scholarly journals Op die voetspoor van Harold Henry Rowley (1890-1969)

1994 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
I. J.J. Spangenberg
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
Academic Career ◽  
Biblical Theology ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Critical Research ◽  
The Road ◽  
Biblical Scholarship ◽  
Critical Method ◽  
The Church

On the trail of Harold Heniy Rowley (1890-1969) H H Rowley can he described as an enigmatic Old Testament scholar. Hailed as one of the leading Old Testament biblical theologians of the forties and fifties, he was also criticized for his ‘middle-of-the-road’ conclusions. This article takes a brief look at his academic career and biblical scholarship, it is argued that he is an exponent of the biblical theology movement in his attempts to reconcile the results of the historical- critical method with the traditional creeds of Christianity. Unfortunately he was not very successful because he did not regard the results of New Testament historical-critical research seriously. He was reluctant to admit that there was a difference between the historical Jesus and Christ as proclaimed by the church. Perhaps there are a few lessons to be learned from his timidity.

The Church of the Reigning Lord

1948 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-73
Author(s):  
R. Stuart Louden
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Biblical Scholarship ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Pauline Epistles ◽  
History Of ◽  
Four Square ◽  
The Church

We can trace a revival of theology in the Reformed Churches in the last quarter of a century. The new theological interest merits being called a revival of theology, for there has been a fresh and more thorough attention given to certain realities, either ignored or treated with scant notice for a considerable time previously.First among such realities now receiving more of the attention which their relevance and authority deserve, is the Bible, the record of the Word of God. There is an invigorating and convincing quality about theology which is Biblical throughout, being based on the witness of the Scriptures as a whole. The valuable results of careful Biblical scholarship had had an adverse effect on theology in so far as theologians had completely separated the Old Testament from the New in their treatment of Biblical doctrine, or in expanding Christian doctrine, had spoken of the theological teaching of the Synoptic Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the Johannine writings, and so on, as if there were no such thing as one common New Testament witness. It is being seen anew that the Holy Scriptures contain a complete history of God's saving action. The presence of the complete Bible open at the heart of the Church, recalls each succeeding Christian generation to that one history of God's saving action, to which the Church is the living witness. The New Testament is one, for its Lord is one, and Christian theology must stand four-square on the foundation of its whole teaching.

scholarly journals Van Christologie tot Jesulogie? Teologiese gesprek met Sakkie Spangenberg na aanleiding van sy boek Jesus van Nasaret (2009)

2012 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan H. Van Wyk
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
Scientific Study ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The Church

Spangenberg het ’n boeiende boek oor Jesus van Nasaret geskryf waarin hy aandag skenk aan onder meer (vermeende) Ou-Testamentiese agtergronde, om daarna veral dieper in te gaan op verskeie Nuwe-Testamentiese perspektiewe op Jesus. Hy het tot die konklusie gekom dat die onderskeie Nuwe-Testamentiese skrywers elk ’n eie perspektief op Jesus ontwikkel het, perspektiewe wat mekaar soms weerspreek. In elk geval was daar ’n groot verskil tussen die historiese Jesus van Nasaret en die dogmatiese Jesus van die kerklike belydenis. In die kerklike dogma is Jesus vergoddelik, iets wat Hy nooit was of wou wees nie. Die ware Jesus was niemand anders nie as ’n Joodse profeet en wysheidsleermeester. Spangenberg kom tot hierdie gevolgtrekking op grond van wat hy noem ‘wetenskaplike studie’ en ’n radikaal-kritiese omgang met die Bybel. In hierdie artikel is sowel die filosofiese vertrekpunte as die teologiese konklusies van Spangenberg krities bespreek en bevraagteken.From Christology to Jesuology? Theological discussion with Sakkie Spangenberg with reference to his book Jesus van Nasareth (2009). Spangenberg wrote a riveting book on Jesus of Nazareth in which he paid attention to inter alia (alleged) Old Testament background and then proceeded to a more in-depth investigation into several New Testament perspectives on Jesus. He came to the conclusion that the different New Testament authors each developed their own perspective on Jesus, perspectives which were sometimes contradictory. He found a huge difference between the historical Jesus of Nazareth and the dogmatic Jesus of the church confessions. In this church tenet Jesus was deified, something He was not, neither wanted to be. The true Jesus was none other than a Jewish prophet and wisdom teacher. Spangenberg reached this conclusion on the basis of what he called ‘scientific’ study and a radically critical way of dealing with the Bible. In this article both the philosophical points of departure and the theological conclusions of Spangenberg were discussed and queried critically.

scholarly journals De opstanding van Jezus volgens Jozef Ratzinger/Benedictus XVI

2014 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wim J.C. Weren
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
The Body ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Biblical Scholarship ◽  
Current State ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
The Way

The resurrection of Jesus according to Jozef Ratzinger/Benedictus XVI. As a follow-up to my earlier article in HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies (‘The Pope’s Jesus book and the Christologies of the gospels’ [2011]), this contribution concerning the Jesus trilogy by Jozef Ratzinger will discuss the idea he presents of Jesus’ resurrection and how his view should be assessed from the perspective of the current state of affairs in biblical scholarship. In addition, this article articulates a number of proposals that can take the discussion a step further. In that context, the following questions are dealt with: What is meant when we speak about the body of the risen Jesus? Are there – except for terms like ‘to raise from the dead’ or ‘to rise up’ – other formulas used in the New Testament to describe the fundamental reversal after Jesus’ death? Can Ratzinger’s biased focus upon the concept of ‘resurrection’ be expanded on the basis of other Old Testament models of thought or faith paradigms that can help us to understand that Jesus, through the agency of God, has come to share in a life that is no longer limited by death? What factors played a role in the origin of the belief in Jesus’ resurrection? This article shows that Ratzinger too strongly emphasises continuity between the historical Jesus and a number of New Testament Christologies and the way in which they were crystallised in later ecclesiastical dogmatic formulations.

Revelation, Tradition, and Inspiration

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald O’Collins, SJ
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
Holy Spirit ◽  
The Self ◽  
Divine Revelation ◽  
Self Disclosure ◽  
Present Experience ◽  
Living Tradition ◽  
The Church

This chapter spells out the complex interrelationship between the divine self-revelation, the tradition that transmits the prophetic and apostolic experience of that revelation, and the writing of the inspired Scriptures. Primarily, revelation involves the self-disclosure of the previously and mysteriously unknown God. Secondarily, it brings the communication of hitherto unknown truths about God. Revelation is a past, foundational reality (completed with the missions of the Son and Holy Spirit), a present experience, and a future hope. Responding with faith to divine revelation, the Old Testament (prophetic) and then New Testament (apostolic) witnesses initiated the living tradition from which came the inspired Scriptures. Tradition continues to transmit, interpret, and apply the Scriptures in the life of the Church.

Canons to the Left of Him: Brevard Childs, his Critics, and the Future of Old Testament Theology

1997 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain Provan
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Biblical Theology ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Probable Origin ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Church

It is well known that the seeds from which the modern discipline of OT theology grew are already found in 17th and 18th century discussion of the relationship between Bible and Church, which tended to drive a wedge between the two, regarding canon in historical rather than theological terms; stressing the difference between what is transient and particular in the Bible and what is universal and of abiding significance; and placing the task of deciding which is which upon the shoulders of the individual reader rather than upon the church. Free investigation of the Bible, unfettered by church tradition and theology, was to be the way ahead. OT theology finds its roots more particularly in the 18th century discussion of the nature of and the relationship between Biblical Theology and Dogmatic Theology, and in particular in Gabler's classic theoreticalstatementof their nature and relationship. The first book which may strictly be called an OT theology appeared in 1796: an historical discussion of the ideas to be found in the OT, with an emphasis on their probable origin and the stages through which Hebrew religious thought had passed, compared and contrasted with the beliefs of other ancient peoples, and evaluated from the point of view of rationalistic religion. Here we find the unreserved acceptance of Gabler's principle that OT theology must in the first instance be a descriptive and historical discipline, freed from dogmatic constraints and resistant to the premature merging of OT and NT — a principle which in the succeeding century was accepted by writers across the whole theological spectrum, including those of orthodox and conservative inclination.

Charismata: Gifts, Enablements, or Ministries?

2002 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-69
Author(s):  
Benny Aker
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Spiritual Gifts ◽  
Biblical Theology ◽  
Church Culture ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
The One ◽  
The Church

AbstractIn the midst of a growing awareness of spiritual gifts in contemporary church culture and in the academy, much confusion exists. The use of the term 'charismata' promotes this confusion and is not an appropriate label for the biblical evidence of such activity. The problem lies in a deficient linguistic and exegetical handling of this term—a problem identified by James Barr long ago and brought to the fore by Kenneth Berding. Proper exegesis overcomes this prevalent exegetical and linguistic fallacy and suggests another term, diakonia. However, a more foundational conception of both the church and ministry is lacking. By analyzing Pauline anthropol ogy in Romans, an enduring and foundational model for gifts and ministries emerges. This model is the Pauline conception of the church as God's tem ple. People who are delivered from sin's power through identifying with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection and who have the Spirit are free to give themselves both as sacrifice and temple servants in spiritual ministries. One other caution is raised and discussed. One must avoid the charge in practice and theology of Spirit-monism. Basic structures of the New Testament always place Jesus as the One through whom the Spirit comes. Conse quently, all Spirit activity must in some way be christological and sote riological in nature. Some contemporary applications are derived from this biblical theology of Church and ministry.

scholarly journals Teologia kapłaństwa i urzędu kapłańskiego w I wieku chrześcijaństwa

2010 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 101
Author(s):  
Dariusz Kasprzak
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Holy Spirit ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Good News ◽  
New Covenant ◽  
Christian Communities ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
The Church

Neither the Apostles nor any Christian minister is admitted to use the priest’s title in the text of the New Testament. Nevertheless, in the New Testament we can perceive the development of the doctrine of the priest ministry in the early Church. Albert Vanhoye maintains that the lack of the term “priest” in the New Testament suggests the way of understanding of the Christian ministry, different from this in the Old Testament. It can’t be considered as a continuation of Jewish priesthood, which was concentrated mainly on ritual action and ceremonies. In the first century the Church developed the Christology of priesthood (Hbr) and ecclesiology of priesthood (1 P). Early Christians focused first on the redemptive event of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice and Jesus as the mediator of a new covenant. Only then the religious communities adopted the priest’s title for their ministry.In the early years of the Church, all the ministries were regarded as a charismatic service among the Christian communities. In their services the early Christians followed Jesus Christ sent by God to serve. The Holy Spirit sent by God in the name of Jesus bestowed the spiritual gifts upon the Church (1 Kor 12–13). Consequently the disciples of Jesus and their successors could continue his mission. The Twelve Apostles’ ministry was the very first and most important Christian ministry. It was closely connected to the service of Jesus Christ himself. The Apostles were sent by the authority of Jesus Christ to continue his mission upon earth and they preached the Good News of the risen Christ. The Apostolicity was the fundamental base for every Church ministry established in different Christian communities. Successive ministries were established in order to transmit the teaching of Jesus Christ and to lead the community. For the early Christians the priesthood was not an individual privilege. It had rather the community character.

THE CANONICAL FUNCTION OF 2 PETER

2001 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Wall
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Biblical Theology ◽  
Historical Criticism ◽  
1 Peter ◽  
Biblical Scholarship ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
Theological Perspective ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
The Status ◽  
2 Peter

AbstractDuring the modern period, the authority of 2 Peter for Christian theological formation has been challenged by the reconstructions of historical criticism. The verdict of biblical scholarship has been largely negative: the theological conception of 2 Peter comes from a person and for a setting that does not easily cohere with the rest of the New Testament writings. The present essay seeks to rehabilitate the status of 2 Peter for use in biblical theology, independent of the historical problem it poses for the interpreter, by approaching its theological subject matter within the setting of the New Testament canon, where its theological perspective functions as complementary to and integral with 1 Peter in forming Scripture's Petrine witness to the faith.

Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Old Testament

2009 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Capetz
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
New Testament ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
Friedrich Schleiermacher ◽  
Christian Religion ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Critical Scholarship ◽  
Critical Method ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Historical Investigation

In the nineteenth century the unrestricted application of the historical-critical method posed an unprecedented challenge to inherited Christian notions about the Bible. While this challenge was eventually to be felt most acutely in the study of the New Testament (nt) once the distinction between the “Jesus of history” and the “Christ of faith” had firmly established itself, traditional viewpoints on the Old Testament (ot) were actually the first to be called into question. As a consequence of historical investigation, it became increasingly difficult for theologians to claim that the gospel is already taught in the ot. Regarding this matter, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) made a bold proposal. He argued against the canonical standing of the ot on the grounds that it expresses Jewish, not Christian, religion. For him this conclusion was the unavoidable result of the advancing critical scholarship that was undermining the christological exegesis used to defend the church's claim to the ot against the synagogue's counter-claim to its sole rightful possession. Opposing such “christianizing” readings, Schleiermacher broke ranks from Christian theologians and championed the side of the Jews in this historic debate. His only predecessors in this regard were Marcion and the Socinians, although his proposal for relegating the ot to noncanonical status was later endorsed by Adolf von Harnack.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document