Search

Although some commentators on Acts observe that a portion of Acts 26:16 borrows from LXX Ezek 2:1, the significance of this has not been grasped. The agreement belongs to a [...]

The Birkat ha-minim, the twelfth blessing in the Shemoneh Esreh or Eighteen Benedictions, has played an important role in some reconstructions of early Christian history. (1) In 1964, for example, [...]

I. The Lukan Intertext In Luke 9:52-56, Jesus sends messengers to a Samaritan village. There they find no welcome. James and John, indignant, react by asking Jesus, "Lord, do you [...]

Four arguments in defense of an eschatological Messianic conception of Jesus are advanced, following Albert Schweitzer's belief that scholars must either remain skeptical or accept such an eschatological Jesus. The alternative to a conception of Jesus, as possessing characteristics that distinguished the ancient Jewish apocalyptic seers, is to admit ignorance of the historical character of Jesus. However, the arguments for an eschatological Jesus are merely plausible ones, since certainty on this issue cannot be established.

Passion is the dominant theme of Matthew's Gospel. Though only chapters 26-28 directly indulge in passion narratives associated with Jesus' suffering and teaching, there are constant allusions to it right from the beginning of the collection, particularly in chapters 5:38-42; 10:17-23; 17:1-8 and 20:21. Joachim Gnilka has observed that the talk of flight, hatred, and persecution in verses in 10:23-24 is related to Jesus' passion. Since Matthew's story does not revolve around a central idea, passion as a dominant theme is illusive.

Bart D. Ehrman asserts that Simon Peter and Cephas were not the same person mainly based on Paul's use of both Peter and Cephas in Galatians 2:7-8. However, this position is contradicted by many facts and traditions associated with Peter and Cephas that match as well as a statement in John 1:42 when Jesus tells Peter he will be called Cephas. Also, the use of two personal names in Paul is not that uncommon a stylistic ploy and is used in Mark, Luke and other biblical literature. Therefore, Ehrman's evidence is easily outweighed by the overwhelming evidence that they are the same.

The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation, by Delbert Burkett. SNTSMS 107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. xiv + 176. $54.95. Given the current lack of concord [...]

By David E. Garland. Crossroad, New York, 1993. 269 pp. $27.50. ISBN 0-8245-1275-8. After many years of relative neglect, the Gospel of Matthew is finally receiving its just homage in [...]

by James G. Crossley Equinox, Sheffield, 2012. 248 pp. $99.95 (cloth). ISBN 978-1-908-04970-4. THE SCHOLARLY AND THE not-so-scholarly tend to construct Jesus in their own image. James Crossley does not [...]

by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter Westminster John Knox, Louisville, 2002.344 pp. $29.95. ISBN 0-664-22537-3. How DO WE KNOW WHAT Jesus really said and did? This book is a comprehensive [...]

Philodemus: On Frank Criticism, ed. David Konstan, Diskin Clay, Clarence E. Glad, Johan C. Thorn, and James Ware. Texts and Translations 43; Graeco-Roman 13. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Pp. xii [...]

Acres de l'apotre Philippe, by Frederic Amsler, Francois Bovon, and Bertrand Bouvier. Apocryphes: Collection de Poche de L'Aelac 8. Turnhout: Brepols, 1996. Pp. 318. N.P. (paper). This translation of and [...]