English Bibliographies of Martin Hengel, Anna Maria Schwemer, and other BMSEC Authors

As part of the BMSEC series, I have attempted to compile and maintain bibliographies of the English publications of the authors whose books have been featured in the series. For the most recent versions of these bibliographies, see:

Jens Schröter,

Matthias Konradt

Christoph Markschies

Michael Wolter

Jörg Frey

Martin Hengel

Anna Maria Schwemer

Eve-Marie Becker

Though they are not up-to-date, readers may also wish to consult the English bibliographies of other German scholars at my BNGLS page.

German authors who would like to update the information provided on my BNGLS page are welcome to send me an updated list of their English publications and/or other relevant changes pertaining to their title, university, webpage, etc.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne

 

Review of Peter von der Osten-Sacken’s New Commentary on Galatians

In this blog post, I will provide a review of Peter von der Osten-Sacken‘s 2019 commentary Der Brief an die Gemeinden in Galatien (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Together with Klaus Haacker’s commentary on Acts, Osten-Sacken’s commentary represents the most recent addition to the respected series Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. This series stands in the tradition of classical historical-critical New Testament scholarship, while giving special attention to themes relevant to Jewish-Christian dialogue, feminist-theological discourse, and social-historical lines of questioning. While Osten-Sacken’s commentary reflects all of these emphases, it is especially distinguished by its sustained focus on issues relevant to Christian-Jewish dialogue.

I. Let me begin by commending the commentary to a wide range of readers. Due to its combination of accessible form and substantive content, I think it can and will be read with profit by New Testament scholars, theologians, pastors, participants in Jewish-Christian dialogue, and other interested readers within and outside the Christian tradition. It is marked by historical-critical expertise and robust material-theological reflection. It is a commentary to which I will gladly return and a work that motivates me to read Osten-Sacken’s collected essays on Paul, i.e. Der Gott der Hoffnung (For Osten-Sacken’s English publications, see here).

What I like most about the commentary is the fact that one is guided from start to finish by Osten-Sacken’s clear and distinct voice. This is not to say that other voices are absent. On the contrary, Osten-Sacken consistently develops his interpretation in dialogue with others and can be counted on to weigh in on exegetical debates. Such issues, however, do not take on a life of their own, but are skillfully situated in relation to Osten-Sacken’s interpretation of the primary text in question within the framework of his overall reading of the letter.

II. The headings of the introduction and conclusion already give the reader a sense of the impressive intellectual breadth of the author and commentary:

A. Introduction (11-47). 1. The Author: Apostle of the Messiah for the Nations (11-18). 2. The Addressees (18-22). 3. Situation and Problem of the Letter (22-24). 4. The Document: An Apostolic Community Letter (24-28). 5. Galatians in the History of Theology and Church History (28-34). 6. Hermeneutical Questions (34-45). 7. Structure of the Commentary and Reception of Literature (45-46). 8. Reading Aids (46-47).

C. Summary and Reflections (320-350). 1. The Inheritance Promised to Abraham and Inherited by Christ and Those Who Belong to Him: Contours of the Letter (320-322). 2. Global Orientation and Lived Location of the Pauline Gospel (323-324). 3. First Comes the Human Being and Then the Confession: The Turn Since the Enlightenment (324-326). 4. Human Dignity and Human Rights in Theological-Ecclesial Perspective (326-331). 5. Characteristics and Perspectives of the Pauline Gospel (331-350).

From this material, let me highlight a few notable points. a) Due to the close connections between Galatians and Romans, Osten-Sacken thinks it is likely that Galatians should be placed in temporal proximity to Romans (20). While he is somewhat noncommital with respect to the location of the addresses, he seems to favor the region/territorial hypothesis over the province hypothesis (20-21, 61, 132, 210). Due to the northward extension of the province, he regards the terminology of North Galatia/South Galatia to be potentially misleading and suggests that it should therefore be abandoned (19n28). b) In the valuable section on hermeneutical questions, Osten-Sacken challenges the tendency to disclose the meaning of Galatians through the antithesis “law and/or gospel” and suggests that it is similarly problematic to characterize the core issue with the juxtaposition “faith and/or law” (35). In support of the latter point, he writes: “The exact antithetical term to ‘faith’ or ‘tidings (hearing) of faith’ is – in the common, though at another point to be questioned rendering – ‘works of the law,’ and, correspondingly, the opposition to the verb ‘believe’ is the verb ‘do.’ The implications are far-reaching. If one juxtaposes faith and works of the law (instead of faith and law), then it is clear from the outset that the problem lies in the realm of action and this means with the human being and not with the law taken by itself” (35; see also III.f and IV.c below). c) In this same section (p. 40), Osten-Sacken includes a notable critical exchange with Ulrich Luz with regard to the latter’s talk of the Bible’s “claim to truth” (Wahrheitsanspruch). d) Osten-Sacken relates his earlier research and his present commentary to what F. Tolmie characterizes as an “evaluative approach” … “according to which Paul’s strategy is not merely described, but also scrutinized critically” (28). This feature of his work is directly related to the form of his commentary, which comments on the text of Galatians under three rubrics, namely “Überblick” (overview), “Einzelexegese” (detailed exegesis), and “Vertiefungen” (deepenings). The first rubric enables Osten-Sacken to present his overall assessment of the meaning and function of a unit, the second allows him to take up specific questions pertaining to individual verses, and the Vertiefungen give him space to grapple with material-theological questions and to engage with Paul’s argument in Galatians critically, especially with a view to the coherence of Paul’s thought and to issues relevant to Jewish-Christian dialogue (28, 42-43). To give the reader a feel for these different sections, I will translate an excerpt from each of these rubrics at the end of my review.

