galatians 5.13–6.10 is a later addition. That rhetorical interpreters dispute the species of rhetoric to which Galatians belongs also implies confusion over logical progression in the letter. Of course, the place of the hortatory material in Paul's argument has long been hotly debated; Paul's highly compressed arguments have long challenged interpreters. Yet because rhetorical critics claim to clarify the flow of argument in a text, their failure is especially striking. Does this difficulty in delineating a logical argument imply that Galatians contains irreconcilable contradictions as Smit argues, or that Paul offers an ethical rather than a logical argument as Kennedy and Kraftchick indicate, or that rhetoric is irrelevant to parenesis as Barclay concludes, or does it imply that rhetorical interpreters have yet to grasp the logical proof in the letter?

10 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A cause de sa position marginale d'ecrit anonyme tardivement admis dans le canon des Ecritures, l'epitre aux Hebreux a parfois ete negligee par les exegetes, mais on peut constater que ce n'est plus le cas en ces dernieres annees as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: A cause de sa position marginale d'ecrit anonyme tardivement admis dans le canon des Ecritures, l'epitre aux Hebreux a parfois ete negligee par les exegetes, mais on peut constater que ce n'est plus le cas en ces dernieres annees. Le nombre et la qualite des commentaires qui ont ete publies ou republies recemment manifestent l'interet que suscite cette epitre. Dans un rapport de la Theologische Rundschau, Erich Graβer, lui-meme auteur d'un important commentaire, en a presente une longue serie, qui s'est encore allongee depuis. Cet interet renouvele m'a encourage a consacrer a cette epitre la presente conference presidentielle. Je suppose d'ailleurs que l'une des raisons qui ont pousse la SNTS a me nommer president a ete le desir de mettre a l'honneur l'epitre aux Hebreux.

9 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Lightfoot as mentioned in this paper concludes that the content of the list in Galatians describes a Jewish timekeeping scheme, and that the Colossian list functions to describe the non-Christian practices of the opponents.
Abstract: Exegetes often cite the list in Gal 4.10 (⋯μέρας κα⋯ μ⋯νας κα⋯ καιροὺς κα⋯ ⋯νιαυτούς days and months and seasons and years) as parallel in content and function to the list in Col 2.16 (⋯ορτ⋯ς ἤ νeομηνίας ἤ σαββάτων a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths). J. B. Lightfoot provides the most extensive explanation of the content and function of these lists, and he reaches two conclusions that permeate the exegetical tradition of these two verses. First, he concludes that the content of the list in Galatians describes a Jewish timekeeping scheme since the list in Colossians clearly does so. His rationale is strengthened by Paul's polemic against the Judaizers in Galatians. Second, he deduces that the Colossian list functions to describe the non-Christian practices of the opponents since the list in Galatians is clearly a non-Christian temporal scheme that should be rejected.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Hengel as discussed by the authors argues that the early Christian interpretation of Ps 110.1 provided not only the most important impulse to the development of Christology in the nascent church, but also a blasphemous enormity to contemporary Jewish sensibilities: the idea that the crucified Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, was raised and seated ‘at the right hand’ of God that is, enthroned as a co-occupant of God's own "throne of glory" (cf. Jer 17.12), located in the highest heaven.
Abstract: In a recent article, Martin Hengel argues that the early Christian interpretation of Ps 110.1 provided not only the most important impulse to the development of Christology in the nascent church, but also a blasphemous enormity to contemporary Jewish sensibilities: the idea that the crucified Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, was raised and seated ‘at the right hand’ of God that is, enthroned as a co-occupant of God's own ‘throne of glory’ (cf. Jer 17.12), located in the highest heaven. For in the OT, being seated on the throne in heaven is reserved for Yahweh alone, and in subsequent Jewish tradition it is rare to find any reference to someone sharing the throne of God.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There has been a tendency among some exegetes to treat 2 Cor 8.1.1-15 as "merely" an administrative and financial issue as mentioned in this paper, and this conclusion is based on Paul's use of ἐπιτeλέω which, they argue, draws on the language of business and government.
Abstract: There has been a tendency among some exegetes to treat 2 Cor 8.1–15 as ‘merely’ an administrative and financial issue. Often this conclusion is based on Paul's use of ἐπιτeλέω which, they argue, draws on the language of business and government. However, the distinction between ‘administrative’ and ‘religious’ is improper; one of the primary ways of demonstrating piety in antiquity was by the giving of money to a god. There is much inscriptional evidence for the use of ἐπιτeλέω in contexts of religious duty.1 Given the social context of Paul and the Corinthians, these inscriptions provide helpful background for the way in which Paul's injunction to give generously would have been heard and understood.2

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors claim that the tendency of modern textual critics and exegetes is to regard the long disputed text-critical issue of Luke's final pericope (Luke 24.50-3) as more or less settled in favour of the authenticity of the so-called "longer (non-Western) text" (i.e. containing the phrases κα⋯ ⋆έρeτο eἰς τ⋆ ούρανόν, v. 51
Abstract: It is by no means an exaggeration to claim that the tendency of modern textual critics and exegetes is to regard the long disputed text-critical issue of Luke's final pericope (Luke 24.50–3) as more or less settled in favour of the authenticity of the so-called ‘longer (non-Western) text’ (i.e. containing the phrases κα⋯ ⋯νeφέρeτο eἰς τ⋯ν ούρανόν, v. 51 and προσκυνήσαντeς αύτόν, v. 52). Typical of the scholarly consensus is the almost unanimous adoption of the disputed words by modern Greek text editions, translations and exegetical studies, a trend which is not least inspired by the fact that the disputed words are attested in the oldest surviving copy of the Gospel of Luke, Papyrus 75 ($ = Papyrus Bodmer XIV), an early third-century MS closely affiliated with Codex Vaticanus (B). In the opening chapter of Acts the Textual situation is not essentially different. Despite continuing scholarly debate concerning the antiquity and origin of the Western text tradition (infra), in general, contemporary scholarship supports the ‘Alexandrian’ text.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Luke and Matthew used the gospel of Mark as the main source for their own gospels as discussed by the authors, and Matthew reproduced almost all the contents of Mark; however, they omitted one large block of Marcan material: Mark 6.45 and 8.26.
Abstract: According to the most widely accepted theory, Luke and Matthew used the gospel of Mark as the main source for their own gospels. In so doing, Matthew reproduced almost all the contents of Mark; Luke however omitted one large block of Marcan material: Mark 6.45–8.26. Luke may have omitted this section because his copy of the gospel of Mark was lacking this section, or because, although he knew this material, he chose to omit it from his gospel.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Galatians 1.10 is a suggestive marker that has been overlooked by many exegetical travellers: ‘For now do I seek the approval of humans or of God? Or do I want to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be Christ's slave as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Galatians 1–2 is a well-worn scholarly path, but Gal 1.10 is a suggestive marker that has been overlooked by many exegetical travellers:‘For now do I seek the approval of humans or of God? Or do I seek to please people?If I were still pleasing people, I would not be Christ's slave.’


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There are several references in the gospels of John and Matthew which indicate that members of the Pharisaic sect associated with the Jewish chief priests in a quasi-authoritative way to work for common religious or political purposes as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: There are several references in the gospels of John and Matthew which indicate that members of the Pharisaic sect associated with the Jewish chief priests in a quasi-authoritative way to work for common religious or political purposes. Where these references have occurred, they have attracted attention – and indeed suspicion – as being historically inaccurate and the result of a retrojection of the role of the Pharisees in the later first century into the earlier periods of that century.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors found no explicit anti-pagan utterances in the mouth of Jesus in the canonical Gospels, but they did not find the word eἰδωλολατρία (idolatry) in the Gospels.
Abstract: We do not find the word eἰδωλολατρία (idolatry) in the canonical Gospels. Persons appearing in the latter and representing non-Jewish religion are never denounced by Jesus as idolaters, not even Pontius Pilate, whose religiously provocative actions against the Jews are known through Philo and Josephus. In the word ‘dogs’ which Jesus uses in the dialogue with the woman near Tyre (Mark 7.27, cf. Matt 7.6) there may be an allusion to pagan religion, but this is not certain. The low profile towards non-Jewish religion in our Gospels stands in contrast to the New Testament writings which precede them, i.e. the letters of Paul, or which come after them, e.g. Acts and the Book of Revelation. In his confrontation with non-Jews and in his prophecies about the share of the peoples in the Kingdom of God Jesus seems to be indifferent towards non-Jewish religion, in contradistinction to many New Testament writers and also many Jewish contemporaries, such as the Qumran Essenes (1QS 2.11–12, 17; cf. Deut 29.17–20; CD 11.14, 12.6–11; lQpHab 12.12–14) and Philo. If the Gospels were written by persons with an interest in transmitting the Christian message to the non-Jewish world, it seems odd that explicit anti-pagan utterances in the mouth of Jesus are almost lacking.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Ebene et al. as discussed by the authors show that a Papyrus Egerton 2.1 was verkauft in 1934 by einem agyptischen Handler an das British Museum London, and gilt er seit seiner Erstedition 1935 als eine der altesten christlichen Handschriften auf Papyrus, palaographisch zu datieren um 200P.
Abstract: Kaum ein Papyrusfund hat in diesem Jahrhundert so Furore gemacht wie der des P. Lond. Christ. I, oder, unter seiner bekannteren Inventarnummer, Papyrus Egerton 2. 1934 von einem agyptischen Handler an das British Museum London verkauft, gilt er seit seiner Erstedition 1935 als eine der altesten christlichen Handschriften auf Papyrus, palaographisch zu datieren um 200P. Keine Frage, daβ das Schriftstuck das Interesse der neutestamentlichen Forschung auf sich zog, waren doch aus ihm moglicherweise neue Erkenntnisse uber die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition zu erwarten. Die Grundfrage, die seit seiner Entdeckung an das Evangelienfragment gestellt wird und weiterhin zu stellen ist, ist dementsprechend die nach dem literarischen Verhaltnis zu den kanonischen Evangelien. Die Alternative heiβt: Entweder ist Egerton diesen gegenuber sekundar und ohne groβen Wert fur den Historiker, oder er bietet eine von den Evangelien unabhangige, ja moglicherweise sogar altere Uberlieferung.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper argued that the section which runs from Luke 7.18 to 35 is composed of a random assemblage of pericopes of various types, including chriae, parables, commentaries thereon, and random sayings.
