No description available.

No description available.

This thesis examines Luke's portrayal of the Gentiles' state prior to their coming to Christian faith. Following the survey of research, it commences with Luke's direct references to Gentiles prior to faith. It then gathers conclusions concerning their state from the Gentile encounter with Jesus and Christian salvation. This includes Luke's notes on the condition of Gentiles and on their appropriation of salvation. Finally it draws conclusions from Luke's portrayal of Gentile Christians. Such a comprehensive study of this aspect of Luke's anthropology has not been undertaken previously and constitutes the major fresh contribution of this thesis. This comprehensive approach is necessary to challenge some previous contributions to Lukan anthropology. It argues that the main study in the field (J.-W. Taeger, Der Mensch und sein Heil; 1982) does not sufficiently consider all the evidence. By concentrating on the Gentiles in Luke-Acts (including Samaritans and God-fearers) this present thesis comprehensively covers all the relevant material. Against Taeger who suggests that Gentiles do not need 'saving' as much as 'correcting', it concludes that Luke portrays Gentiles prior to faith in a state requiring God's saving intervention. Thorough correction has to accompany and follow this salvation. Though allowing for distinct Lukan emphases, this portrait is not essentially at odds with that of other NT authors. These results further show that the Areopagus speech needs to be and can be satisfactorily interpreted in it's context and in conjunction with similar statements. This thesis further argues that Luke's narrative sections and the characterisation they present should no longer be neglected in favour of the speeches. Luke's portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith also bears on his understanding of sin and provides additional justification for the Gentile mission. This study challenges proposals of Luke's alleged anti-Judaism and provides some hitherto little-noticed correctives.

No description available.

The question of how the Evangelists of the first century want about their tasks has always been open. Source study gained a major place uncer the Formgechichte school and the impact continues today. We consider also today the community in which the Evangelist stands. The redaction-critical investigation does not give us information concerning the Sitz im Leben Jesu, but it can lead us to a better understanding of the Sitz im Lebeft Kirche. Besides the sources (written or oral) at the disposal of the writer we must reckon with his own outlook tnd theology, not forgetting those for whom he is writing. H. Conzelmanr, C.K. Barrett and others today have helped us to the position thai Luke was a skilled theologian. If we regard Luke as a theologian we s ould be able to detect some of his theological positions and suppositions. The Lukan corpus is the most extensive of New Testament writ ngs. Behind what Luke set down oh parchment was the preaching, witness ind experience of the sub-apostolic Church. What we have in Luke-Acts i a kind of double projection. It Is a picture of the. Church of the apost lie period superimposed by the picture of the Church of the sub-apostoli period. What is the relationship of the Old Covenant to this Ne Covenant people? How are the Scriptures of the Old Testament relat .d to that compilation of writings of the "many" to whom Luke refer- in his preface? More specifically, what is the relationship of Deuteronomy to Luke and his sources? C. F. Evans has contributed much to the genesis of our paper through his essay, "The Central Section of St. Luke's Gospel". A careful study of Evans' hypothesis that the Central Section of Luke's Gospel follows Deuteronomy by way of correspondence and contrast, has grown into a dissertation. We concur that Evans has found a connection between Luke and Deuteronomy. The argument that the connection is based on the order of contents Is difficult to support adequately. We propose an alternative. Starting from the Prophet Like Moses emphasis of Acts 3 and 7 we perceive a consistent typology. Jesus is preached, according to Luke, as a type of Moses-the fulfilment of the Prophet Like Moses of Deut.18:15, 18. We observe that Luke emphasizes the prophetic elements very strongly n-tq Christology. Tha sides of the character of Jesus emphasized by Luke are precisely those wuich die Pentateuch portrays of Moses; the prophetic, priestly, kingly and servant features. The mediatorial role of the dying Christ is presented more clearly by Luke than by the other Evangelists. Luke alone records the "Father forgive them" passage. (23:24). This attitude is parallel to the tradition of Deut. 9 where Moses three times makes intercession for Israel. In the record of the Transfiguration Deut. 18:15 plays a paramount part. The whole of the Journey Teaching Section follows, as it were^ under the 'hear you him' imperative. Luke alone introduces the word^o&oSin describing Jesus* death which was to take place in Jerusalem. From this point of view it is argued that the "journey to Jerusalem" which many believe to be a literary device is also a theological expression. It is a Wilderness Teaching Journey. It begins with a Mosaic act - the sending out of the Seventy Throughout the 'Journey', moreover, the figure of Moses is nearly always present along with Deuteronomic traditions and teaching. Aliusions to Deuteronomy are so plentiful that we concede that the Section is a kind of Christian Deuteronomy. The predicted end of Jerusalem as described by Luke 21:20-34 parallels at several points the predicted end of the nation as recorded in Deut. 28. There appears to be a correspondence in relating the and of the nation with the death of Moses, the end of Jerusalem with the death of Jesus. When the verses of Mark are taken out of Luke 21:20-34 there remains a narrative which coheres. In the latter we find many Deuteronomic insights and traditions. When we examine the Temptation narrative we note the order moving from Galilee to Jerusalem which is the order of Jesus' ministry, according to St. Luke. There appears to be more of Deuteronomy behind the narrative than the mere quotation of the Deuteronomic texts. Here is re-enacted the temptation of Israel in the Wilderness. The temptations which caused Israel to fail in time past met their conqueror in Jesus. According to Luke, Jesus moves toward Jerusalem to make the 'exodus' which Israel could not.

In this thesis, I argue that Mark undergirds his high view of Jesus by characterizing him as an autonomous miracle-worker. In chapter one, I provide a history of literature regarding miracles, Mark, and the identity of Jesus. In chapter two, I demonstrate that the inclusion of deferment in miracle-narratives ranging from the Old Testament to Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, is nearly ubiquitous. That is, human miracle-workers that appear in narratives do not act autonomously: rather, they show clear and explicit dependence on God to perform their miracles. In chapter three, I demonstrate that deferment is not only an essential charactersitic of miracles in narratives, but also in non-narrative texts from Qumran to the great many extant magical materials. In chapter four, I show that Jesus’ miracle-working in Mark, unlike the miracle-working surveyed in chapters two and three, is autonoumous. Additionally, I suggest that Mark uses this autonomous miracle-working, at crucial places in the gospel, to illustrate his high view of Jesus. In chapter five I draw a distinction between Mark’s characterization of Jesus and other miracle-workers he depicts in the narrative. In this final chapter, I argue that Jesus’ autonomous miracle-working is not an idiosyncratic feature of Mark’s writing style, but integral to his characterization of Jesus. Mark portrays other miracle-workers in the Gospel as dependent on either God or Jesus to perform miracles which further supports his high view of Jesus.

As the title of the present work ("Christological re-reading of the Shema [Deut 6.4]in Mark's Gospel")indicates, the present thesis explores the question of how the Shema is used and undersstood in Mark's Gospel. The main point to be argued is that the Shema language of Deut 6.4 is not simply reiterated in a traditional sense but is re-read in a programmatic way that links Jesus directly with Israel's God and presents Jesus in equivalence to that unique God. While such an innovative re-reading needs to be views within the context of Mark's complex portrait of Jesus' relationship to God, which integrated Jesus' fundamental correspondence to God and his distinction from God, the one-God language in Mark appears to be used in the context of portraying Jesus as fundamentally corresponding to Israel's God, rather than being differentiated from him. Following chapter 1, which discusses the history of research, the combined methodology of composition and narrative criticisms and the life setting of Mark's Gospel, chapter 2 addresses the issue of Second Temple Judaism. The second chapter aims to argue that Judaism in the Second Temple period should be seen as "monotheistic" despite its diversity and the widespread recognition of the exalted mediating figures in the era, and that the concern for God's uniqueness was central among the Jews of this time. In chapters 3-4, specific Markan texts are explored in an attempt to present a fresh reading of the Shema (12.29; cf. v.32; 2.7; 10.18). The third chapter argues for the collectivity of 12.28-34 and 12.35-37, which ultimately unites the confession of the Shema (12.29) and the view of the exalted Messiah alongside God (v.36). Chapter 4 deals with the two Markan Shema-allusions (2.7 and 10.18). It is argued that the Markan use of the είς ό θεός phrase in 2.7 has a strong Christological thrust, namely to attribute to Jesus as God-like authority to forgive sins and, by doing so, to link Jesus inseparably with the one-God of Israel and to present Jesus in equivalence to God. While examining different interpretations of Mark 10.18, the second part of the chapter argues that the εί μη είς θεός phrase in 10.18 needs to be read in light of the identical phraseology of 2.7 and that, if so, Jesus' objection to the epithet "good teacher" in 10.18 serves to invite a more adequate understanding of Jesus' status and significance. Jesus' additional commands with the Decalogue in v.21 and Mark's description of Jesus' unique qualities throughout his narrative tend to support the suggested reading. Lastly, chapter 4 integrates the discussions of the previous chapters in light of the macro-text, i.e., Mark's narrative as a whole. It is argued here that Mark's Christology is not monolithic, but a nuanced one, which facilitates the concurrence of Jesus' fundamental correspondence to God and Jesus' distinction from God. It is also argued that the aspects of Jesus' inseparable linkage to God and his distinction from God, alike, appear repeatedly across the narrative and that both aspects are integrally bound up with each other in the Gospel. Mark's innovative re-reading of the Shema, therefore, needs to be viewed within the context of this complexity in Jesus' relation to God. The present thesis can benefit Markan scholarship in several ways. It contributes not only to the study of Mark's theo-logy, but also Christology since Mark's Gospel is a narrative about Jesus - whose orientation is consistently theo-centric. As a result, the relationship between the two will also be illuminated. Moreover, in view of the inclusion of Second Temple literature (chap. 2) as a primary background for the discussion of Mark's one-God language (chaps. 3-5), the thesis can offer valuable insights for the twenty-first-century readers of Mark's first-century Gospel, whose idea of God's "one-ness" has been formed largely under the influence of the seventeenth-century definition of the term.

No description available.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 106-111).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 218-220).