Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel, by Maurice Casey. SNTSMS 102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pp. x + 278. N.P. Maurice Casey of the University of Nottingham has already distinguished himself with his analysis of the designation "the son of man." This book represents his growing interest and expertise in the retroversion of Jesus' sayings and pericopae about him into Aramaic. He sets out a course for mainstreaming what has been a marginal concern within the discipline of NT study. Casey's discussion of "the state of play" opens his book with a frisky march through the thickets of method in the quest to understand the dynamics of translation from Aramaic into Greek (pp. 1-72). Those with a taste for iconoclasm will enjoy themselves here. C. C. Torrey's work, we are told, is "very badly set out," "suffers from serious defects," and is at times so selective that the analysis is a matter of "playing tricks" (p. 23). Not only are most of Gunther Schwarz's results characterized as "not valid," but his reconstructions are rejected with such one-liners as: "This is a saying of Schwartz, which has no Sitz im Leben in the teaching of Jesus" (p. 47). Joachim Jeremias is credited with having improved C. F. Burney's rendering of the Lord's Prayer, "though regrettably printed in English letters" (p. 51). For some reason, the author does not go on to discuss the subsequent (and different) reconstructions of the Prayer by Joseph A. Fitzmyer and the present writer (see Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV [AB 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983], 901; Chilton, Jesus' Prayer and Jesus' Eucharist: His Personal Practice of Spirituality [Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997], 24-51). That turns out to matter, because later in the volume the author discusses the term "debt" (in order to refer to sin) in Aramaic (p. 85) without taking into account one of the places where Fitzmyer and I go our separate ways: the gender of the term in firstcentury Aramaic sources. When Stanley Porter suggests that Jesus might have taught in Greek, that contention is said to pander to the "fundamentalist's dream, and uncritical assumptions are required to carry it through" (p. 67). Later in the volume, the author somewhat modifies this bleak estimate of how much Greek Jesus would have been familiar with (pp. 81-83). As histories of discussion go, all this sets new standards of sprightliness, and readers will need to bear in mind that the author wants to clear the ground for his basic claim, that a new method is necessary in order to retrovert sayings of Jesus into Aramaic (p. 72). When the author comes to set out that new method, he attempts to translate linguistic markers directly into cultural analysis. The lack of Aramaic endings in the names of Greek musical instruments in Daniel is said to indicate "an attitude of extreme hostility to Greek on the part of faithful Jews" (p. 74), and the familiar reference to Neh 8:8 in order to support the targumic usage of Aramaic is retained (pp. 76-77, albeit without citation of b. Meg. 3a, where this oft-repeated, to my mind tendentious, claim originated). Readers may find that some of this strains credulity, but the discussion of the Mishnah and Josephus (see especially pp. 78-79) is subtler and more convincing. (Nonetheless, I am still puzzling over the statement that "John the Baptist had been the only major prophet for centuries" [p. 87]. The jejune assertion to the effect that Jesus was literate in Hebrew [pp. 87-88] is similarly breathtaking.) Casey's treatment of the question of linguistic interference in the process of translation builds on the work of Paul Kahle and Matthew Black and is sound, leading to his daring conclusion that "Mark's Gospel contains some literal translation of Aramaic source material" (p. â¦
The Ituraeans, a little-known people of late first century BCE Syria/Palestine, are referred to briefly in a number of early texts, notably Pliny, Strabo and Josephus, and the principality of Ituraea is mentioned in Luke 3.1. There is, as yet, no consensus among archaeologists as to whether certain artefacts should be attributed to the Ituraeans or not. They form a mysterious backdrop to what we know of the area in the time of Jesus, which remains obstinately obscure despite the enormous amount of research in recent decades on the 'historical Jesus' and Greco-Roman Galilee. Through reference to the early texts, modern scholarship has contributed to a claim the Ituraeans were an Arab tribal group known mainly for their recurrent brigandage. Elaine Myers challenges these presuppositions and suggests a reappraisal of previous interpretations of these texts and the archaeological evidence to present a more balanced portrait of this ancient people.
