Abstract The fourth century of the Common Era was a period significant for witnessing the effective birth of Christian historiography and the (putatively) definitive separation of ‘Jew’ and ‘Christian’ as distinctive identities. A text emerged, known as Pseudo-Hegesippus or De Excidio Hierosolymitano (On the Destruction of Jerusalem). This text illustrates how Christian historiography and Christian anti-Jewish ideology at that time could engage with the traditions of classical antiquity. In particular, this article argues that Pseudo-Hegesippus deploys figures from the Hebrew Bible in the mode of classical exempla and that it does so within the largely classical conceptual framework of national decline. For Pseudo-Hegesippus, biblical figures presented as classical exempla serve to illustrate the historical decline of the Jews until their effective end in 70 CE (when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple). One passage, De Excidio 5.2.1, and its enlistment of five Hebrew heroes illustrates this point particularly well. The use of exemplarity and the theme of national decline employed there help us appreciate De Excidio as a distinctive contribution to early Christian historiography and anti-Jewish literature in late antiquity; this expands our ability to imagine the ways in which fourth-century Christian authors could conceive of and articulate Jewish history in classical terms.
{"title":"Jewish National Decline and Biblical Figures as Classical Exempla: Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, and Elisha in De Excidio 5.2.1","authors":"Carson Bay","doi":"10.1515/JBR-2019-0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/JBR-2019-0017","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The fourth century of the Common Era was a period significant for witnessing the effective birth of Christian historiography and the (putatively) definitive separation of ‘Jew’ and ‘Christian’ as distinctive identities. A text emerged, known as Pseudo-Hegesippus or De Excidio Hierosolymitano (On the Destruction of Jerusalem). This text illustrates how Christian historiography and Christian anti-Jewish ideology at that time could engage with the traditions of classical antiquity. In particular, this article argues that Pseudo-Hegesippus deploys figures from the Hebrew Bible in the mode of classical exempla and that it does so within the largely classical conceptual framework of national decline. For Pseudo-Hegesippus, biblical figures presented as classical exempla serve to illustrate the historical decline of the Jews until their effective end in 70 CE (when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple). One passage, De Excidio 5.2.1, and its enlistment of five Hebrew heroes illustrates this point particularly well. The use of exemplarity and the theme of national decline employed there help us appreciate De Excidio as a distinctive contribution to early Christian historiography and anti-Jewish literature in late antiquity; this expands our ability to imagine the ways in which fourth-century Christian authors could conceive of and articulate Jewish history in classical terms.","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86891491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Matt 1:17 indicates that Jesus’ genealogy is formed by three series of fourteen generations; however, this total number of generations does not match the preceding list in Matt 1:2-16. Interpreters have proposed multiple ways to understand this inconsistency which have yet to be collected and evaluated. A double literature review displays the limitations of this seemingly insoluble biblical conundrum. This article presents the tension between verse 17 and verses 2-17 of Matthew’s gospel as a puzzling reading experience that can best be described, in line with Stanley Fish, as a self-consuming artifact: an experience of incongruity in which the text and the reader are transformed through a process of negation. This approach also highlights other potential reversals in Matthew 1, such as Davidic traditions, that can yield a renewed outlook on this gospel.
{"title":"Experiencing a Biblical Self-Consuming Artifact: Jesus’ Genealogy (Matt 1:2-17)","authors":"Sébastien Doane","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2019-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Matt 1:17 indicates that Jesus’ genealogy is formed by three series of fourteen generations; however, this total number of generations does not match the preceding list in Matt 1:2-16. Interpreters have proposed multiple ways to understand this inconsistency which have yet to be collected and evaluated. A double literature review displays the limitations of this seemingly insoluble biblical conundrum. This article presents the tension between verse 17 and verses 2-17 of Matthew’s gospel as a puzzling reading experience that can best be described, in line with Stanley Fish, as a self-consuming artifact: an experience of incongruity in which the text and the reader are transformed through a process of negation. This approach also highlights other potential reversals in Matthew 1, such as Davidic traditions, that can yield a renewed outlook on this gospel.","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78020367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The aim of this collection of essays, entitled “Dynamic Unity in the Gospel of John”, is to offer the reader another path through the tradition of interpretations. First, it explores some authors who are often neglected in studies of the history of this dogma: Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215), Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–c. 253), Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390), Evagrius Ponticus (345–399), Albert the Great (c. 1200–1280), and Meister Eckhart (c. 1260–c. 1328). Second, it does not focus on the theological treatises, but rather on commentaries on the Gospel of John. It thereby aims to highlight the great variety of exegetical interpretations as found in biblical hermeneutics. Third, it adopts an interdisciplinary point of view by interweaving the methods proper to New-Testament studies, to patristics and to medieval philosophy. Fourth, it offers to the readers the possibility to adopt historical perspective on the exegetical tradition of these Johannine verses: both in their original context and in the history of their reception. The goal is to question the dynamics of the transfer of the idea of dynamic unity into different scholarly disciplines through various geographical, linguistic and cultural areas.
{"title":"Dynamic Unity in the Gospel of John","authors":"J. Casteigt","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2020-0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2020-0008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The aim of this collection of essays, entitled “Dynamic Unity in the Gospel of John”, is to offer the reader another path through the tradition of interpretations. First, it explores some authors who are often neglected in studies of the history of this dogma: Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215), Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–c. 253), Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390), Evagrius Ponticus (345–399), Albert the Great (c. 1200–1280), and Meister Eckhart (c. 1260–c. 1328). Second, it does not focus on the theological treatises, but rather on commentaries on the Gospel of John. It thereby aims to highlight the great variety of exegetical interpretations as found in biblical hermeneutics. Third, it adopts an interdisciplinary point of view by interweaving the methods proper to New-Testament studies, to patristics and to medieval philosophy. Fourth, it offers to the readers the possibility to adopt historical perspective on the exegetical tradition of these Johannine verses: both in their original context and in the history of their reception. The goal is to question the dynamics of the transfer of the idea of dynamic unity into different scholarly disciplines through various geographical, linguistic and cultural areas.","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85964506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstrakt Der Philosoph Heinrich Rombach, einer der Interpreten Meister Eckharts, hat den Vorschlag gemacht, Wechsel-Beziehungen begrifflich nicht als Beziehung von Identitäten zu verstehen, sondern statt dessen den Begriff der „Idemität“ zu benutzen, d.h. die Fassung einer Einheit in einer sich ständig rückkoppelnden Bewegung: bei sich selber sein und sich doch aus der Beziehung verstehen. Sie hat zwar ihre eigene Selbigkeit, aber als Geschehen ist sie auf andere Weise in sich differenziert. Diese Figur nennt Meister Eckhart „Unterscheidung durch Ununterschiedenheit“. Er zielt damit nicht ein Paradox an, sondern eine innere Differenzierung ohne kategorialen Außenbezug. Von Eckhart übernimmt Rombach eine Struktur, die er „vermittelte Unmittelbarkeit“ nennt. Dietmar Mieth versucht, diese Struktur der „Idemität“ in Meister Eckharts Johanneskommentar gleichsam als strukturgleiche Parallele von Wort/Sprache, Beieinandersein („apud“), Sohn/Menschwerdung/Geburt, Gerechtigkeit zu erläutern. Dabei erinnert der Johanneskommentar an verschiedenen Stellen auch an die eckhartsche Bildlehre, führt sie aber weniger aus als z.B. im Genesiskommentar, in Pauluszitaten oder in den deutschen Predigten. Umso gewichtiger ist es, auch hier die strukturgleiche Parallele zu zeigen. Zusätzlich scheint es ihm wichtig, den im Johanneskommentar verwendeten Naturbegriff genauer zu betrachten. Denn entweder bezeichnet der Naturbegriff ganz verschiedene Dinge, also die Natur Gottes, die Natur des Menschen, die Natur der christlichen Sittlichkeit, die Natur der Naturgesetze, oder er bezeichnet die Gründe der Philosophen im Unterschied oder in Korrespondenz zu den Motiven des Glaubens. D.h. es geht gar nicht um das, was wir heute mit „Natur“ im Sinne säkularer Wissenschaft assoziieren, sondern um ein Lesegerät für eine metaphorische, d.h. über ihre immanente Rekonstruktion hinausweisende, Bedeutung der Eigengesetzlichkeit der Dinge. Dies käme dem nahe, was Bernhard von Claivaux im Unterschied zum „liber revelationis“ als „liber creaturae“ bezeichnet hat, das Buch der Schöpfung im Unterschied zum Buch der Erlösung. Der Unterschied bezieht sich bei Eckhart jedoch nicht auf zwei unterschiedliche Regionen der Erkenntnis sondern auf eine Beziehung, in welcher Zwei und Eines zugleich miteinander korrespondieren.
