|
Showing 1 - 14 of
14 matches in All Departments
This volume brings together an international group of scholars on
Mark and Paul, respectively, who reopen the question whether Paul
was a direct influence on Mark. On the basis of the latest methods
in New Testament scholarship, the battle over Yes and No to this
question of literary and theological influence is waged within
these pages. In the end, no agreement is reached, but the basic
issues stand out with much greater clarity than before. How may one
relate two rather different literary genres, the apostolic letter
and the narrative gospel? How may the theologies of two such
different types of writing be compared? Are there sufficient
indications that Paul lies directly behind Mark for us to conclude
that through Paul himself and Mark the New Testament as a whole
reflects specifically Pauline ideas? What would the literary and
theological consequences of either assuming or denying a direct
influence be for our reconstruction of 1st century Christianity?
And what would the consequences be for either understanding Mark or
Paul as literary authors and theologians? How far should we give
Paul an exalted a position in the literary creativity of the first
Christians? Addressing these questions are scholars who have
already written seminally on the issue or have marked positions on
it, like Joel Marcus, Margaret Mitchell, Gerd Theissen and Oda
Wischmeyer, together with a group of up-coming and senior Danish
scholars from Aarhus and Copenhagen Universities who have
collaborated on the issue for some years. The present volume leads
the discussion further that has been taken up in: "Paul and Mark"
(ed. by O. Wischmeyer, D. Sim, and I. Elmer), BZNW 191, 2013.
An up-to-date discussion of early Christian paraenesis in its
Graeco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish contexts in the light of one
hundred years of scholarship, issuing from a research project by
Nordic and international scholars. The concept of paraenesis is
basic to New Testament scholarship but hardly anywhere else. How is
that to be explained? The concept is also, notoriously, without any
agreed-upon definition and it is even contested. Can it at all be
salvaged? This volume reassesses the scholarly discussion of
paraenesis - both the concept and the phenomenon - since Paul
Wendland and Martin Dibelius and argues for a number of ways in
which it may continue to be fruitful.
Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul challenges the traditional
reading of Paul. Troels Engberg-Pedersen argues that the usual,
mainly cognitive and metaphorical, ways of understanding central
Pauline concepts, such as 'being in Christ', 'having God's pneuma
(spirit), Christ's pneuma, and Christ himself in one', must be
supplemented by a literal understanding that directly reflects
Paul's cosmology.
Engberg-Pedersen shows that Paul's cosmology, not least his
understanding of the pneuma, was a materialist, bodily one: the
pneuma was a physical element that would at the resurrection act
directly on the ordinary human bodies of believers and transform
them into 'pneumatic bodies'. This literal understanding of the
future events is then traced back to the Pauline present as
Engberg-Pedersen considers how Paul conceived in bodily terms of a
range of central themes like his own conversion, his mission, the
believers' reception of the pneuma in baptism, and the way the
apostle took the pneuma to inform his own and their ways of life
from the beginning to the projected end.
In developing this picture of Paul's world view, an explicitly
philosophically oriented form of interpretation ('philosophical
exegesis') is employed, in which the interpreter applies categories
of interpretation that make sense philosophically, whether in an
ancient or a modern context. For this enterprise Engberg-Pedersen
draws in particular on ancient Stoic materialist and monistic
physics and cosmology - as opposed to the Platonic, immaterialist
and dualistic categories that underlie traditional readings of Paul
- and on modern ideas on 'religious experience', 'self', 'body' and
'practice' derived from Foucault and Bourdieu. In this way Paul is
shown to have spelled out philosophically his Jewish, 'apocalyptic'
world view, which remains a central feature of his thought.
The book states the cosmological case for the author's earlier
'ethical' reading of Paul in his prize-winning book, Paul and the
Stoics (2000).
From Stoicism to Platonism describes the change in philosophy from
around 100 BCE, when monistic Stoicism was the strongest dogmatic
school in philosophy, to around 100 CE, when dualistic Platonism
began to gain the upper hand - with huge consequences for all later
Western philosophy and for Christianity. It is distinguished by
querying traditional categories like 'eclecticism' and
'harmonization' as means of describing the period. Instead, it
highlights different strategies of 'appropriation' of one school's
doctrines by philosophers from the other school, with all
philosophers being highly conscious of their own identity. The book
also sets out to break down the traditional boundaries between, on
the one hand, the study of Greco-Roman philosophy in the period
and, on the other hand, that of contemporary Hellenistic Jewish and
early Christian writings with a philosophical profile. In these
ways, the book opens up an immensely fruitful period in the history
of philosophy.
From Stoicism to Platonism describes the change in philosophy from
around 100 BCE, when monistic Stoicism was the strongest dogmatic
school in philosophy, to around 100 CE, when dualistic Platonism
began to gain the upper hand - with huge consequences for all later
Western philosophy and for Christianity. It is distinguished by
querying traditional categories like 'eclecticism' and
'harmonization' as means of describing the period. Instead, it
highlights different strategies of 'appropriation' of one school's
doctrines by philosophers from the other school, with all
philosophers being highly conscious of their own identity. The book
also sets out to break down the traditional boundaries between, on
the one hand, the study of Greco-Roman philosophy in the period
and, on the other hand, that of contemporary Hellenistic Jewish and
early Christian writings with a philosophical profile. In these
ways, the book opens up an immensely fruitful period in the history
of philosophy.
John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel offers a
Stoic reading of the Fourth Gospel, especially its cosmology,
epistemology, and ethics. It works through the gospel in narrative
sequence providing a 'philosophical narrative reading'. In each
section of the gospel Troels Engberg-Pedersen raises discusses
philosophical questions. He compares John with Paul (in philosophy)
and Mark (in narrative) to offer a new reading of the transmitted
text of the Fourth Gospel. Of these two profiles, the narrative one
is strongly influenced by the literary critical paradigm. Moreover,
by attending carefully to a number of narratological features, one
may come to see that the transmitted text in fact hangs together
much more coherently than scholarship has been willing to see. The
other profile is specifically philosophical. Scholarship has been
well aware that the Fourth Gospel has what one might call a
philosophical dimension. Engberg-Pedersen shows that throughout the
Gospel contemporary Stoicism, works better to illuminate the text.
This pertains to the basic cosmology (and cosmogony) that is
reflected in the text, to the epistemology that underlies a central
theme in it regarding different types of belief in Jesus, to the
ethics that is introduced fairly late in the text when Jesus
describes how the disciples should live once he has himself gone
away from them, and more.
Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul challenges the traditional
reading of Paul. Troels Engberg-Pedersen argues that the usual,
mainly cognitive and metaphorical, ways of understanding central
Pauline concepts, such as 'being in Christ', 'having God's pneuma
(spirit), Christ's pneuma, and Christ himself in one', must be
supplemented by a literal understanding that directly reflects
Paul's cosmology. Engberg-Pedersen shows that Paul's cosmology, not
least his understanding of the pneuma, was a materialist, bodily
one: the pneuma was a physical element that would at the
resurrection act directly on the ordinary human bodies of believers
and transform them into 'pneumatic bodies'. This literal
understanding of the future events is then traced back to the
Pauline present as Engberg-Pedersen considers how Paul conceived in
bodily terms of a range of central themes like his own conversion,
his mission, the believers' reception of the pneuma in baptism, and
the way the apostle took the pneuma to inform his own and their
ways of life from the beginning to the projected end. In developing
this picture of Paul's world view, an explicitly philosophically
oriented form of interpretation ('philosophical exegesis') is
employed, in which the interpreter applies categories of
interpretation that make sense philosophically, whether in an
ancient or a modern context. For this enterprise Engberg-Pedersen
draws in particular on ancient Stoic materialist and monistic
physics and cosmology - as opposed to the Platonic, immaterialist
and dualistic categories that underlie traditional readings of Paul
- and on modern ideas on 'religious experience', 'self', 'body' and
'practice' derived from Foucault and Bourdieu. In this way Paul is
shown to have spelled out philosophically his Jewish, 'apocalyptic'
world view, which remains a central feature of his thought. The
book states the cosmological case for the author's earlier
'ethical' reading of Paul in his prize-winning book, Paul and the
Stoics (2000).
John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel offers a
Stoic reading of the Fourth Gospel, especially its cosmology,
epistemology, and ethics. It works through the gospel in narrative
sequence providing a 'philosophical narrative reading'. In each
section of the gospel Troels Engberg-Pedersen raises discusses
philosophical questions. He compares John with Paul (in philosophy)
and Mark (in narrative) to offer a new reading of the transmitted
text of the Fourth Gospel. Of these two profiles, the narrative one
is strongly influenced by the literary critical paradigm. Moreover,
by attending carefully to a number of narratological features, one
may come to see that the transmitted text in fact hangs together
much more coherently than scholarship has been willing to see. The
other profile is specifically philosophical. Scholarship has been
well aware that the Fourth Gospel has what one might call a
philosophical dimension. Engberg-Pedersen shows that throughout the
Gospel contemporary Stoicism, works better to illuminate the text.
This pertains to the basic cosmology (and cosmogony) that is
reflected in the text, to the epistemology that underlies a central
theme in it regarding different types of belief in Jesus, to the
ethics that is introduced fairly late in the text when Jesus
describes how the disciples should live once he has himself gone
away from them, and more.
This book seeks to do for the study of Paul and Stoicism what E.
P. Sanders did for Paul and Judaism. Instead of making a
brick-by-brick analysis, Troels Engberg Pedersen provides the first
comprehensive building-to-building comparison of how the two
religious/philosophical systems functioned. The book moves through
the major letters of Paul (e.g., Philippians, Galatians, and
Romans), carefully documenting Paul's indebtedness to Stoic
thought.
This volume brings together an international group of scholars on
Mark and Paul, respectively, who reopen the question whether Paul
was a direct influence on Mark. On the basis of the latest methods
in New Testament scholarship, the battle over Yes and No to this
question of literary and theological influence is waged within
these pages. In the end, no agreement is reached, but the basic
issues stand out with much greater clarity than before. How may one
relate two rather different literary genres, the apostolic letter
and the narrative gospel? How may the theologies of two such
different types of writing be compared? Are there sufficient
indications that Paul lies directly behind Mark for us to conclude
that through Paul himself and Mark the New Testament as a whole
reflects specifically Pauline ideas? What would the literary and
theological consequences of either assuming or denying a direct
influence be for our reconstruction of 1st century Christianity?
And what would the consequences be for either understanding Mark or
Paul as literary authors and theologians? How far should we give
Paul an exalted a position in the literary creativity of the first
Christians? Addressing these questions are scholars who have
already written seminally on the issue or have marked positions on
it, like Joel Marcus, Margaret Mitchell, Gerd Theissen and Oda
Wischmeyer, together with a group of up-coming and senior Danish
scholars from Aarhus and Copenhagen Universities who have
collaborated on the issue for some years. The present volume leads
the discussion further that has been taken up in: "Paul and Mark"
(ed. by O. Wischmeyer, D. Sim, and I. Elmer), BZNW 191, 2013.
This volume address a fundamental issue of debate in New Testament
studies, but does away with the traditional strategy of playing
Judaism and Hellenism off against eachother as a context to
understand Paul. This aim is reached in two ways: first in essays
that display the ideological underpinnings of a Jewish and
Hellenistic Paul in scholarly interpretations of him; and secondly,
in case studies that illuminate issues from the Corinthian
correspondence by drawing freely on Jewish and Greco-Roman
contextual material.
Dr Engberg-Pedersen shows how a range of problems encountered in
twentieth-century interpretation may be overcome by reading the
epistles in the light of ancient Stoic ethics.
He discusses literary, conceptual and theological issues: for
example, the unity of the letters; the relationship in the Pauline
letters
between theology and ethics; the logical character and shape of
Pauline exhortation; the meaning of righteousness from faith;
Paul's
handling of the Jewish law.
The author illuminates the whole world of the Stoics, and argues
that scholars must move beyond the traditional Judaism/Hellenism
divide to reach a comprehensive and accurate reading of Paul's
letters.
|
|