Terms like 'witness' and 'testimony' occur frequently in religious contexts and have special significance there, culminating in the development of the Greek martus (witness) into the English 'martyr'. They also have a legal context, and Professor Trites examines their use in the New Testament in the light of ancient legal practice. The author argues that the idea of witness is a live metaphor in the New Testament, to be understood in terms of the Old Testament legal assembly, though the Greek lawcourts are also relevant. The witness theme is developed in a sustained way in John, Acts and Revelation, and is also used in the Synoptic Gospels, the Pastoral and General Epistles, and Hebrews. In contexts of persecution and suffering the forensic metaphors tend to be identified with military ones, but in principle they are quite distinct. Professor Trites contends that the idea of witness in relation to Christ and his gospel plays an essential part in the New Testament and in Christian faith and life generally.
Preface 1. Introduction 2. Text and translation of Josephus' Essene passages 3. Commentary on Josephus' major Essene passages 4. Conclusion Appendix Notes Bibliography Index of passages Index of authors Subject index.
Norton-Piliavsky places Paulâs work within the context of ancient Jewish literary practice, bridging the gap between textual criticism and social history in contemporary discussions. The author argues that studies of ancient Jewish exegesis draw on two distinct analytical modes: the text-critical and the socio-historical. He then shows that the two are usually joined together in discussions of ancient Jewish literature arguing that as a result of this commentators often allow the text-critical approach to guide their efforts to understand historical questions. Norton argues that text-critical and historical data must be combined, but not conflated and in this volume sets out a new approach, showing that exegesis was part of an ongoing discussion, which included mutually supporting written and oral practices. Norton shows that Josephusâ and Dead Sea sectariansâ use of textual variation, like Paulâs, belongs to this discussion demonstrating that neither Paul nor his contemporaries viewed Jewish scripture as a fixed literary monolith. Rather, they took part in a dynamic exegetical dialogue, constituted by oral as much as textual modes.
CHAPTER I: 1 SAMUEL 16-25 AND THE RECENT SCHOLARSHIP I. Introductory Remarks II. Various Approaches to 1 Sam. 25 III. The Stories in 1 Sam 21 and 22 IV. MT, LXX, Q and Josephus in 1 Sam. 16-25 V. The Need for the Present Study VI. The Approach Taken Here CHAPTER II: NABAL THE CALEBITE I. Introductory Remarks II. Characterization of Nabal III. Geographic Setting IV. Narrative Analogy and 1 Sam. 25 V. Looking for the Answers VI. Summary CHAPTER III: DOEG THE EDOMITE I. Introductory Remarks II. Doeg the Edomite in Biblical Tradition III. Summary CHAPTER IV: SAUL, DOEG, NABAL vs. JONATHAN AND THE "SON OF JESSE" I. Introductory Remarks II. The "Son of Jesse" in the Hebrew Bible III. Saul vs. David the "Son of Jesse". IV. Jonathan and David V. Saul, Doeg and Nabal and the "Son of Jesse" VI. Summary CHAPTER V: THE BOOK(S) OF SAMUEL AND ITS WRITER(S) I. Introductory Remarks II. The Calebites in Biblical Tradition III. The Chronicler and the Post-Exilic Writers IV. 1 Samuel 25 and its Author(s) V. 1 Samuel 17-22 and its Author(s) VI. The Making of the Book of 1 Samuel.
