马可的基督和大卫的儿子有什么关系?口译史

IF 0.6 0 RELIGION Currents in Biblical Research Pub Date : 2017-10-01 DOI:10.1177/1476993X17717838
Max Botner
{"title":"马可的基督和大卫的儿子有什么关系?口译史","authors":"Max Botner","doi":"10.1177/1476993X17717838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It has become something of a commonplace within recent scholarship on the Gospels to hear that Mark the evangelist is ambivalent about Davidic sonship. Yet, rarely have scholars explored the rationale underlying this ambivalence. This article probes the status quaestionis on Jesus’ Davidic status in Mark’s Gospel via a history-of-interpretation survey of the Davidssohnfrage (Mk 12.35-37). It demonstrates that, despite their varying approaches and ideological commitments, all participants in the Son-of-David debate have assumed a foundational methodological principle: one assesses Mark’s position on Davidic messiahship by isolating pericopes with the name ‘David’. This explains why the healing of blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10.46-52) has long been fixed as the de facto crux interpretum for Davidic sonship in Mark.","PeriodicalId":43066,"journal":{"name":"Currents in Biblical Research","volume":"16 1","pages":"50 - 70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1476993X17717838","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Has Mark’s Christ to Do with David’s Son? A History of Interpretation\",\"authors\":\"Max Botner\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1476993X17717838\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It has become something of a commonplace within recent scholarship on the Gospels to hear that Mark the evangelist is ambivalent about Davidic sonship. Yet, rarely have scholars explored the rationale underlying this ambivalence. This article probes the status quaestionis on Jesus’ Davidic status in Mark’s Gospel via a history-of-interpretation survey of the Davidssohnfrage (Mk 12.35-37). It demonstrates that, despite their varying approaches and ideological commitments, all participants in the Son-of-David debate have assumed a foundational methodological principle: one assesses Mark’s position on Davidic messiahship by isolating pericopes with the name ‘David’. This explains why the healing of blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10.46-52) has long been fixed as the de facto crux interpretum for Davidic sonship in Mark.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Currents in Biblical Research\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"50 - 70\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1476993X17717838\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Currents in Biblical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X17717838\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Currents in Biblical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X17717838","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

在最近的福音书学术研究中,听到福音传道者马可对大卫的儿子身份持矛盾态度,已经成为一种司空见惯的事情。然而,很少有学者探究这种矛盾心理背后的基本原理。本文通过对大卫之歌(可12:35 -37)的解释史调查,探讨了关于耶稣在马可福音中大卫地位的问题。它表明,尽管他们有不同的方法和意识形态承诺,所有参与大卫之子辩论的人都假设了一个基本的方法论原则:一个人通过孤立名字为“大卫”的伯利克里来评估马可对大卫弥赛亚的立场。这就解释了为什么医治瞎眼的巴底买(可10:46 -52)一直被认为是马可福音中大卫儿子身份的关键解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What Has Mark’s Christ to Do with David’s Son? A History of Interpretation
It has become something of a commonplace within recent scholarship on the Gospels to hear that Mark the evangelist is ambivalent about Davidic sonship. Yet, rarely have scholars explored the rationale underlying this ambivalence. This article probes the status quaestionis on Jesus’ Davidic status in Mark’s Gospel via a history-of-interpretation survey of the Davidssohnfrage (Mk 12.35-37). It demonstrates that, despite their varying approaches and ideological commitments, all participants in the Son-of-David debate have assumed a foundational methodological principle: one assesses Mark’s position on Davidic messiahship by isolating pericopes with the name ‘David’. This explains why the healing of blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10.46-52) has long been fixed as the de facto crux interpretum for Davidic sonship in Mark.
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
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Abbreviation List The Amanuensis Hypothesis in New Testament Scholarship: Its Origin, Evidential Basis, and Application Editorial Foreword Becoming god: Interpreting Pauline soteriology as deification Abbreviation List
×
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