{"title":"马可的恶魔基督论重新评估关于耶稣弥赛亚身份的道义忏悔","authors":"Daniel B Glover","doi":"10.1093/jts/flae005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Markan scholars have often taken for granted that the daimonic acclamations of Jesus’s messianic identity in Mark’s Gospel present the author’s own Christological perspective. Giving attention to daimonic speech in Mark’s literary context, however, opens up the interpretive possibility that this daimonic speech may serve to mislead rather than teach. By using insights from the rhetorical practice of prosopopoeia (speech-in-character), this article compares the Christology of Mark’s daimones with a) Jesus’s reliable statements about his own messianic identity and b) Mark’s discursive presentation of the messianic role in order to assess whether the daimonic Christology in Mark’s Gospel is trustworthy or misleading.","PeriodicalId":213560,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Theological Studies","volume":"101 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mark’s Demonic Christology: Reevaluating the Daimonic Confessions of Jesus’s Messiahship\",\"authors\":\"Daniel B Glover\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jts/flae005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Markan scholars have often taken for granted that the daimonic acclamations of Jesus’s messianic identity in Mark’s Gospel present the author’s own Christological perspective. Giving attention to daimonic speech in Mark’s literary context, however, opens up the interpretive possibility that this daimonic speech may serve to mislead rather than teach. By using insights from the rhetorical practice of prosopopoeia (speech-in-character), this article compares the Christology of Mark’s daimones with a) Jesus’s reliable statements about his own messianic identity and b) Mark’s discursive presentation of the messianic role in order to assess whether the daimonic Christology in Mark’s Gospel is trustworthy or misleading.\",\"PeriodicalId\":213560,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Theological Studies\",\"volume\":\"101 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Theological Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flae005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Theological Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flae005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
马可学者常常想当然地认为,马可福音中对耶稣弥赛亚身份的戴蒙性赞美呈现了作者自己的基督论观点。然而,关注马可福音文学语境中的 "daimonic speech",则为我们提供了一种解释可能性,即这种 "daimonic speech "可能起到误导而非教导的作用。本文通过运用 "拟人"(prosopopoeia)修辞实践的洞察力,将马可的 "拟人 "基督论与 a) 耶稣关于自己弥赛亚身份的可靠陈述和 b) 马可对弥赛亚角色的话语表述进行比较,以评估马可福音中的 "拟人 "基督论是可信的还是具有误导性的。
Mark’s Demonic Christology: Reevaluating the Daimonic Confessions of Jesus’s Messiahship
Markan scholars have often taken for granted that the daimonic acclamations of Jesus’s messianic identity in Mark’s Gospel present the author’s own Christological perspective. Giving attention to daimonic speech in Mark’s literary context, however, opens up the interpretive possibility that this daimonic speech may serve to mislead rather than teach. By using insights from the rhetorical practice of prosopopoeia (speech-in-character), this article compares the Christology of Mark’s daimones with a) Jesus’s reliable statements about his own messianic identity and b) Mark’s discursive presentation of the messianic role in order to assess whether the daimonic Christology in Mark’s Gospel is trustworthy or misleading.