The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context, edited by John K. Riches and David C. Sim. Early Christianity in Context. London: TT second, the voracious extraction of economic resources; and third, an ideology legitimating these processes conveyed by discourses of various kinds" (p. 10). Against this backdrop of assertions, Esler surveys the history of the interaction between Rome and the Judeans from 63 B.C.E. onward. Focusing especially on apocalyptic (esp. 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Apocalypse of Abraham) and a rather tiny selection of rabbinic texts, Esler asserts that these Jewish groups were painfully aware of the heavy taxation, of the military iron grip of Roman power, and of the public legitimation of these processes but displayed a vibrant confidence that one day Rome would be overthrown. Their discourse was largely "reliant on the myth of the four beasts in Daniel 7, to counter that of Rome" (p. 33). Although Esler does not specifically say so, the relevance of this chapter to the theme of the book depends on the assumption that Matthew's community is akin to the Jewish community, or, alternatively, that the latter may serve as a foil for the former. James S. McLaren ("A Reluctant Prophet: Josephus and the Roman Empire in Jewish War") argues, against prevailing opinion, that Josephus belonged neither to those who totally accepted Roman rule (which is where most scholars place him) nor to those who passionately rejected that rule, like the sicarii. McLaren finds evidence in Jewish War to support his conclusion that, while Josephus felt it was the part of wisdom to submit to Rome because its power was unassailable, he left plenty of clues that he was "not entirely happy with the way things had worked out" (p. 48). In other words, McLaren's argument is nicely focused and designed to show that even Josephus was deeply conflicted about the category of empire. By contrast, Dennis C. Duling ("Empire: Theories, Methods, Models") paints with a broad brush. After very briefly surveying a few theories regarding the emergence of empires, he summarizes "the vertical dimension" (pp. 54-60) of the Roman Empireits social ranking-and then its "horizontal dimension" (pp. 60-64), that is, the structures of imperial control, with elites living at the periphery of the empire in close relationship with the elites at the core and benefiting enormously from that relationship. â¦
Translated by J. Edward Crowley. This radical reconstruction of the origins of Judaism starts by observing that Josephus's sources on the early history of Israel do not agree with the Bible and that the oldest rabbinic traditions show no sign of a biblical foundation. Another interesting question is raised by the Samaritan claim, at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, that they had only recently received the Sabbath from the Jews. From such details, Nodet creates a comprehensive line of argument that reveals two major sources of Judaism, as symbolized in the subtitle of his work: Joshua was the one who established locally in writing a statute and a law at the Shechem assembly, while the Mishnah was the ultimate metamorphosis of traditions brought from Babylon and combined with Judaean influences.
Matlockanalyses five lengthy biblical prose prayers from the exilic and post-exilicperiod: Solomon's prayer (1 Kings 8.14-61), Ezra's prayer (Ezra 9.5-15), Nehemiah's prayer (Nehemiah 1.4-11), the Levites' prayer (Nehemiah 9.4-37), andthe prayer of Daniel (Daniel 9:3-19). He also examines prayers fromSecond Temple literature including texts from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the writings of Philo and Josephus, and texts from Qumran. Matlock alsodiscusses the Septuagintal versions of the five biblical prayers and TargumJonathan's treatment of Solomon's prayer.Heoffers a new English translation of each prayer, examines the prayers'rhetorical characteristics, and demonstrates how each prayer draws upon and reinterpretstraditional images and materials. Matlock describes how each prayerrelates to its larger narrative context and examines its functions within thatcontext. Finally, the author appraises the various similarities and differencesin these prayers in terms of their different contexts in the SecondCommonwealth period noting particular theologies and ideologies.
Michael Avioz builds upon his earlier work on Josephus as an exegete, providing a comprehensive study of Josephus' contribution to the crystallization of the Halakha which focuses on the similarities (and dissimilarities) between his work and the tannaitic sources, as well as contemporary Second Temple sources. Avioz begins by providing a clear definition of Halakha, and offering an explanation of methodology and sources. He then examines the structure and contents of the Pentateuch in Josephus' writing, before moving on to more specific coverage of the Decalogue in the work of Josephus and its relation to other laws in the Pentateuch. Further analysis is applied to the laws in the books of Leviticus-Deuteronomy and on laws that appear outside the Pentateuch. Throughout, Avioz makes close comparisons between biblical laws and Josephus' rewriting of them, in order to consider the reasons behind this rewriting and the origins of the texts that Josephus may have had access to in his exegetical work. Avioz is consequently able to draw clear conclusions about the interpretative traditions that Josephus had access to and worked within, and about how he used them in his writing.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
隐私声明 | 电子书 | 出版社
主办单位:中国教育图书进出口有限公司
京ICP备11007853号-12 
京公网安备 11010802027623号
Copyright ©爱学术平台 2021, All Rights Reserved