研究保罗的主要资源

Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1177/00145246231191327
Paul Foster
{"title":"研究保罗的主要资源","authors":"Paul Foster","doi":"10.1177/00145246231191327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"that Irenaeus consistently uses the title γραφή as a designation for the Jewish scriptures. By contrast, he states ‘[n]o evidence of unquestionable use of γραφή as a title that included the apostolic writings was discovered’ (p. 49). The second chapter evaluates arguments that the apostolic writings are used by Irenaeus in the same way as he uses the Jewish scriptures. Laing argues that there are different patterns of use. He states that his analysis leads to the conclusion that ‘two central elements of Irenaeus’ use of the apostolic writings – his treatment of them as the testimony of the apostles and his central concern for the intention of the apostles in his interpretation – differ significantly from his use of Jewish scriptures as an inherently authoritative scriptural text’ (p. 89). Part two then constructs an alternative understanding of Irenaeus’ view of Apostolic writings. In essence it is argued that the authority of these writings derives from their apostolic origin, rather than intrinsic scriptural authority. Ultimately, however, he sees both the Jewish scriptures and the Apostolic writings being revelations of the Word ‘who is the only Revealer of the invisible Father’ (p. 187). However, the apostles are seen as being witnesses to the incarnation, and hence mediate that witness through their writings. This distinction is a fine one. Moreover, it may have been helpful to consider other contemporary understandings of the Jewish scriptures in early Christian texts such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistles of Ignatius. Here the prophets are characterized as proleptic believers who in some sense foresaw the arrival of Christ. If Irenaeus subscribes to the same outlook, then perhaps he sees less distinction between the basis of authority for the Jewish scriptures and the Apostolic writings. Hence, a wider survey might have either strengthened or modified the findings of this study. Notwithstanding that observation, this is a carefully argued treatment that offers another account of the source of authority for the Apostolic writing according to Irenaeus, and calls into question the claim that Irenaeus understood these Apostolic writings to have scriptural status equivalent to the Jewish scriptures.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Major Resource for the Study of Paul\",\"authors\":\"Paul Foster\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00145246231191327\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"that Irenaeus consistently uses the title γραφή as a designation for the Jewish scriptures. By contrast, he states ‘[n]o evidence of unquestionable use of γραφή as a title that included the apostolic writings was discovered’ (p. 49). The second chapter evaluates arguments that the apostolic writings are used by Irenaeus in the same way as he uses the Jewish scriptures. Laing argues that there are different patterns of use. He states that his analysis leads to the conclusion that ‘two central elements of Irenaeus’ use of the apostolic writings – his treatment of them as the testimony of the apostles and his central concern for the intention of the apostles in his interpretation – differ significantly from his use of Jewish scriptures as an inherently authoritative scriptural text’ (p. 89). Part two then constructs an alternative understanding of Irenaeus’ view of Apostolic writings. In essence it is argued that the authority of these writings derives from their apostolic origin, rather than intrinsic scriptural authority. Ultimately, however, he sees both the Jewish scriptures and the Apostolic writings being revelations of the Word ‘who is the only Revealer of the invisible Father’ (p. 187). However, the apostles are seen as being witnesses to the incarnation, and hence mediate that witness through their writings. This distinction is a fine one. Moreover, it may have been helpful to consider other contemporary understandings of the Jewish scriptures in early Christian texts such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistles of Ignatius. Here the prophets are characterized as proleptic believers who in some sense foresaw the arrival of Christ. If Irenaeus subscribes to the same outlook, then perhaps he sees less distinction between the basis of authority for the Jewish scriptures and the Apostolic writings. Hence, a wider survey might have either strengthened or modified the findings of this study. Notwithstanding that observation, this is a carefully argued treatment that offers another account of the source of authority for the Apostolic writing according to Irenaeus, and calls into question the claim that Irenaeus understood these Apostolic writings to have scriptural status equivalent to the Jewish scriptures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246231191327\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246231191327","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Major Resource for the Study of Paul
that Irenaeus consistently uses the title γραφή as a designation for the Jewish scriptures. By contrast, he states ‘[n]o evidence of unquestionable use of γραφή as a title that included the apostolic writings was discovered’ (p. 49). The second chapter evaluates arguments that the apostolic writings are used by Irenaeus in the same way as he uses the Jewish scriptures. Laing argues that there are different patterns of use. He states that his analysis leads to the conclusion that ‘two central elements of Irenaeus’ use of the apostolic writings – his treatment of them as the testimony of the apostles and his central concern for the intention of the apostles in his interpretation – differ significantly from his use of Jewish scriptures as an inherently authoritative scriptural text’ (p. 89). Part two then constructs an alternative understanding of Irenaeus’ view of Apostolic writings. In essence it is argued that the authority of these writings derives from their apostolic origin, rather than intrinsic scriptural authority. Ultimately, however, he sees both the Jewish scriptures and the Apostolic writings being revelations of the Word ‘who is the only Revealer of the invisible Father’ (p. 187). However, the apostles are seen as being witnesses to the incarnation, and hence mediate that witness through their writings. This distinction is a fine one. Moreover, it may have been helpful to consider other contemporary understandings of the Jewish scriptures in early Christian texts such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistles of Ignatius. Here the prophets are characterized as proleptic believers who in some sense foresaw the arrival of Christ. If Irenaeus subscribes to the same outlook, then perhaps he sees less distinction between the basis of authority for the Jewish scriptures and the Apostolic writings. Hence, a wider survey might have either strengthened or modified the findings of this study. Notwithstanding that observation, this is a carefully argued treatment that offers another account of the source of authority for the Apostolic writing according to Irenaeus, and calls into question the claim that Irenaeus understood these Apostolic writings to have scriptural status equivalent to the Jewish scriptures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1