No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Technology, Sydney, 2003. / Bibliography: leaves 288-299.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (B.A. Hons.)--University of Adelaide, 1960. / Includes bibliographical references.

D.Litt. et Phil. / A semiotic method, devised by Wolmarans (1994a) to analyse ideological shift in Biblical texts, is applied to Colossians. The method is simplified into two steps, (1) a structural analysis and (2) a pragmatic analysis. The structural analysis is divided into three steps: (i) delimitation of textual units utilised in the analysis (ii) syntactical and semantic analysis, and (iii) an analysis of the proposition and argumentation. The pragmatic analysis is also divided into three steps: (i) communicative strategy, (ii) a description of the unacceptable practical or epistemic situation, the textual actual world, followed by a description of the alternative proposed by the author, the world as it should be, the alternative possible world, and (iii) a description of how the author attempts to move his reader by means of certain transuniversal relations. The application of this method to Colossians delivers some exciting results: The epistle exhibits the classical partes orationis, namely a prologue (exordium 1:1-14) containing the narratio (reason why the epistle is written-1:3-8) and a propositio (position of the author-1:9-14); an argumentatio (1:15-4:1), consisting of a hymn (1:15-20) from which implications for a Christian belief system is drawn (con firmatio 1:21-2:5), an opposing system of belief is refined (confutatio 2:6-15) and practical implications for daily life are deduced (exhortatio 3:1-4:6). The third and final part of the epistle, an epilogue (peroratio 4:7-18), contains references to various Pauline associates serving as role models (or exempla). Colossians is shown to be a pseudepigraphic document, written round about 85 AD somewhere in the Western part of the Roman Empire. The content of the epistle displays development of basic Pauline doctrines. The unacceptable situation against which the author reacted, was caused by believers who lost hope in the early second coming of the Lord Jesus. They reverted to a syncretistic form of mystery cult. During certain feasts, they practised particular forms of asceticism (refraining from sexual intercourse; abstaining from certain kinds of food and drink) accompanied by purifying rituals, thereby hoping to attain some form of union with divine powers, like angels. This union would result in renewal or rebirth, climaxing in an epiphany. Finally, the . asceticism would be reversed and the flesh indulged. This type of religion led to exclusivism, social, ethnic and gender inequality, conflict, as well as to certain vices. As an alternative, the author argues the proposition that the readers must remain in Christ. He connects Christ to God, Paul and his school to Christ, and the believers to the body of Christ through the Pauline instruction. An ethical way of life is deduced based on principles of equality and inclusivity, and strengthened by a hope in the return of the Lord. To argue his proposition the author uses the authority of the Christian tradition, of non-Christian philosophy, of general tenets in the mystery cults, and of role models. He also uses analogical arguments, emotional arguments based on the fear of punishment and the expectation of reward, as well as rational arguments (implications deduced from the hymn of Christ).

The preface to Luke's gospel (Lk. ill-4), when properly exegeted, says this: "(1) Since many have undertaken to draw up a narrative account of the things that are well-established among us, (2) just as those who from the beginning have been eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, (3) I have decided, for my part, having been a follower of them all for a long time, to write an accurate narrative for you, most excellent Theophilus, (4) in order that you may know what is certain with regard to the matters in which you have been instructed." Luke's claim to have been a follower of the apostles (vs. 3), and thus conversant with their oral gospel tradition (vs. 2), is confirmed by an ecclesiastical tradition that can be traced back to one of those very apostles. Luke implies that he did not use written sources in the composition of his gospel, for unlike ancient historians who did use written sources, he does not acknowledge any use of his predecessors' narratives. In writing "an accurate narrative" he would not have relied upon what he considered to be the inaccurate narratives of his predecessors. Luke indicates that his gospel records the oral tradition that he has learned directly from the apostles. The leading theories of synoptic origins tend to collapse into an oral theory under the weight of Luke's literary independence. The arguments hitherto advanced against the oral theory are inadequate. The oral tradition consisted of a basic narrative tradition (which is reconstructed) and a body of independent tradition. Luke and Matthew drew upon both traditions, but Mark confined himself to the former. Our two-tradition theory is corroborated, especially in comparison with the standard two-source theory, by various literary and stylistic phenomena.

Note: