Key Quotations

Jens Schröter on Luke as an Ancient Historian and the Need for Differentiation in Assessing the Historical Value of Acts

Posted by

1

Whereas my posts from January 13, February 17, and March 17 dealt with Jens Schröter’s theoretical reflections on historiography, this post, like my posts from May 19 and August 25, will  focus more specifically on Jens Schröter’s perspectives on the historical value of Acts in From Jesus to the New Testament, which will presumably inform his forthcoming HNT commentary on Acts. Needless to say, I would be delighted if these posts, to which one more will be added, would initiate/provoke a more substantive response to Schröter’s treatment of this topic by one (or several) of the many Acts specialists in the blogging community!

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the (selective) grammatical commentary directly follows the German text.

English Translation and German Version

From Jesus to the New Testament, p. 224: “If we evaluate these findings, then it can be said that the presentation of Luke moves within the framework of what was expected from an ancient historian. He possesses knowledge about the areas concerning which he reports; sometimes chronological inaccuracies slip in; and entirely in the sense of Lucian he has shaped his presentation and in this way drawn a picture of the development of Christianity in the first decades. … It has been shown further that one cannot adjudicate the historical value of Acts in general but only in detail. Luke possesses variously detailed information and local knowledge about different stages of the narrated history, which possibly provides a clue to his own background, perhaps even to his participation in the events.”

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament, p. 244: Werten wir diesen Befund aus, so lässt sich formulieren, dass sich die Darstellung des Lukas im Rahmen des von einem antiken Historiker zu Erwartenden bewegt. Er besitzt Kenntnis über die Gegenden, von denen er berichtet, mitunter unterlaufen ihm chronologische Ungenauigkeiten, ganz im Sinne Lukians hat er seine Darstellung geformt und auf diese Weise ein Bild der Erwicklung des Christentums in den ersten Jahrzehnten gezeichnet.  … Es zeigt sich weiter, dass über den Geschichtswert der Apg nicht pauschal, sondern nur im Detail befunden werden kann. Lukas hat über die verschiedenen Etappen der erzählten Geschichte unterschiedlich detaillierte Informationen und Lokalkenntnisse, was möglicherweise einen Hinweis auf seine eigene Herkunft, vielleicht sogar auf seine Beteiligung an den Ereignissen, gibt.

Selective grammatical analysis

werten … aus (auswerten) = evaluate. I usually translate lässt sich + infinitive (here: formulieren) as “can be x-ed (here: formulated/stated/said). Since it is a subordinate clause introduced by dass, the verb bewegt moves to the end of the sentence. von einim antiken Historiker qualifies zu Erwartenden, which goes with des: “of the thing that is to be expected” / “of what was expected from”. mitunter = sometimes, occasionally, or every once in a while. Rather than using “slip in” unterlaufen ihm could also be translated as “slip by him” (unlike Wolter, I believe that Schröter explains the Quirinus census as an example of such a slip). I have translated im Sinne as “in the sense of”, but it might be preferable to write “in the vein of” or “along the lines of” (for the related phrase in diesem Sinne I think “in this vein”, adopted from Kathleen Ess, is a great solution). Es zeigt sich could be translated with “it becomes clear” or “it is shown”, but here I think a past tense is needed to capture the intended sense. It might be preferable to translate pauschal in a more precise manner as “across the board” or “in a sweeping manner”, but it seems to me that “in general” might convey the intended sense more clearly. befunden werden (befunden) seems to have the force of “decide”, “adjudge”, or “adjudicate”. Here, I have changed the passive verb to an active formulation for the sake of readability.

Substantive analysis

Let me develop my comments on the importance of this quotation by Jens Schröter by setting it in relation to a statement by Richard Bauckham. In his important book The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple (p. 27), Richard Bauckham writes: “I do not think that everything in John’s Gospel can be verified historically in these ways. As with any other source, what needs to be assessed is its general reliability. (This is the best reason why commentators are either consistently skeptical of historicity in John or consistently inclined to accept it.) If the Gospel is judged trustworthy so far as we can test it, then we should probably trust it for what we cannot verify. That is ordinary historical method.” Without wishing to affirm or reject this quotation in its entirety, today’s key quotation by Jens Schröter leads me to believe that Bauckham’s fundamental statement on “ordinary historical method” probably needs to be further nuanced, at least in relation to the question of the historicity of Acts. In particular, I think it needs to be stressed that our “testing” of the apparent relation between events and narrative in a given work might very well reveal that the author possesses “variously detailed information and local knowledge about different stages of the narrated history”, so that our conclusions about the “general reliability” of a given work may need to include the observation that the author appears to be more or less “reliable” in relation to various aspects of the narrative, i.e. in terms of precision, accuracy, or both. My point here is NOT that Richard Bauckham himself would necessarily disagree with this line of thought, but simply that it needs to be made explicit if his statement about ordinary historical method is not to be appropriated in unhelpful ways.

 

 

Michael Wolter on Luke’s Correct Placement of the Quirinius Census

Posted by

7

As I press towards the completion of my translation of Christoph Markschies’ book Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire, I am already looking forward to starting my next translation project, namely Michael Wolter’s commentary The Gospel According to Luke. With this in mind, today’s key quotation will be excerpted from his comments on Luke 2:1-3.

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the (selective) grammatical commentary directly follows the German text.

Translation and German Original

English Translation (wmc):

1. ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις refers back not to 1.5 but takes up 1.80 and thereby dates the narrated event in the time of the growing up of the Baptist … Thus, the temporal distance between the events narrated in chapter 1 and the newly opened narrative collecting bowl remains unspecified…

2… This information  has the function of clearly distancing the following nexus of episodes chronologically from the time of the reign of Herod the Great. Between his death and the provincial census carried out under Quirinius lay a period of time of about 10 years in which Herod’s son Archelaus reigned as ethnarch over Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (cf. Josephus, Ant. 17.342; see also at 19.11-27). A contradiction to the relative chronology of the Lukan presentation does not thereby arise (see on v. 1). The longstanding debate over this problem … started, to this extent, from false presuppositions. There is admittedly an irreconcilable contradiction to the dating of the birth of Jesus in the time of the reign of Herod the Great by Matthew.

Das Lukasevangelium (pp. 121-122):

1. ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις bezieht sich nicht auf 1,5 zurück, sondern knüpft an 1,80 an und datiert damit das erzählte Geschehen in die Zeit des Heranwachsens des Täufers … Der zeitliche Abstand zwischen den in Kap. 1 erzählten Ereignissen und dem neu eröffneten erzählerischen Sammelbecken bleibt also unbestimmt…

2… Dieser Information kommt die Funktion zu, den folgenden Episodenzusammenhang von der Zeit der Herrschaft Herodes’ d.Gr. chronologisch eindeutig zu distanzieren: Zwischen dessen Tod und dem unter Quirinius durchgeführten Provinzialzensus lag ein Zeitraum von ca. 10 Jahren, in dem der Herodessohn Archelaus als Ethnarch über Judäa, Samaria und Idumäa herrschte (vgl. Josephus, Ant. 17,342; s. Auch bei 19,11-27). Ein Widerspruch zur relativen Chronologie der lk Darstellung entsteht dadurch nicht (s. Zu V. 1). Die langjährige Debatte über diese Problematik … ging insofern von falschen Voraussetzungen aus. Einen unausgleichbaren Widerspruch gibt es freilich zur Datierung der Geburt Jesu in die Regierungszeit Herodes’ d.Gr. durch Matthäus.

Selective Grammatical Analysis

1. knüpft an (anknüpfen) is often challenging: here I chose “takes up”, but “links to” or “picks up on”, or “follows on from” would also work. damit is often best left untranslated, but I sometimes translate it as “thereby”, “here”, or even “thus”, depending on the context. I usually translate both Ereignis and Geschehen as “event” instead of translating Geschehen as “happening” or the like (but cf. Translator’s Notes 1: Eugene Boring [378n2]). Sammelbecken could be translated as “collecting bowl”, “collecting basin”, “collecting tank”, “reservoir”, etc. I wanted to retain the word “collecting” and felt that “bowl” provided the most helpful image. I initially translated as “unbestimmt” as “undetermined”, but then decided that “unspecified” conveyed the sense more clearly.

2 Dieser Information kommt die Funktion zu [verb: zukommen] could be rendered more woodenly as “the function is given to this information of…” but I think “This information has the function” conveys the meaning more clearly.  Episodenzusammenhang: I often translate Zusammenhang with “context” or “connection”, but decided here to change my initial translation “connection of episodes” to “nexus of episodes”. zu distanzieren depends on Funktion (the function of distancing). I translated herrschte as “reigned”, though “ruled” would also have been possible. I chose to write Herod’s son Archelaus rather than the Herod son Archelaus, choosing readability over precision in this case. I often translate entstehen as “emerge” but “arise” seemed better here.  ging … aus [verb: ausgehen] can usually be rendered as started from. Insofern is often difficult: Depending on the context, I have adopted a range of solutions, such as “to this extent”, “in this respect”, “from this perspective”, “insofar”. I couldn’t find a way to capture the precise sense of unausgleichbaren/uncompensatable, so it seemed best to adopt the phrase “unreconciliable contradiction”, which seemed to capture the basic thrust. Gibt es [es gibt] can often be translated as “exist” but “there is” sometimes works better. The sense of “freilich” is sometimes best captured with “of course”, sometimes with “however” or “though”, and sometimes with “admittedly”.

Substantive Analysis:

For me at least, Wolter’s argument added a new option to a classic interpretative crux, so that I now see five possible options before me: 1) Luke dated the Quirinius census to the time of Herod the Great, which  stands in contradiction to the testimony of Josephus who correctly dates the Quirinius census to the time of Archelaus. 2) Luke correctly placed the Quirinius census at the time of Archelaus, while previously placing Jesus birth during the reign of Herod the Great, so that there is a chronological contradiction within his Gospel, 3) Luke correctly dated the Quirinius census to the time of Herod the Great in contrast to Josephus’ incorrect dating of the Quirinius census to the time of Archelaus. 4) This passage of Luke can be translated and interpreted in such a way that no contradiction emerges in relation to other ancient sources, including Josephus and Matthew, 5) Luke has correctly dated the Quirinius passage to the time of Archelaus (in agreement with Josephus), which does not result in a contradiction to Luke’s chronological statements elsewhere, though it does stand in contradiction to Matthew’s placement of Jesus’ birth in the time of Herod the Great. At present I think option 1 is the most convincing view, while regarding the arguments for 4) and 5) as worthy of continued study and debate. Perhaps options 2 and 3 should also be considered further, but from my present perspective they seem less likely.

Other Resources on the Quirinius Census

For Michael Wolter’s position, see further M. Wolter. “Erstmals unter Quirinius! Zum Verständnis von Lk 2,2.” Biblische Notizen 102 (2000), 35-41 and M. Wolter. “Wann wurde Maria schwanger?” Pages 405-422 in Von Jesus zum Christus. Christologische Studien. FS Paul Hoffman. BZNW 93. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998 (also published in Theologie und Ethos in Frühem Christentum. Tübingen: Mohr, 2009. here).

For an overview of some of the key texts from Josephus and Luke and various translations of Luke 2:1-3, see Bruce Fisk PDF.

For some of the many other discussions of this topic on the web (listed in alphabetical order), see Paul Barnett, Darrell Bock, John Byron )cf. here), Robert R. Cargill, Stephen C. Carlson; Richard Carrier, Jared Compton (cf. here), N. F. Gier, Mark Goodacre (cf. here), Bill Heroman, Brian LePort, James McGrath, Ian Paul, Jason Staples, Daniel B. Wallace, Wikipedia.

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

Peter Arzt-Grabner on the Interpretation of ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ in Rom 16.7 (Paulus Handbuch Series)

Posted by

3

Paulus Handbuch (ed. Friedrich W. Horn; Mohr Siebeck, 2013; see here and PDF).

My second post in the Paulus Handbuch Series is taken from Peter Arzt-Grabner’s discussion of the text of the Corpus Paulinum. This valuable section includes a discussion of Greek as the Language of the Pauline Letters (1.1), Papyri (1.2), Parchment Manuscripts (1.3), Translations (1.4), Commentaries of the Church Fathers (1.5), and Textual Critical Questions and Examples (1.6).

In his final section Prof. Arzt-Grabner discusses a) the original end of Romans, b) the originality of 1 Cor 14.14-35, and c) the interpretation of the Accusative ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ in Rom 16.7. Today’s key quotation will be taken from this last interpretive crux.

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the (selective) grammatical commentary directly follows the German text.

English Translation and German Original

English Translation (wmc): In the meantime it has been recognized to the greatest possible extent that in Rom 16.7 the Greek accusative ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ must be interpreted with reference to a woman by the name of Junia (and not with reference to the man Junias as postulated since the time of Martin Luther). Greek manuscripts that already have/exhibit the placement of accents contradict the conjecture/hypothesis that the male name Junias, which is not attested in all of antiquity, could be an abbreviation for the well-attested Junianus. The Junia-interpretation is confirmed by Latin, Sahidic, and Syrian manuscripts, which clearly contain a feminine form, thus intending a woman by the name of Junia (Arzt 1993; Epp 2005). The Boharic translation speaks of a woman named Julia, a variant that is found, for example, also in P46.

