Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
  • Calendar
    • Calendar
    • Events
  • Blog
  • Recording Archives
  • Resources
    • Bible Study - John's Gospel
    • Greek Tutorials
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Position Papers
  • Sandbox

Evaluating Non-Canonical Gospel Traditions

12/10/2021

0 Comments

 
12/10/21
Scholarly Reflections

Bauckham, Richard. "Chapter Thirteen: The Study of Gospel Traditions Outisde the Canonical Gospels: Problems and Prospects." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 369-403.

Bauckham notes that the field of scholarship of Christian literature other than the canonical material has been neglected. However, he says, "there is a good deal of relevant material which is roughly contemporary with the canonical Gospels, while the material which is later is not necessarily unimportant because of its date" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 370). For this reason, he provides numerous reasons for study of "Gospel traditions outside the canonical Gospels" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 370).

There were certainly contemporaneous acounts of early Christian practices and doctrines. Luke's Gospel mentions "many" works (1:1) (Wenham [editor] 1984, 371). It is highly unlikely that the written and oral traditions would have disappeared when the canonical works were first published, or even that written records would have stopped being created at that time (Wenham [editor] 1984, 372). The Gospel tradition should be assumed to be spread freely for some time.

Study of the non-canonical works can be of value for several reasons. The non-caonical works can shed light on the way topics brought up in the canonical materials were understood at the time of composition (Wenham [editor] 1984, 375) They suggest how the Gospel traditions were applied to life.

Bauckham observes that the canonical Gospels derived their material from somewhere. Occasionally the non-canonical works point to similar sources or may tend to show a pathway which a tradition followed as it was adopted for use (Wenham [editor] 1984, 377). Bauckham develops this theme in some detail.

Reserach in this field has many interesting opportunities. However, Bauckham considers three areas of difficulty which require concentrated effort. First, it is difficult (at best) to know whether an author is making a purposeful allusion to another work (Wenham [editor] 1984, 383). Second, the quest for dependence is one which provides us with considerable difficulty. In a manner similar to identifying allusions, the scholar's judgment and predispositions play a significant role (Wenham [editor] 1984, 385). Thirdly, the interplay of orality and textuality is of greater importance than we might have assumed in the past (Wenham [editor] 1984, 385). Oral traditions are, by nature, invisible, thus they are very hard to trace. Yet they can both spring from and lead toward written records. Bauckham sees all three problems easily mixing together, creating countless challenges.

As a case study, Bauckham considers the difficulty of establishing dependence between Matthew and Ignatius (Wenham [editor] 1984, 386). He finds a common assumption that Ignatius was dependent on Matthew, but no consensus on the reasons or evidence.

Bauckham considers that the letters of Ignatius can be dated fairly reliably to about 107 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 388). Matthew's Gospel, which is normally considered to have been written in Antioch a few decades earlier, would probably have been known to Ignatius. However, Ignatius may well have known Gospel traditions before becoming familiar with Matthew (Wenham [editor] 1984, 389). His work has allusions to traditions, some of which would be used by Matthew, some of which would not (Wenham [editor] 1984, 390). 

Bauckham details numerous possible scenarios of influence or dependence, all of which would need to be considered in each of the places where similarity of ideas and wording would suggest quotations or allusions (Wenham [editor] 1984, 391-392). The task can readily be seen as a monumental one. Bauckham observes that in his research he has not found authors who have studied all the possible scenarios for a passage, but that reserachers have addressed some of the possibilities of many (Wenham [editor] 1984, 393).

​
0 Comments

Jesus in Secular Late Antiquity

12/9/2021

0 Comments

 
12/9/21
Scholarly Reflections

Harris, Murray J. "Chapter Twelve: References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 343-368.

Harris uses the term, "early classical authors" in a way unfamiliar to me, and possibly to others. He is speaking of late antiquity, during the "silver Latin" period of the Roman empire. The four authors he deals with are Tacitus, Suetonius, the younger Pliny, and Thallus (Wenham [editor] 1984, 343).

Thallus was a Christian author, preserved in fragments. He does describe the darkness which coincided with the crucifixion (Wenham [editor] 1984, 343). Thallus is commented on by Julius Africanus, by Josephus, and by Eusebius.

Pliny the Younter (ca. 61-112 AD) served as a legate to Bithynia beginning in 110. Letters 96 and 97 of book 10 of his formal letters deal with the problem of Christianity (Wenham [editor] 1984, 345). His description of Christian meetings and ethics shows the Christians believed in Jesus as God and would assemble regularly for worship, prayer, and to sing (Wenham [editor] 1984, 346).

Tacitus (ca. 56-117 or after), in his Annals and Histories, provides a good deal of information about past events of the first century. In his description of the great fires of Rome (64 AD), he describes Nero as shifting blame for the fire from himself to Christians (Wenham [editor] 1984, 348). This may well have simply been an excuse to persecute Christians, rather than any suspicion that the Christians were arsonists. Tacitus does identify the Christians as followers of Jesus, executed under the command of Pilate (Wenham [editor] 1984, 349). Tacitus seems adequately certain of his facts, which he includes in accounts normally accepted as well researched. What is especially compelling to Harris is that the sources used by Tacitus appear hostile to Christians, yet they catalog events affirmed by friendly sources as well (Wenham [editor] 1984, 351).

Suetonius, ca 69-130 AD, was a prolific author working with a broad range of interests (Wenham [editor] 1984, 353). In book five of Lives, he describes Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome due to their involvement in riots regarding "Christ." Harris takes this to be a clear reference to conflicts between Jews and Christians (Wenham [editor] 1984, 354). Suetonius seems to refer to this as a title, not a proper name of an individual. He does seem to assume that Christ was in Rome and involved in the riots, but Harris considers this a reasonable misunderstanding (Wenham [editor] 1984, 355).

Harris concludes that the few details provided are significant corroboration of the time, means of execution, and subsequent controversy about Jesus (Wenham [editor] 1984, 357). Christianity may have received little attention because it was considered a religion to be ignored and scorned (Wenham [editor] 1984, 358). For this reason, historians only mentioned it if it seemed compelling. Harris concludes that the mention of Christianity in these circumstances is of great value.

​
0 Comments

Jesus in Jewish Traditions

12/8/2021

0 Comments

 
12/8/21
Scholarly Reflections

Twelftree, Graham H. "Chatper Eleven: Jesus in Jewish Traditions." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 289-341.

Twelftree in this paper is specifically investigating what Jewish authors tell us about the historic Jesus, not what they may have said which is less closely connected to this factual base of information (Wenham [editor] 1984, 289). He is particularly interested in what can be gleaned from Josephus and rabbinic materials. 

Josephus lived approximately AD 37-92. He had strong commitments to his Jewish faith but also became fairly pro-Roman as he gained patronage from the imperial family (Wenham [editor] 1984, 290). Twelftree finds in his writings both a desire to pursue historical accuracy and a desire to mediate pece between the Jews and Romans so as to protect the Jews from harm (Wenham [editor] 1984, 292).

To consider what Josephus might know about Jesus and Christians, Twelftree evaluates passages where Josephus and the Gospels overlap. In the instance of the death of John the Baptist, he concludes that many of the same facts are recorded, but the accounts do not seem to use the same sources of information (Wenham [editor] 1984, 295).

If Josephus were interested in the events surrounding Jesus and Christianity, it is reasonable to expect he would have known them and could use them (Wenham [editor] 1984, 296). Twelftree does think it very likely that Josephus would have known a significant amount about Christians. However, he doesn't necessarily seem to consider Jesus as a very important character (Wenham [editor] 1984, 297). While Twelftree shows that Josephus makes numerous mentions of Jesus, he does not seem to consider his Messianic identity to be an important factor. A challenge in this regard is that some of our passages of Josephus come to us only as quoted by Eusebius, who may have interspersed Christian commentary with quoted text (Wenham [editor] 1984, 302). Twelftree evaluates numerous passages, each time considering whether it would be likely for strongly Christian statements to have been interpolated by Christian copyists. In the end, Twelftree concludes that the picture of Jesus in Josephus is almost always influenced by Christian copyists, with Ant. 18:63f as the only exception (Wenham [editor] 1984, 310).

Rabbinic traditions pose difficulties as well, often because they are hard to date, rather than due to editorial changes (Wenham [editor] 1984, 311). There is also a tendency toward historical revisionism, placing Jesus in radically different times or places than history would indicate (Wenham [editor] 1984, 314). Twelftree does identify some narratives about Jesus' trial and death, however, they don't seem to have much internal consistency and they suggest a lengthier process than can be found in the Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 320-321). Twelftree concludes that the most reliable material suggests that Jesus had at least five disciples and that at least two of them may have had names similar to some of those mentioned in the Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 324). This is exceedingly slim evidence.

​
0 Comments

The Didache and Jesus

12/6/2021

0 Comments

 
12/6/21
Scholarly Reflections

Draper, Jonathan. "Chapter Ten: The Jesus Tradition in the Didache." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 269-287.

Draper briefly summarizes the scholarship on the Didache before concluding that it is most likely from the first century (Wenham [editor] 1984, 269). Identifying sources of its contents poses a scholarly problem, in large part due to its apparently early date. Much scholarship has considered the Epistle of Barnabas ch. 18-20 as a source of the "Two Ways" material in chapters 1-6 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 270). This would place the document in the second century, then open the door to its dependence on Synoptic materials. However, the discovery of the Manual of Discipline amongthe Dead Sea Scrolls has suggested that the Two Ways materials could have an earlier foundation. J.P. Audet's work suggests that most of the first ten chapters of the Didache were written about 50-70 AD, prior to the publication of any canonical Gospel (Wenham [editor] 1984, 270). Draper agrees that the work is composite in natuer and that it went through editorial changes before reaching its current form.

The "Jesus tradition" materials in the Didache are mostly contained in 1:3b-2:1; 8, and 15:3-4 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 271). Draper takes these portions to be from the last phase of the work's development . He also observes that the passages are not clearly tied to the Synoptics, but could well be making reference to an oral tradition. This idea is promoted by the Didache's apparent dependence on elements of Jewish tradition which are not given a specifically New Testament interpretation (Wenham [editor] 1984, 272). Draper takes the trinitarian formula for baptism in 7:1 to be a later insertion, in which he sees the formula and its precursor of being baptized "into the Lord's name" as the earlier tradition. The prayers around the eucharist may resenble a Jewish Berakoth more than John chapter six.

Draper repeatedly concludes that elements of the Didache which seem to reflect New Testament, and particularly Matthean, patterns are more likely to derive from other materials, possibly those which were source material for the Synoptic authors (Wenham [editor] 1984, 273). For convenience, Draper lays some of this material out side by side (Wenham [editor] 1984, 274-276). He then describes the language use as "often clumsier than that of the Synoptic Gospels" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 276), which indicates an earlier date. Word choice also tends to reflect Jewish culture, rather than Christian developments (Wenham [editor] 1984, 27). Most important, Draper does not find any of the sayings to demonstrate dependence on Matthew or Luke (Wenham [editor] 1984, 278).

Draper particularly discusses Didache 8, which cites a "gospel" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 279). However, he considers the chapter to be a later insertion, as it breaks up the natural flow in the catechetical manual from baptism to eucharist (Wenham [editor] 1984, 279). Yet even here, Draper sees it as largely independent of Matthew.

Draper continues by reviewing the apocalyptic material from Didache 16 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 280). Though there are similarities to Matthew 24, the language and order don't suggest dependence.

Draper's overall conclusion is that the Didache drew on material which was also used by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark except when also present in Matthew and Luke (Wenham [editor] 1984, 284). 

​
0 Comments

Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers

12/3/2021

0 Comments

 
12/3/21
Scholarly Reflections

Hagner, Donald A. "Chapter Nine: The Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 233-268.

Hagner, recognizing the space between the events of the Gospels and the written Gospels themselves, observes we would expect there to exist authoritative accounts of Jesus' actions and teachings. One would therefore expect to find some mentioned in early Christian writings even if they were not included in the canonical Gospel accounts (Wenham [editor] 1984, 233). Hagner notes that there are relatively few passages in the 1st and 2nd century FAthers which are clearly intended to be understood as quotes from or allusions to words of Jesus. He catalogs a number for us (Wenham [editor] 1984, 234ff). Of special interest is an oral marker in 1 Clement 13, where we are told to "remember." This suggests that Clement may know the sayings from an oral tradition rather than a written one, which could be consulted rather than being remembered (Wenham [editor] 1984, 235). Polycarp uses some of the same material in a different order, and with a slightly different wording. Though Hagner thinks Polycarp was familiar with 1 Clement, he doesn't seem to depend on it here (Wenham [editor] 1984, 236).

1 Clement 46:8 makes a reference to two sayings of Jesus which are not in proximity to each other in the Gospels. The ideas, though not all the wording, are used by some other Church Fathers, but without the focused structure and vocablyar which would point to a literal dependence (Wenham [editor] 1984, 231).

The seven letters of Ignatius have a few possible allusions to the Gospels, with one presented as a direct quote of Jesus (Smyrn. 3.2). The sayings are not identical in wording to anything in the Scriptures. Jerome and Origen attribute the statements to non-canonical sources (Wenham [editor] 1984, 239).

Polycarp makes a few statements which are at least allusive to Synoptic material. However, Hagner notes they are in relatively strongly liturgical statements which are brief and epigrammatic so the relationship is difficult to identify (Wenham [editor] 1984, 240). 

Considering the Didache, Hagner finds a large amount of material which appears closely related to Synoptic material, but which is difficult to consider. 9:5 uses an introductory formula, then quotes Matthew 7:6 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 240). 8:1 makes associations between hypocrisy and fasting, similar to Matthew 6:16 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 241). The Lord's Prayer is then given in a form almost identical to that in Matthew 6:9ff. Here, it is "as the Lord commanded in his gospel," a clause Hagner  takes to refer to a tradition other than Matthew's written work. The same idea occurs with the trinitarian formula in 7:1, compared with Matthew 28:19 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 241).

Didache 1:2 juxtaposes Deuteronomy 6:5 and Levitics 19:18b, very much like Matthew 22:37-39 and Mark 12:29-31 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 241). However, Hagner thinks this may be a reference to a common Jewish pattern, as is the similarity of the negative statement of the Golden Rule in 1:2.

I quote the following as it identifies passages which my research should evaluate specifically. "Other passages that deserve mention are 11.7 (Matt 12:31; cf Mark 3:28); 13.1-2 (Matt 10:10; cf Luke 10:7; 1 Tim 5:18); 16.1 (Matt 24:42, 44) and 16.3-5 (Matt 24:10-13). There is no convincing allusion to Ats (cf. 4.8 with Acts 4:32), and in only one instance does an OT allusion (Ps 37:11) occur also in one of the Gospels (Matt 5:5) and the Didache (3.7)." (Wenham [editor] 1984, 241). The case for dependence on the written Gospels is weak, while that for dependence on oral tradition is strong.

Hagner considers the Epistle of Barnabas to make little reference to the Ne wTestament, though there are a few possible connections when Old Testament ideas are used by Barnabas and by the Synoptic authors (Wenham [editor] 1984, 242).

The Shepherd of Hermas makes numerous allusions to the Synoptics, but they are never introduced as quotations. It is not clear to Hagner in any instances whether the material is drawn from the New Testament or from other materials (Wenham [editor] 1984, 243).

2 Clement probably moves us into the second half of the second century. It contains many clear allusions to the Gospels and introduces them clearly (Wenham [editor] 1984, 244). Hagner reviews those which contain introductory formulas. Some of the statements appear to be direct quotations and some gradually diverge in their wording. Hagner acknowledges that this could be due to citation from memory or citation of a different source tradition (Wenham [editor] 1984, 245).

Justin Martyr provides more material for consideration than Hagner considers practicable. However, he does review some representative samples (Wenham [editor] 1984, 247ff). Justin is clearly using written sources, which he refers to as written works which are read in gatherings on Sundays (Wenham [editor] 1984, 248).

Hagner concludes that all these early Fathers were probably writing after the Synoptic Gospels had been written (Wenham [editor] 1984, 249). The lack of specific citation or quotation of these works on the same level as quotation of the Old Testament is not surprising, especially in the earlier period. The differences in wroding may easily be attributed to making reference to the material from memory (Wenham [editor] 1984, 250). However, Hagner considers it significant to consider that non-canonical sources could also be used for quotation or paraphrase. This could explain the very careful use of parallelism and euphony found in some of the syaings of Jesus. Oral tradition and catechesis regularly uses statements presented in a highly memorable manner. Hagner observes that this would sill be the case at the time of Justin, when the canonical sources were being recognized as prominent (Wenham [editor] 1984, 251).

Hagner cites the improtance f orality as evidenced by Eusemius' comments on both. Papias and Irenaeus, who considered the words of a witness or a tradent as bearing special authority (Wenham [editor] 1984, 251). The seat of authority only gradually moved from oral transmission to written transmission of truth (Wenham [editor] 1984, 252). This gradual move complicates the work of identification of the source of written statements. The authority was seen to rest in Jesus, not in the report of his words. The means of the report may not have been considered vey important (Wenham [editor] 1984, 253). The work of the Apostles was considered important primarily because they were transmitting the words of Jesus to the next generation (Wenham [editor] 1984, 255).

Hagner notes that transmission of authoritative truth was understood at the time of the New Testament to take place both throguh oral and written means (Wenham [editor] 1984, 255). The oral tradition could frequently be considered superior in terms of its authenticity and authority. The slight verbal adaptations of Jesus' teachings are very slight, though the narratives which introduce them show more variety (Wenham [editor] 1984, 256). The tradition was well guarded, particularly while the eyewitnesses still lived. It was after that period that the written texts were necessary to guard accuracy.

​
0 Comments

Apocryphal Gospels and Jesus' Teaching

12/2/2021

0 Comments

 
12/2/21
Scholarly Reflections

Wright, David F. "Chapter Eight: Apocryphal Gospels: The 'Unknown Gospel' (Pap. Egerton 2) and the Gospel of Peter." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 207-232.

Wright, observing that the apocryphal gospels have normally been seen as dependent on the Synoptics and as intent on drawing apologetic conlsuion, sees the Gospel of Thomas as strikingly different. Some of the content strikes many scholars as older than the Synoptic gospels, suggesting that Thomas may be of great importance in determining ocntent of old Jesus traditions (Wenham [editor] 1984, 207). Along with the "unkown gospel" found in the Egerton Papyrus, the Gospel of Peter, and a few other works, Wright thinks we may have helpful sources for evaluation of very early Chrsitian faith (Wenham [editor] 1984, 208). Writht further considers that we find little specific evidence from Christian writers in the first two centuries elevating canonical materials above those we would now consider non-canonical. He therefore suggests the writings were rightly consider as of similar value.

A challenge in studies of early documents is centered in the simple fact that we have relatively little information. A catalog of texts and fragments from the second and third centuries shows that the canonical gospels, particularly the Fourth Gospel, appear more than the apocryphal owrks (Wenham [editor] 1984, 208). When we consider use or apparent knowledge of other works, the picture is not so clear. Authors may well have known, or known of, documents which they would not consider authoritative (Wenham [editor] 1984, 209).

The "Unknown Gospel" is known to us in "three papyrus fragments first published in 1935" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 210). The material is possibly part of a compilation of ideas used in the canonical Gospels but not clearly related in a literary manner. Wright presents the first pericope and makes comments on it (Wenham [editor] 1984, 211ff). The ideas seem more similar to John, while the vocabulary and style seem more like the Synoptics. The second pericope, with a stronger similarity to ideas in John, follows (Wenham [editor] 1984, 215ff) with Wright's notes. The third pericope tells of a healing of a leper, bearing similarity to Matthew 8, Mark 1, and Luke 5 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 216). 

Though the ideas are fairly similar the details diverge enough from any synoptic account of a healing that Wright doesn't consider the material to be derived from the Synoptics. The fourth pericope, which has some slight resemblance to John 3:2, follows (Wenham [editor] 1984, 217). The passage, which is quite scattered in its contents, also contains several ideas from the symoptics.

Wright takes the text to be likely from the early second century, possibly as a compilation of some Christian ideas, but not likely intended as an alternative to a canonical Gospel (Wenham [editor] 1984, 220-221). 

The Gospel of Peter, much longer than our fragments of the Unknown Gospel, appears to be a secondary composition, drawing on material from the canonical gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 221). Wright observes that papyrological discoveries in the 1970s have indicated the presence of significant variations in the text. This makes assessment of its relationship to canonical material much more difficult (Wenham [editor] 1984, 223). 

Wright's analysis suggests that it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify material which leads to Jesus traditions and which would antedate the canonical Gospels. The evidence is scanty, and what we have tends to contain significant problems in terms of coherence or consistency of manuscripts.

​
0 Comments

Narrative Parables

12/1/2021

0 Comments

 
12/1/21
Scholarly Reflections

Blomberg, Criag L. "Chapter Seven: Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 177-205.

Blomberg considers the Gospel of Thomas to be of great interest because many of the statements attributed to Jesus are similar to statements in the Synoptic Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 177). Eleven of the thirteen parables have New Testament parallels. Of particular interest is the view that Thomas may well not have used the Synoptics as a source, as suggested by the substantial differences in arrangement and style (Wenham [editor] 1984, 178). Blomberg reviews many of the arguments and, though many of them are plausible, they are not overwhelmingly compelling. He also notes that some arguments for dependence on the Synoptic Gospels are fairly strong (Wenham [editor] 1984, 181).

Counter to my expectation, Blomberg notes that narrative tends to grow shorter rather than longer over time. He sees this happening in the different Synoptic texts. The parables which appear in Thomas and which are parallelled in the Synoptics are, in fact, shorter versions. Blomberg walks through some of this evidence (Wenham [editor] 1984, 182).

Blomberg's evaluation of these parables does suggest to me that he is more hesitant to speak of heterodoxy and Gnosticism than I am. What he is able to accept and evaluate in friendly terms tends to provoke me to outright rejection on theological grounds. His conclusion, however, is related to his overal thesis. Thomas has numerous parables which combine tradition and redaction. Where there is redaction, Thomas typically brings in Gnostic ideas (Wenham [editor] 1984, 195). Due to the apparent redaction, Blomberg thinks it unlikely that we can identify any particular pre-Synoptic materials with relaibility (Wenham [editor] 1984, 196). 

​
0 Comments

Thomas and Jesus

11/29/2021

0 Comments

 
11/29/21
Scholarly Reflections

Chilton, Bruce. "Chapter Six: The Gospel According to Thomas as a Source of Jesus' Teaching." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 155-175.

"The Gospel According to Thomas consists of some 114 sayings of Jesus, and has no narrative element which can compare with what we find in the canonical Gospels" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 155). There is a valid question as to whether the sayings are actually Jesus' teaching. Chilton observes that the codices containing Thomas are from the fourth century and that some fragmentary parts may be dated to the third century. However, Chilton does consider it within the realm of possibility hat the tradition represents material as old as that in the canonical Gospels. Helmut Koester is a proponent of a view that Thomas is identified as the twin of Jesus and speaks in much the same way, reporting Jesus' statements accurately (Wenham [editor] 1984, 156).

Chilton evaluates some of the syaings attributed to Jesus in Thomas, noting that similar ideas may appear in the New Testament, but that some are contrary in spirit to the message of the New Testament (Wenham [editor] 1984, 157). He concludes that Thomas is not really comparable to Q, assuming Q is a source of the Synoptic Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 159).

Chilton observes that there is a relationship between Thomas nd the Diatessaron, which Quispel considers to stem from mutual dependence on "a tradition he calls 'the Gospel of the Hebrews'" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 159). A substantial difficulty with this view is the fact that Tatian's Diatessaron is not available to us, though some harmonies of it do exist. Chilton further notes that Thomas is really a work of the second century, though it shows some signs of contact with earlier sources (Wenham [editor] 1984, 160). The work reached its current form some time in the fourth century. The structure of Thomas is a series of questions from an interlocutor, answered by sayings of Jesus. This creats a topical collection of sayings (Wenham [editor] 1984, 161). 

Chilton considers the reliability of Thomas (Wenham [editor] 1984, 162). This is a challenging issue. The work has a central focus on God's kingdom, as does Matthew. Thomas is easily and often understood as showing a great deal of Gnostic ualism. However, Chilton asserts, "It is no more hterodox, say, than Clement of Alexandria, and is far removed from the elaborate cosmology of The Gospel of Truth" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 163). There is, therefore, some credible reason to consider the work relatively orthodox. The text largely posits an internal kingdom as opposed to one extra nos, but this emphasis can be found throughout the canonical Scripture as well (Wenham [editor] 1984, 164). Chilton also understands the references to "the kingdom" to be a taboo deformation, as they serve as references to God. He illusrates this idea at length.

Chilton concludes that while Thomas has some sayings which seem to be genuinely sayings of Jesus, other parts are inconsistent. The ideas sometimes tend toward those of the Gnostics. "In practice, Thomas can only be trusted as a witness to the sayings of Jesus to a limited extent," he concludes (Wenham [editor] 1984, 171). He advocates careful historical judgment and a sound grasp of tradition to guard our interpretation.

​
0 Comments

Daniel in Revelation 4-5

11/26/2021

0 Comments

 
11/26/21
Scholarly Reflections

Beale, G.K. "Chapter Five: The Use of Daniel in the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse and in the Book of Revelation." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 129-153.

Beale sets out to demonstrate that the eschatological developments found in Revelation are related to the midrashinc views originating in Daniel, rather than being build on Synoptic material, particularly that used in Mark 13 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 129). While Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 appear to be derived from Daniel 7-9 and 11-12, Beale notes the similarity in content with Revelation, but considers the Synoptics to represent Jesus' interpretation of Daniel, but Revelation to represent John's interpretation of Daniel without reference to the way it is expressed in the Synoptics (Wenham [editor] 1984, 130).

Revelation chapters 4-5 have a connection to Daniel. However, Beale observes that "the few works dedicated only to studying the use of the OT in Revelation fail to give proper attention to chapters 4-5, much less to the use of Daniel therein" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 131). Because of this lack of research, Beale attempts to establish his idea that the whole of Revelation 4-5 has a strong influence from Daniel chapter seven. He therefore begins with a list of the elements of each vision, in order, providing verse references for each step of the description (Wenham [editor] 1984, 131-132). In this evaluation, Beale finds both passages have the same fourteen elements of content, with only a slight variation in their order, which he takes to be due to Revelation's expansion of some of the images (Wenham [editor] 1984, 132).

Beale does observe that Revelation 4:1-5:1 bears a very close resemblance to Ezekiel chapters 1-2. However, the order is more significantly different, and five of the elements common to Daniel and Revelation are lacking in Ezekiel (Wenham [editor] 1984, 132).

Beale further considers allusions to Daniel found in Revelation. He dos note a forthcoming book which he authored, discussing the allusions in more detail, but here he provides a compact list (Wenham [editor] 1984, 133).

Beale's conclusion is that the structure of Revelation 4-5 is directly influenced by Daniel chapte seven (Wenham [editor] 1984, 133). Counter to this opinion, Ezekiel chapter one, though it bears some similarity, is probably not a source for structure in Revelation (Wenham [editor] 1984, 134). Beale further observes that other portions have elements suggesting they serve largely as Midrash on portions of Daniel. The connections of Daniel and the overall content of the New Testament are relatively strong (Wenham [editor] 1984, 136).

Beale next provides some evidence that Revelation 1 and 13 may also beclosely related to Daniel 7 and 10. There are a number of clear allusions and the overall structure is similar (Wenham [editor] 1984, 137). Again, there has been some scholarship which points to symoptic source material. However, Beale finds the similarity to Daniel to be more persuasive (Wenham [editor] 1984, 139).

Beale's overall conclusion is that Revelation and the Synoptics tend to draw on the same body of teaching, which includes material from Daniel (Wenham [editor] 1984, 143). This is particularly true of the eschatological portions of the New Testament. Beale does not find these materials used to any significant degree in the non-eschatological portions (Wenham [editor] 1984, 144). Again, when Beale reviews allusions to the Synoptics and to Daniel in Revelation, he concludes that Revelation and the Synoptics are drawing on a common source and not on one another (Wenham [editor] 1984, 147). 

​
0 Comments

1 Peter and Jesus' Teaching

11/25/2021

0 Comments

 
11/25/21
Scholarly Reflections

Maier, Gerhard. "Chapter Four: Jesustradition im 1 Petrusbrief?" in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 85-128.

Maier notes that 1 Peter has garnered a great deal of attention not only due to the possible disputes over authorship but also as scholars have attempted to identify the extent of the Jesus traditions appearing in the text (Wenham [editor] 1984, 85-86). A notable debate concerns the role of the words of Jesus as reported in 1 Peter. Maier observes the sides of the debate are represented by Ernest Best and Robert Gundry (Wenham [editor] 1984, 86). Maier proceeds to summarize the elements of both arguments. Best considers 1 Peter to draw on Jesus traditions outside of canonical sources, while Gundry looks for canonical sources (Wenham [editor] 1984, 87).

Analysis of possible parallel texts may shed light on the challenge. Best and Gundry recognize that there are strong similarities between 1 Peter 1:10-12 and Luke 24:25-27 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 88). This recognition leads to an analysis of the similarities. In fact, Best and Gundry examined multiple passages. While there are many parallel ideas, the wording doesn't match very precisely. The debate, then, remaidqns largely unresolved. However, some passages do strongly suggest an influence from material outside the canonical Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 95).

Maier continues by seeking out similarities between 1 Peter and other works, now not as they were considered by Best and Gundry (Wenham [editor] 1984, 96). Again, he finds a good deal of similarity in ideas. However, it is rare to find identity in wording which would clearly point to a specific literary dependence.

Maier's conclusions based on his review thus far suggest that 1 Peter may show more influence from Jesus traditions themselves than from writings which have proven canonical (Wenham [editor] 1984, 102ff).

A number of passages in 1 Peter may be considered as brief catechism.s Though Maier admits of controversy in identifying them, he suggests they are 1:18-21, 2:21-25, and 3:18-22 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 105). He evaluates these passages particularly looking for influences on the readings. In these passages, the pre-existence of Christ, the value of his passion, and the power of his word emerge as essential concepts. In the context of these possibly catechetical passages, Maier also considers possible influence from the Pauline epistles and, to a lesser debree, the Old Testament. As before, while there are many similarities of concept and thought, Maier finds little specific parallel wording.

Maier further considers relationships between the catechetical passages of 1 Peter and material in Acts, particularly chaptesr two, three, and ten (Wenham [editor] 1984, 111). These are significant passages particularly because they describe Peter's preaching and teaching. As we might expect, the concepts are very similar. However, again, the specific wording, though possibly more similar than other passages reviewed thus far, does not compel us to think in terms of depencence.

Maier concludes that there is some literary distance between 1 Peter and the influences thus leading to similarity of ideas but not specifc language (Wenham [editor] 1984, 115). Maier further notes that by the time of composition of 1 Peter, the canonical Gospels would havebeen becoming available. The differences in wording would be more likely a factor of not yet adopting the speech patterns in the canonical materials, but considerin the ideas in the context of materials which could be a source for both 1 Peter and the canonical Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 117). This can also explain, in Maier's opinion, the fact that the ideas in 1 Peter are found in the Synoptics and in John. The traditions underlying both would have been known to Peter (Wenham [editor] 1984, 118).

A brief observation - while Maier provides arather a lot of documentation of the verses he analyzes, he does so consistently in German, rather than in Greek. Perusal of his arguments with a Greek text could be of value.

​
0 Comments

James and the Teaching of Jesus

11/24/2021

0 Comments

 
11/24/21
Scholarly Reflections

Davids, Peter H. "Chapter Three: James and Jesus." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 63-84.

Davids observes that there has been ongoing discussion of the means of transmitting the traditions of Jesus in early Christianity, particularly focused on preaching as the means to pass the message from teacher to student (Wenham [editor] 1984, 63). The relative absence of evidence for transmission prior to the written Gospels does raise questions. The statements of Paul which can be recognized as references to Jesus traditions suggest to many that Paul was familiar with multiple blocks of teaching, some of which we might not have any longer (Wenham [editor] 1984, 65).

Davids continues with an analysis of James, geared toward identifying statements which assume readers know particular pieces of the Jesus traditions (Wenham [editor] 1984, 65). This evaluation tests the situation apart from the work of Paul. There are also numerous allusions to the Synoptic material in James. Davids catalogs these on pp. 66-67. He observes that the references largely focus on ethical teaching from the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Wenham [editor] 1984, 67). James does not appear to depend on the Synoptic Gospels. Davids observes that his content is more similar to Matthew and his language is more like Luke (Wenham [editor] 1984, 68).

It is significant to Davids that James does not "cite Jesus as the source of [his] teaching" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 68). He assumes some familiarity with the teaching. This is a common pattern of the period. Davids does mention as an example, "the Didache, which is filled with exact quotations of or allusions to gospel material, [but] only cites Jesus by name twice, both times in liturgical contexts" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 68). It was more common to make reference by indirect allusion (Wenham [editor] 1984, 69).

Davids considers that the allusions in James are spread fairly evenly through the letter (Wenham [editor] 1984, 69). This suggests that James deliberately intended to build his message on the Jesus material. This also suggests a basic cohesiveness in the letter. It is consistent throughout, indicating a unified plan (Wenham [editor] 1984, 70). Davids describes the main thrust of the various segments of James, showing their allusive quality and recognition of material which can be traced to the Jesus traditions.

Through Davids' analysis it becomes clear that not only the ideas of Jesus, but even the wording that was later recorded had an influence on the way James expressed himself (Wenham [editor] 1984, 74). His work, then, is not to teach the Jesus tradition itself, but to show his readers how that tradition mattered in their lives (Wenham [editor] 1984, 75). 

​
0 Comments

Jesus in 1 Corinthians

11/22/2021

0 Comments

 
11/22/21
Scholarly Reflections

Richardson, Peter & Gooch, Peter. "Chapter Two: Logia of Jesus in 1 Corinthians." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 39-62.

Richardson and Gooch freely acknowledge that Paul cites the words and actions of Jesus relatively seldom. However, scholarly opinion generally suggests that he was aware of much that he never stated, due to the actual purposes of his writing (Wenham [editor] 1984, 39). On the other side of the coin, there are arguments that Paul did not know much of the words and actions of Jesus, thus said little. Both sides in the discussion depend on arguments from silence. To make progress in this discussion, Richardson and Gooch suggest not only reviewing Paul's use of material about Jesus, but also evaluating his use of Jesus' words as a ground for his argument, and considering whether he considers it important to use his writings to pass the tradition on to future generations (Wenham [editor] 1984, 40).

This chapter analyzes Paul's use of Jesus' teaching in 1 Corinthians. Paul is clearly considering Jesus' passion as fundamental to his teaching. In 1 Corinthians he never mentions "Jesus' healing, exorcising, preaching, or miracles" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 41). However, he does make specific reference to Jesus' teaching which is reflected in the Synoptic Gospels. This sets 1 Corinthians apart from Paul's other letters (Wenham [editor] 1984, 42).

Paul's specific references to traditions about Jesus are found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, 11:23-26, 7:10, and 9:14 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 42). In chapter seven, Richardson and Gooch observe Paul's teaching on marriage and divorce is consistent with the general view expressed in the Synoptic Gospels. He makes a clear distinction between what he understands as the Lord's commands and his own conclusions (Wenham [editor] 1984, 43). 

The argument in chapter nine is about God's servants making their living the Gospel. As with chapter seven, Paul couches the Lord's command among his own statements. He does distinguish between his words and Jesus' words, but he uses Jesus to support his argument (Wenham [editor] 1984, 44). 

The statement from 1 Corinthians 14:37, that Jesus taught that women should be silent in Church, is difficult. It doesn't line up with any Synoptic tradition. Richardson and Gooch suggest it could be a recollection of a post-resurrection saying (Wenham [editor] 1984, 45).

Richardson and Gooch consider the issue of allusions. One of the primary challenges we face in dealing with allusions is that of defining the criteria by which a statement can be recognized as an allusion (Wenham [editor] 1984, 45). They choose to pursue as allusions those passages in which Paul uses an image for the same purpose that it is used in the Synoptic gospels, then places where Paul uses ideas which agree with those in the Synoptics (Wenham [editor] 1984, 46). Richardson and Gooch pursue these in turn. While we find relatively few passages which make clear quotations, the allusive ideas are fairly frequent.

Richardson and Gooch concllude that Paul seems familiar with and consciously informed by the traditions about Jesus. However, many of the ideas remain below the surface, so we would have no idea of their source if we didn't have the Synoptic Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 50). The references generally seem related to material used by Mark, though Richardson and Gooch consider some of the ideas to be Q materials (Wenham [editor] 1984, 51).

Paul does not seem to use specific claims of Jesus as a foundation for his teaching. While he does use them, it seems more focused on the imagery and to function as a supporting idea to document what Paul intends to teach (Wenham [editor] 1984, 52). While it is clear that in some instances Paul particularly means to pass on information about the Jesus traditions, in general he does not seem to intend a wholesale passing on of the accounts of Jesus 'life and teaching (Wenham [editor] 1984, 54). He is, rather, focused on the facts of the death and resurrection of Christ.

​
0 Comments

Paul's Use of Jesus' Teaching

11/19/2021

0 Comments

 
11/19/21
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, David. "Chapter One: Paul's Use of the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 7-37.

Wenham has previously concluded that Paul was familiar with teachings of Jesus, including those which do not appear in the Synoptic Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 7). In this chapter he consders three passages which were not part of his previous study.

In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, speaking of divorce, Paul cites the Lord's teaching, but the teaching he states is nowhere in the canonical Gospels. Wenham considers it clear that Paul's language indicates a direct and purposeful quotation (Wenham [editor] 1984, 8). There are clear similarities between 1 Corinthians 7:10 and Mark 10:9, 11 and Matthew 19:6, 9. Because of these similarities, Wenham concludes that Paul was familiar with this material. 

Wenham next broadens his survey to a larger part of Matthew 19 and Mark 10. He does find some similarity in content. For instance, both Paul and the evangelists speak in terms of marriage being a "one flesh" relationship which is broken by separation. Singleness as a gift of God in 1 Corinthians 7:7 is similar to Matthew 19:11 where some receive Jesus' teaching about singleness (Wenham [editor] 1984, 9). This suggests to Wenham that the tradition put to use here is earlier than many scholars have suggested.

The four important symoptic texts about divorce are Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:6, 9, Luke 16:18, and Mark 10:9-12. Wenham compares these texts and catalogs the grammatical and content similarities and differences (Wenham [editor] 1984, 10-11). He does find that the construction in part of Matthew 5:32 is similar to Luke, while the other part is similar to Mark, suggesting some element of influence. Wenham goes on to catalog a number of less obvious inconsistencies, then he observes that Paul's text in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 has points of agreement in his grammar with Matthew and Luke but not Mark.

Wenham proposes a partial solution to the challenge of the origin of the text, that there were two basic narratives and that they were used differently by the various authors (Wenham [editor] 1984, 13).

The last portion of Romans contains many possible references to Jesus traditions. Wenham chooses to analyze Romans 12:14-21, which has strong echoes of the material from Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount/Plain" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 15). Particularly Romans 12:14 has parallelism which is very like Luke 6:28. When comparing the overall ideas expressed in these passages, Wenham observes that there are clear parallels between Luke 6:27-28, 32-33, and Matthew 5:43, 46-47 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 16). Wenham considers that Paul may have used a tradition which was also used in part by Matthew and Luke.

Romans 12:17-20 likewise shows a connection with Matthew 5:38-48 and, similarly Luke 6:27-36 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 17). The ethic described is that of doing good in return for evil. What Wenham finds significant is the similarity of the sequence of ideas (Wenham [editor] 1984, 18). The sequence of ideas is, in Wenham's estimation, quite possibly pre-synoptic, and was used both by the evangelists and by Paul (Wenham [editor] 1984, 19). After displaying the Greek text for both the Matthew and the Luke passages side by side Wenham observes that the differences have been a matter of scholarly debate, and that one or the other is assumed to be more similar to the underlying tradition. He then reconstructs what he thinks to be a likely reading of the traditional material (Wenham [editor] 1984, 21-22). 

Wenham again finds that the Pauline material is very similar to the texts he can hypothesize as an early tradition underlying the Synoptic texts (Wenham [editor] 1984, 23).

In Galatians 1-2, Paul knows and tells some things of Peter which we might wonder at, particularly Peter's role as the apostle to the Jews (Wenham [editor] 1984, 24). The portrayal of Peter's apostolic work from Matthew 16 would not have been known to Paul at the time he wrote Galatians. Yet Paul speaks of the differences of his commission and Peter's commission (Wenham [editor] 1984, 25). Wenham concludes that Paul appeared to know about the traditions underlying Matthew's account, and that he knew it independently of the account in Matthew's Gospel itself (Wenham [editor] 1984, 28).

Overall, Wenham concludes that Paul knew quite a lot of the Jesus traditions even though he did not actually have the Synoptic Gospels. This suggests strongly that Paul had a storehouse of information about Jesus, his actions, and his values (Wenham [editor] 1984, 29). 

​
0 Comments

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

    All the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry, including this blog, is supported by the generosity of people like you. Please consider joining our team of prayer and financial supporters. Read more here!
    Please Note: The opinions presented in blog posts are not necessarily those of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Frequently we report on contrary views, often without comment. Please chime in on the discussion.

    About Throwing Inkwells

    When Martin Luther was dealing with struggles in his life he once saw what appeared to be an angelic being. Not trusting that he was going to be informed by someone other than the God revealed in Scripture, he took the appearance to be untrustworthy and hurled his inkwell at it. The chipped place in the plaster wall is still visible at the Wartburg Castle, though apparently the ink stain on the wall has been refreshed periodically by the caretaker.

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

    Want to keep up with what's happening at Wittenberg Door? Subscribe to our mailing list!

    Categories

    All
    1 Corinthians
    1 John
    1 Kings
    1 Peter
    1 Samuel
    1 Thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2 Chronicles
    2 Corinthians
    2-john
    2 Kings
    2 Peter
    2 Samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent 1
    Advent-1-a
    Advent-1b
    Advent-1c
    Advent 2
    Advent-2-a
    Advent-2b
    Advent-2c
    Advent 3
    Advent-3-a
    Advent-3b
    Advent-3c
    Advent 4
    Advent-4-a
    Advent-4b
    Advent-4c
    Akagi 2016
    Alesso-2009
    Alexander 1999
    Allegory
    Allitt-2010
    All Saints' Day
    Alon 1996
    Amos
    Anaphora
    Anointing
    Anunciation
    Apollinaris Of Hierapolis
    Apostolical Constitutions
    Aristides Of Athens
    Aristotle
    Aryeh 2021
    Ascension Day
    Ash Wednesday
    Athenagoras Of Athens
    Audet 1996
    Augustine
    Bakker 1993
    Balabanski 1997
    Bammel 1996
    Baptism
    Baptism Of Christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Bardy 1938
    Baron 2019
    Baron & Maponya 2020
    Bauckham 1984
    Bauckham 2006
    Bauckham 2007
    Beale 1984
    Belief
    Belonging
    Ben-Amos 1999
    Betz 1996
    Biesenthal 1893
    Bigg 1904
    Bigg 1905
    Blogcation
    Blomberg 1984
    Boehme-2010
    Botha 1967
    Botha 1993
    Braaten 2007
    Bruce1988
    Bruce-1988
    Bryennios
    Butler 1960
    Caneday 2017
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carr 2010
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catholicism
    Cerfaux 1959
    Chilton 1984
    Chrismation
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas Dawn
    Christmas-day
    Christmas Eve
    Christmas Midnight
    Chronicles
    Circumcision And Naming Of Christ
    Cody 1995
    Colossians
    Conditions
    Confession Of Peter
    Confessions
    Connolly 1932
    Connolly 1933
    Connolly 1934
    Constanza-2013
    Cooper & Lioy 2018
    Costa 2021
    Court 1981
    Culley 1986
    Cyprian
    Daly 1978
    Daniel
    Danielou 1956
    Davids 1984
    Davis 1995
    DeHalleux 1996
    Dehandschutter 1995
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Divine Fellowship
    Dix 1933
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Doane 1994
    Draper
    Draper 1984
    Draper 1989
    Draper 1995
    Draper-1996
    Draper-1997
    Draper-2000
    Draper-2006
    Dube 2016
    Due 2003
    Easter-2
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter-3
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter-4
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter-5
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter-7
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter-day
    Easter-monday
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Easter-sunrise
    Easter-tuesday
    Easter-wednesday
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria2014
    Elman-1999
    Ephesians
    Epiphany
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Epistle Of Barnabas
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Eve-of-the-circumcision-of-christ
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Experiential Reading
    Eybers 1975
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Farrell-1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser-1996
    Forde-2007
    Fraade-1999
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Garrow 2004
    Gender
    Genesis
    Gero 1977
    Gibbins 1935
    Gibbs 2006
    Glover-1958
    Goga & Popa 2019
    Gonzalez-2010
    Good-friday
    Gospels
    Grosvener-schaff-1885
    Grosvenor-1884
    Guardian-of-jesus
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hagner 1984
    Harnack-1884
    Harris 1887
    Harris 1984
    Hearon 2004
    Hearon 2010
    Hebrews
    Heilmann 2018
    Henderson1992
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson 1995
    Hezser 2010
    History
    Hoffman-1986
    Holy Cross Day
    Holy-innocents
    Holy-saturday
    Horsley 2010
    Hosea
    Hutchens2013
    Hymes-1994
    Ignatius Of Antioch
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    Jaffee-1999
    James
    James Of Jerusalem
    James The Elder
    Jefford 1989
    Jefford 1995
    Jeffreys-1986
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Jones & Mirecki 1995
    Joseph
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Jungmann-1959
    Justin Martyr
    Kelber-1987
    Kelber-1995
    Kelber 2002
    Kelber 2010
    Kelber & Sanders 2010
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Kloppenborg 1979
    Kloppenborg 1995
    Koch2010
    Kok 2015
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lake 1905
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-c
    LaVerdiere 1996
    Layton 1968
    Lectionary
    Lent-1
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent-2
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent-3
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent-4
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent-5
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Lincoln-1885
    Lindemann 1997
    Literary Character
    Liturgy
    Livesey 2012
    Long-2009
    Lord-1986
    Lord-1987
    Lord's Prayer
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Maccoull-1999
    Maier 1984
    Malachi
    Manuscripts
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Martyrdom Of John The Baptist
    Martyrs
    Mary Magdalene
    Mary Mother Of Our Lord
    Mason-1998
    Massaux 1993 (1950)
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mazza 1995
    Mazza-1996
    Mazza 1999
    Mbamalu 2014
    McDonald 1980
    McDonnell & Montague 1991
    McKean 2003
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Middleton 1935
    Milavec 1995
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec2012
    Miller 2019
    Missional
    Mitch-2010
    Mitchell 1995
    Molina-evers-1998
    Monday-in-holy-week
    Montenyohl-1993
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Mueller-2006
    Muilenburg 1929
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Neufeld-1999
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Niditch-1995
    Niditch 2003
    Niebuhr 1956
    Niederwimmer-1982
    Niederwimmer 1995
    Niederwimmer-1996
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Olsen-1986
    Ong-1987
    Ong-1988
    Ong-1995
    Oralit
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Pardee 1995
    Parks-1986
    Passionb
    Patterson 1995
    Pearce-1993
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost-14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost-15c
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost-16b
    Pentecost-16c
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost-17b
    Pentecost 17C
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost-18b
    Pentecost 18 C
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost-19b
    Pentecost 19 C
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost-20b
    Pentecost 20 C
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost-21b
    Pentecost 21 C
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost-22b
    Pentecost 22 C
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost-23b
    Pentecost 23 C
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost-24b
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost-25b
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost-26b
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost-2b
    Pentecost-2c
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost-3b
    Pentecost-3c
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost-4b
    Pentecost-4c
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost-5b
    Pentecost-5c
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost-6b
    Pentecost-6c
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost-7b
    Pentecost-7c
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost-8b
    Pentecost-8c
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost-9b
    Pentecost-9c
    Pentecost-b
    Pentecost-c
    Pentecost Eve
    Pentecost Monday
    Pentecost Sunday
    Pentecost Tuesday
    Petersen 1994
    Peterson2010
    Peterson 2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Picirilli 1988
    Pick 1908
    Pieper1924
    Pieper 1924
    Pieper 1968
    Piper 1947
    Powell 2000
    Prayer
    Preaching
    Presentation Of Our Lord
    Proctor 2019
    Proper-19c
    Proper-20c
    Proper 21C
    Proper 22C
    Proper 23C
    Proper 24C
    Proper 25C
    Proper 26C
    Proper 27C
    Proper 28C
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Psalms
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Rabbinic Character
    Real Presence
    Receptivity
    Reed 1995
    Reformation
    Reformation Day
    Reinhartz 2018
    Resurrection
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Rhoads 2010
    Richardson & Gooch 1984
    Riggs 1995
    Ritual Meal
    Romans
    Rordorf 1996
    Rosenberg 1986
    Rosenberg 1987
    Rosenfeld-levene-2012
    Rueger-2016
    Russo 1994
    Ruth
    Sacrament
    Sacrifice
    Saenger 1999
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Sale 1996
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 1886
    Schaff 1888
    Schaff 1889
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Schollgen
    Schwarz 2005
    Scriptural Usage
    Seeliger 1996
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Simon And Jude
    Smith-2009
    Smith 2018
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    St. Andrew
    Stark 1997
    St. Barnabas
    St. Bartholomew
    St. John
    St. John The Baptist
    St Luke
    St Mark
    St Matthew
    St. Matthias
    St Michael And All Angels
    St. Paul
    St. Peter And Paul
    St Philip And St James
    Strawbridge 2017
    St. Stephen
    St. Thomas
    St. Titus
    Sunday Of The Passion
    Tatian
    Taylor 1888
    TDNT
    Teaching
    Telfer 1939
    Tertullian
    Textual Comparison
    Textual Integrity
    Theophilos 2018
    Theophilus Of Antioch
    Thielman 2010
    Thursday In Holy Week
    Timothy
    Titus
    Transfiguration
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity 1
    Trinity 10
    Trinity 11
    Trinity 12
    Trinity 13
    Trinity 14
    Trinity 15
    Trinity 16
    Trinity 17
    Trinity 18
    Trinity 19
    Trinity 2
    Trinity 20
    Trinity 21
    Trinity 22
    Trinity 23
    Trinity 3
    Trinity 4
    Trinity 5
    Trinity 6
    Trinity 7
    Trinity 8
    Trinity 9
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Trinity Sunday
    Tsang 2009
    Tuckett
    Tuesday In Holy Week
    Tuilier 1995
    Twelftree 1984
    Two Ways
    Ty 19
    Van Der Merwe 2017
    Van Der Merwe 2019
    Van Der Watt 2008
    Van De Sandt 2002
    Van De Sandt 2007
    Van-de-sandt-2010
    Van-de-sandt-2011
    Van De Sandt & Flusser 2002
    Van Deventer 2021
    Varner 2005
    Vatican II
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Vikis-Freibergs 1997
    Visitation
    Voobus 1968
    Voobus 1969
    Warfield 1886
    Wasson & Toelken 1998
    Wednesday In Holy Week
    Wenham 1984
    Wenham 1992
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Wolmarans 2005
    Wright 1984
    Young 2011
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly