Search

In this new analysis of the Gospel of John, Kari Syreeni argues that the gospel is a heavily reworked edition of an earlier Johannine work, and that the original did not include Jesus'passion. Syreeni theorizes that the original gospel ended at Chapter 12, with the notion of Jesus'disappearance from the world, and that the passion narrative was incorporated by a later editor freely using the existing gospels of Mark and Matthew.Syreeni suggests that the letters of John - written after the predecessor gospels but before the final edition - reveal a schism in the Johannine community that was caused by the majority faction's acceptance of Jesus'death and resurrection, as it was then recorded in the new gospel. By exploring the gospel's different means of legitimizing the passion story, such as the creation of the'Beloved Disciple'to witness Jesus'passion, and the foreshadowing of the resurrection of Jesus in the miracle of Lazarus, Syreeni provides a bold and provocative case for a new understanding of John.

Irony (as used here) is a rhetorical and literary device for revealing “what is hidden behind what is seen.” It thus offers the reader a superior understanding by means of the distinction between reality and its shadow. The book provides a history of different definitions of irony, from Aristophanes to Booth; discusses the constitutive formal elements of irony and the functions of irony; then studies particular aspects of the Matthean Passion Narrative that require the reader to recognize a deeper truth beneath the surface of the narrative.

Reading the Old Testament was recognized as a classic almost from its date of publication in 1984. Without in any way diminishing its famed clarity, judiciousness, and theological depth, two prominent scholars, Richard Clifford and Daniel Harrington, have brought the book into the twenty-first century.

The goal of this redaction-critical investigation is to determine what in Luke 22 is special to Luke, to assess its origin, and to uncover Luke's purpose in using this material. Unlike earlier studies, Soards concentrates on lines of thought that link the chapter with the Gospel as a whole. The author's conclusion is that though Luke did not use a single coherent source other than Mark for this chapter, his diverse material was chosen in order to advance Luke's distinctive interests in Christology, eschatology and ecclesiology. Christologically, Jesus is shown as in charge of the Passion events and as the realization of a divine plan; eschatologically, the Passion is portrayed as inaugurating the era of the Last Days; ecclesiologically, Jesus's attitude to his disciples functions as instruction for Luke's readers about their role in God's plan.

For over a century New Testament scholars have explored the issue of possible antisemitism in Luke-Acts, especially because the author apparently blames the Jews for the death of Jesus. This monograph offers a fresh analysis of this question revealing a different emphasis: that among the Jews only those associated with Jerusalem, especially the Sanhedrin, are responsible for Jesus'death. Luke's Israel is in fact divided in response to Jesus, not monolithically opposed to him. Furthermore, the ascription of responsibility to the people of Jerusalem in Acts, widely regarded as a Lukan creation, in fact is more likely to have been based on sources independent of the synoptics. A consideration of ancient literature concerned with the deaths of innocent victims further suggests a likely'Sitz im Leben'for the transmission of material ascribing responsibility for Jesus'death.