Search

In the article "Gospel Media: Reading, Writing, and Circulating Jesus Traditions," Elder argues that there was a diversity in the ways that literature was read, written, and circulated in the ancient world, including the Gospels. He challenges the notion that all reading in the ancient world was vocalized and communal, providing evidence for silent reading and solitary reading. Elder also examines the different ways in which the four canonical Gospels were composed and circulated, highlighting their distinct textual expressions and intended readerships. Overall, Elder's study challenges common assumptions about ancient media practices and offers new insights into the reading, writing, and circulation of the Gospels. [Extracted from the article]

The text is a book review of "Finding Phoebe: What New Testament Women Were Really Like" by Susan E. Hylen. The reviewer praises the book for challenging the view that women in the New Testament period were subordinate and unable to exercise authority. Hylen argues that women owned property, made decisions about it, and were active contributors to community life. The reviewer appreciates Hylen's accessible approach and pedagogical style, but suggests that more attention could have been given to the differing perspectives on women's roles in the New Testament. Overall, the book is recommended for its nuanced historical argument and its exploration of the complexities of the cultural world of the New Testament. [Extracted from the article]

"What Is a Gospel?" by Francis Watson is a collection of fourteen essays that challenge the traditional understanding of gospel literature. Watson argues that we should not read the canonical four gospels as categorically different from other non-canonical gospels. He emphasizes the continuity between the canonical and non-canonical gospels and explores the composition and reception of gospel literature. While Watson's methodological approach is important, there are still unanswered historical questions and some of his proposals seem unnecessarily complicated. Overall, "What Is a Gospel?" is a valuable resource for anyone studying the New Testament and the early Jesus movement. [Extracted from the article]

The discussion of the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus has focused in recent years almost completely on the conceptual agreement or disagreement between the two figures-that is, how their ideas or "theologies" were similar or different. As important as that question is, this article looks at Jesus's relationship to John from a different angle, concentrating on actions and public perceptions. My argument is this: if we grant that Jesus's career started in the shadow of John's earlier and more popular ministry, that John did not point to Jesus publicly as the fulfillment or continuation of his work, and that Jesus's itinerant ministry developed in a different social location, it is likely that Jesus had to construct for his hearers his relationship to John. This investigation leads to a striking conclusion: the kinds of questions about Jesus's relationship to John that dominate current Jesus research were probably also around during the time of Jesus. The conclusion illuminates our understanding of the public identity of Jesus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For centuries exegetes have struggled to explain why Matthew presents two animals in the triumphal entry—a female ὄνος and her πῶλος—while all the other Gospels only have one (a πῶλος). The question is further complicated by the fact that the Scripture Matthew cites as fulfilled in this action—Zech. 9:9—also presents only one animal in all extant versions. So what is the historical or exegetical reason for Matthew's addition? While many have argued that Matthew's presentation stems from a misreading of the poetic parallelism in Zech. 9:9, this essay contends that Matthew's doubling of Mark's single πῶλος is the result of messianic exegesis. The argument is that Matthew or Matthew's tradition has read Zech. 9:9 alongside another famous messianic oracle, Jacob's blessing of Judah in Gen. 49:10–11, and that the doubling of the donkeys stems from a likely mistaken—though completely understandable—reading of the Hebrew text. The essay further shows that Matthew's use of Gen. 49 and Zech. 9 in the triumphal entry scene makes good sense in light of the interests of the Gospel as a whole as well as exegetical tradition that stems from these passages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century it was common to regard the unique conclusion to the Johannine account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand (6.15) as one of the most important episodes in Jesus' public career. This view has all but disappeared from current Jesus research. This article revisits, challenges and ultimately reframes this thesis with the help of some recent developments in historical method in Jesus studies. The argument is this: even if the exact scenario in Jn 6.14-15 is not historical, the episode captures an important political dimension to Jesus' activities that probably is historical and can illuminate other events in his life as well. Historians were right to highlight Jn 6.14-15, if perhaps for the wrong reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most modern commentaries and translations of the Gospel of John take John 6.52 to read: 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' There is, however, an important variant reading here that lacks the αὐτοῦ (thus: 'How can this man give us flesh to eat?'), which has received very little attention. This article contends that the shorter reading creates yet another example of Johannine dramatic irony, as the contempt of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι for Jesus' teaching echoes the unbelief of the wilderness generation who were 'given flesh to eat' along with the manna. The article tentatively concludes that this intertextual reading advances the 'internal probability' of the shorter text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In both Matthew and Luke, Satan offers Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world" in exchange for his obeisance. Only in Luke, however, does Satan make an intriguing claim about his "authority" over the kingdoms and his prerogative to "give" such "to whomever he wishes" (4:6). Richard Hays lamented in his recent Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels that this unique detail has not been given thorough attention in exegetical studies of Luke-Acts. This study takes up the question of Satan's claim in detail and suggests that Satan's words are informed by a phrase that appears multiple times in the book of Daniel: "the Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of mortals and gives it to whomever he wishes." This intertextuality is important for the larger narrative of Luke-Acts in two respects. First, it presses the question of whether, from the perspective of the larger narrative, Satan's claim is truthful. The article concludes that an answer to that question is not immediately clear; the narrative permits varied readings. Secondly, it is argued that the Danielic background of Luke 4:6 intensifies the Christological drama of the narrative. Jesus is here tested with what is legitimately his as Daniel's "Son of Man," and we soon find that he will receive such not from the hand of Satan but from obedience to God. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historical Jesus research has traditionally concentrated on reconstructing Jesus’ intentions and discerning his views on particular topics. That is especially true when it comes to the question of Jesus’ relationship to the law of Moses. The dominant question driving scholarly discussion is this: What did Jesus think and teach in respect to the law? While the attempt to answer that question is important and should continue, I contend that a narrow focus on Jesus’ thoughts and intentions struggles to account for the extent of controversy surrounding Jesus in his ministry. That controversy is better explained on the grounds that Jesus had developed the perception in some quarters of being a radical and a lawbreaker, even though we can be confident, as much of modem scholarship has shown us, that he aimed to uphold the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores biblical teachings of Matthew when Jesus Comes to Jerusalem as King. Topics include that Matthew's exegesis has confounded Christian exegetes because it appears that both Gen 49:11 and Zech 9:9, in original contexts, as Matthew has read cases of synonymous parallelism as references to two separate animals. It also highlights that the fact that Christ stands at the center of Matthew's understanding of the world is precisely what permits him to see old things in new way.

This article contributes to the study of Luke's use of Israel's Scripture by suggesting that the Third Evangelist has shaped the triumphal entry of Jesus to evoke and subvert a famous oracle of Jerusalem's restoration, Isaiah 52. The upshot is a striking reversal of expectations: the long-awaited εὐαγγελιζόμενος on the Mount of Olives with his message of peace here weeps and prophesies the destruction of the city because of its failure to recognize 'the time of visitation.' The argument finds support in the narrative function of Isaiah in the larger context of Luke-Acts, otherwise clear interpretative strategies and assumptions in the immediate context, the role of Isaiah 52 in Luke's interpretative milieu, and some rather striking corroboration in the history of interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, and others thought that the titulus crucis was an ironic divine decree that recalled Ps 2:6: "I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill." Although this reading is no longer mentioned in modern commentaries on Matthew, this article attempts to demonstrate that it is, in fact, quite plausible, given larger Matthean themes. The argument begins by suggesting that Matthew's passion narrative and crucifixion scene frequently recall the enthronement scenario in Ps 2:6-8-including the opposition to God and God's Messiah in vv. 1-3. Then it suggests that Matthew makes the crucifixion the climax of the opposition to Jesus as described in Psalm 2 and shapes the titulus into an ironic proclamation of the kingship of Jesus. The article thus concludes that Origen's proposed linkage between Psalm 2 and Matthew's inscription can be defended intratextually, if not intertextually. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The attempt to identify the obscure "son of God" figure in 4Q246 often begins with discussion of the structure of the fragment and the background of the titles employed. This article suggests there are problems with both approaches and offers an alternative: an examination of biblical naming traditions and a rhetorical analysis of the way in which the figure "is called" the son of God in i 9 and ii 1. It concludes that the "son" is probably identified positively given the fragment's similarity with positive naming traditions in the biblical text, as well as its dissimilarity with other examples of Jewish and Christian polemic. Further, it is probable that the divine naming of the figure participates in a widespread messianic topos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article defends the rarely encountered suggestion that Matthew's insertion of "Jesus" in the titulus (27:37) recalls the word of the Angel to Joseph: "You will call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (1:21). The reading has precedent in the work of John Gill but is altogether absent from Matthew commentaries and mentioned only in passing in a select few exegetical studies. The structure of Matthew's gospel, components of his form and style, the narrative shape of his crucifixion scene, and his attempt to associate the death of Jesus with the forgiveness of sins, all suggest that "Jesus" on the titulus is more significant than hitherto realized. Like the fulfillment of Scripture in the casting of lots and the words of mockery from the passersby, the inscription unwittingly witnesses to Jesus as the Savior of his people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study of Josephus' interpretation of the Bible has focused on the paraphrase in Antiquities, but Josephus continued to engage Scripture in his post-biblical history. This article contends that Josephus, like the authors of the synoptic gospels and later Jewish exegetes, saw the events of 66-70 C.E. through the lens of Jeremiah's temple sermon (7:1-34). The accounts of Jesus ben Ananias and Josephus' speech before the city walls, among other examples, show recourse to Jeremiah 7. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Matthew's version of Peter's confession, the disciple says to Jesus, 'You are the Christ the Son of the living God,' and Jesus responds, 'Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven' (16:16-17). In the history of interpretation these two verses have been used in debates about the Trinity, Christology, revelation, and personal salvation. This intriguing history has not been properly documented by scholars, since reception histories have focused on the re-naming of Peter as 'the rock' (vv. 18-19) and the feud between Protestants and Catholics over the papacy during the Reformation. This paper explores the forgotten exegesis of vv. 16-17 from the patristic to the modern period, organizing readers synchronically in terms of what they believe Peter meant by his confession (v. 16) as well as their explanation of why Jesus blessed Peter (v. 17). While primarily descriptive, the article shows how exegesis of Matt. 16:16-17 highlights theological debates unique to the time of each thinker, exposes the creativity of interpretive methods, and replicates the logic of larger theological systems in miniature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many who argue that Jesus was a herald of Israel's eschatological restoration have also suggested that he expected the ingathering of the exiles. Studies of John the Baptist have typically focused on his warnings of the coming judgment and his predictions of 'the coming one', thus leaving aside the possibility that John's baptism and message also signaled the ingathering of the exiles. Further, scholars have largely ignored the import of Isa. 40 in the ministry of John, which was frequently read in the Second Temple period as a prophecy of the return of the exiles at the end of time. It is the contention of this article that Isa. 40 provides an interpretive framework for John's activities, indicating that his baptism was not just a symbol of the coming judgment but also of Israel's restoration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]