Pub Date : 2023-07-01DOI: 10.1017/S0028688523000048
Christina Hoegen-Rohls
Abstract The present article first presents and explains the theses that emerge from Régis Burnet's monograph ‘Exegesis and History of Reception’ (Tübingen 2021) and from his SNTS Main Paper published in NTS 2023, ‘Why “Reception History” Is Not Just Another Exegetical Method: The Case of Mark's Ending’ (Leuven 2022). It then develops questions and perspectives that result from the dialogue between Burnet's approach and my own approach and continue this productive, unfinished discussion. It should be postulated that the history of interpretation and the reception history belong to the field of theological encyclopaedia and have the potential to lead to an ‘aesthetic theology’.
本文首先介绍并解释了r宾根2021年出版的r吉斯·伯内特的专着《训诂学和接受史》(Exegesis and History of Reception)和他在NTS 2023年发表的SNTS主要论文《为什么“接受史”不只是另一种训诂方法:马克结束的案例》(Leuven 2022年)中出现的论点。然后，从伯内特的方法和我自己的方法之间的对话中发展出问题和观点，并继续进行这一富有成效的，未完成的讨论。解释史和接受史属于神学百科领域，具有走向“审美神学”的潜力。
{"title":"Überlegungen zur Rezeptionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments im Gespräch mit Régis Burnet","authors":"Christina Hoegen-Rohls","doi":"10.1017/S0028688523000048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688523000048","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The present article first presents and explains the theses that emerge from Régis Burnet's monograph ‘Exegesis and History of Reception’ (Tübingen 2021) and from his SNTS Main Paper published in NTS 2023, ‘Why “Reception History” Is Not Just Another Exegetical Method: The Case of Mark's Ending’ (Leuven 2022). It then develops questions and perspectives that result from the dialogue between Burnet's approach and my own approach and continue this productive, unfinished discussion. It should be postulated that the history of interpretation and the reception history belong to the field of theological encyclopaedia and have the potential to lead to an ‘aesthetic theology’.","PeriodicalId":19280,"journal":{"name":"New Testament Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86952436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-01DOI: 10.1017/S0028688523000036
Christina Hoegen-Rohls
German Abstract Angesichts der fortschreitenden Publikation der Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (EBR), der Weiterarbeit an den Bänden des Evangelisch-Katholischen Kommentars zum Neuen Testament (EKK) und der Fortsetzung von Blackwell's Kommentarserie Through the Centuries lautet die Leitfrage des vorliegenden Artikels: Wie kann zur Theoretisierung und Methodisierung einer Rezeptionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments beigetragen werden? Um diese Frage zu beantworten und Perspektiven zu entwerfen, unternimmt der Artikel den Versuch einer neuerlichen Klärung der Begriffe ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ / ‘wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewusstsein’, ‘Auslegungsgeschichte’, ‘Rezeptionsgeschichte’ und schlägt zwei Fragenkataloge vor, die das Vorgehen einer cross-temporal und cross-cultural ausgerichteten Rezeptionskritik des Neuen Testaments inhaltlich und methodisch reflektieren und kontrollieren.
{"title":"Rezeptionskritik und Rezeptionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments: Eine methodologische Skizze","authors":"Christina Hoegen-Rohls","doi":"10.1017/S0028688523000036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688523000036","url":null,"abstract":"German Abstract Angesichts der fortschreitenden Publikation der Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (EBR), der Weiterarbeit an den Bänden des Evangelisch-Katholischen Kommentars zum Neuen Testament (EKK) und der Fortsetzung von Blackwell's Kommentarserie Through the Centuries lautet die Leitfrage des vorliegenden Artikels: Wie kann zur Theoretisierung und Methodisierung einer Rezeptionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments beigetragen werden? Um diese Frage zu beantworten und Perspektiven zu entwerfen, unternimmt der Artikel den Versuch einer neuerlichen Klärung der Begriffe ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ / ‘wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewusstsein’, ‘Auslegungsgeschichte’, ‘Rezeptionsgeschichte’ und schlägt zwei Fragenkataloge vor, die das Vorgehen einer cross-temporal und cross-cultural ausgerichteten Rezeptionskritik des Neuen Testaments inhaltlich und methodisch reflektieren und kontrollieren.","PeriodicalId":19280,"journal":{"name":"New Testament Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82139421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-01DOI: 10.1017/S0028688522000406
R. Burnet
Abstract The history of reception is suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding. Since the publication of Truth and Method, everyone has had the impression that reception history is just another exegetical technique. However, the heart of Gadamer's argument is not the history of the effects of the text, but the historicity of understanding: a text is seized only within the limits of the historical situation of its interpreter. To demonstrate this point, this paper takes the example of the Markan ending. Surprisingly, a 16th-century Thomistic theologian, Cajetan, and a contemporary commentary are so close that one might think they are defending the same view of the text. Both intend to maintain the canonicity of verses 9–20, but both point out that it may be adventurous to build any doctrine or practice on these verses alone. But the context is different, obviously. The first one tries to justify a conception of faith that does not depend directly on miracles; the second one affirms a hermeneutic centred on the interpreter's response, being wary of its ecclesiological drifts. This confirms that theological considerations rather than philological ones have prevailed in challenging Mark's ending.
{"title":"Why ‘Reception History’ Is Not Just Another Exegetical Method: The Case Of Mark's Ending","authors":"R. Burnet","doi":"10.1017/S0028688522000406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688522000406","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The history of reception is suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding. Since the publication of Truth and Method, everyone has had the impression that reception history is just another exegetical technique. However, the heart of Gadamer's argument is not the history of the effects of the text, but the historicity of understanding: a text is seized only within the limits of the historical situation of its interpreter. To demonstrate this point, this paper takes the example of the Markan ending. Surprisingly, a 16th-century Thomistic theologian, Cajetan, and a contemporary commentary are so close that one might think they are defending the same view of the text. Both intend to maintain the canonicity of verses 9–20, but both point out that it may be adventurous to build any doctrine or practice on these verses alone. But the context is different, obviously. The first one tries to justify a conception of faith that does not depend directly on miracles; the second one affirms a hermeneutic centred on the interpreter's response, being wary of its ecclesiological drifts. This confirms that theological considerations rather than philological ones have prevailed in challenging Mark's ending.","PeriodicalId":19280,"journal":{"name":"New Testament Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82152274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-01DOI: 10.1017/S0028688522000431
A. Runesson
Abstract For centuries, Christians have understood some of the texts included in the New Testament as ‘Jewish,’ in the sense of them being written by (converted) Jews for other Jews. From a historical perspective, a new development in the academy suggests that such approaches do not do justice to the nature of these texts. Indeed, even more recent attempts at understanding the New Testament against the background of Judaism are also found wanting. Instead, placing these texts within the broader context of the diverse ways of embodying Jewish ancestral customs in the pre-rabbinic Second Temple period, this interpretive trajectory, involving scholars from a wide array of backgrounds, insists that Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Revelation etc., should be understood as expressions of Judaism. This article highlights key issues involved in such re-readings of New Testament texts, including ways in which they may or may not relate to normative-theological positions among Christians and Jews today. First, the study looks at how the question is asked in our contemporary setting. Then, moving down historical layers, issues related to history and categorisation are addressed before we, finally, return to the present to consider possible implications of our findings.
{"title":"What Does It Mean to Read New Testament Texts ‘within Judaism’?","authors":"A. Runesson","doi":"10.1017/S0028688522000431","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688522000431","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For centuries, Christians have understood some of the texts included in the New Testament as ‘Jewish,’ in the sense of them being written by (converted) Jews for other Jews. From a historical perspective, a new development in the academy suggests that such approaches do not do justice to the nature of these texts. Indeed, even more recent attempts at understanding the New Testament against the background of Judaism are also found wanting. Instead, placing these texts within the broader context of the diverse ways of embodying Jewish ancestral customs in the pre-rabbinic Second Temple period, this interpretive trajectory, involving scholars from a wide array of backgrounds, insists that Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Revelation etc., should be understood as expressions of Judaism. This article highlights key issues involved in such re-readings of New Testament texts, including ways in which they may or may not relate to normative-theological positions among Christians and Jews today. First, the study looks at how the question is asked in our contemporary setting. Then, moving down historical layers, issues related to history and categorisation are addressed before we, finally, return to the present to consider possible implications of our findings.","PeriodicalId":19280,"journal":{"name":"New Testament Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89243727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-01DOI: 10.1017/S0028688523000097
L. Moț
Abstract Λιβανωτός is a rare word in the Biblia graeca and means ‘frankincense’. It appears once in the canonical Septuagint in 1 Chron 9.29 as part of a list of ingredients which were under the care of the Levites: flour, wine, olive oil, incense and spices. In the Apocrypha, it appears in 3 Macc 5.2 as a drug, together with unmixed wine, for maddening or running elephants wild. Then it is used only in Rev 8.3, 5 in constructions which made lexicographers unanimously define λιβανωτός as a container (censer or brazier). However, when one examines the usage of this noun in Greek writing at large, he or she observes, not without surprise, that λιβανωτός exhibits impressively stable semantics. Virtually everywhere in the history of Greek, the term is a spice (frankincense). Why then should Rev 8.3, 5 be an exception? The study probes into the claim that λιβανωτός means ‘censer’ in the Johannine Apocalypse, shows how well the regular meaning of incense fits in the scene John witnesses, and draws important implications for the understanding of the text and the lexicographical task.
{"title":"Is λιβανωτός a censer/brazier in Revelation 8.3, 5? How in the lexicon is this possible?","authors":"L. Moț","doi":"10.1017/S0028688523000097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688523000097","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Λιβανωτός is a rare word in the Biblia graeca and means ‘frankincense’. It appears once in the canonical Septuagint in 1 Chron 9.29 as part of a list of ingredients which were under the care of the Levites: flour, wine, olive oil, incense and spices. In the Apocrypha, it appears in 3 Macc 5.2 as a drug, together with unmixed wine, for maddening or running elephants wild. Then it is used only in Rev 8.3, 5 in constructions which made lexicographers unanimously define λιβανωτός as a container (censer or brazier). However, when one examines the usage of this noun in Greek writing at large, he or she observes, not without surprise, that λιβανωτός exhibits impressively stable semantics. Virtually everywhere in the history of Greek, the term is a spice (frankincense). Why then should Rev 8.3, 5 be an exception? The study probes into the claim that λιβανωτός means ‘censer’ in the Johannine Apocalypse, shows how well the regular meaning of incense fits in the scene John witnesses, and draws important implications for the understanding of the text and the lexicographical task.","PeriodicalId":19280,"journal":{"name":"New Testament Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84279087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-01DOI: 10.1017/S0028688522000339
M. Theophilos
Abstract Numismatic inscriptional evidence consistently employs the ΕΥΕΡΓ- word group in describing a superior providing some material public benefit to an inferior, typically an entire city, nation or kingdom. This is evidenced in the present study's comprehensive survey of several hundred numismatic types, extant in many thousands of specimens from the second century bce to the first century ce. Within this context, 1 Timothy 6.2 is discussed, wherein it is noted that the apparent identification of a slave's labour as ɛὐɛργɛσία not only heightens the significance and value of that service but is a deliberate inversion of expected social and linguistic norms.
{"title":"Numismatic Insights into Pauline Ethics: ΕΥΕΡΓ- on Roman Provincial, Parthian and Seleucid Coinage","authors":"M. Theophilos","doi":"10.1017/S0028688522000339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688522000339","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Numismatic inscriptional evidence consistently employs the ΕΥΕΡΓ- word group in describing a superior providing some material public benefit to an inferior, typically an entire city, nation or kingdom. This is evidenced in the present study's comprehensive survey of several hundred numismatic types, extant in many thousands of specimens from the second century bce to the first century ce. Within this context, 1 Timothy 6.2 is discussed, wherein it is noted that the apparent identification of a slave's labour as ɛὐɛργɛσία not only heightens the significance and value of that service but is a deliberate inversion of expected social and linguistic norms.","PeriodicalId":19280,"journal":{"name":"New Testament Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76426311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-08DOI: 10.1017/S0028688522000261
Euntaek D. Shin
Abstract The use of συντɛλέω to speak of God's ‘completion’ of the new covenant (Heb 8.8) has generated various explanations. Yet none of them factor in an important clue in Hebrews, namely, the rest discourse. By establishing literary and theological connections between Heb 3.7–4.13 and 8.8–12, this study argues that the promise of the completion of the new covenant evokes the completion of creation and its ensuing sabbath rest. Such an evocation brings to surface a logic of Christology and new creation embedded in Hebrews.
{"title":"‘I Will Complete a New Covenant’ (Heb 8.8): Christology and New Creation in Hebrews","authors":"Euntaek D. Shin","doi":"10.1017/S0028688522000261","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688522000261","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The use of συντɛλέω to speak of God's ‘completion’ of the new covenant (Heb 8.8) has generated various explanations. Yet none of them factor in an important clue in Hebrews, namely, the rest discourse. By establishing literary and theological connections between Heb 3.7–4.13 and 8.8–12, this study argues that the promise of the completion of the new covenant evokes the completion of creation and its ensuing sabbath rest. Such an evocation brings to surface a logic of Christology and new creation embedded in Hebrews.","PeriodicalId":19280,"journal":{"name":"New Testament Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74285574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-08DOI: 10.1017/S0028688522000388
Lukas Bormann
Abstract In Luke-Acts, the city of Jerusalem is mentioned very often. The city is considered the site of the temple and forms the centre of the narrative spatial configuration of Luke-Acts. Narrative analysis and the evaluation of the lexically marked language (‘terminology of salvation’) show that for the author of Luke-Acts, the city and its inhabitants, who are mainly portrayed as hostile opponents of Jesus and Paul, have no future within the narrative of Luke-Acts. However, Jesus will appear as the Son of Man at the Parousia in Jerusalem and will also bring the liberation of the city of Jerusalem (Luke 2.38: λύτρωσις ᾿Ιɛρουσαλήμ).
在路加福音和使徒行传中，耶路撒冷城经常被提及。这座城市被认为是圣殿的所在地，形成了路加福音-使徒行传叙事空间结构的中心。叙事分析和对词汇标记语言(“救赎术语”)的评价表明，对于路加-使徒行传的作者来说，这座城市及其居民，主要被描绘成耶稣和保罗的敌对对手，在路加-使徒行传的叙述中没有未来。然而，耶稣将作为人子出现在耶路撒冷的Parousia，并且也将带来耶路撒冷城的解放(路加福音2:38:λ ρωσ Ι ς Ι λ ο ο σαλ记载μ)。
{"title":"Die Zukunft Jerusalems nach Lukasevangelium und Apostelgeschichte","authors":"Lukas Bormann","doi":"10.1017/S0028688522000388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688522000388","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Luke-Acts, the city of Jerusalem is mentioned very often. The city is considered the site of the temple and forms the centre of the narrative spatial configuration of Luke-Acts. Narrative analysis and the evaluation of the lexically marked language (‘terminology of salvation’) show that for the author of Luke-Acts, the city and its inhabitants, who are mainly portrayed as hostile opponents of Jesus and Paul, have no future within the narrative of Luke-Acts. However, Jesus will appear as the Son of Man at the Parousia in Jerusalem and will also bring the liberation of the city of Jerusalem (Luke 2.38: λύτρωσις ᾿Ιɛρουσαλήμ).","PeriodicalId":19280,"journal":{"name":"New Testament Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73781715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-08DOI: 10.1017/S0028688522000194
Marc Rastoin
Abstract The ending of Mark, ‘And they (the women) said nothing to anyone for they were afraid’ (16.8) is one of the most famous cruxes in the New Testament. Could the author really have intended to complete the gospel in such a way? Building on a suggestion made by Joel Marcus and Benoit Standaert, this article defends the hypothesis that Mark is deliberately making a reference to Genesis 18.15 LXX. The same rare expression ἐφοβήθη γάρ which has the verb ‘to be afraid’ followed by the preposition γάρ, appears in a comparable context. In both cases, one or more women are presented by God or his messengers with what could appear to be an unlikely promise and a radical impossibility: the birth of a child in old age or the resurrection of a dead person. While presenting a critique of S. Hultgren's recent proposal that Dn 10 is the background of Mark, the approach here is to add an argument based on a scriptural allusion, which Mark was perfectly capable of making, in support of the now predominant view, but still with many critics, that the writer fully intended to end his gospel with 16.8b.
{"title":"La promesse face à la peur: de nouveau Mc 16. 8b","authors":"Marc Rastoin","doi":"10.1017/S0028688522000194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688522000194","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The ending of Mark, ‘And they (the women) said nothing to anyone for they were afraid’ (16.8) is one of the most famous cruxes in the New Testament. Could the author really have intended to complete the gospel in such a way? Building on a suggestion made by Joel Marcus and Benoit Standaert, this article defends the hypothesis that Mark is deliberately making a reference to Genesis 18.15 LXX. The same rare expression ἐφοβήθη γάρ which has the verb ‘to be afraid’ followed by the preposition γάρ, appears in a comparable context. In both cases, one or more women are presented by God or his messengers with what could appear to be an unlikely promise and a radical impossibility: the birth of a child in old age or the resurrection of a dead person. While presenting a critique of S. Hultgren's recent proposal that Dn 10 is the background of Mark, the approach here is to add an argument based on a scriptural allusion, which Mark was perfectly capable of making, in support of the now predominant view, but still with many critics, that the writer fully intended to end his gospel with 16.8b.","PeriodicalId":19280,"journal":{"name":"New Testament Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76495686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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：