III. Osten-Sacken structures his interpretation of Galatians as follows: pp. 48-68: The Beginning of the Letter (1.1-5). 59-72: Curse Instead of Thanksgiving: The Proem (1.6-9). 73-129: I. The Origin of the Gospel for the Nations and the Struggle of the Apostle for its Preservation (1.10-2.21). 130-240: II. The Gospel and Scripture: The Son and Those Who Belong to Him as Heirs of Abraham (3.1-4.31). 241-304: III. Gospel and Law: The Gift of Freedom as Inheritance (5.1-6.10). 305-319: Without Greetings to Galatia: The Conclusion of the Letter (6.1-18).

Once again, let me highlight just a few notable points: a) Osten-Sacken interacts throughout with major commentaries on Galatians in both German and English. Among others, he frequently engages the commentaries of Eckert, Lietzmann, Schlier, Klaiber, Betz, Bruce, and Dunn. Given the particular influence of J. L. Martyn’s commentary in the English-speaking world, it may be helpful to list out the references to his commentary here: 186, 188, 208, 214-216, 272, 275, 293, 297, 310. Special mention should also be made of his interaction with Martin Luther at many points (see the subject index, p. 382). b) In terms of structure, I think that Osten-Sacken convincingly argues that 5.1-12 should be taken more strongly with what follows than with what precedes (241-242). c) In terms of specific verses, I found Osten-Sacken’s interpretation of the phrase “born of a woman” in Gal 4.4 to be especially noteworthy (see IV.b. below). Special mention may also be made of his discussion of the designation for and content of the “Pneuma- and Sarx- catalogues” in Gal 5:19-23. d) Since I have tended to side with interpreters who have sought to relate Paul’s use of “we” and “you” in multiple texts to Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, I found it significant that Osten-Sacken, like J. L. Martyn and others, argues against this interpretive tendency at multiple points with admirable clarity, detail, and argumentative rigor (e.g. 154-55, 170, 192). e) In terms of broader themes, Osten-Sacken unsurprisingly gives considerable attention to Paul’s diverse statements and perspectives on the law. This is developed both in relation to his discussion of specific texts (e.g. his comments on 3:19-25, esp. p. 167, and his comments on 5:14, esp. 259, 260-63), in his Vertiefungen (e.g. 70-72, 282-284), and in various summarizing-systematizing statements (e.g. 282, 340-42). As a point of criticism, while I think Osten-Sacken justifiably emphasizes the significance of the hina clause in Gal 3:22 (cf. also 3:24) for thinking about Paul’s view of the law, I do not think that this justifies assigning more than a temporal meaning to Paul’s use of eis in 3:23 and 3:24—as Osten-Sacken appears to do (see p. 167 and 282)—and correspondingly translating eis with “auf hin” in 3:23, 24 rather than with “bis” as in 3:19. Instead, as indicated by the purely temporal force of the same preposition in 3:19 and the temporal marker “before” in 3:23, the preposition eis should be translated with “until/bis” in 3:19, 23, 24. Despite this criticism, I think that Osten-Sacken’s larger point remains valid and important: In comparison with 3:19, Paul does assign a more positive role for the law with his use of hina clauses in 3:23-25. f) Let me conclude my comments on the body of the commentary with a comparison of Osten-Sacken and John Barclay in relation to a specific point (while Osten-Sacken himself interacts with Barclay’s earlier work, he unfortunately does not engage with Paul and the Gift). Within the context of a footnote justifying his translation and interpretation of Gal 3:11, Barclay writes: “There is no reason to find here a generalized contrast between the conditional Torah (which demands “doing”) and the promise (which requires only “faith” in God’s unconditional saving act; so F. Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith [London: T&T Clark, 2004], pp. 16-63, 276-77; developed in P.M. Sprinkle, Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:3 in Early Judaism and in Paul [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008, pp. 133-64). Paul makes it clear that faith also involves action (5:6), arising from and made possible by the Christ-gift (2:20), and that in such action eternal life is at stake (5:21; 6:8). The Torah is problematic for Paul, not for setting conditions, or for demanding human action prior to God’s, but because it stands apart from the promise fulfilled in Christ and is incapable of producing either the righteousness or the faith to which the promise points” (Paul and the Gift, p. 406n40). On the one hand, like Barclay, Osten-Sacken strongly emphasizes that faith involves action that arises from and is made possible by the the action of God, Jesus Christ, and the Spirit (e.g. 261) and notes that we also find a poiein and ergazesthai in the life of the Christian (161). Moreover, like Barclay, he takes the threat of judgment and its relation to the conduct of the Christian in 5:21 and 6:8 very seriously (see 274 and 299-304). On the other hand, Osten-Sacken nevertheless argues with reference to Gal 3:11-12 that for Paul “the nomos is now rejected as medium of justification and deliverance in general (generell), because it is oriented in general (überhaupt) to poiein, doing, and not to pistis” (114; not sure how best to translate überhaupt here). In other words, while he shares much in common with Barclay and his interpretation should not be equated with the specific emphases of Watson or Sprinkle that Barclay is rejecting, Osten-Sacken does think that Paul presents an opposition between “faith” and “doing” in Gal 3:11-12 and in other key texts in Galatians and Romans (cf. also II.b. above and IV.c. below).

IV. To give the reader of this post a true taste of the commentary, I will now translate an excerpt from Osten-Sacken’s three types of material: Überblick, Einzelexegese, Vertiefungen:

a) Überblick/Overview (p. 149, on Gal 3:13-14):

ET: The two verses 13-14 give the impression that they would bundle once again all the load-bearing terms of the preceding context and lead them to their goal. At the same time, the statements in 3:1-14 appear as a considered ring composition. It begins with the reminder of the proclamation of the crucified one by the apostle in the Galatian communities (3:1), and it concludes with the recourse to his liberating deed on the cross (3.13-14). What is new in 3.13-14 is the term promise (epangelia, 3:14), which occurs for the first time in the letter here. It is taken up especially in the second half of the third chapter and therefore in 3.14 resembles a springboard into the following statements of the apostle.

GV: Die beiden Verse 13f. erwecken den Eindruck als würden sie noch einmal alle tragenden Begriffe des vorausgehenen Zusammenhangs 1,1-12 bündeln und zu ihrem Ziel führen. Zugleich erscheinen die Ausführungen in 3,1-14 wie eine überlegte Ringkomposition. Sie beginnen mit der Erinnerung an die Verkündigung des Gekreuzigten durch den Apostel in den galatischen Gemeinden (3,1), und sie schließen mit dem Rekurs auf seine befreiende Tat am Kreuz (3,13f.). Neu ist in 3,13f. der hier zum ersten Mal im Brief begegnende Begriff der Verheißung (epangelia, 3,14). Er wird vor allem in der zweiten Hälfte des dritten Kapitels mehrfach aufgenommen und gleicht deshalb in 3,14 einem Sprungbrett in die anschließenden Darlegungen des Apostels.

b) Einzelexegese/Detailed exegesis (p. 191, on Gal 4:4)

ET: For a long time already, interpreters have postulated the Hebrew syntagm yelud isha, which occurs in both the Bible of Israel and in the texts of the Dead Sea. With this designation is connected statements that describe human life in a way in its creaturely frailty, which evoke associations that it is verhängt [not sure how to translate verhängt here: doomed? fated? punished? something else?] and in this sense subjected to stoicheia tou kosmou as enslaving conditions of existence. … The previously suggested understanding has the advantage that interprets v. 4 also with its first participial specification genomenon ek gynaikos (and not first with the second genomenon hypo nomon) in close connection back to v. 3. The expression means, as a first illustration of the enslavement under the world elements, participation in human existence above all in its frailty or also in its Verhängtheit [also unsure how to translate the noun: doomed condition? fatedness? punishment?]. In this sense, the son is subjected to the same conditions of existence as the ones for whose sake he is sent.

GV: Man hat hinter dieser Wendung [genomenon ek gynaikos/geboren von einer Frau] schon seit langem die hebräische Verbindung jelud ischa vermutet, die sowohl in der Bibel Israels als auch in den Texten vom Toten Meer begegnet. Mit dieser Bezeichnung verbinden sich Aussagen, die das menschlichen Leben in einer Weise in seiner kreatürlichen Hinfälligkeit beschreiben, die die Assoziation hervorrufen, es sei verhängt und in diesem Sinn stoicheia tou kosmou als versklavenden Existenzbedingungen unterworfen. … Das zuvor vorgeschagene Verständnis hat den Vorzug, dass es v. 4 auch mit seiner ersten Partizipialbestimmung genomenon ek gynaikos (und nicht erst mit der zweiten genomenon hypo nomon) in engem Rückbezug auf v. 3 deutet. Die Wendung meint, als erste Veranschaulichung der Versklavung unter die Weltelemente, Teilhabe an menschlicher Existenz vor allem in ihrer Hinfälligkeit oder auch in ihrer Verhängtheit. In diesem Sinn ist der Sohn denselben Existenbedingungen unterworfen wie die, um derentwillen er gesandt ist.

c) Vertiefungen/Deependings (p. 70-72, on Gal 1.6-9; cf. II.b. and III.f. above)

ET: Revelation and Prerogative of Interpretation: Paul and the Rabbis

GV: Offenbarung und Deutungshoheit: Paulus und die Rabbinen

ET: The clearest material connection between Gal 1.6-9 and and b. Bava Metzia 59b lies in the firm rejection of a mixing in of the heavenly world in the shaping of the teaching of the apostle or the rabbis. …

GV: Die deutlichste sachliche Verbindung zwischen Gal 1,6-9 und bBava Mezia 59b liegt in der dezidierten Abwehr einer Einmischung der himmlischen Welt in die Gestaltung der Lehre des Apostels bzw. der Rabbinen. …

ET: Thus, the prerogative of interpretation of the apostle refers not only to the gospel received and proclaimed by him, but—as its basis—also to the Holy Scriptures of Israel, above all to the Torah.

GV: Die Deutungshoheit des Apostels bezieht sich mithin nicht nur auf das von ihm empfangene und verkündigte evangelium, sondern – als dessen Grundlage – auch auf die heiligen Schriften Israels, allen voran die Tora.

ET: In this respect, we can speak then not only of an analogy between Paul and the rabbis, but unquestionably also of a relation of divergence.

GV: In dieser Hinsicht lässt sich dann nicht nur von einer Analogie zwischen Paulus und die Rabbinen sprechen, sondern fraglos auch von einem Divergenzverhältnis.

ET: While the rabbis bring to the fore the Torah not exclusively but indeed with special weight as halakah, Paul interprets it as witness for Jesus Christ, a clear indication of the entirely different presupposition from which he comes since his calling to proclaim the gospel.

GV: Während die Rabbinen die Tora nicht allein, aber doch mit besonderen Gewicht als Halacha zur Geltung bringen, legt Paulus sie als Zeugnis für Jesus Christus aus, deutliches Indiz für die völlig andere Voraussetzung, von der er seit seiner Berufung zur Verkündigung des Evangeliums herkommt.

ET: The divergence becomes most impressively visible in the interaction with the last verse of the section Deut 30:12-14. The rabbis let it stand as it is: “The word is near in your mouth and in your heart, to do it.” Paul, by contrast, breaks off the quotation before the infinitive clause and continues: “This is the word of faith, which we proclaim” (Rom 10:8).

GV: Am eindrücklichsten zeigt sich die Divergenz an dem Umgang mit dem letzten Vers des Abschnitts Dtn 30,12-14. Die Rabbinen lassen ihn stehen, wie er ist: “Nahe ist das Wort in deinem Munde und in deinem Herzen, es zu tun.” Paulus hingegen bricht das Zitat vor dem Infinitivsatz ab und fährt fort: “Das ist das Wort des Glaubens, das wir verkündigen” (Rom 10,8).

ET: What is juxtaposed/opposed with all this is not gospel and Torah—after all, Paul reclaims the Torah as a witness for the gospel and thereby draws it to his side—but rather gospel and halakah.

GV: Gegenüber stehen sich mit allem nicht Evangelium und Tora – Paulus reklamiert die Tora ja als Zeuge für das Evangelium und zieht sie damit auf dessen Seite –, vielmehr Evangelium und Halacha.

ET: In terms of substance, this juxtaposition/opposition [not sure how best to render Gegenüber here and below] also grasps the conflict in the Galatian communities and its theological processing by Paul much better than the frequently used antithesis of gospel and law, which we have already raised questions about.

GV: Dieses Gegenüber erfasst in der Sache auch den Konflikt in den galatischen Gemeinden und seine theologische Bearbeitung durch Paulus viel besser als die bereits problematisierte, oft bemühte Antithese von Evangelium und Gesetz.

ET: It makes clear terminologically that while the Pauline statements about the understanding of the law on the side of his opponents grasp a fundamental aspect of the law, they do not grasp the fullness of its significance in Judaism.

GV: Es macht begrifflich klar, dass mit den paulinischen Aussagen über das Verständnis des Gesetzes aufseiten der Gegner zwar ein wesentlicher Aspekt, aber nicht die Fülle seiner Bedeutung im Judentum erfasst wird.

ET: Thus, this—the juxtaposition/opposition of gospel and halakah—is probably the most important insight that is to be drawn from the recourse to b. Bava Metzia for the interpretation of Galatians.

GV: So dürfte dies – das Gegenüber von Evangelium und Halacha – die wichtigste Erkenntnis sein, die aus dem Rekurs auf bBava Mezia für die Auslegung des Galaterbrief zu ziehen ist.

V. Let me conclude by reiterating my great appreciation for Osten-Sacken’s commentary and by thanking him also for including both an index of ancient sources and an index of terms, subjects, and persons, which will be of particular help to his English readers!

For more German commentaries on Galatians, see here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne

 

The Root of Wrede and Schweitzer’s Error: Hengel/Schwemer on the Messianic Claim of Jesus

For my one hundredth blog post, I have selected two excerpts from the most recent volume in the BMSEC series, Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer‘s book Jesus and Judaism (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2019; cf. here and here). As usual, I will alternate between the English Translation and German Version for the benefit of readers who are using this blog to develop their German language skills:

Excerpt 1 (ET = p. xix; GV = p. v):

ET: A special emphasis is placed on the still largely misjudged problem of the messianic claim of Jesus, without which the accounts of the Gospels cannot be understood. The ever so popular “unmessianic Jesus” never existed. This is shown by the comparison of Jesus with John the Baptist, his proclamation in authority, his deeds of power, the passion story with its accusation that he is “king of the Jews,” and the emergence of the earliest Christology, which has its ultimate foundation in Jesus’ activity and way.

GV: Ein besonderer Schwerpunkt bildet das bis heute weithin verkannte Problem des messianischen Anspruchs Jesu, ohne den wir die Berichte der Evangelien nicht verstehen können. Den immer noch so beliebten “unmessianischen Jesus” hat es nie gegeben. Das zeigen der Vergleich Jesu mit Johannes dem Täufer, seine Verkündigung in “Vollmacht”, seine Krafttaten, die Leidensgeschichte mit ihrer Anklage, er sein “der König der Juden”, und die Entstehung der frühesten Christologie, die ihren letzten Grund in Jesu Wirken und Weg besitzt.

Excerpt 2 (ET = pp. 547-48; GV = pp. 517-18):

ET: The Theories of Wrede and Schweitzer are diametrically different, and yet their error has the same root. Both believed that they could solve the controversial question of the messianic consciousness of Jesus through one comprehensive theory drawn from the Gospel of Mark. One thought that he had justified it, the other that he had refuted it. In reality neither the one nor the other is possible.

GV: Die Theorien von Wrede und Schweitzer sind diametral verschieden, und doch hat ihr Irrtum dieselbe Wurzel. Beide glaubten, die umstrittene Frage nach dem Messiasbewußtsein Jesu durch eine umfassende, aus dem Markusevangelium geschöpfte Theorie. Der eine meinte, dasselbe begründet, der andere, es widerlegt zu haben. In Wirklichkeit ist weder das eine noch das andere möglich.

ET: The only possible approach to the historical reality lies in the interplay of numerous, rather different texts, from Mark and the sayings tradition, with the inclusion of four complexes: (a) the witnesses to the variety of Jewish messianic expectations, which have been significantly expanded by the Qumran texts; (b) the relationship of Jesus, presented above, to his “forerunner,” the Baptist; (c) the accusation against Jesus and its Jerusalem prehistory since his entrance into the city; and (d) the question of the emergence of the earliest Christology and its development in the post-Easter circle of disciples, in which Jesus’ word and deed were still directly vivid.

GV: Die einzig mögliche Annäherungsweise liegt im Zusammenspiel zahlreicher, recht verschiedener Texte, aus Markus und der Logientradition, unter Einbeziehung von vier Komplexen: (a) die durch die Qumrantexte wesentlich erweiterten Zeugnisse für die Vielfalt der jüdischen Messiaserwartung, (b) das oben dargestellte Verhältnis Jesu zu seinem “Vorläufer,” dem Täufer, (c) die Angklage gegen Jesus und ihre Jerusalemer Vorgeschichte seit dem Einzug und (d) die Frage nach der Entstehung der frühesten Christologie und ihrer Ausbildung im nachösterlichen Jüngerkreis, in dem Jesu Wort und Tat noch unmittelbar lebendig waren.

ET: All four points were neglected by Wrede, and this is all the more true for his successors, i.e., for Rudolf Bultmann and the majority of his students. We must give great credit to Wrede that he himself, in contrast, to his epigones, placed only a powerful question mark here and did not—as happened later in a historically less conscientious way—deny it with a categorical quod non but rather continued to reflect upon it, and, at the end, cautiously called his opinion into question again, as shown by his letter to Harnack.

GV: Alle vier Punkte hat Wrede vernachlässigt, und dasselbe gilt erst recht von seinen Nachfolgern, das heißt Rudolf Bultmann und der Mehrzahl seiner Schüler. Man muß es Wrede hoch anrechnen, daß er selbst, im Gegensatz zu seinen Epigonen, hier nur ein kräftiges Fragezeichen gesetzt, die Frage aber nicht – wie es dann später, historisch weniger gewissenhaft, geschah – mit einem kategorischen quod non abgelehnt hat, sondern weiter darüber nachgedacht hat, um am Ende, wie der Brief an Harnack zeigt, seine Meinung vorsichtig wieder in Frage zu stellen.

In addition to the enjoyable Zusammenarbeit with Anna Maria Schwemer, working on this project brought back good memories of working with Martin Hengel in the context of my first published translation and even better memories of my many friends and teachers in Tübingen (and Nürnberg), without whom I would never have become a translator or New Testament scholar at all. Against this background, I am especially glad that this volume is appearing only a year after Daniel P. Bailey’s excellent translation of my teacher Peter Stuhlmacher’s Biblical Theology of the New Testament. And I am also moved to remember my teacher and first academic employer Friedrich Avemarie, to whom I owe so much.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne

 

 

 

 

Review of Jan Rüggemeier’s Poetik der markinischen Christologie: Eine kognitiv-narratologische Exegese

I am happy to see that my review of Jan Rüggemeier’s book Poetik der markinischen Christologie: Eine kognitiv-narratologische Exegese has been published by RBL (see here).

For those who do not have access to the full review, let me include several short excerpts from the review here:

As a recipient of the Armin Schmitt Preis für biblische Textforschung (2017) and the Manfred Lautenschlaeger Award for Theological Promise (2019), Jan Rüggemeier’s Poetik der markinischen Christologie is an outstanding monograph that demonstrates the value of a cognitive-narratological exegesis and advances the study of Markan Christology.