Abstract: The familiar but somewhat puzzling designation of Jesus as ‘a glutton and a drunkard’ comes at the end of a sequence in the Q tradition which contrasts the respective roles of Jesus and John the Baptist. Perceptions of the force and import of this appellation are linked with the context in which one understands it to have been uttered. A currently vocal scholarly contingent of those engaged in the study of Q insists that the section which runs from Luke 7.18 to 35 is composed of a random assemblage of pericopes of various types, including chriae, parables, commentaries thereon, and random sayings. There is said to be neither a coherent representation of John and Jesus in Q as we have it, nor a consistent evaluation of their respective roles.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism, E. P. Sanders as discussed by the authors argued that the strict Pauline view of the law was foreign to early rabbinic Judaism:There is no hint in Rabbinic literature of a view such as that of Paul in Gal. 3.10 or of IV Ezra, that one must achieve legal perfection.
Abstract: In his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism, E. P. Sanders challenged the traditional assessment of early rabbinic soteriology as based upon legalistic works-righteousness. Sanders contended that the strict Pauline view of the law was foreign to early rabbinic Judaism:There is no hint in Rabbinic literature of a view such as that of Paul in Gal. 3.10 or of IV Ezra, that one must achieve legal perfection... Human perfection was not considered realistically achievable by the Rabbis, nor was it required.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The gravierendsten Unterschieden zwischen den Synoptikern und dem Johannesevangelium zahlt die Stellung der Tempelrei-nigung.
Abstract: Zu den gravierendsten Unterschieden zwischen den Synoptikern und dem Johannesevangelium zahlt die Stellung der Tempelrei-nigung. Wahrend sich bei Markus die Tempelreinigung einen Tag nach dem Einzug in Jerusalem (vgl. Mk 11.15–19), bei Matthaus und Lukas unmittelbar mit dem Einzug ereignet (vgl. Mt 21.12–13; Lk 19.45–6), stellt Johannes sie an den Beginn des offentlichen Wirkens Jesu. Historisch gehort die Tempelreinigung zweifellos an das Ende des Wirkens Jesu, denn sie war ein auslosender Faktor fur seine Festnahme. Johannes durfte um diesen ursprungli-chen Ort der Tempelreinigung gewuβt haben, verfugt er doch speziell im Bereich der Passion Jesu uber alte Traditionen und gute Informationen. Warum aber verleiht der 4.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The increased sensitivity of contemporary NT scholars to the social dimension of texts, as well as their rhetorical and stylistic deployment, may at last offer the possibility of unravelling this intriguing set of antitheses, particularly at its critical point, that is, the interpretation of Σκύθης.
Abstract: Scholars have always found the series in Col 3.11b difficult to interpret gracefully. There it is stated that in Christ the distinction with βάρβαρος, Σκύθης ‘barbarian, Scythian’, has been abolished, along with that between the more comprehensible oppositions of ‘Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision … slave, free’. The increased sensitivity of contemporary NT scholars to the social dimension of texts, as well as to their rhetorical and stylistic deployment, however, may at last offer the possibility of unravelling this intriguing set of antitheses, particularly at its critical point, that is, the interpretation of Σκύθης.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The relationship between language and society has been axiomatic for most linguists since the groundbreaking work of Ferdinand de Saus-sure as mentioned in this paper, who argued that the structure of a language is a social product of its language faculty, which is also a body of necessary conventions adopted by society to enable members of society to use their language faculty.
Abstract: Certainly since the groundbreaking work of Ferdinand de Saus-sure, the social character of language has been axiomatic for most linguists. Saussure writes: ‘The structure of a language is a social product of our language faculty. At the same time, it is also a body of necessary conventions adopted by society to enable members of society to use their language faculty.’ Eugene Nida and Johannes Louw, writing in the supplement to their New Testament lexicon, acknowledge the connection between their treatment of semantics and sociology, but they refrain from specifying what they think the relationship between language and society to be. Nida is somewhat more forthcoming in his study of componential analysis when he writes:There are analogies between the structure of a culture and the semantic structure of a corresponding language, but there is no set of one-to-one correspondences. A language must be free to describe a variety of possibilities, including those which have not as yet entered the culture. Nevertheless, the language does reflect in certain aspects of its semantic structure those aspects of the culture which for one reason or another have become salient in the lexical contrasts.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Christ describes himself in Rev 3.14 as "the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" as discussed by the authors, and has suggested a variety of backgrounds for the threefold title.
Abstract: Christ describes himself in Rev 3.14 as ‘the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God’. Commentators have suggested a variety of backgrounds for the threefold title. The purpose of this study is to review these proposals and argue in support of one of them.