No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

In this thesis I examine some of the major contributions to current historical Jesus research, now commonly known as the third quest of the historical Jesus. As most of the participants in the third quest define their work primarily as historiography, in Chapter 11 situate these reconstructions in the landscape of present-day historiography, with special attention to the reaction of the authors in question to the challenge of postmodernism. In view of the methodological diversity of the third quest as well as the lack of consensus about the criteria to be used in the reconstructions or in their evaluation, after a brief survey in Chapter 2 of the history of "criteriology" in life-of-Jesus research, I found It necessary to devise my own list of evaluative criteria in Chapter 3. The general criteria are to do with the overall shape and style of the reconstructions, while the criteria of historical reasoning evaluate them in terms of their presentation as historiography. Finally, a modified version of the "traditional" criteria of the historical-critical method is designed to evaluate the text-related arguments within the reconstructions. In chapter 4 I analyse some selected contributions from the standpoint of the most hotly debated issue within the third quest, eschatology.

The argument of this thesis is two-fold in nature— the target of the argument of Colossians is a Judaism dismissive of the Gentile Colossian Christians and the recognition of that fact casts new light on the paraenesis of the letter and its integration into the argument of the epistle as a whole. The argument is set up in the introduction analyzing and critiquing recent dissenters to the Jewish nature of the philosophy and then the argument of the thesis is set in sequence. Several arguments are made in the thesis in support of these claims. Significant parallels between Colossians and Galatians suggest similar concerns in both letters relating to Israel's identity as the people of God and how that relates to the Gentile believers in the church at Colossae and the churches of Galatia, and how those Gentile believers are to live. The writers of Colossians, while sharing a similar Jewish perspective with the Colossian philosophers on there relationship between identity and way of life, admonish the Gentile Christians to live in a way consistent with who they are. Nevertheless Paul and Timothy differ with the philosophers as to what constitutes the identity of the Colossian Gentilesas the people of God. In addition to the parallels drawn further themes are present in Colossians which strongly suggest the Jewish character of the philosophy— wisdom, election, death of Christ as the final return from exile. Moreover, the apocalyptic background of 3:1-6, the Jewish moral concerns of the ethical lists (3:5-17), and the christological orientation of the Haustafel not only bolster the claim that the Colossian philosophy is Jewish in nature (this is less true of the house-codes explicitly, though there may be some implicit connections), but recurring themes in the paraenesis seen in the preceding argument lend support to the contention that the paraenesis is an integral part of the argument of the letter.

This thesis is a response to the sociobiological paradigm which sees all aspects of life as fundamentally 'selfish'. This view is built upon two concepts, firstly, that the evolutionary process of natural selection leads to a world characterised by 'selfish' genes and 'selfish' individual organisms. Secondly, that all aspects of human nature, including benevolence, are defined by natural selection and are consequently selfish in motivation also. In Chapter 2, the first of these ideas is shown as inappropriate, not least, because selection favours genes that 'cooperate' and individuals that 'sacrificially' expend themselves in producing offspring. In Chapter 3, the second concept is discounted as only some aspects of human behaviour and culture can be explained in terms of natural selection. These points are central to the discussions on 'altruism' in Chapters 4-6. While sociobiologists have rightly noted that kin and reciprocal forms of 'altruism' occur in nature and in human society, their rendering of them in terms of genetic and individual 'selfishness' is again entirely misleading. The arguments of some sociobiologists for group selected forms of 'altruism' in nature and human culture are shown as unconvincing. Further, the sociobiological contention that human benevolence is constrained to the aiding of kin, reciprocal partners and group members is also countered. Humans exhibit the capacity to care for those outside of these sociobiological categories. Moreover, rather than being primarily selfish in motivation, humans are both more altruistic and more egoistic than the sociobiological view can accommodate. Chapter 7 considers the sociobiological interpretation of the New Testament (NT) teachings on love as selfishly concerned only with the care of kin, reciprocators and group members. This view is largely acceded to by the theologian, Stephen Pope, while another, Patrfcia Williams, has argued that the NT directly strives to counter such innate forms of behaviour. Chapters 8-10 investigate some of the NT teachings on love and argue for a more profound and complex altruism than any of these views. Chapter 8 contends that NT love is a deeply humble and sacrificial altruism where the needs of the other are placed before those of the self; one that is patterned after the example of Christ. It is a radical altruism, which as Chapter 9 argues, encompasses kin but also goes beyond this category in the requirement to love the new family of believers. This love of the group, the church, is itself transcended in a love for all others. Chapter 10 argues that this NT altruism is not bound by reciprocity for it prioritises the care of the weak, those who cannot reciprocate; and extends love to enemies, those who will not reciprocate. The view that such a love is ultimately reciprocal on the grounds of its heavenly reward is countered, as the NT reward of love is the promise that the believer's capacity for self-giving love will be perfected.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis aims to clarify the Jesus-Paul relationship with regard to the issue of faith. Two groups of Jesus' sayings ("Faith that can remove mountains" and "Your faith has healed/saved you") are chosen as the starting-point of comparison. Special attention is also paid to Paul's use of Hab 2:4 and Gen 15:6. The picture of the Jesus-Paul relationship that emerges is a complex one. To a great extent the similarity between Jesus and Paul is due to their common Jewish heritage. The early Church plays a part in influencing Paul's concept of faith and Paul himself reinterprets the Jewish Scriptures in an innovative manner. At the same time, Paul is found to be greatly indebted to Jesus for his concept of faith. First, there is evidence that Paul uses the Jesus tradition in his discussion of faith. Jesus' mounting-removing sayings are found to be the most probable source of Paul's statement in 1 Cor 13:2. Second, the distinctive teaching of Paul, namely, his doctrine of justification by faith as exemplified in his use of Gen 15:6, is found in its seminal form in Jesus. Paul's pistis christou is built on Jesus' claims for faith in his own person as expressed in his pronouncement: "Your faith has healed/saved you". Paul's reckoning language echoes Jesus' offer of a salvation that imparts purity to the ritually impure. In conclusion, the present study proposes that Paul should properly be viewed as a follower and interpreter of Jesus rather than as "the second founder of Christianity". With regard to the issue of faith, Paul's contribution lies in his development of the Christological and salvational aspects of faith inherent in the teaching of Jesus while assuming the theological and miraculous aspects of faith which are prominent in Jesus' sayings.

This thesis examines Romans 9:30-10:13 with a concentration on Paul's citations of the Old Testament. A critical review of the theory of intertextuality, including a critique of its application by Richard Hays, begins an adaptation of the theory for a methodology which is labelled herein as Intertextual Semantics. Intertextual Semantics describes the meaning of the text through its points of continuity between itself and its source, but also its discontinuity and the processes which have contributed to their lexical, syntactical, discursive, rhetorical, and cultural differences. Transformative factors may be evident from a synchronic perspective, but when considering Paul’s historical position in relation to Judaism and Israelite religion, a diachronic perspective is also valuable. The thesis devotes considerable space to the history of the texts which Paul quotes in Romans 9:30-10:13. It contributes new readings of Isaiah 28:16, Leviticus 18:5, and Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in their respective literary and historical contexts. From such 'original' contexts to other allusions or quotations in the Old Testament or in non-canonical Second Temple Jewish literature or in other New Testament writings, these intertexts are followed and described as part of this diachronic analysis. Disrupting or colliding with the continuity of meaning across changes of time, languages, and cultures are the exigencies facing each new generation. In the synchronic analysis, and in response to the relative neglect that Romans 10 suffers in relation to chs. 9 and 11, this study demonstrates that concerted attention to Romans 10 pays dividends for inquiries into the coherence, purpose, and function of chs.9-11 as well as for important topics such as Paul's conception of his own ministry, comparisons of Pauline religion with historical Israelite religion, and rhetoric in this letter.