His goal is to integrate historical and philological methods of exegesis and more recent approaches, especially from the realm of literary criticism and narratology, into a common system of viewing the text and, at the same time, to demonstrate the possibilities of such an approach with reference to the Markan image of Jesus, with the ultimate aim of providing a new and maximally nuanced answer to the question of the Christology of Mark (3; also 517).

Because Rüggemeier has already provided a robust presentation of his own integrative model of textual interpretation in chapter 2, he is able to conclude each section with an evaluation and methodological comparison that concisely weighs in on material issues and sheds especially valuable light on the contours of his own approach. Due to the placement, organization, and analytical rigor of this chapter, Rüggemeier achieves the rare and commendable feat of providing a history of research that advances the overall argument with insight and verve.

This section includes a compact summary of Rüggemeier’s interpretation of the disciples’ incomprehension (500–505), the messianic secret (505–7; see 363–73), and the ending of Mark (507–13). According to Rüggemeier, the messianic secret is an expression of Jesus’s subordination to the Father: prior to Easter, Jesus does not speak of himself as the Son or let others speak of him as the Son because the full revelation of Jesus as Son and Lord is reserved for the Father alone (506; see also 372).

Rüggemeier argues that, rather than representing a “sporadic Kyrios Christology” (406, 488, 490, 496), Mark has a “coherent Kyrios Christology” (412) and suggests that “this high christological conception represents the key to understanding the Markan Christology” (490). While I remain hesitant to adopt this thesis in toto, Rüggemeier has persuaded me that my understanding of Mark and Markan Christology must be shaped much more strongly by the Markan Kyrios texts in their relationship to the wider narrative and perhaps also by the possibility that “Mark thematically takes up the early Christian confession to the one God of Israel and the one Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor 8:6) and joins it narratively with the episodic narratives of the primitive community” (531; see also 406–8).

For my main criticism of the book, please see the published review!

For a translation of key excerpts from this book, see my “German Scholars” post on Rüggemeier here.

For Rüggemeier’s development of his perspective in critical dialogue with Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, see J. Rüggemeier, “Mark’s Jesus Reviewed: Towards a Cognitive-Narratological Reading of Character Perspectives and Markan Christology,” in Reading the Gospel of Mark in the Twenty-First Century: Method and Meaning, ed. Geert van Oyen, BETL 301 (Leuven: Peeters, 2019), 717-736.

For a German review of Rüggemeier’s work, see Paul-Gerhard Klumbies’ 2019 ThLZ review.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne

New Journal of Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity & Raphaela J. Meyer zu Hörste-Bühre on the Biblical Texts as an Element of the Relation between God and Humans

For some time now I have been wanting to announce the good news of the launching of a new open access journal on ethics, especially as readers of this blog can take advantage of the opportunity to practice their language skills by comparing the German and English versions of the opening editorial! For another recent open access gem, see here.

In this post, I will first pass on a brief description of the new journal and then provide a translation of a German excerpt with a brief grammatical analysis. Since one of the things that I like about the journal is the inclusion of theses for discussion, I have selected an excerpt from Raphaela J. Meyer zu Hörste-Bührer‘s theses on the significance of the biblical texts for ethical work.

I. JEAC

The newly founded international open access journal “Journal of Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity (JEAC)” (available at www.jeac.de) provides a platform for specialized research in ancient ethics with a particular focus on its impact and interdependence with the development of Christian ethics. It attempts to establish a dialogue between biblical, classical, Judaistic and patristic research on the one hand, and philosophical and theological approaches on the other. Thus, the journal opens up opportunities for interaction between the ethical traditions of antiquity – including the origins of Christian ethics – and current ethical discourses. The journal is edited and published by the research center “Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity“ (www.ethikmainz.de) at Mainz university.

The first issue, out now, is dedicated to the reflection on the hermeneutical challenges of the venture itself, and features essays and articles by Jan Assmann, William Schweiker, John J. Collins, Adela Yarbro Collins, Robert Brawley, Wolfram Kinzig, and Christoph Jedan. The second issue will look at the role of emotion in ancient and contemporary ethics. Further open issues are planned, and contributions are welcome. In addition to peer reviewed essays and articles, the journal has a „dialogue-„section, one for reviews and miscellae, and encourages contributions on ethical theories and issues in antiquity and the present.

II. Raphaela J. Meyer zu Hörste-Bühre on the Biblical Texts as an Element of the Relation between God and Humans (cf. here)

German text: Sofern man eine Geistwirkung in der Entstehung, Redaktion, Tradierung, Kanonisierung, weiteren Überlieferung und Rezeption der Texte nicht ausschließt, lassen sich die biblischen Texte in zweifacher Hinsicht als Element der Relation zwischen Gott und Menschen verstehen: Einerseits haben sie die Relation zum Inhalt, andererseits sind sie selbst Produkt der Relation.
ET: As long as we do not rule out an activity of the Spirit in the emergence, redaction, traditioning, canonization, further handing down and reception of the texts, the biblical texts can be understood in two respects as an element of the relation between God and humans: On the one hand, they have this relation as their content; on the other hand, they are themselves a product of this relation.
Grammatical analysis: Although this is a clearly written sentence, it presents several difficulties for the translator. 1) I sometimes struggle to determine the precise force of “Sofern” – here I think “as long as” might capture the sense better than “insofar as”; 2) Geisteswirkung presents several problems; first, the translator must determine the meaning of Geist – here I think it means Spirit rather than spirit or something like mind; second, one must capture the force of Wirkung – here I am not sure if it is something like “impact” or “influence” or more durative such as “activity,” but I think the latter is probably best; 3) while I have translated “man … nicht ausschließt” with “we do not exclude”, I often render this construction by making it passive, i.e. “an activity … is not excluded in …” – but it seemed best to keep the active voice here; 4) Tradierung is challenging – I went with “traditioning”, partly because I used handing down later in the sentence and because it seemed desire to keep the term tradition in play, though something like “passing on” might have worked; 5) Unfortunately, I am not sure if weiteren goes with Überlieferung only or with both Überlieferung and Rezeption – depending on how it works, it should probably rendered either with a) and further handing down and reception” or with b) “further handing down, and reception”; 6) German authors have the option of not using an article, i.e. of writing als Element rather than als das Element or als ein Element, whereas it sounds a rather awkward in English to write “as element of the” – here “as an element of” seems best to me; the same issue arises with “Produkt”. 7) lassen sich … verb can usually be rendered with “can be x-ed”; 8) although the German text just uses the article – die Relation / der Relation – it seemed to me that it has anaphoric force, and I have therefore rendered it with “this relation”.
For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne

Torsten Jantsch on Cynic Argumentation in Romans 1-2 and Ps.-Diogenes, Epistula 28

In today’s post, I will provide a translation of four excerpts from Torsten Jantsch‘s article “Kynische Argumentation im Römerbrief: Römer 1–2 und Ps.-Diogenes, Epistula 28 im Vergleich,” NTS 64 (2018), 44–63. As usual, I will alternate between the English translation and the German original:

1) We have seen that, despite all differences between Romans 1–2 and Ps. Diog. Ep. 28 there are quite astonishing parallels, which involve details such as the accusations of envy and of unrighteousness, of unreasonableness and of an immanent wickedness as the cause of the inappropriate behavior, which includes in both texts, among other things, sexual misdeeds, especially homosexual actions.

p. 62: Wir haben gesehen, dass es trotz aller Unterschiede zwischen Röm 1–2 und Ps.-Diog. Ep. 28 ganz erstaunliche Parallelen gibt, die Einzelheiten betreffen, wie z.B. die Vorwürfe des Neides und der Ungerechtigkeit, der Unvernunft und einer immanenten Bosheit als Ursache des verfehlten Verhaltens, zu dem in beiden Texten u.a. sexuelle Verfehlungen, insbesondere homosexuelle Handlungen, gezählt werden.

2) A quite astonishing argumentative parallel is, beyond this, the fact that in both writings two groups of people are in view who represent basic oppositions in the respective cultural matrixes – in Ps. Diog. Ep 28 it is Greeks and Barbarians, in Rom 1-2 it is Jews and Greeks (Ἕλληνες) or the nations (τὰ ἔθνη). Beyond this, it is noteworthy that these two groups exchange their places: In Ps.-Diog. Ep 28.8 (and inscriptio) there is talk of the “so-called” Greeks (οἱ μὲν καλούμενοι Ἕλληνες). In Rom 2.17 the fictive dialogue partner is addressed: “If you call yourself a Jew” (εἰ δὲ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ).

p. 54-55:) Eine ganz erstaunliche argumentative Parallele ist darüber hinaus, dass in beiden Schreiben zwei Personengruppen im Blick sind, die in der jeweiligen kulturellen Matrix Grundoppositionen darstellen – in Ps.-Diog. Ep. 28 sind dies Griechen und Barbaren, in Röm 1–2 Juden und Griechen (Ἕλληνες) bzw. die Völker (τὰ ἔθνη). Darüber hinaus ist bemerkenswert, dass diese beiden Gruppen ihre Plätze tauschen: In Ps.-Diog. Ep. 28.8 (und Inscriptio) ist die Rede von den „sogenannten“ Griechen (οἱ μὲν καλούμενοι Ἕλληνες). In Röm 2.17 wird der fiktive Gesprächspartner angesprochen: „Wenn du dich Jude nennst“ (εἰ δὲ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ).

3) Thus, the motif that the only so-called Jew and the Greek exchange their positions so that the gentile is the “actual Jew” and the so-called Jew is the “actual Gentile” occurs neither in the Old Testament tradition nor can it be derived from the discourse on hypocrisy and on an existence/identity that is only simulated (e.g. by Philosophers). This motif occurs, however, in Ps.-Diogenes Ep 28. It therefore seems reasonable to regard this as a typical cynic motif.

p. 59: Das Motiv, dass der nur sogenannte Jude und der Heide ihre Positionen tauschen, so dass der Heide der „eigentliche Jude“ ist und der sogenannte Jude der „eigentliche Heide“, findet sich also weder in der alttestamentlichfrühjüdischen Tradition, noch kann dies aus dem Diskurs über Heuchelei und ein nur vorgespieltes Sein (z.B. von Philosophen) abgeleitet werden. Dieses Motiv findet sich allerdings in Ps.-Diogenes Ep 28. Es liegt daher nahe, dies als ein typisch kynisches Motiv anzusehen.

* as always, the translation of “es liegt daher nahe” is difficult – other potential options would include: “it therefore lies close at hand …”, “it is therefore natural…”, “it therefore stands to reason…”; it might also work to write “it is therefore a small step to” but I think this shifts the sense a bit too much)

4) Especially the (as we have shown) typically cynic motif that an ingroup (Greeks, Athenians) exchange places with an outgroup (Barbarians, Scythians) – the Barbarians are regarded as true Greeks, the Greeks as the actual Barbarians – has an astonishing parallel in Romans 1–2. Here Jews and Gentiles (“Greeks,” “the nations”) exchange places. While the basis oppositions differ (Ps.-Diog. Ep. 28: Greeks/Barbarians; Ps.-Anacharis Ep. 1; 9: Athenians, Greeks/Scythians; Paul: Jew/Greeks or the nations), the structure of argumentation is comparable. It is ultimately based on a reinterpretation of what constitutes the identity of the ingroup: nothing external but their inner orientation and an action that conforms to the criteria that constitute a true Greek or a true Jew.

p. 62: Insbesondere das (wie gezeigt) typisch kynische Motiv, dass eine Ingroup (Griechen, Athener) mit einer Outgroup (Barbaren, Skythen) den Platz tauscht – die Barbaren werden als wahre Griechen angesehen, die Griechen als die eigentlichen Barbaren – hat eine erstaunliche Parallele in Röm 1–2. Hier tauschen Juden und Heiden („Griechen“, „die Völker“) ihre Plätze. Zwar unterscheiden sich die Basisoppositionen (Ps.-Diog. Ep. 28: Griechen/Barbaren; Ps.-Anacharsis Ep. 19: Athener, Griechen/Skythen; Paulus: Jude/Griechen bzw. die Völker), aber die Struktur der Argumentation ist vergleichbar. Sie basiert letztlich auf einer Uminterpretation dessen, was die Identität der Ingroup ausmacht: nichts Äußerliches, sondern ihre innere Ausrichtung und ein Handeln gemäß den Kriterien, die einen wahren Griechen bzw. einen wahren Juden ausmachen.

For my previous posts on Jantsch’s work, see here. See also his academia.edu page.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne

 

R. Zimmermann, the Aorist Imperative, and the Greek Gurus of the Facebook- and Blogosphere

In my recent blog review of Ruben Zimmermann‘s newly translated book The Logic of Love: Discovering Paul’s “Implicit Ethics” Through 1 Corinthians (trans. Dieter T. Roth; Fortress Academic, 2019; cf. German Version), I focused on tracing some key lines of thought in this work and engaging critically with his treatment of the topic of freedom.

In this post, my goal is to flag up his treatment of present and aorist imperatives, with the goal of learning from others. For my part, while I found Zimmermann’s discussion of the wide range of imperatival forms in 1 Corinthians and his inclusion of them in the appendix to be both helpful and illuminating (111-119, 267-275), I remain uncertain with regard to the validity of his treatment of the present and aorist imperatives. Here are the two key quotations:

“The present imperative is progressive or durative and refers to an action that is ongoing whereas the aorist imperative is definitive or ingressive and usually refers to a single act. A few examples can help illustrate the difference. In 1 Cor 14:1, Διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην (“Pursue love!”) thus means “keep pursuing love!” or, in a paraphrase, “keep love in view as the goal!” Similarly, the present imperative in 1 Cor 7:2 (ἐχέτω) means that each man or wife should have an ongoing, durative sexual relationship with his own wife or her own husband, respectively. The injunction to clean out the old yeast in 1 Cor 5:7, expressed with an aorist imperative (ἐκκαθάρατε), highlights the ingressive aspect of the command” (35).

“That Paul is aware of the usual Greek distinction between imperatival forms (present imperatives are durative and aorist imperatives are ingressive) is particularly evident in the occurrences of the aorist imperative. For instance, cleaning out the old leaven (1 Cor 5:7) or marrying (1 Cor 7:9) are formulated with an aorist in order to express the desired entrance into an action. The change of aspect in 1 Cor 7:11 is also significant in the application of the divorce prohibition: ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇμενέτω (present imperative) ἄγαμος  τῷ ἀνδρὶ καταλλαγήτω (aorist imperative) but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried (progressive/durative) or else be reconciled to her husband (ingressive). (1 Cor 7:11).” (111)

In short, it is unclear to me whether one can assume that the aorist imperative has an ingressive force commonly or in these specific cases, though Zimmermann’s reading does seem possible to me, at least for the texts that he cites. Hence, I would be very interested to know whether the Greek Grammar Gurus of the facebook- and blogosphere would affirm or criticize Zimmermann with respect to this point, i.e. with a view to general usage or to the specific texts that he references. For example, Mike Aubrey’s recent post on aspect and imperatives, which was posted after I had completed this post, seems to frame the issues in a rather different way from Zimmermann, which leads me to believe that he might not be satisfied with Zimmermann’s presentation of the matter. Am I understanding Aubrey correctly here? And whether or not I am getting him right, what do others think about Zimmermann’s (and Aubrey’s) presentation of this issue?

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne