angelbutton.info

Image via Wikipedia

The Christian Classics Ethereal Library, developed by Calvin College, again has very nicely formatted, searchable PDFs for the 38-volume Church Fathers set available for free, but donations are appreciated. The PDF for ANF, vol. 10, includes scanned page images. The other PDFs flow their text independently of the formatting and pagination of the original set, but the print set’s page numbers are included in marginal notations that are linked back to scanned page images on the CCEL website. A direct link to each volume’s information page is accessible from the A (ANF) and N (NPNF1, NPNF2) title browsing pages respectively.

Filed under: Bibliography, Early Christianity, History of Interpretation
New Testament Interpretation

Simon von Cyrene (Bamberger Kreuzweg; Image via Wikipedia)

Mark 15:21 describes Simon of Cyrene as having been “pressed into service” (ἀγγαρεύουσιν . . . Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον) to carry Jesus’ cross, and Matt 27:32 uses the same language (ἄνθρωπον Κυρηναῖον ὀνόματι Σίμωνα . . . ἠγγάρευσαν). Only Matthew’s narrative, however, has Jesus previously instructing his disciples, saying, ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετʼ αὐτοῦ δύο (Matt 5:41; whoever will press you into service for one mile, go with him for two; cf. Bruce, “Synoptic Gospels,” 328; Gundry, Matthew, 94; Keener, Matthew, 199). Matthew does not identify how far Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus’ cross, but the accompanying soldiers at least press him into service not to carry his own cross, as would have been anticipated, but someone else’s (Matt 27:27–32; France, Matthew, 221–22, 1064–65; cf. Keener, Matthew, 199–200; Lightfoot, Commentary, 2:132–33; Schürer, Jewish People, 2.2.231). At this juncture, Jesus’ own disciples are not to be “found,” and in their stead is only one Cyrenean who appears only here in the synoptic tradition (Matt 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26). Although certainly not explicitly included among the audience for Jesus’ earlier instruction in Matt 5:41, Simon here serves, where others fail to do so, as a model of the kind of discipleship that Jesus has described. In this way, Simon has a share in Jesus’ cross, albeit still only to a limited extent (Allison, “Anticipating the Passion,” CBQ 56.4 [1994]: 704–5; cf. Luke 9:23; 14:27; 23:26; Rom 6:5; Phil 3:8–11; Augustine, Cons., 3.37 [NPNF1 6:196]; Origen, Comm. Matt., 12.24 [ANF 9:464]; [Pseudo-]Tertullian, Haer., 9.1 [ANF 3:650]*; Bonhoeffer, Discipleship, 95–104, 161; Keener, Matthew, 673).

* In his introduction to this volume, Cleveland Coxe argues against Tertullian’s authorship of this document. Instead, relying particularly on Jerome’s testimony, Coxe suggests that Victorinus (d. ca. AD 303) may be responsible for this text (14).

Filed under: Theological Interpretation Tagged: Biblical-theological Reflections, The Christian Institute for the Study of Liberal Arts
New Testament Interpretation

The latest reviews from the Review of Biblical Literature include:

New Testament and Cognate Studies

• Craig L. Blomberg, with Jennifer Foutz Markley, A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis, reviewed by Jan G. van der Watt
• Gregg Gardner and Kevin L. Osterloh, eds., Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World, reviewed by Douglas Estes
• Kevin B. McCruden, Solidarity Perfected: Beneficent Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews, reviewed by Craig R. Koester
• Gert J. Steyn and Dirk J. Human, eds., Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception, reviewed by Scott D. Mackie

• John Drane, Introducing the Old Testament, reviewed by Jordan M. Scheetz
• Joze Krasovec, The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names, reviewed by Jeremy Hutton
• Daniel O’Hare, “Have You Seen, Son of Man?”: A Study of the Translation and Vorlage of LXX Ezekiel 40–48, reviewed by William Tooman
• Anthony C. Swindell, Reworking the Bible: The Literary Reception-History of Fourteen Biblical Stories, reviewed by Frank H. Polak

• Michael C. Legaspi, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies, reviewed by Teresa Okure
• Naomi Tadmor, The Social Universe of the English Bible: Scripture, Society, and Culture in Early Modern England, reviewed by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

Filed under: Bibliography Tagged: New in RBL
New Testament Interpretation

Google Books has available the full text of Sanday and Headlam’s commentary on Romans in the International Critical Commentary (5th ed.; 1899). The basic bibliographic entry is available here (BibTeX).

Filed under: Bibliography
New Testament Interpretation

The latest reviews from the Review of Biblical Literature include:

Jewish Scriptures and Cognate Fields

• Michael Avioz, “I Sat Alone”: Jeremiah among the Prophets, reviewed by Jerry Hwang
• Anthony J. Frendo, Pre-exilic Israel, the Hebrew Bible, and Archaeology: Integrating Text and Artefact, reviewed by Ralph K. Hawkins
• Giovanni Garbini, Introduzione all’ epigrafia semitica, reviewed by André Lemaire
• Manfred Görg, Mythos und Mythologie: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte und Theologie, reviewed by Mark W. Hamilton
• Paul M. Joyce and Andrew Mein, eds., After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, reviewed by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer
• Megan Bishop Moore and Brad E. Kelle, Biblical History and Israel’s Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History, reviewed by Bob Becking
• Marti J. Steussy, Samuel and His God, reviewed by Johannes Klein

• Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, reviewed by Korinna Zamfir
• Bruce N. Fisk, A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Jesus: Reading the Gospels on the Ground, reviewed by Timothy D. Howell
• Anders Runesson, Birger Olsson, Donald D. Binder, The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 C.E.: A Source Book, reviewed by Adele Reinhartz

Filed under: Bibliography Tagged: New in RBL
New Testament Interpretation

Julius von Carolsfeld, Jésus est oint à Béthanie¤

In his Dialog with Trypho, 86, Justin Martyr suggests that οἱ βασελεῖς πάντες καὶ οἱ χριστοὶ ἀπὸ τούτου μετέσχον καὶ βασιλεῖς καλεῖσθαι καὶ χριστοί (all the kings and messiahs had, by this one [= Messiah Jesus], a share in being called both kings and messiahs [i.e., anointed ones]). Yet, Matt 26:6–13 (cf. Mark 14:3–9; Lk 7:37–39; John 12:1–8) seems to ask its readers to connect Jesus to messiahship via a rather surprising route—namely, by an unnamed female character (France, Matthew, 361; Keener, Matthew, 618; Thiemann, “The Unnamed Woman,” ThTo 44.2 [1987]: 183–86; cf. John 12:1–8; Barrett, John, 2nd ed., 409; Gundry, Matthew, 522; Kõstenberger, Theology, 232–32; Lightfoot, Commentary, 2:341; Platt, “Ministry,” ThTo 32.1 [1977]: 30–32). Irrespective of whether this unnamed woman understands the full significance of her action, including how Jesus connects it to his upcoming burial (Matt 26:12),* Jesus’ response to the disciples’ objection (Matt 26:8–13) clearly vindicates the woman’s actions also in connection with the proclamation of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ (Matt 26:13; this gospel in the whole world; Coakley, “The Anointing at Bethany,” JBL 107.2 [1988]: 243, 249, 255; Ford, “Matthew 26:6–13,” Int 59.4 [2005]: 401; Thiemann, “The Unnamed Woman,” ThTo 44.2 [1987]: 183–86; cf. Matt 24:14; 28:18–20). Jesus thus sets the woman’s memorial in the context of her fitting, if perhaps dimly anticipatory, recognition of his soon-coming death and all of the messianic significance with which he himself viewed that sacrifice (Matt 16:13–28; Ephraim, On Our Lord, 47 [NPNF2 13:326–27]; Keener, Matthew, 618).

* I.e., even in the event that, from the woman’s perspective, πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι με (Matt 26:12; toward my preparation for burial) indicates only the result of her action as Jesus interprets it and not also her purpose, to whatever extent, in the action when she performed it (BDF, §402.5; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 611).

¤ In relation to Matthew’s description of the scene, von Carolsfeld’s woodcut contains at least the adaptation from Jesus’ reclining at table (Matt 26:7; cf. Mark 14:3) to his sitting on a stool.

Filed under: Theological Interpretation Tagged: Biblical-theological Reflections
New Testament Interpretation

Image via CrunchBase

Zotero 3.0.1 is now available. The update includes several bug fixes and some important performance enhancements for LibreOffice integration. For the change log, see here.

Filed under: Zotero
New Testament Interpretation

Sadly, Frederick Danker passed away earlier today (HT: Peter Williams, Rod Decker). Danker’s contribution to contemporary New Testament Studies can hardly be understated; the field will continue to be in his debt.

Filed under: ΠΑΡΑΛΕΙΠΟΜΕΝΑ
New Testament Interpretation

The latest reviews from the Review of Biblical Literature include:

Jewish Scriptures and Cognate Studies

• J. Andrew Dearman, The Book of Hosea, reviewed by Heinz-Dieter Neef
• Károly Dániel Dobos and Miklós Köszeghy, eds., With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich, reviewed by Korinna Zamfir
• Bruce Louden, Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East, reviewed by Charles L. Echols
• Jason Radine, The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah, reviewed by Daniel C. Timmer
• Shemaryahu Talmon, Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible, reviewed by August H. Konkel
• William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, eds., Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, reviewed by William R. Osborne

New Testament and Cognate Studies

• Roger David Aus, Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background of Mark 6:30–44 par. and John 6:1–15, Reviewed by James Crossley
• Charles Freeman, A New History of Early Christianity, reviewed by Michael F. Bird
• Michel Roberge, The Paraphrase of Shem (NH VII,1): Introduction, Translation and Commentary, reviewed by James F. McGrath

Hermeneutics

• Calum Carmichael, Sex and Religion in the Bible, reviewed by Stefan Fischer

Filed under: Bibliography Tagged: New in RBL, The Christian Institute for the Study of Liberal Arts
New Testament Interpretation

Depiction of the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Image via Wikipedia)

The interchange in Matt 18:21–22 looks back to Jesus’ immediately preceding comments on handling a community member (ἀδελφός) who sins (Matt 18:15–20; Chrysostom, Hom. Matt., 61.1 [NPNF1 10:357]; cf. Matt 18:21; 19:1). Read within this context, Peter’s question ποσάκις ἁμαρτήσει εἰς ἐμὲ ὁ ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω αὐτῷ; (Matt 18:21a; How many times* shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?) addresses a very plausible ambiguity in Jesus’ preceding comments. Judging from this question, Peter presumably thinks it inappropriate for a community member endlessly to sin and repent, but as long as some repentance was involved, Jesus’ instructions could seem never to allow further action to be taken. As many times as the community member would sin and repent, this member would also be restored (Matt 18:15b; Chrysostom, Hom. Matt., 61.1 [NPNF1 10:357]).

Other things may be in view also, but someone who might try to “work the system” could certainly fall within the range of Peter’s concern here. Doubtless, Peter’s ἕως ἑπτάκις; (Matt 18:21b; Up to seven times?) was, to him, a generous number of repetitions for this situation (cf. Lightfoot, Commentary, 2:259), but following on Jesus’ previous comments (Matt 18:15–20), Peter’s essential question remains quite understandable (Chrysostom, Hom. Matt., 61.1 [NPNF1 10:357]). Yet, Jesus’ response of ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά (Matt 18:22; “seventy-seven times” or “seventy times seven times”) expands Peter’s proposal to almost unimaginable proportions and certainly to ones impractical to count (Chrysostom, Hom. Matt., 61.1 [NPNF1 10:357–58]; Snodgrass, Stories, 67).

Despite questions about Matthew’s composition history at this point (see Blomberg, Parables, 240–41; Snodgrass, Stories, 67), if one reads with the narrative of Matt 18 as it stands, the immediately following parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt 18:23–35) can play a meaningful role in further responding to Peter’s question. In particular, the parable’s concluding interpretation urges the practice of forgiveness on the part of each community member in the face dire consequences if this instruction is not followed (Matt 18:35). In this connection, the parable develops Jesus’ earlier comment (Matt 18:22) and suggests that Peter’s inquiry about forgiveness is simply the wrong question. Forgiveness per se is an essential, constitutive feature of Jesus’ community (Augustine, Civ., 15.6 [NPNF1 2:287]), and it is the presupposition rather than the goal of the procedure that Jesus outlines in Matt 18:15–18, which focuses on the related but distinct issue of restoring damaged fellowship (see Matt 18:15b; cf. Phil 3:8; Augustine, Serm., 32.4 [NPNF1 6:358]). Thus, in Matthew’s narrative, rather than directly answering Peter’s question, Jesus highlights Peter’s misunderstanding in order to stress the importance of forgiveness as a prerequisite for how the community approaches resolving its own internal offenses when they occur (Augustine, Serm., 32.4, 7 [NPNF1 6:358–59]).

* See BDAG, s.v. ποσάκις; Chrysostom, Hom. Matt., 61.1 (NPNF1 10:357). Rather than the common rendering “how oft(en)” (e.g., ESV, KJV, NASB95, NRSV, RSV) which focuses on the frequency of an offense, Peter’s immediately following question (ἕως ἑπτάκις; Matt 18:21b; Up to seven times?) suggests that ποσάκις may best be taken in the sense “how many times,” which focuses on the number of individual instances of an offense(s) (e.g., HCSB, NIV 1984; NIV 2011).

Filed under: Theological Interpretation Tagged: Biblical-theological Reflections
New Testament Interpretation