{"title":"„Idemität“. Zum Konzept Meister Eckharts in seinem selektiven Kommentar zum Johannesevangelium","authors":"D. Mieth","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2019-0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0015","url":null,"abstract":"Abstrakt Der Philosoph Heinrich Rombach, einer der Interpreten Meister Eckharts, hat den Vorschlag gemacht, Wechsel-Beziehungen begrifflich nicht als Beziehung von Identitäten zu verstehen, sondern statt dessen den Begriff der „Idemität“ zu benutzen, d.h. die Fassung einer Einheit in einer sich ständig rückkoppelnden Bewegung: bei sich selber sein und sich doch aus der Beziehung verstehen. Sie hat zwar ihre eigene Selbigkeit, aber als Geschehen ist sie auf andere Weise in sich differenziert. Diese Figur nennt Meister Eckhart „Unterscheidung durch Ununterschiedenheit“. Er zielt damit nicht ein Paradox an, sondern eine innere Differenzierung ohne kategorialen Außenbezug. Von Eckhart übernimmt Rombach eine Struktur, die er „vermittelte Unmittelbarkeit“ nennt. Dietmar Mieth versucht, diese Struktur der „Idemität“ in Meister Eckharts Johanneskommentar gleichsam als strukturgleiche Parallele von Wort/Sprache, Beieinandersein („apud“), Sohn/Menschwerdung/Geburt, Gerechtigkeit zu erläutern. Dabei erinnert der Johanneskommentar an verschiedenen Stellen auch an die eckhartsche Bildlehre, führt sie aber weniger aus als z.B. im Genesiskommentar, in Pauluszitaten oder in den deutschen Predigten. Umso gewichtiger ist es, auch hier die strukturgleiche Parallele zu zeigen. Zusätzlich scheint es ihm wichtig, den im Johanneskommentar verwendeten Naturbegriff genauer zu betrachten. Denn entweder bezeichnet der Naturbegriff ganz verschiedene Dinge, also die Natur Gottes, die Natur des Menschen, die Natur der christlichen Sittlichkeit, die Natur der Naturgesetze, oder er bezeichnet die Gründe der Philosophen im Unterschied oder in Korrespondenz zu den Motiven des Glaubens. D.h. es geht gar nicht um das, was wir heute mit „Natur“ im Sinne säkularer Wissenschaft assoziieren, sondern um ein Lesegerät für eine metaphorische, d.h. über ihre immanente Rekonstruktion hinausweisende, Bedeutung der Eigengesetzlichkeit der Dinge. Dies käme dem nahe, was Bernhard von Claivaux im Unterschied zum „liber revelationis“ als „liber creaturae“ bezeichnet hat, das Buch der Schöpfung im Unterschied zum Buch der Erlösung. Der Unterschied bezieht sich bei Eckhart jedoch nicht auf zwei unterschiedliche Regionen der Erkenntnis sondern auf eine Beziehung, in welcher Zwei und Eines zugleich miteinander korrespondieren.","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88957301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-01DOI: 10.1515/jbr-2020-frontmatter1
{"title":"Frontmatter","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2020-frontmatter1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2020-frontmatter1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79548935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article studies Albert the Great’s conception of reciprocal interiority in the exposition of John 14:10: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works” (Bible quotes from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)). Firstly, the article explores how Albert the Great understands reciprocal interiority as an element of the debate concerning the equality of the Father and of the Son, who, although identical in nature, are different according to the relation, like the one who begets and the one who is begotten. Secondly, it emphasizes the metaphysical solution that Albert borrows from Greek-Arabic neoplatonism, especially from the Liber de causis, so as to refute an objection based on Aristotle’s conception of place. This cultural transfer brings to light how Albert the Great’s Super Iohannem is an innovative melting pot in which Albert imports a new framework from profane sciences, with which to interpret the Gospel of John.
