Thesis (Th. M.)--Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary, 1987. / Bibliography: leaves [94]-103.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The two-document hypothesis (involving the claim that Mark is a source for Matthew and Luke) has long been regarded by the majority of New Testament scholars as firmly established. Recently its status has been challenged by proponents of the Griesbach hypothesis (by which Matthew is a source for Luke and Mark). Since much gospel research depends on the validity of the two-document hypothesis, resolution is urgently needed. In 1863 Heinrich Julius Holtzmann argued that an examination of the Old Testament quotations in these three gospels would favour the two-document position. His argument depends on the existence of two groups of quotations in Matthew: those of Septuagintal text-type which Matthew copied from Mark, and those similar to the Hebrew, which Matthew preferred when on his own. My research indicates that these two groups cannot be clearly demarcated. Some quotations peculiar to Matthew are Septuagintal, and on only four occasions do Matthew and Mark both quote the Septuagint verbatim. Because grouping quotations by text-type proved inconclusive, a second method was used. A detailed comparison was made of the text of quotations which occur in more than one gospel. Then each of the two major positions in turn was assumed, to determine which would best explain the texts of the gospels for each quotation. The twodocument position had a decided edge (in those cases where a decision was possible). In addition to helping to confirm the two-document hypothesis, this research resulted in two significant observations. First, Matthew follows his sources with great care. Second, even when quoting the Old Testament on his own, Matthew seems to rely for the most part on some form of the Septuagint. In combination, these two observations suggest that Matthew may have used ·a form of the Septuagint which in places was assimilated toward the Hebrew. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Marcion is unanimously acknowledged to be one of the most important and most intriguing figures of the Early Church. In spite of this importance, there is no comprehensive up-to-date study on his life and thought. Thus, the desire to fill this gap within the academic world – which is inconvenient for both students and professors alike – has been my inspiration for writing this thesis. However, this work does not only aim at providing a complete study on Marcion for the twenty-first century, but also at ridding scholarship from several severe misconceptions regarding the arch-heretic. The main argument of my study is that previous scholarship has turned Marcion’s exegesis of Scripture upside down. He did not find the inspiration for his doctrine in the teachings of the Apostle Paul, it is the Old Testament and its portrait of an inconsistent, vengeful and cruel God which forms the centre of his doctrine. Marcion does not understand the Old Testament in the light of the New, he interprets the New Testament in the light of the Old. This insight casts a new light on Marcion’s place within the history of the Church, as the initiator of a fundamental crisis of the Old Testament in the second century. But not only did he have an enormous influence on Christian exegesis, he also stands at the beginning of the epochal fight between orthodoxy and heresy. As the first man to ever officially break with the Church, and whose biography would become a stereotype for future heresiologists, Marcion can rightfully claim the title of ‘arch-heretic’.