Introduction: Reading the History of New Testament and Christian Origins Scholarship

2014 ◽  
pp. 19-35
1954 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-149
Author(s):  
E. L. Allen

It was the merit of the Tübingen school that it recognized that controversy was no late arrival in the history of the Christian Church, but that the earliest stages of its development were marked, perhaps marred, by it. Where that school erred was in supposing that the books of the New Testament can be placed out at the various stages of the conflict, so that between them they yield a picture of the course it took. Where today an attempt is made to learn from their work, it is admitted that the New Testament is much less a record of the clash between Jerusalem and Paul than a selection from the literature of the Gentile Church, Pauline or non-Pauline, with Jerusalem not directly represented. Hence, when Hans Joachim Schoeps wishes to do justice to the defeated party, he has to have recourse very largely to extra-canonical sources.1 S. G. F. Brandon, with the same end in view,2 has to resort again and again to conjecture to fill out the scanty evidence available. All our reconstructions of Christian origins are vitiated by the fact that we have so little material from the Mother Church.


1982 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 303-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. G. Dunn

Students of the New Testament will be familiar with the influential hypothesis from the first half of this century usually known as the Gnostic redeemer myth. This was the thesis, associated particularly with the name of R. Bultmann, that already in the pre-Christian period there was a widely held belief in a divine figure who came down from heaven and assumed human form in order to redeem the souls of men trapped within human bodies. They will also be aware that while Bultmann's thesis has come under heavy attack and is not widely held today, there are those who still attempt to argue for it, though usually in a substantially modified form. My purpose in this paper is to draw attention to one of the side-effects of this whole debate, an important side-effect which has not been given the attention it deserves. For it is my belief that the quest of the Gnostic redeemer myth within pre-Christian traditions, and the debate thereby stirred up, havetogetherconfused the history of Christology' beginings, particularly in the key issue of Christ's relation with God. Although principally concerned with soteriology, the discussion roused by the hypothesis of the Gnostic redeemer myth has raised the question of Christianity'sthelogy(in the narrower sense of that term). In other words, it forces students of Christian origins to askwhether Christianity began as a departure from Jewish monotheism, whether Christianity was in fact a monotheistic faith from the beginning.


1967 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 317-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernst Bammel

Scholars who set out to clarify a particular issue can proceed along one of two different lines: either they can scrutinize the existing sources critically or they can compass land and sea to discover new sources. As the former procedure is the established one so far as Christian origins are concerned and as it is indeed advisable since the New Testament sources are something apart, it may easily be understood that some more radical minds should venture to explore the other course. Voltaire was one of these. He urged his correspondent to consult the Jewish Toledoth Jeshu as they stem from the first century and contain ‘des choses beaucoup plus vraisemblables que dans nos évangiles’. Other men followed in his steps. But attempts to write a history of Jesus based on the Jewish reports and centred on details related by them—attempts made by some rare birds of the last century—were bound to prove unsuccessful. Jewish scholarship was quick to realize this and to dissociate itself from the Toledoth (and other material) as from absurdities or a ‘Schmarren’—something like a penny-dreadful—not worth looking at. There the matter rested.


2011 ◽  
Vol 45 (2/3) ◽  
Author(s):  
H.F. Van Rooy

The messianic interpretation of the psalms in a number of Antiochene and East Syriac psalm commentariesThe Antiochene exegetes interpreted the psalms against the backdrop of the history of Israel. They reconstructed a historical setting for each psalm. They reacted against the allegorical interpretation of the Alexandrian School that frequently interpreted the psalms from the context of the New Testament. This article investigates the messianic interpretation of Psalms 2 and 110, as well as the interpretation of Psalm 22, frequently regarded as messianic in non-Antiochene circles. The interpretation of these psalms in the commentaries of Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Išô`dâdh of Merv will be discussed, as well as the commentary of Denha-Gregorius, an abbreviated Syriac version of the commentary of Theodore. The commentaries of Diodore and Theodore on Psalm 110 are not available. The interpretation of this psalm in the Syriac commentary discussed by Vandenhoff and the commentary of Išô`dâdh of Merv, both following Antiochene exegesis, will be used for this psalm. The historical setting of the psalms is used as hermeneutical key for the interpretation of all these psalms. All the detail in a psalm is interpreted against this background, whether messianic or not. Theodore followed Diodore and expanded on him. Denha-Gregorius is an abbreviated version of Theodore, supplemented with data from the Syriac. Išô`dâdh of Merv used Theodore as his primary source, but with the same kind of supplementary data from the Syriac.


2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-43
Author(s):  
Sidney K. Ohlhausen

Robert Witham (1667–1738) was the seventh son of a prominent Yorkshire Catholic Recusant family. Little is known about his early life. He studied at Douay, where he was ordained a priest circa 1691, and remained as a teacher until circa 1698. He returned to England to serve as a priest in Cliffe and was promoted in 1711 to Vicar General of England’s Northern District. In 1714 he was appointed the twelfth president of Douay. He assumed the position in 1715 and remained there until his death. In administering Douay, he was faced with an unrelenting demand for the most resourceful diplomacy. He had to keep satisfied his superiors and benefactors in England and Rome, and deal with the liberalizing influences of French institutions. In addition, he was confronted with a series of financial crises, including the forfeiture of Catholic estates that followed the unsuccessful Stuart rising of 1715, followed by the ‘Mississippi Bubble’ that devastated the French economy and cost Douay most of its endowment. The frustrations of what he termed this ‘troublesome office’, caused him on three occasions to offer his resignation. Nonetheless, Witham proved to be one of Douay’s most successful presidents, sometimes considered its ‘second founder’, eliminating the College debt, increasing the number of students, and beginning an ambitious building programme.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document