{"title":"From the Middle Ages Back to Antiquity: The Reception of the Idea of Dynamic Unity in the Gospel of John as Entanglement of Intellectual Traditions","authors":"J. Casteigt","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2019-0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0014","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article studies Albert the Great’s conception of reciprocal interiority in the exposition of John 14:10: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works” (Bible quotes from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)). Firstly, the article explores how Albert the Great understands reciprocal interiority as an element of the debate concerning the equality of the Father and of the Son, who, although identical in nature, are different according to the relation, like the one who begets and the one who is begotten. Secondly, it emphasizes the metaphysical solution that Albert borrows from Greek-Arabic neoplatonism, especially from the Liber de causis, so as to refute an objection based on Aristotle’s conception of place. This cultural transfer brings to light how Albert the Great’s Super Iohannem is an innovative melting pot in which Albert imports a new framework from profane sciences, with which to interpret the Gospel of John.","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76556248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son
{"title":"The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian","authors":"Ilaria L. E. Ramelli","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2019-0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86029517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Using the tools of social geography, specifically those developed by Edward Soja, Henri Lefebvre, and Oliver Sacks, this article explores the Gospel of John’s spatial reference to place as it appears in Jesus’ Farewell Discourse (John 14–17) and the ways it uses narrative to create places for the practices and conceiving of religious identity. Although application of spatial study to John’s gospel is relatively rare in Johannine studies, it promises a great deal of insight, especially because John’s gospel is filled with numerous references to place and a rich variety of prepositional phrases. Through narrative, John offers a spatial temporalization (following Soja, a ‘thirdspace’) for audiences to inhabit and interpret the world around them. John’s Father-Son-Paraclete language of unity (which the Christian tradition has interpreted metaphysically and soteriologically without reference to time and space) creates a place for Johannine discipleship in which listeners reenact the dynamic relationship of its three divine actors. John establishes a particular mode of spatial identity by presenting Father, Son, and Paraclete, together with the narrative’s antagonists and protagonists in particular spaces with a set of behaviors associated with each location. The Johannine reference to Jesus going to prepare a place for his disciples after his death (John 13:36), and the reference to a mansion with many room (John 14:2–4) is traditionally interpreted as a reference to the afterlife or a heavenly domain. Scholars have debated whether this represents a futurist or a realized eschatological teaching. A spatial application offers new insights by viewing it from a social geographical perspective as a spatial location “in the world,” lived out locationally “in” the Paraclete, in rejection by the “world.” Metaphysical unity language refers to a narrative of rejection and suffering, which reveals the identity of Johannine believers “in but not of the world.” In this regard, John reflects sapiential themes found in the Hebrew Bible and the intertestamental period that tell of wisdom dwelling on earth and also being rejected.
本文运用社会地理学的工具，特别是由Edward Soja, Henri Lefebvre和Oliver Sacks开发的工具，探讨了约翰福音在耶稣的告别话语(约翰福音14-17)中对地点的空间参考，以及它如何使用叙事来创造实践和构思宗教身份的场所。虽然空间研究在约翰福音的研究中相对较少，但它保证了大量的洞察力，特别是因为约翰福音中充满了大量关于地点的引用和丰富的介词短语。通过叙事，约翰为观众提供了一个空间时间化(继Soja之后，“第三空间”)，让他们居住和解读周围的世界。约翰的父-子- paraclete统一的语言(基督教传统从形而上学和救赎论的角度来解释，而不涉及时间和空间)为约翰的门徒训练创造了一个场所，听众可以在其中重演三位神演员之间的动态关系。John通过呈现父亲、儿子和Paraclete建立了一种特殊的空间身份模式，以及在特定空间中与每个位置相关的一系列行为的叙事对手和主角。约翰福音提到耶稣死后要为他的门徒准备一个地方(约翰福音13:36)，提到一个有很多房间的豪宅(约翰福音14:2-4)，传统上被解释为指的是来世或天堂。学者们争论这是代表未来主义还是实现末世论的教导。空间应用提供了新的见解，从社会地理的角度来看，它是“在世界上”的空间位置，在“Paraclete”中被“世界”拒绝的位置。形而上学的统一语言指的是一种拒绝和痛苦的叙事，它揭示了约翰信徒“在但不属于世界”的身份。在这方面，约翰反映了希伯来圣经和新约间期的智慧主题，这些主题讲述了智慧居住在地球上，也被拒绝。
{"title":"The Father, the Son, and John on Location in the Farewell Discourse","authors":"H. Maier","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2019-0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0018","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Using the tools of social geography, specifically those developed by Edward Soja, Henri Lefebvre, and Oliver Sacks, this article explores the Gospel of John’s spatial reference to place as it appears in Jesus’ Farewell Discourse (John 14–17) and the ways it uses narrative to create places for the practices and conceiving of religious identity. Although application of spatial study to John’s gospel is relatively rare in Johannine studies, it promises a great deal of insight, especially because John’s gospel is filled with numerous references to place and a rich variety of prepositional phrases. Through narrative, John offers a spatial temporalization (following Soja, a ‘thirdspace’) for audiences to inhabit and interpret the world around them. John’s Father-Son-Paraclete language of unity (which the Christian tradition has interpreted metaphysically and soteriologically without reference to time and space) creates a place for Johannine discipleship in which listeners reenact the dynamic relationship of its three divine actors. John establishes a particular mode of spatial identity by presenting Father, Son, and Paraclete, together with the narrative’s antagonists and protagonists in particular spaces with a set of behaviors associated with each location. The Johannine reference to Jesus going to prepare a place for his disciples after his death (John 13:36), and the reference to a mansion with many room (John 14:2–4) is traditionally interpreted as a reference to the afterlife or a heavenly domain. Scholars have debated whether this represents a futurist or a realized eschatological teaching. A spatial application offers new insights by viewing it from a social geographical perspective as a spatial location “in the world,” lived out locationally “in” the Paraclete, in rejection by the “world.” Metaphysical unity language refers to a narrative of rejection and suffering, which reveals the identity of Johannine believers “in but not of the world.” In this regard, John reflects sapiential themes found in the Hebrew Bible and the intertestamental period that tell of wisdom dwelling on earth and also being rejected.","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90691488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1515/jbr-2019-frontmatter2
{"title":"Frontmatter","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2019-frontmatter2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-frontmatter2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85812635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Although Hannah Arendt only explicitly references the book of Ecclesiastes in order to contrast its views with her own, she and Qoheleth parallel each other on substantive issues. After showing how an influential translation of a key motif from Ecclesiastes led Arendt to misapprehend Qoheleth, this study unpacks their intellectual common ground on matters of affirming worldly life; the nature of action; and critical views of the human heart. Yet this third area which addresses human nature also highlights a divergence between them on how thinking relates to the problem of evil.
{"title":"Not So Vain After All: Hannah Arendt’s Reception of Ecclesiastes","authors":"P. M. Lasater","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2019-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although Hannah Arendt only explicitly references the book of Ecclesiastes in order to contrast its views with her own, she and Qoheleth parallel each other on substantive issues. After showing how an influential translation of a key motif from Ecclesiastes led Arendt to misapprehend Qoheleth, this study unpacks their intellectual common ground on matters of affirming worldly life; the nature of action; and critical views of the human heart. Yet this third area which addresses human nature also highlights a divergence between them on how thinking relates to the problem of evil.","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88291839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：