Paulus Handbuch (p. 11; see PDF): Dass in Röm 16,7 der griechische Akkusativ ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ auf eine Frau namens Junia (und nicht auf den seit Martin Luther postulierten Mann Junias) zu deuten ist, ist mittlerweile weitestgehend anerkannt. Griechische Handschriften, die bereits Akzentsetzung aufweisen, widersprechen der Vermutung, der in der gesamten Antike nicht bezeugte männliche Name Junias könnte eine Abkürzung für den gut bezeugten Junianus sein. Die Junia-Deutung wird durch lateinische, sahidische und syrische Handschriften bestätigt, die eindeutig eine weibliche Form enthalten, also eine Frau namens Junia meinen (Arzt 1993; Epp 2005). Die bohairische Übersetzung spricht von einer Frau namens Julia, eine Variante, die z.B. auch in P46 begegnet.

Selective grammatical analysis

Since it is awkward to begin with “That…” in English, I have reversed the order of the first German sentence. Because the beginning of the sentence is a subordinate clause (Dass…), the verb moves to the end of the sentence and ist zu deuten becomes zu deuten ist. I usually translate the construction “ist zu + infinitive” as “must be x-ed” or “has to be x-ed”, though the wooden translation “is to be x-ed” is better in some cases. seit is problematic in English: “from” or “from x on” is often best, but it sometimes seems preferable to go with “since” or “since the time of”, despite the problems with this solution. Though it is awkward, I decided to adopt “to the greatest extent possible” for weitestgehend in order convey that a very strong claim is being made. It is unclear to me whether aufweisen would be best translated as “have” or whether a more precise word such as “exhibit” would be better. The force of Vermutung is probably somewhat critical, so that “conjecture” might best capture the intended sense, but it could be more neutral (hypothesis).

Substantive Commentary

What I like about this quotation from Arzt-Grabner is that it highlights well one of the strongest arguments in support of the Junia-interpretation of ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ in Rom 16:7, namely the testimony of the ancient manuscripts in languages other than Greek that clearly understand Paul to be speaking of a woman rather than a man in this text.

While there are admittedly further debated points concerning the translation and interpretation of this verse, it also seems most likely to me that Paul refers to Junia as an apostle in this text and that Junia was, in turn, an influential person in early Christianity.

Readers of this post may be interested in the Junia Project, which is named after Junia from Rom 16:7.

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

T. Michael Law, Jens Schröter, and Christoph Markschies on the Muratorian Fragment

Posted by

3

In a previous Law-Markschies-Origen post, I mentioned how much I had profited from reading T Michael Law’s book When God Spoke Greek in conjunction with my work translating Jens Schröter’s book Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament / From Jesus to the New Testament and Christoph Markschies’ book Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen / Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire, and I conveyed then my desire to devote a few more posts to a comparison of these works on select points. Continuing that discussion, this post will compare how these three works treat the question of the dating and character of the Muratorian Fragment. On the question of how to cite the Muratorian Fragment, see now SBL Handbook of Style Blog.

I. T. Michael Law

WGSG, p. 183n.9: “The Muratorian fragment should probably be dated later than the traditional second-century date.”

II. Jens Schröter

FJNT, p. 285n60: “I will not deal here with the question of the dating of the Muratorian Fragment, which has come under discussion since Sundberg 1968; 1973; as well as Hahnemann 1992. The attempt to date it late has not established itself, for which reason I continue to start from the traditional placement around 180-200. For fundamental criticism of the late dating, cf. Verheyden 2003. Cf. further Ferguson 1982; 1993; Stanton 2004, 68-71.”

VJNT, p. 310n60: “Auf die seit SUNDBERG, Revised History; Ders., Canon Muratori, sowie HAHNEMAN, Muratorian Fragment, in die Diskussion geratene Frage der Datierung des muratorischen Fragmens gehe ich hier nicht ein. Der Versuch der Spätdatierung hat sich nicht durchgesetzt, weshalb ich weiterhin von der traditionellen Ansetzung um 180-200 ausgehe. Zur grundsätzlichen Kritik der Spätdatierung vgl. VERHHEYDEN, The Canon Muratori. A Matter of Dispute, in: Auwers, Canons, 487-556. Vgl. Weiter FERGUSON, Canon Muratori; STANTON, Jesus and Gospel, 68-71, sowie die Rezension der Untersuchung Hahnemans von FERGUSON.”

Selective grammatical analysis: In translating “gehe ich hier nicht ein”, it seemed preferable to use the future with a view to English style. Likewise, “deal with” seemed to read better than “go into” in this case. Instead of “established itself” the verb “durchgesetzt” could alternatively be translated as “prevailed”.

III. Christoph Markschies

Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire (wmc, forthcoming): “The text, which is better designated as Fragmentum Muratorianum or Muratori, is, in reality, not a “list” with a mere listing of biblical books at all, but a fragment without its original beginning and conclusion, which—if one considers its literary form—can be linked only with great difficulty to an ancient literary genre. … Whatever option one settles on, the most recent debate over the dating of the highly fragmented text should at least urge caution both for those who—like Harnack—see in the Fragmentum Muratori an official list translated from the Greek with which the Roman church in the second century wished to impose its conception of a canonical New Testament on to the Christianity of the empire and for those who are completely convinced of the late dating of the text. The majority of the arguments still speak for a dating around 200 CE, although the exact historical background and the precise literary form of the text remain unclear.”

Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen (pp.  229 and 234; cf. 228-236): “Bei dem besser als Fragmentum Muratorianum bzw. Muratori bezeichneten Text handelt es sich in Wirklichkeit gar nicht um eine ‚Liste‘ mit der bloßen Aufzählung biblischer Bücher, sondern ein Fragment ohne seinen originalen Anfang und Schluß, das – betrachtet man seine literarische Form – nur sehr schwer mit einem antiken literarischen Genre zu verbinden ist. … Wie man auch immer optiert: Die jüngste Debatte über die Datierung des stark fragmentierten Textes sollte mindestens die zur Zurückhaltung mahnen, die – wie Harnack – im Fragmentum Muratori eine aus dem Griechischen übersetzte offizielle Liste sehen, mit der die römische Kirche im zweiten Jahrhundert ihre Vorstellung von eine kanonischen Neuen Testament in der Christenheit des Reiches imponieren wollte, oder von der Spätdatierung des Textes vollkommen überzeugt sind. Die Mehrzahl der Argumente spricht nach wie vor für eine Datierung um 200 n. Chr., obwohl der exakte historische Hintergrund und die präzise literarische Form des Textes unklar bleiben.”

Selective grammatical analysis: Instead of translating “Bei dem … Text … es geht um” as “In/With/In the case of … the text … it is a matter of/the concern is with/we are dealing with” I have adopted the simplifying translation “The text … is …” (for further discussion of the translation of Es geht um see here). The difficult phrase “nur schwer zu verbinden ist” has the force of “can be linked only with great difficulty”. I am uncertain how to translate “Wie man auch immer optiert”, but “Whatever option one settles on” is perhaps more precise than “whatever one decides”. Although the German version has “die zur Zurückhaltung mahnen, die … oder von …”, I have translated “oder” with “and” with a view to English style and repeated  “on those” in order to clarify the sense.

IV. Substantive Analysis:

For me, it seems that there are two points to draw from this post. First, while it seems to be the case that the majority of scholars continue to favor an early date for the Muratorian Fragment (ca. 180-200), it would probably go too far to speak of a “consensus” in relation to this point, since Sundberg, Hahnemann, T Michael Law, and other scholars have advocated a later date for this text. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the debate about the dating of the text should not be allowed to overshadow a second point of (perhaps greater and more significant) uncertainty, namely the uncertainty surrounding the classification of the genre or form of the text, which, due to its fragmentary character, arguably should not be classified too quickly as a “canon list”, which is not to say that this possibility should be ruled out too quickly either.

For other posts/links relating to the Muratorian canon, see e.g., Bart Ehrmann, C. E. Hill, Larry Hurtado, Michael Kruger.

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

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

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

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

T. Michael Law and Christoph Markschies on Origen in Caesarea

Posted by

2

Like many other readers (see e.g., here; cf. here), I profited from and enjoyed T. Michael Law’s important book When God Spoke Greek (cf. here). In the tradition of the “Man with the Honeyed Sword” (and Cicero), it is certainly a work that teaches, delights, and persuades, and I found that it constructively shaped my thinking at numerous points. Moreover, I found that it generated many lines of questioning as I read it in conjunction with my work translating Jens Schröter’s book Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament / From Jesus to the New Testament and Christoph Markschies’ book Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen / Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire, especially in relation to the topic of canon. Accordingly, I hope that this will be the first of several posts devoted to a comparison of these works on select points. For a recent conversation between T Michael Law and Christoph Markschies at Marginalia, see here.

Today’s post will focus on a noteworthy difference in how Origen’s activity in Caesarea is presented by Law and Markschies.

I. T. Michael Law on Origen in Caesarea

When God Spoke Greek (p. 141): “Demetrius’s rage left the scholar no other choice but to leave Alexandria and make his permanent home in Caesarea c. 232. In this last phase of his life, Origen’s success as a preacher grew, as did his pastoral concerns. In contrast to his previous tenure at the Catechetical School in the philosophically rich context of Alexandria, he found himself in contact less with students than with common Christians.7”

Note 7: See also H. Crouzel, Origène (Paris: Lethielleux, 1985), 46.

II. Christoph Markschies on Origen in Caesarea

Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire (wmc): “Origen left Alexandria for good at the beginning of the thirties of the third century (probably 232 CE), moved to the worldly and ecclesiastical administrative metropolis of Caesarea in Palestine, and now did, in fact, establish a “(collegiate) school” there, so that he was also active as a theological teacher in the second important section of his life. More precise information about this “school of Origen,” the first clearly attested Christian private university, can be obtained above all from the aforementioned “Address of Thanksgiving” (λόγος χαριστήριος [cf. 3.31 and 4.40], later entitled λόγος προσφωρητικός), which the later bishop Gregory Thaumaturgus addressed to his teacher after five years at this school, probably in 238 CE. … From the life story of Gregory Thaumaturgus it becomes clear that with his “school” Origen evidently did not wish to address primarily the Christians of Caesarea, let alone the Christian youth of Caesarea, who were keen on education, but transregionally courted educated members of the upper stratum who were interested in a collegiate education within a Christian framework.”

Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen (p. 102 and 103): „Origenes verließ Alexandria endgültig zu Beginn der dreißiger Jahre des dritten Jahrhunderts (wohl 232 n. Chr.), siedelte in die weltliche wie kirchliche Verwaltungsmetropole Caesarea in Palaestina über und gründete dort nun tatsächlich eine „Hoch-(Schule)“, so daß er auch im zweiten wichtigen Abschnitt seines Lebens als theologischer Lehrer tätig war. Genauere Informationen über diese „Schule des Origines“, die erste eindeutig belegte christliche Privatuniversität, erhält man vor allem aus der ebenfalls schon erwähnten „Dankrede“ (λόγος χαριστήριος [vgl. 3,31 und 4,40], später λόγος προσφωρητικός), die der spätere Bischof Gregor Thaumaturgus nach fünf Jahren Auftenthalt an dieser Schule wohl im Jahre 238 n. Chr. an seinen Lehrer richtete. … Aus dem Lebenslauf des Gregor Thaumaturgus wird deutlich, daß Origenes mit seiner ‚Schule‘ offenbar nicht primär die bildungswilligen Christen oder gar die bildungswillige christliche Jugend Caesareas ansprechen wollte, sondern überregional um gebildete Angehörige der Oberschicht warb, die an einer Hochschulbildung unter christlichen Vorzeichen interessiert waren.“

Selective grammatical analysis

“wohl” can be a somewhat elusive term, but it often has the force of “probably”. “übersiedeln” becomes “siedelt … über”. “weltlich” is difficult to translate, since both “worldly” and “secular” have their drawbacks. I have chosen to translate “eine ‘Hoch-(Schule)’” as “a ‘(collegiate) school’”, which is far from ideal but is probably the best that I can manage. I often translate “vor allem” with “above all”, though “especially” is better in some contexts. I struggled to translate “bildungswillige”, eventually choosing “keen on education”, and I decided not to repeat “keen on education” with Christians and Christian youth but to place the phrases in such a way that “keen on education” would be seen to modify both words. For the translation of “warb um” (past form of “werben um”) I debated between “sought to win”, “recruited”, “wooed”, and “courted” before settling on the last option. I find the phrase “unter christlichen Vorzeichen” and the similar phrase “unter dem Vorzeichen + genitive” to be very difficult. “Vorzeichen” can mean “sign” or “auspices”, which may be relevant here. “Unter dem Vorzeichen” seems to be able to have the force of “under the conditions of”. Hence, it might capture the force to translate the phrase as “under Christian conditions”. But I have chosen the formulation “within a Christian framework”, which I think captures the basic sense.

Substantive Analysis

While great caution is required when attempting to comment on an issue that lies outside of one’s sphere of expertise (in my case Origen scholarship), it remains possible to provide a tentative analysis in such cases, provided one remains acutely aware of the limitations of one’s competency. With this caveat in mind, let me restrict myself to two points. First, in relation to the specific point in question it would arguably not be unreasonable to give greater weight to the view of Markschies, since this question falls more directly within his specific sphere of research expertise and since he deals with this question at much greater length in his book. At the same time, one should resist the temptation to settle the issue too quickly, since Law interacts carefully with Origen in his book and can reference H. Crouzel’s book on Origen in support of his view on the matter at hand. Secondly, it therefore follows that any attempt to reach an informed judgment on the issue cannot be based solely on a general assessment of relative authority, but must critically test the strength of Christoph Markschies’ more extensive argument, which is based on his close reading of Gregory Thaumaturgus’s Address of Thanksgiving to Origen. Since my knowledge of this work and the critical issues that would need to be addressed as part of its analysis —which might include issues of authorship and historical accuracy— is extremely limited, I am not in position to test this argument with any authority. Instead, I can only say that an initial reading of the Address of Thanksgiving to Origen would seem to support Christoph Markschies’ argument that Origen established a relatively advanced Christian (collegiate) school, or private Christian university, in Caesarea, which would, in turn, appear to stand in considerable tension with Law’s statement that “In contrast to his previous tenure at the Catechetical School in the philosophically rich context of Alexandria, he found himself in contact less with students than with common Christians” in Caesarea. In other words, if Markschies’ argument is correct, then this may be a place in which minor revision will be required for the second edition of T. Michael Law’s important work When God Spoke Greek.

For my other posts on Christoph Markschies, see here.

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

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

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

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! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

Gerd Theissen’s Critique of the New Perspective on Paul

Posted by

5

The topic of “Paul and the Law” and the long-standing debate around the strengths and weaknesses of the many different versions of the “New Perspective on Paul” have continued to be of interest to many scholars of Early Christianity. Within the blogosphere, for example, many posts at Near Emmaus and various Patheos Blogs have been devoted to the admittedly Now-Not-So-New Perspective on Paul, and a recent post by Shawn Wilhite has helpfully drawn attention to James Dunn’s latest attempt to clarify his position in Early Christianity 4 (2013).

This post will attempt to contribute to the discussion by highlighting a key quotation from Gerd Theissen’s 2007 book Erleben und Verhalten der Ersten Christen: Eine Psychologie des Urchristentum (Experience and Behavior of the first Christians: a Psychology of Primitive Christianity), and by pointing readers to one of Theissen’s English publications on the topic in my analysis section.

Translation (wmc): “It is correct that Judaism was proud of the Torah. But precisely for this reason critical voices were massively pushed back and suppressed, which can be documented.  Paul is only one example of these voices. It is also correct that Paul was not conscious of any sin in his pre-Christian period; he persecuted the Christians out of conviction. But this does not rule out [the view / thesis / possibility / likelihood / fact] that he repressed a critical voice in himself that first broke through with the Damascus vision. It is finally correct that intra-Christian, Judaistic opponents first impelled Paul to grapple with the problem of the law. But this does not rule out [the view / thesis / possibility / likelihood / fact] that he fought against a part of his own life in these opponents. In my view, he grappled once more with the Jewish fundamentalist that he himself once was. He fought in them a part of himself – and it was precisely for this reason that the controversy with them was so heated. But in everything Paul is a representative of Judaism, both in his zeal for the law and in his criticism of the law.”

Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen (p. 468-9): “Es ist richtig, dass das Judentum auf die Thora stolz war. Aber eben deswegen wurden kritische Stimmen massiv zurückgewiesen und verdrängt, die sich belegen lassen. Paulus ist nur ein Beispiel für diese Stimmen. Es ist ferner richtig, dass sich Paulus in seiner vorchristlichen Zeit keiner Sünde bewusst war; er verfolgte aus Überzeugung die Christen. Aber das schließt nicht aus, dass er eine kritische Stimme in sich unterdrückte, die erst mit der Damaskusvision durchbrach. Es ist schließlich richtig, dass erst innerchristliche, judaistische Gegner Paulus genötigt haben, sich mit der Gesetzesproblematik auseinander zu setzen. Aber das schließt nicht aus, dass er in diesen Gegnern ein Stück seines eigenen Lebens bekämft hat. Er setzt sich m. E. noch einmal mit dem jüdischen Fundamentalisten auseinander, der er einmal selbst war. Er bekämpft in ihnen ein Stück von sich selbst – und eben deshalb war die Auseinandersetzung mit ihnen so heftig. In allem aber ist Paulus ein Repräsentant des Judentum, in seinem Gesetzeseifer wie in seiner Gesetzeskritik.”

Selective grammatical analysis: The second sentence reads awkwardly. One could perhaps repeat the word voices for clarification (“But precisely for this reason critical voices were massively pushed back and suppressed, voices which can be documented) or move the relative clause forward (“put precisely for this reason critical voices, which can be documented, were massively pushed back and suppressed). I am also uncertain whether it is preferable to translate “verdrängt” as “suppressed” or “repressed”, and the same question applies to the translation of “in sich unterdrückt “ in sentence 5. [In response to the facebook link to this post, Ben Wiebe noted that “‘verdrängt’ might literally be translated to press or crowd out; ‘unterdrückte’ to press or push under”.] The translation of “das schileßt nicht aus, dass” is difficult, since in English one would probably need to supply something before “that”, e.g., “the view that”, “the thesis that”, “the possibility that”, “the likelihood that”, or “the fact that”. ” I also have questions about the translation of “judaistische” in sentence 6. I have chosen the non-word “judaistic” since it is unclear to me whether the intended sense is “judaizing”, for which reason I have avoided this term. It is always difficult to translate auseinandersetzen – I have used “grapple with” for the verb here (“confront” would also have been possible) and controversy for the noun.

But here just two of them: “verdrängt” might be literally translated to press or crowd out; “unterdrückte” to press or push under

Substantive analysis: For better or for worse, my own relationship to the wide-ranging discussion surrounding the “New Perspective on Paul” is complex. Being strongly influenced by the diversity of approaches represented by my teachers, especially Peter Stuhlmacher, James Dunn, and Markus Bockmuehl, I have come to appreciate both the insights/arguments of its protagonists and the objections/concerns of its detractors, which is not to say that I have been able to attain to a clear or balanced position in the process! Against this background, I have included this “key quotation” from Gerd Theissen both because I regard it as a significant line of argumentation and because I think that it arguably merits more substantive engagement than it has received thus far. For further explication of this “key quotation”, I recommend beginning with the additional page references that I provide at the end of my RBL Review of Erleben und Verhalten, as well as Theissen’s 2007 article “The New Perspective on Paul and Its Limits: Some Psychological Considerations”, which appeared in the Princeton Seminary Bulletin. For a work that positively takes up Theissen’s line of thought, see Daniel Marguerat, Paul in Acts and Paul in his Letters. Tübingen: Mohr, 2013, p. 207-208.

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

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

For three interviews with me about the BMSEC series, see here, here, and 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! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

Rehabilitating F. C. Baur with Jens Schröter and Matthew Hopper

Posted by

0

While looking through my Mohr Siebeck catalogue, I was pleased to learn of a forthcoming volume entitled Ferdinand Christian Baur und die Geschichte des frühen Christentums (eds. Martin Bauspiess, Christof Landmesser, and David Lincicum). Sharing David Lincicum’s high estimation of Baur’s importance (see here; cf. here, here, and here), this post will attempt to prepare the way for this forthcoming volume by “rehabilitating” Baur in two respects, namely (1) in relation to his pioneering appropriation of historiographical insights and (b) in relation to his relationship to Hegel. To do so, I will take my initial orientation from two quotations from Jens Schröter’s book Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament / From Jesus to the New Testament.

1) Baur and Historiography

From Jesus to the New Testament (p. 320): “These exegetical-historical conclusions were obtained on the basis of the conviction that historical individual-appearances can only be understood by discovering their inner connection. As isolated individual phenomena, by contrast, they remain mute. In early Christianity, Baur saw such a connection in the opposition between Pauline and Petrine parties, whose views were then conciliated with each other. Even if this view was subsequently clearly differentiated with regard to the positions represented in early Christianity, the lasting significance of Baur lies in the thoroughgoing application of the principles of historical research to the beginnings of Christianity. He thereby laid the methodological foundations for all subsequent conceptions of a history of Christianity.” (cf. pp. 15-18, 27, 29, 31, 39, 319-21).

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament ( p. 346): “Diese exegetisch-historischen Ergebnisse sind auf der Grundlage der Überzeugung gewonnen, das geschichtliche Einzelerscheinungen nur dadurch verstanden werden können, dass man ihren inneren Zusammenhang aufdeckt. Als isolierte Einzelphänomene bleiben sie dagegen stumm. Im Urchristentum sah Baur einen solchen Zusammenhang im Gegenüber der paulinischen und petrinischen Partei, deren Auffassungen dann miteinander vermittelt worden seien. Auch wenn diese Sicht im Blick auf die im Urchristentum vertretenen Positionenen später deutlich ausdifferenziert wurde, liegt die bleibende Bedeutung Baurs darin, die Prinzipien historischer Forschung konsequent auf die Anfänge des Christentums angewandt zu haben. Er hat damit die methodischen Grundlagen für alle späteren Entwürfe einer Geschichte des Urchristentum gelegt.”

2) Baur and Hegel

From Jesus to the New Testament (p. 320n6): “By contrast it is inappropriate, as unfortunately often occurs, to dismiss Baur’s contribution with the observation that he forced Hegel’s philosophy of history onto the history of early Christianity. The article on the Corinthian Letters, in which he submitted his view for the first time, was written before Baur became familiar with Hegel’s writings. Cf. Hodgson 1966, 22.”

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament   (p. 346n6): “Dagegen ist es unangemessen, was leider oft geschieht, Baurs Beitrag mit dem Hinweis abzutun, er habe der Geschichte des Urchristentums Hegels Geschichtsphilosophie aufgezwungen. Der Aufsatz über die Korintherbriefe, in dem er seine Sicht zum ersten Mal vorlegte, wurde geschrieben, bevor Baur mit Hegels Schriften bekannt wurde. Vgl. Hodgson, Historical Theology, 22.”

3) Substantive Analysis

My purpose here is not to rehabilitate Baur at every point. On the contrary, I think that fundamental aspects of his project have rightly been called into question. I do, however, think that it is unhelpful when a towering figure like Baur is set aside with dismissive slogans rather than engaged with in a critical and constructive manner. Against this background, I was somewhat frustrated to read the following statement in David Wenham’s forward to the important work Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology: Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honour of Martin Hengel (eds. M. Bird and J. Maston): “Baur’s Hegelian analysis of the history of early Christianity and of the New Testament as a conflict between the Jewish Christianity of Peter and others and the Hellenistic Christianity of Paul was very influential, very damaging to traditionally orthodox Christian faith, but deeply flawed, as has been almost universally recognized since” (my emphasis). And I experienced comparable disappointment upon reading the similar statement of Daniel B. Wallace in his otherwise enjoyable blog post in memory of Martin Hengel: “These 19th-century scholars, especially Baur, applied Hegelian dialectic to New Testament studies (i.e., thesis vs. antithesis, struggling with each other end up resulting in a synthesis of both). Baur had been one of Hegel’s students; he applied this dialectic to the authorship of the NT writings, resulting in seeing only four authentic letters by Paul and seeing John as written sometime after 160 CE” (my emphasis). The problem with these quotations is not that Baur is beyond reproach. He is not! The problem is that Baur’s contribution is too quickly sloganized and dismissed by means of a somewhat inaccurate – or at least grossly oversimplified – attribution of his views to the influence of Hegel, which inevitably prevents the productive aspects of his approach from being appreciated and appropriated, for example his appropriation of advances in historiography (cf. FJNT, p.16). In fact, it could be added that in this respect F. C. Baur and Martin Hengel could be compared rather than contrasted with each other (cf. Hengel, “Eye-Witness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels”, pp. 93-95)! Let me conclude by noting that my own stance toward Baur was greatly shaped through my supervision of Matthew Hopper’s learned and spirited MA Thesis “Historical Theology as the Crossroads of Faith and Reason: The Contribution of Ferdinand Christian Baur”, which he completed in 2008. While my enthusiasm for Baur does not extend as far as my student’s, I remain indebted to Mathew Hopper for giving me a much greater appreciation for this Tübingen giant. Needless to say, I look forward to learning more about Baur’s achievements and shortcomings from the forthcoming volume Ferdinand Christian Baur und die Geschichte des frühen Christentums.

For some other posts on F. C. Baur in the blogosphere, see here.

For my other posts on Jens Schröter and historiography, see here.

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

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

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

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! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

Jens Schröter on the Differences between Historical and Literary Narratives

Posted by

1

In connection with my other Schröter posts on historiography, this “key quotation” on historiography and New Testament scholarship will be taken from the 10th chapter of Jens Schröter’s book Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament/From Jesus to the New Testament, namely Luke as Historiographer.  As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the (selective) grammatical commentary directly follows the German text.

From Jesus to the New Testament, p. 215: “The joining of historical material and interpretive presentation is thus a constitutive characteristic for every presentation of history. The differences between historical and literary narratives lie, however, in the ‘documentary’ aim of the former, which is oriented to the securing of the traces from the past. This distinguishes it from novelistic presentations, which on the basis of their genre already show themselves to be works that are not obligated to a critical processing of the source material. The task of historiographic works, by contrast, can be described as ‘representation’ (Repräsentanz), insofar as the historical narrative stands for the past in the present on the basis of the historical material.”

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament, p. 234: „Die Verknüpfung von historischem Material und interpretierender Darstellung ist somit ein für jede Geschichtsdarstellung konstitutives Merkmal. Die Differenzen zwischen historischer und literarischer Erzählung liegen indes in der ‚dokumentarischen‘, an der Sicherung der Spuren aus der Vergangenheit orientierten Ausrichtung der Ersteren. Dies unterscheidet sie vom romanhaften Darstellungen, die sich bereits von der Gattung her als Werke zu erkennen geben, die nicht auf eine kritische Aufbereitung des Quellenmaterials verpflichtet sind. Die Aufgabe historiographischer Werke lässt sich dagegen als ‚Repräsentanz‘ beschreiben, insofern die historische Erzählung auf der Basis des historischen Materials die Vergangenheit in der Gegenwart vertritt.“

(Selective) Grammatical Commentary:  “Verknüpfung” has the force of “joining”, “linking”, “connecting” or “combination”. “Darstellung” could be translated as presentation, representation, or portrayal. “somit” can often be translated as “thus”; “therefore” or “consequently” could also be good options here. Instead of “a constitutive characteristic for every presentation of history” it might have been better/clearer to translate the German phrase as “a characteristic (or feature) that is constitutive for every presentation of history”.  “Ausrichtung” is modified by ‘dokumentarischen’ and “orientierten”, and the phrase “an der Sicherung der Spuren aus der Vergangenheit” is dependent upon “orientierten” – a good example of syntax that is difficult to follow and even more difficult to translate! One obviously cannot write: “in the documentary, to-the- securing-of-the-traces-of-the-past oriented aim of the former. The translation of “Ausrichtung” as “aim” is perhaps not ideal. Normally, “orientation” is a good solution, but this would be awkward here since it is followed by the word “oriented”. “Focus” or “direction” might be workable options, but aim is probably just as good or better.  “zu erkennen geben” has the force of “show themselves to be” or “reveal themselves to be” – as usual the verb is moved to the end of the subordinate clause. “lässt sich … + infinitive” has the force of “can be verb-ed” (here: can be described). “Dagegen” can be translated as “by contrast”, “however,” or “whereas” depending on the context. In FJNT I chose to translate “Repräsentanz” as “representation” and “Vertretung” as “standing for” (p. 90), and I have consequently translated “vertritt” as “stand for” here. But if my memory hold true, I believe that Ricoeur’s translators take the opposite tack in Time and Narrative, i.e., they translate “Repräsentanz” as “standing for” and “Vertretung” as “representation”.

Substantive Analysis: This paragraph captures well the nuanced position that Schröter is trying to develop. On the one hand, he is concerned to highlight the epistemological inadequacy of the “Aristotelian opposition between history writing, which transmits what happened, and literature (or poetry), which fabricates what could have been” (FJNT, p. 13). On the other hand, he is concerned here to stress that it is still possible to identify differences between historical narratives and literary narratives or novelistic presentations, namely with reference to the obligation to a critical processing of the source material. Finally, Ricoeur’s category of “representation” is taken up as a valuable concept for communicating Schröter’s nuanced view of the task of historiographic works (see further FJNT, index: Ricouer).

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

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

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

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! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

Christoph Markschies on the need to differentiate between various institutional contexts and levels of instruction in relation to “majority Church” and “gnostic” teachers

Posted by

2

In addition to my normal “German Mondays” blog post, I have decided to include a bonus post pertaining to the commendably cordial dispute between Larry Hurtado and April DeConick about whether or not it is appropriate to refer to ancient “gnostic” Christians as “intellectuals” (see Hurtado1, DeConick1, Hurtado2; cf. M.Bird, J. Calaway; J. McGrath; Philip L. Tite). My post will be based around a “key quotation” from my current BMSEC translation project (forthcoming 2015), namely Christoph Markschies’ 2007 book Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen. As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the (selective) grammatical commentary directly follows the German text.

Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire (wmc): “It appears to me, as I have already frequently intimated, that such a differentiation of the various institutions and educational levels of the higher instruction is also of great significance for the history of Christian theology in the second and third centuries. This is the case because for these two centuries we know of both Christian teachers who taught more at the level of a salon philosopher or a popular philosopher with only moderate knowledge of the contemporary professional philosophy and very learned theologians whose philosophical  level of education certainly invites comparison with professional philosophers. As an example of a philosophical instruction that probably corresponds more to that of the salon or popular philosophers, I wish to name at this point the Roman apologist Justin, and as an example of an educational level that corresponds more to that of a professional philosopher, Origen. Finally, one could, in addition, envisage Valentinian Gnosis/Gnosticism as a movement that oscillates in a quite peculiar way between these two levels: some of its representatives, such as, for example, the Roman teacher Ptolemaeus, oriented themselves at a professional philosophical level, whereas many followers are only located at the level of a salon philosopher or even lower.”

Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen (p. 88): Mir scheint, wie bereits mehrfach angedeutet, daß eine solche Differenzierung der verschiedenen Institutionen und Bildungsniveaus des höheren Unterrichts auch für die Geschichte der christlichen Theologie des zweiten und dritten Jahrhunderts von großer Bedeutung ist. Denn wir kennen für diese beiden Jahrhunderte sowohl  christliche Lehrer, die eher auf dem Niveau eines Salon- oder Popularphilosophen mit lediglich mäßigen Kenntnissen der zeitgenössischen Fachphilosophie unterrichten, als auch hochgelehrte Theologen, derer philosophisches Bildungsniveau durchaus den Vergleich mit Fachphilosophen nahelegt. Als beispiel eines philosophischen Unterrichts, der wahrscheinlich eher dem der Salon- oder Popularphilosophen entspricht, möchte ich an dieser Stelle den römischen Apologeten Justin nennen, als Beispiel für ein Bildungsniveau, das eher dem eines Fachphilosophen entspricht, Origenes. Schließlich könnte man noch die valentianische Gnosis als eine Bewegung vorstellen, die in ganz merkwürdiger Weise zwischen diesen beiden Niveaus oszilliert: Einzelne ihrer Vertreter wie beispielweise der römische Lehrer Ptolemaeus orientieren sich am fachphilosophischen Niveau, viele Anhänger befinden sich dagegen lediglich auf dem Niveau von Salonphilosophen oder sogar noch darunter.

(Selective) grammatical commentary: the translation of “Gnosis” is difficult since the use of this term is one way that German authors leave room for debate around whether it is proper to speak of “Gnosticism”. Accordingly, I have written Gnosis/Gnosticism here to flag up this issue. I have translated “Denn wir kennen” as “This is because” rather than “For” so that it would be a proper sentence in English. I’m not sure if the force of “merkwürdiger” is best captured by “peculiar”, “strange”, or “noteworthy”.

Substantive commentary: This post obviously does not intend to address the many important questions that have been raised in the discussion between Larry Hurtado and April DeConick, for example the question of whether the term “intellectuals” simply conveys a certain level of education or whether it is also bound up with certain forms of argumentation or with the public nature of such argumentation. Instead, this post merely seeks to highlight one of Christoph Markschies’ emphases that I think needs to be kept in mind when thinking through the question of whether or not is appropriate to speak of “majority church” or “gnostic” intellectuals, namely the fact that we must attempt to differentiate between various institutional contexts and educational levels in relation to both “majority church” teachers and “gnostic” teachers.

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

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

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

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! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

Jens Schröter on the character of every historical (re)presentation – with special guests Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne

Posted by

2

I was somewhat amused to see that Chris Keith stole my thunder on Friday by concluding his blog post on Jens Schröter with the same quotation that I had selected for this week’s blog post. But hopefully, this is more a case of “great minds think alike” than “Zwei Dumme, ein Gedanke”.

Like my other Schröter posts on historiography, today’s “key quotation” deals with the relationship between historiography and New Testament scholarship. It is taken from Jens Schröter’s discussion of “the historicity of the Gospels” in From Jesus to the New Testament.

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the (selective) grammatical commentary directly follows the German text. As a way of illustrating the different ways that a passage can be translated, I will include both Anthony Le Donne’s earlier translation of this passage in The Historiographical Jesus (thunder stolen once again) and my own translation in From Jesus to the New Testament.

The Historiographical Jesus, p. 75: “If every historical construction represents the relationship between event and story (even those that are written within the rubric of the historical-critical consciousness) then a contemporary portrait of Jesus cannot simply set aside the narrative representations of the person of Jesus in the Gospels. On the contrary, this portrait has to be related to these representations and be reconstructed within the rubric of contemporary epistemology. The outcome is not the ‘real’ Jesus behind the Gospels. The outcome is a historical construction which claims to be plausible within the rubric of contemporary epistemology.”

From Jesus to the New Testament, pp. 131-132: “If, however, every historical presentation presents a combination of event and narrative, including the kind that is composed under the conditions of the historical-critical consciousness, then a present-day Jesus presentation also cannot simply disregard the narrative representations of the person of Jesus in the Gospels. Instead, it has to orient itself to them and put them together anew under today’s conditions of knowledge. The result is not the ‘real’ Jesus behind the Gospels. The result is a historical presentation that claims to be plausible under current conditions of knowledge.”

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament, 146: “Stellt jedoch jede historische Darstellung eine Verbindung von Ereignis und Erzählung dar, auch eine solche, die unter den Bedingungen des historisch-kritischen Bewusstseins verfasst wird, dann kann auch eine gegenwärtige Jesusdarstellung die narrative Repräsentationen der Person Jesu in den Evangelien nicht einfach beiseite stellen. Sie hat sich stattdessen an diesen zu orientieren und sie unter heutigen Erkenntnisbedingungen neu zusammenzusetzen. Das Ergebnis ist nicht der ‚wirkliche‘ Jesus hinter den Evangelien. Das Ergebnis ist eine historische Darstellung, die den Anspruch erhebt, unter gegenwärtigen Erkenntnisbedingungen plausibel zu sein.“

Selective Grammatical Commentary: Although I have translated “Darstellung” as “presentation”, it could also be rendered as “representation”, “portrayal” or “portrait” (Le Donne’s “construction” is more free, but I think it accurately unpacks what Schröter is saying). Here, I think it may be preferable to render Darstellung as “presentation” or “portrayal” so that it can be distinguished from Schröter’s subsequent use of “Repräsentationen”/representations. Similarly, “Verbindung” could also be translated as “linking” or “connection” rather than “combination” (Anthony’s “relationship” is also possible). The fact that the sentence begins with the verb “stellt … dar” followed by a subsequent “dann”, lets the reader know that we are dealing with an “if … then” construction. Anthony’s translation of “beiseite stellen” as “set aside” may well be preferable to my choice of “disregard”. As usual the verbs “verfasst wird” and “erhebt” are pushed to the end of the subordinate clauses in which they appear. I think that Anthony’s translation of “Ergebnis” as “outcome” is probably preferable to my choice of “result”. Although I prefer the word “contemporary” (Anthony) to “current” or “present-day”, I tend to avoid it since there is sometimes ambiguity about whether one means contemporary with the ancient or modern situation. I remain uncertain about Anthony’s translation of “unter den Bedingungen des historisch-kritischen Bewusstseins” as “within the rubric of the historical-critical consciousness” and “unter gegenwärtigen Erkenntnisbedingungen” as “within the rubric of contemporary epistemology”, but this may well represent an improvement on my rather wooden translation of these phrases.

Substantive Analysis: In this quotation Schröter makes clear that both past and present-day historical presentations of Jesus involve a combination/linking of event and narrative. In other words, past and present historical portrayals do NOT differ in this respect, but rather in the conditions of knowledge under which they are composed. On the basis of this view of the nature of all historical presentations/portrayals/representations, Schröter then argues against the practice of disregarding/setting aside the narrative representations of the person of Jesus in the Gospels and for an approach that takes its orientation from these portrayals, with the goal of putting them together anew under the respectively current conditions of knowledge. Against this backdrop, it would be interesting for me to hear more about the extent to which Schröter thinks that the presentations of Jesus in the Gospels could (or should) play a role in shaping present-day conditions of knowledge. I also think that it would be interesting to compare Schröter’s approach with that of Udo Schnelle, another German giant who has attempted to appropriate recent research on the theory of history into his scholarship (e.g., Theology of the New Testament and  Apostle Paul). So perhaps this could be a good paper topic for some ambitious young graduate student.

For a complete list of my Schröterposts, see here.

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

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

For three interviews with me about the BMSEC series, see here, here, and 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! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.