Title of the Article: The Sense of the Text and a new vision
About the Author:
Frederick John Bolton was born before 1848.1 He married Susan Bray, daughter of William Pope Bray and Jane Davis, on 14 March 1868.1 Susan Bray was born in 1853 at Cornwall, Eng.1,2 She was the daughter of William Pope Bray and Jane Davis.1 Susan Bray immigrated in 1857 to Brisbane, Qld, Aust; Arrived on the ship Ascendant with her family.
Bibliographic Data: “SEMEIA” An Experimental For Biblical Criticism (the book of Job and Ricoeur’s Hermeneutics, 1981).
Outline of the Article
1) The Introduction of the text and a new vision
2) Understanding on Ricoeur’s theory
3) The correction of David Pellauer
4) Conclusion
The Article all about:
The Journal discussed about the sense of the text and a new vision. Which give the impression the history of clarification which the book of Job shows more the commentators than of the text itself as sense and reference.
David Pallauer gives us of the hesitant character of the text of this book. On the other hand as it stands there is universal application and meaning in the text. It is in its present appearance that shocks us and in this form that we too struggle with just this text? What is the shock which requires that successive generations of commentators feel the need to struggle with it, and so reveal themselves to future.
We can see in the book Job 38 we have the core of the chock. That distress lies specifically in the symbolic shock presented by the brief and the speech of the voice out of the brief to Job. Here all subjectivity is aroused and forced into the open. Here, what has been formed in any era and comes to the text is put to test and into crisis. Only such a subjectivity in crisis can be a learning and receptive subjectivity. The interpreter is clarified by the text itself as it confronts him with the limit inherent in his own conceptuality, reasserts the noetic significance of live metaphor itself, and stimulates theological reconstruction.
As this is very interesting part of the article, the most interesting part is Mr. Pellauer’s paper is his invitation to Ricoeur to clarify the condition for failure of text to have meaning. Possibly such clarification would make for greater precision with meaningful tests. In such development, one would want to know if there were more to be accounted for than loss of historical or psychi referents or the emptying of primary metaphors in the processes of time and cultural change. Possibly the history of transformations of the human self provides clues to such conditions. Exegesis probably begins on the assumption that every test meant something and still does. As superstitious approach to inscriptions is not of interest to Paul Ricoeur. The conditions of exegetical impossibility could point up important assumptions and concerns for critical theory.
Friday, July 24, 2009
BI 151 Journal Article Book Review
Title of Article: Jesus’ Travel Route and Its theological Implications as Reflected in the Tao Concept
About the Author: Jung Sik Cha
He is one of the outstanding professor in Hanil University of and theological seminary in Korea. He wrote several book and translated into Korea.
Bibliographic Data: Scripture and Interpretation vol. 2 no. 2 (2008)
Outline of the Article:
1) Introduction (Why Jesus’ Travel Route matters)
2) Jesus’ Travel Course and its Topo-theological pattern
3) Theological Matrix of Jesus’ Hodos in Comparison with the Tao
4) Conclusion: 9Place-ness and Way-ness in doing Theology
The Article All about:
This article talks about investigating the plenty meaning of the way (to hodos) idea as reflected in Jesus declared to be the way but historically he was somewhat on the way. The physical way stands for the metaphysical good quality that brings God’s kingdom to achievement.
I like the discussed on this journal that in the book of Luke 13:33. This passage, time and place are mentioned together with Jesus’ way. This saying is part of Jesus’ answer to Herod’s crafty character, while representative his ministry of “casting out demons and performing curse today, and tomorrow, and on the third day.” This must be an expression of Jesus’ forceful argument with Herod’s political danger which however could not stop him from finishing his ministry. Commentators have a tendency to spotlight on the delightful decree or theological need so as to explain why, and Jerusalem as the place in which prophets were slain. In difference, on the other hand, no mention is made of the way taken in such a consecutive stream of time.
In the above saying, the situation to a exacting time element “today, tomorrow, and the third day” is repeat in a symbolic example, implying that Jesus’ ministry should be satisfied in excellence, as is the case for his way from death to resurrection. The triadic day of perfection will come true upon Jerusalem, yet only through his way of moving on.
The difficulty of theology does not give the impression to be easily compromised between God’s complete righteousness and the total depravity of humanity. Time and again, such a dichotomized view has made the related issues more complex rather than solving them.
About the Author: Jung Sik Cha
He is one of the outstanding professor in Hanil University of and theological seminary in Korea. He wrote several book and translated into Korea.
Bibliographic Data: Scripture and Interpretation vol. 2 no. 2 (2008)
Outline of the Article:
1) Introduction (Why Jesus’ Travel Route matters)
2) Jesus’ Travel Course and its Topo-theological pattern
3) Theological Matrix of Jesus’ Hodos in Comparison with the Tao
4) Conclusion: 9Place-ness and Way-ness in doing Theology
The Article All about:
This article talks about investigating the plenty meaning of the way (to hodos) idea as reflected in Jesus declared to be the way but historically he was somewhat on the way. The physical way stands for the metaphysical good quality that brings God’s kingdom to achievement.
I like the discussed on this journal that in the book of Luke 13:33. This passage, time and place are mentioned together with Jesus’ way. This saying is part of Jesus’ answer to Herod’s crafty character, while representative his ministry of “casting out demons and performing curse today, and tomorrow, and on the third day.” This must be an expression of Jesus’ forceful argument with Herod’s political danger which however could not stop him from finishing his ministry. Commentators have a tendency to spotlight on the delightful decree or theological need so as to explain why, and Jerusalem as the place in which prophets were slain. In difference, on the other hand, no mention is made of the way taken in such a consecutive stream of time.
In the above saying, the situation to a exacting time element “today, tomorrow, and the third day” is repeat in a symbolic example, implying that Jesus’ ministry should be satisfied in excellence, as is the case for his way from death to resurrection. The triadic day of perfection will come true upon Jerusalem, yet only through his way of moving on.
The difficulty of theology does not give the impression to be easily compromised between God’s complete righteousness and the total depravity of humanity. Time and again, such a dichotomized view has made the related issues more complex rather than solving them.
BI 151 The Journal Article Review on Old Testament
Title of Article: Isaiah 40:13, The Masoretes, Syntax and Literary Structure: A Rejoinder to Reinound Oosting
About the Author: Raymond De Hoop
Raymond de Hoop, D.D. (1998), Theological University of Kampen, Netherlands, is Lecturer of Hebrew and Old Testament at Theological Seminary I.S. Klijne, Jayapura (Indonesia) and Research Fellow of the University of Pretoria. He is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Utrecht University. Stanley E. Porter, Ph.D. (1988) in Biblical Studies and Linguistics, the University of Sheffield, is President, Dean and Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He has published extensively in New Testament and related subjects. He has also edited the first three volumes in the ‹Pauline Studies› series, The Pauline Canon (Brill, 2004), Paul and His Opponents (Brill, 2005), and Paul and His Theology (Brill, 2006).
Bibliographic Data: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33. 4 (2009)
Outline of Article:
1) Introduction
2) The Masoretic Interpretation
3) The Parallelism of qatal and yiqtol
4) The Literary Structure
5) Conclusion
Te Article all about:
The article focus on especially the Isaiah 40:13. The writer interpreted a new interpretation on the Isaiah text, arguing that the emphasis of the verse suggests that the Masoretes misinterpreted the text as a question and Answer.
The text Isaiah 40:13 is discussed by the writer as follows: Who has directed the spirit of the Lord or as his counselor has instructed him? The Masoretic accentuation of Isaiah 40:13 makes it clear that the content of the verse appeared troubles to the Masoretes. They seem to have had difficulties with the rhetorical question in the first part of Isaiah 40:13. ‘who has directed the spirit of Yhwh?’ In their opinion, no one was able to do such a thing. To prevent any misunderstanding, the Masoretes indicated that the first stich should be read as a question and answer: “Who has directed the spirit? Yhwh’…. By taking the stich as rhetorical question. Therefore, the Masoretic emphasis of the first part 40:13 sheds no light on the interpretation f the verse as a whole, because by this reading the relationship between the two parts is disturbed.
There are four main the problems of the interpretation on Isaiah 40:13. The first one is the syntax level (the relationship between the first and the second part is hard to understand. The second one is on the discourse level (what answer is expected to the rhetorical question in verse 13), the third one is on the participants level (who is meant by ‘his counselor’ in verse 13 (b) how is this participant related to the other participants within the immediate context? The Last on is he discerns problem on the literary composition level (how should the expression ‘his counselor’ in 40:13 be understood in the wider contest. There is the two words in Hebrew qatal and yiqtol which is hard to interpret easily. The yiqtol is interpreted as an attributive clause: ‘that makes him know.’
In the last part it can be said that Oostin’s study does not present a realistic option to the recent translations of Isaiah 40:13. Even the Masoretes might have understood the text differently; this cannot be ascertained on the basis of the masoretic accentuation.
About the Author: Raymond De Hoop
Raymond de Hoop, D.D. (1998), Theological University of Kampen, Netherlands, is Lecturer of Hebrew and Old Testament at Theological Seminary I.S. Klijne, Jayapura (Indonesia) and Research Fellow of the University of Pretoria. He is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Utrecht University. Stanley E. Porter, Ph.D. (1988) in Biblical Studies and Linguistics, the University of Sheffield, is President, Dean and Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He has published extensively in New Testament and related subjects. He has also edited the first three volumes in the ‹Pauline Studies› series, The Pauline Canon (Brill, 2004), Paul and His Opponents (Brill, 2005), and Paul and His Theology (Brill, 2006).
Bibliographic Data: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33. 4 (2009)
Outline of Article:
1) Introduction
2) The Masoretic Interpretation
3) The Parallelism of qatal and yiqtol
4) The Literary Structure
5) Conclusion
Te Article all about:
The article focus on especially the Isaiah 40:13. The writer interpreted a new interpretation on the Isaiah text, arguing that the emphasis of the verse suggests that the Masoretes misinterpreted the text as a question and Answer.
The text Isaiah 40:13 is discussed by the writer as follows: Who has directed the spirit of the Lord or as his counselor has instructed him? The Masoretic accentuation of Isaiah 40:13 makes it clear that the content of the verse appeared troubles to the Masoretes. They seem to have had difficulties with the rhetorical question in the first part of Isaiah 40:13. ‘who has directed the spirit of Yhwh?’ In their opinion, no one was able to do such a thing. To prevent any misunderstanding, the Masoretes indicated that the first stich should be read as a question and answer: “Who has directed the spirit? Yhwh’…. By taking the stich as rhetorical question. Therefore, the Masoretic emphasis of the first part 40:13 sheds no light on the interpretation f the verse as a whole, because by this reading the relationship between the two parts is disturbed.
There are four main the problems of the interpretation on Isaiah 40:13. The first one is the syntax level (the relationship between the first and the second part is hard to understand. The second one is on the discourse level (what answer is expected to the rhetorical question in verse 13), the third one is on the participants level (who is meant by ‘his counselor’ in verse 13 (b) how is this participant related to the other participants within the immediate context? The Last on is he discerns problem on the literary composition level (how should the expression ‘his counselor’ in 40:13 be understood in the wider contest. There is the two words in Hebrew qatal and yiqtol which is hard to interpret easily. The yiqtol is interpreted as an attributive clause: ‘that makes him know.’
In the last part it can be said that Oostin’s study does not present a realistic option to the recent translations of Isaiah 40:13. Even the Masoretes might have understood the text differently; this cannot be ascertained on the basis of the masoretic accentuation.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Journal Article Review 2
Title of the Article: “Do not Judge who is Worthy and Unworthy:” Clement’s Warning not to Speculate about the Rich Young Man’s Response (10:17-31)
About the Author: Andrew D. Clarke
Before moving to Aberdeen in 1995, He was the Research Librarian at Tyndale House Biblical Studies Research Library in Cambridge. Over the past few years he has been supervising research dissertations in the following areas: Paul’s use of co-authors in his letters; different perspectives on healing held by Mark, Luke and Paul; Paul’s use of metaphors for church in 1 Corinthians; Luke’s use of speeches by non-Christians in Acts; Luke’s use of the phrase ‘not my will but thine be done’; Paul’s use of phroneo in Romans and Philippians; submission within the godhead and the church in Philippians; reactions to the Roman persona in Paul, Epictetus and Valerius Maximus; Paul’s dependence on the Sermon on the Mount for his teaching about wealth/poverty; the David motif in the New Testament.
Bibliographic Data: Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31. 4 (2009)
Outline of the Articles:
(1) Abstract
(2) A History of Interpretation
(3) The Markan Context: The Universal Cost of Discipleship
(4) Markan Characterization
(5) The Disciples
(6) The Rich Man
(7) Conclusion
The Article all about:
This article talks about the rich man in the book of the Mark. The author analyzed more specifically in theological perspective. Most of the interpreters of the periscope of the wealthy man overtake no statement on the life of these concluding actions in answer to Jesus. The book of mark 10 could not follow through on his search for eternal life. Jesus test to the rich man to stand for, and a important number of reading are strongly derogator toward the man.
Another interpreter said that the rich man can be found in a reference from an incomplete Jewish-Christian gospel included within a Latin translation of Origen’s commentary on Matthew. And Church father Tertullian wrote about this things in the 3rd century, he described the rich in even more clearly negative terms as “vain-glorious” witness of the commandments who was find guilty of holding money in much higher estimation (Mark 4:36). Clement centers principally on the Markan version of the description, though he notes a congruity with the other Gospel. His opinion is introduced by a round criticism of those who flatter the rich.
And theologian John Calvin mentioned his commentary ‘a blind confidence in his works hindered him from profiting under Christ, to whom, in other respects, he wished to be submissive’ is notably mitigated by later conceding at least the possibility that the rich man’s dejection may have been merely transitory. This expression of generosity is soon retracted, however, by the rather more confident assertion. Whether or not this temptation was temporary, so that the young man afterward repented, we know not but it may be conjectured with probably, that his covetousness kept him back from making any proficiency.’
About the rich focus on Jesus’ teaching to the twelve and others about the nature and price of true discipleship. It included a fundamental exchange of the disciples’ and society’s values, and the greatest concentration of the Kingdom of God saying in the Gospel.
The Clement of Alexandria’s advice not to Judge who is worthy and unworthy, for it is likely that you may be false in your opinion’ was not only unseen by him in observe to the rich man of Mark 10. But also by the majority of subsequent interpreters. Mark’s quiet about the rich man’s eventual answer has encouraged nearly everyone commentators to draw the unwarranted conclusion that Jesus’ challenge was evidently rejected and then to interpret the periscope in the light of this assumed response.
About the Author: Andrew D. Clarke
Before moving to Aberdeen in 1995, He was the Research Librarian at Tyndale House Biblical Studies Research Library in Cambridge. Over the past few years he has been supervising research dissertations in the following areas: Paul’s use of co-authors in his letters; different perspectives on healing held by Mark, Luke and Paul; Paul’s use of metaphors for church in 1 Corinthians; Luke’s use of speeches by non-Christians in Acts; Luke’s use of the phrase ‘not my will but thine be done’; Paul’s use of phroneo in Romans and Philippians; submission within the godhead and the church in Philippians; reactions to the Roman persona in Paul, Epictetus and Valerius Maximus; Paul’s dependence on the Sermon on the Mount for his teaching about wealth/poverty; the David motif in the New Testament.
Bibliographic Data: Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31. 4 (2009)
Outline of the Articles:
(1) Abstract
(2) A History of Interpretation
(3) The Markan Context: The Universal Cost of Discipleship
(4) Markan Characterization
(5) The Disciples
(6) The Rich Man
(7) Conclusion
The Article all about:
This article talks about the rich man in the book of the Mark. The author analyzed more specifically in theological perspective. Most of the interpreters of the periscope of the wealthy man overtake no statement on the life of these concluding actions in answer to Jesus. The book of mark 10 could not follow through on his search for eternal life. Jesus test to the rich man to stand for, and a important number of reading are strongly derogator toward the man.
Another interpreter said that the rich man can be found in a reference from an incomplete Jewish-Christian gospel included within a Latin translation of Origen’s commentary on Matthew. And Church father Tertullian wrote about this things in the 3rd century, he described the rich in even more clearly negative terms as “vain-glorious” witness of the commandments who was find guilty of holding money in much higher estimation (Mark 4:36). Clement centers principally on the Markan version of the description, though he notes a congruity with the other Gospel. His opinion is introduced by a round criticism of those who flatter the rich.
And theologian John Calvin mentioned his commentary ‘a blind confidence in his works hindered him from profiting under Christ, to whom, in other respects, he wished to be submissive’ is notably mitigated by later conceding at least the possibility that the rich man’s dejection may have been merely transitory. This expression of generosity is soon retracted, however, by the rather more confident assertion. Whether or not this temptation was temporary, so that the young man afterward repented, we know not but it may be conjectured with probably, that his covetousness kept him back from making any proficiency.’
About the rich focus on Jesus’ teaching to the twelve and others about the nature and price of true discipleship. It included a fundamental exchange of the disciples’ and society’s values, and the greatest concentration of the Kingdom of God saying in the Gospel.
The Clement of Alexandria’s advice not to Judge who is worthy and unworthy, for it is likely that you may be false in your opinion’ was not only unseen by him in observe to the rich man of Mark 10. But also by the majority of subsequent interpreters. Mark’s quiet about the rich man’s eventual answer has encouraged nearly everyone commentators to draw the unwarranted conclusion that Jesus’ challenge was evidently rejected and then to interpret the periscope in the light of this assumed response.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Seminar Question 12
What the Bible Version do you use for personal study? For teaching? For preaching? Why?
Since, I was a childhood in my mother church; I used to hear the word of God from the New International Version. At former I didn’t know on familiar terms with about what version was that. But I keep in mind when the church pastor or anybody use to read is the New International Version which was very comprehensible and easy to understand. And the guiding principle of the church also decided to use New International Version since 1990. Then I grew up among the Christian environment which experience rooted to my heart till today I am holding New International Version.
According to my understanding on the New International Version is as follows:
1. NIV is a absolutely new version of the God’s word made by over hundred scholars, outstanding, working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
2. Most of the scholars were including composing the most part of biblical. The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars.
3. Many years and hours of research and discussion regarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English.
4. In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form. They believe that it contains the divine answer to deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds unique light on our path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to our eternal well-being.
Thus, that New International Version is my preferred version of the entire Bible. It is straightforward to understand for interpretation. It’s uncomplicated to teach and sermonize as well. The sentence and the word are using undemanding. So The New International Version is the paramount for one and all.
Since, I was a childhood in my mother church; I used to hear the word of God from the New International Version. At former I didn’t know on familiar terms with about what version was that. But I keep in mind when the church pastor or anybody use to read is the New International Version which was very comprehensible and easy to understand. And the guiding principle of the church also decided to use New International Version since 1990. Then I grew up among the Christian environment which experience rooted to my heart till today I am holding New International Version.
According to my understanding on the New International Version is as follows:
1. NIV is a absolutely new version of the God’s word made by over hundred scholars, outstanding, working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
2. Most of the scholars were including composing the most part of biblical. The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars.
3. Many years and hours of research and discussion regarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English.
4. In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form. They believe that it contains the divine answer to deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds unique light on our path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to our eternal well-being.
Thus, that New International Version is my preferred version of the entire Bible. It is straightforward to understand for interpretation. It’s uncomplicated to teach and sermonize as well. The sentence and the word are using undemanding. So The New International Version is the paramount for one and all.
Seminar Question 11
1. What is the difference between intended meaning and literal meaning?
According to my inspection the Bible is not just a simple or plain book. It is not in actual fact history, story, novel, and tale of the creature. It is not human philosophy. The Bible is not human literature, Journalism. The Bible is the existence life and the death of human being. It is God’s Word. It is God’s Revelation. It is inspired by God. So, what the Bible tells and points out all about is extraordinarily diverse from human thinking. The meaning of the Word is exceedingly bottomless and far above the ground. Because the Bible is a speech of God. Sometimes we cannot understand what it means. The problem maker is the human thinking. We cannot take out and interpret exactly the meaning of the word in the Bible. Some people take literally. It may acquire more than a few statement to clarify the meaning of the Bible.
The literal theory is the common description in support of the principle of one level of meaning. The term literal is over and over again get the wrong idea. It is hard to explain and apply the meaning of the Word. I have no idea we cannot take literally a vision of the book of Revelation. Because the book of Revelation talks about the future thing or the last thing. We can see the symbolic numbers in Revelation. None of the interpreter can grasp to a literal interpretation of every word. Many Scholars refer to what the author intends to say. To understand the intended meaning of the author, the interpreter must understand his symbolism. The trouble is additional not easy when the interpreter endeavors to decide whether a thousand-year reign on earth is meant to be symbolical or not.
So, literal meaning is hard to decide correctly. Because the Bible is human being thinking.
According to my inspection the Bible is not just a simple or plain book. It is not in actual fact history, story, novel, and tale of the creature. It is not human philosophy. The Bible is not human literature, Journalism. The Bible is the existence life and the death of human being. It is God’s Word. It is God’s Revelation. It is inspired by God. So, what the Bible tells and points out all about is extraordinarily diverse from human thinking. The meaning of the Word is exceedingly bottomless and far above the ground. Because the Bible is a speech of God. Sometimes we cannot understand what it means. The problem maker is the human thinking. We cannot take out and interpret exactly the meaning of the word in the Bible. Some people take literally. It may acquire more than a few statement to clarify the meaning of the Bible.
The literal theory is the common description in support of the principle of one level of meaning. The term literal is over and over again get the wrong idea. It is hard to explain and apply the meaning of the Word. I have no idea we cannot take literally a vision of the book of Revelation. Because the book of Revelation talks about the future thing or the last thing. We can see the symbolic numbers in Revelation. None of the interpreter can grasp to a literal interpretation of every word. Many Scholars refer to what the author intends to say. To understand the intended meaning of the author, the interpreter must understand his symbolism. The trouble is additional not easy when the interpreter endeavors to decide whether a thousand-year reign on earth is meant to be symbolical or not.
So, literal meaning is hard to decide correctly. Because the Bible is human being thinking.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Journal Article Review
Title of the Article: “The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym”
About the Author: Dr. R. Steven Notley lives in New York with his wife, Sunya, and their children. They lived in Jerusalem for 16 years where Notley earned his Ph.D. in Comparative Religions at the Hebrew University (1993). He studied under the direction of the late professor David Flusser, writing his dissertation on "The Concept of the Holy Spirit in Jewish Literature of the Second Commonwealth and Pre-Pauline Christianity." He has recently completed his English translation of Eusebius' Onomasticon that will be published together with Ze'ev Safrai's (Bar Ilan University) topographical commentary by Brill Academic Publishers. Also recently published is a collaborative work in Historical Geography with Dr. Anson F. Rainey called the Sacred Bridge. During his years in Israel Notley was extensively involved in directing travel and field study for students and laity in Israel, Greece and Turkey. He continues to direct study trips through Emmaus Educational Services He served as the chairman of the department for New Testament studies at the Jerusalem University College from 1996 to 2001. Currently he is a professor of Biblical Studies at the New York City campus of Nyack College.
Bibliographic Data: “Journal of Biblical Literature,” vol. 128, no. 1, (2009): 183-188.
Outline of the Article:
1. Recognizing Toponym
2. The Writer Julius Honorius
3. Joshephus and the body of Water
4. The Word Talasa in Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and John)
5. Conclussions
The Article all about
The toponym mentions two times in the New Testament. A place that mentioned in the book of Matthew (26:36), and Mark (14:32). These vocabulary illustrate direct been given to another place-name of equal unusual object. This toponym is point to in the Fourth Gospel by the evangelist’s could do with to describe it extra with and additional genitive more well-known to the readers: After this Jesus went to the other side of the sea of Galilee of Tiberias. Tiberias city was built by Herod Antipas on the lakeshore; this was appeared in the end of Gospel to identify the lake. We can see in John 21:1.
The writer Julius Honorius distinguishes the water of body in the city of Teberias. But other Latin authors used the word mare rather than lacus to describe the lake. There is some question whether Julius was a pagan or a Christian. Julius’s rare combination of “sea” with Tiberias, which occurs elsewhere only in the Fourth Gospel, suggest that the Roman author ay have at least been familiar with thee Christian. The term that mentioned above by solinus identified the lake with Tiberias, as well as a place called sara. This is certainly a reference to Gennesar.
There is Greek term that indicating in Matthew, Mark, And John to the Lake of Gennesar, and the connected problem of the origin for the Christian toponym. And Talasa can find also in Hebrew scripture. Which can assign either lake or sea? Some scholars recommend that Matthew, Mark, and John have derived their use of “Talasa” directly from the Septuagint description.
The place-name was not the making of any of evangelists. In its place, the Gospels are a repository of a pre-Synoptic expansion. Additionally, as the mark holds the Christian homonym, he also hints that he was well-known with the position of Isaiah’s previous topographical points of indication. The evangelist’s of tyre, and went throughout Sidon to Sea of Galilee, from first to last the region of the Decapolis. It seems that the verse from Isaiah provided the narrative structure for Mark’s presentation of Jesus’ unusual journey.
In briefly what I learned in this Gospel is the growth if an early Christian Place name. The purpose for the early church’s exegetical creativity was to depict Jesus’ ministry in the vicinity of the Lake Genneesar as a fulfillment of Isaiah 8:23.
About the Author: Dr. R. Steven Notley lives in New York with his wife, Sunya, and their children. They lived in Jerusalem for 16 years where Notley earned his Ph.D. in Comparative Religions at the Hebrew University (1993). He studied under the direction of the late professor David Flusser, writing his dissertation on "The Concept of the Holy Spirit in Jewish Literature of the Second Commonwealth and Pre-Pauline Christianity." He has recently completed his English translation of Eusebius' Onomasticon that will be published together with Ze'ev Safrai's (Bar Ilan University) topographical commentary by Brill Academic Publishers. Also recently published is a collaborative work in Historical Geography with Dr. Anson F. Rainey called the Sacred Bridge. During his years in Israel Notley was extensively involved in directing travel and field study for students and laity in Israel, Greece and Turkey. He continues to direct study trips through Emmaus Educational Services He served as the chairman of the department for New Testament studies at the Jerusalem University College from 1996 to 2001. Currently he is a professor of Biblical Studies at the New York City campus of Nyack College.
Bibliographic Data: “Journal of Biblical Literature,” vol. 128, no. 1, (2009): 183-188.
Outline of the Article:
1. Recognizing Toponym
2. The Writer Julius Honorius
3. Joshephus and the body of Water
4. The Word Talasa in Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and John)
5. Conclussions
The Article all about
The toponym mentions two times in the New Testament. A place that mentioned in the book of Matthew (26:36), and Mark (14:32). These vocabulary illustrate direct been given to another place-name of equal unusual object. This toponym is point to in the Fourth Gospel by the evangelist’s could do with to describe it extra with and additional genitive more well-known to the readers: After this Jesus went to the other side of the sea of Galilee of Tiberias. Tiberias city was built by Herod Antipas on the lakeshore; this was appeared in the end of Gospel to identify the lake. We can see in John 21:1.
The writer Julius Honorius distinguishes the water of body in the city of Teberias. But other Latin authors used the word mare rather than lacus to describe the lake. There is some question whether Julius was a pagan or a Christian. Julius’s rare combination of “sea” with Tiberias, which occurs elsewhere only in the Fourth Gospel, suggest that the Roman author ay have at least been familiar with thee Christian. The term that mentioned above by solinus identified the lake with Tiberias, as well as a place called sara. This is certainly a reference to Gennesar.
There is Greek term that indicating in Matthew, Mark, And John to the Lake of Gennesar, and the connected problem of the origin for the Christian toponym. And Talasa can find also in Hebrew scripture. Which can assign either lake or sea? Some scholars recommend that Matthew, Mark, and John have derived their use of “Talasa” directly from the Septuagint description.
The place-name was not the making of any of evangelists. In its place, the Gospels are a repository of a pre-Synoptic expansion. Additionally, as the mark holds the Christian homonym, he also hints that he was well-known with the position of Isaiah’s previous topographical points of indication. The evangelist’s of tyre, and went throughout Sidon to Sea of Galilee, from first to last the region of the Decapolis. It seems that the verse from Isaiah provided the narrative structure for Mark’s presentation of Jesus’ unusual journey.
In briefly what I learned in this Gospel is the growth if an early Christian Place name. The purpose for the early church’s exegetical creativity was to depict Jesus’ ministry in the vicinity of the Lake Genneesar as a fulfillment of Isaiah 8:23.
Friday, July 17, 2009
SQ10: No. 2
Are any of the characteristics of the liberal scholars’ approach to the Bible valid? Explain.
Most of the liberal scholars didn’t accept the Bible. They just depend on the natural thinking and scientific outlook. They didn’t the existing of the Bible. They just depend on rational thinking. They just think the Bible is history or human thinking. Liberal scholars depend on the knowledge. They rejected the miracles and physical environment. So, their conscientiousness intended for sin is decrease and doctrine of depravity is rejected. The liberalism is extremist for their thinking on the things that happened in the universal. Liberal scholars’ approaches are not valid.
The liberal interpret the word of God is based on the evolutionary presuppositions. The Bible does not contain special divine revelation. The Bible is the record book of the Israel background and religious development. Their concept is too far away to the other thinking and human philosophy. The death of Christ has to be described in term of the bloody Jewish sacrifices or the rituals of mystery religious. Since the concept of “the shedding of blood” is no longer relevant, the interpreter needs other ways of expressing the meaning of Christ’s life and death.
The liberal believed that Jesus Christ is just as an ethical teacher, he just gives the guideline for the disciple through the people. I do not agree that the Bible does not mention Jesus as a teacher only. The Bible mention about Jesus is God, the Son of God. This is really out of human thinking. And Paul and apostles are the founder of the Christianity.
The theologian Karl Barth said that Jesus did not give human need and adequate answers to man’s deep problems. The liberal education made it impossible for him to accept the orthodox position regarding inspiration and revelation.
So that, the liberal concepts are not from the bible, it is from the human thinking and not biblical.
Most of the liberal scholars didn’t accept the Bible. They just depend on the natural thinking and scientific outlook. They didn’t the existing of the Bible. They just depend on rational thinking. They just think the Bible is history or human thinking. Liberal scholars depend on the knowledge. They rejected the miracles and physical environment. So, their conscientiousness intended for sin is decrease and doctrine of depravity is rejected. The liberalism is extremist for their thinking on the things that happened in the universal. Liberal scholars’ approaches are not valid.
The liberal interpret the word of God is based on the evolutionary presuppositions. The Bible does not contain special divine revelation. The Bible is the record book of the Israel background and religious development. Their concept is too far away to the other thinking and human philosophy. The death of Christ has to be described in term of the bloody Jewish sacrifices or the rituals of mystery religious. Since the concept of “the shedding of blood” is no longer relevant, the interpreter needs other ways of expressing the meaning of Christ’s life and death.
The liberal believed that Jesus Christ is just as an ethical teacher, he just gives the guideline for the disciple through the people. I do not agree that the Bible does not mention Jesus as a teacher only. The Bible mention about Jesus is God, the Son of God. This is really out of human thinking. And Paul and apostles are the founder of the Christianity.
The theologian Karl Barth said that Jesus did not give human need and adequate answers to man’s deep problems. The liberal education made it impossible for him to accept the orthodox position regarding inspiration and revelation.
So that, the liberal concepts are not from the bible, it is from the human thinking and not biblical.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
BI Book Review (5)
Title of book:
Survey of the Bible by William Hendriksen
About the Author:
William Hendriksen is an outstanding Bible student, consecrated preacher of the gospel and lecturer, and able writer. He is well known as an author of the New Testament Commentary. He Holds a Th.D. degree from Princeton Seminary. He served as Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary, and served large congregations as pastor. One reviewer characterizes Dr. Hendriksen this; “A conservative theologian who is open-minded and fair, yet who never departs even by a hairbreadth from the position of absolute fidelity Word” (Standard Publishing Company). Says Dr. Carl F. H. Henery, “Dr. Hendriksen is a carful scholar, and his contribution will be a needed one.
Table of Contents
(1) The Bible
(2) The Bible Story
(3) Bible Books
The Book All About:
The purpose of this book is for those who are interested in the Scripture. The author mentions and asks for all of us. As the writer ask to have realized, the approach and spirit of this Survey of the Bible is that of the conservative theologian. This does not mean that it is merely a restatement of all the traditional views.
This book is rightly belongs on the self of the Bible concordance, Bible dictionary, and Bible atlas. It has already served with satisfaction in many a home, Bible leader’s study, Bible college, and seminary. It is now offered in an enlarged, illustrated edition for even greater appeal and usefulness. It has been updated to include the latest Biblical scholarship, including recent archaeological discoveries such as the Isaiah Scroll found at Qumran.
What is the real difference between the conservative and the liberal view of the Bible?
The conservative is the ultimate touchstone of the truth, the final court of appeal for the reason, and the liberal view is-are these scriptures the living oracles of God or are they not? Is it true or is it not true that men spoke from God being moved by the Holy Spirit?
In what sense is it true that the Bible is inspired? How did the sacred writings look originally, and how did they grow into a Bible? Why do we not include the Apocryphal books in our Bible? Is it true that because long ago the church officially declared these sixty-six books to be the authoritative Word of God we now believe them to be such? When were the Bible books written, and how have they been arranged? How did we get our translated Bible? How should the Bible be studied? How should it be interpreted?
Survey of the Bible by William Hendriksen
About the Author:
William Hendriksen is an outstanding Bible student, consecrated preacher of the gospel and lecturer, and able writer. He is well known as an author of the New Testament Commentary. He Holds a Th.D. degree from Princeton Seminary. He served as Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary, and served large congregations as pastor. One reviewer characterizes Dr. Hendriksen this; “A conservative theologian who is open-minded and fair, yet who never departs even by a hairbreadth from the position of absolute fidelity Word” (Standard Publishing Company). Says Dr. Carl F. H. Henery, “Dr. Hendriksen is a carful scholar, and his contribution will be a needed one.
Table of Contents
(1) The Bible
(2) The Bible Story
(3) Bible Books
The Book All About:
The purpose of this book is for those who are interested in the Scripture. The author mentions and asks for all of us. As the writer ask to have realized, the approach and spirit of this Survey of the Bible is that of the conservative theologian. This does not mean that it is merely a restatement of all the traditional views.
This book is rightly belongs on the self of the Bible concordance, Bible dictionary, and Bible atlas. It has already served with satisfaction in many a home, Bible leader’s study, Bible college, and seminary. It is now offered in an enlarged, illustrated edition for even greater appeal and usefulness. It has been updated to include the latest Biblical scholarship, including recent archaeological discoveries such as the Isaiah Scroll found at Qumran.
What is the real difference between the conservative and the liberal view of the Bible?
The conservative is the ultimate touchstone of the truth, the final court of appeal for the reason, and the liberal view is-are these scriptures the living oracles of God or are they not? Is it true or is it not true that men spoke from God being moved by the Holy Spirit?
In what sense is it true that the Bible is inspired? How did the sacred writings look originally, and how did they grow into a Bible? Why do we not include the Apocryphal books in our Bible? Is it true that because long ago the church officially declared these sixty-six books to be the authoritative Word of God we now believe them to be such? When were the Bible books written, and how have they been arranged? How did we get our translated Bible? How should the Bible be studied? How should it be interpreted?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
BI SQ # 3 (Chapter 9)
Compare and contrast the hermeneutics of Alexandria and Antioch.
Hermeneutics mean the science and art of Biblical Interpretation.
But many scholars and the interpreters take to mean in different ways. And also the Alexandria and Antioch are dissimilar each other. The Greek philosophy and Hebrew religion discussed about the interpretation of the Bible in Alexandria. According to their ideas, the Scripture was not to be understood literally. The speech of God implies only an influence on the soul of man. Some are based on the Moses’ writings which had an appearance to the Greek philosophers. Farrar affirms that Philo considered the Mosaic Law to be holy and everlasting, and he found Greek philosophy to be inspiring, noble, and irresistible. The extreme allegorical interpretation of Philo has caused Christians to recoil from using allegory and deny that Paul employed a different and moderate form of allegory. The scripture can be interpreted either literally or allegorically.
The Antioch hermeneutics were influenced by the Origen. They emphasized a literal interpretation of the scripture. Allegory was unwanted the Antioch interpretation of the Bible. The interpreter of Alexandria demanded to Paul’s used of the word allegory in Galatians 4. And Antioch claimed that even though he used the word he did not really interpret allegorically. Also Paul believed in the historical reality of the event and used it as an example. The Alexandria deprived the Bible of historical reality. The Antiochene insisted on the historical reality of the biblical revelation. They saw a deeper meaning to Scripture than the literal and historical meaning, but they based the deeper meaning on the literal and historical. They rejected hidden meanings which only Gnostics could comprehend. Antiochene interpreters believed that the prophet himself foresaw both the immediate event which was to come in the history of ancient Israel and the future coming of Christ.
According to their interpretation, I agree more on the Alexandria interpretation of the Bible. We cannot interpret scripture literally. Because the Word of God is so deep and high for human thinking.
Hermeneutics mean the science and art of Biblical Interpretation.
But many scholars and the interpreters take to mean in different ways. And also the Alexandria and Antioch are dissimilar each other. The Greek philosophy and Hebrew religion discussed about the interpretation of the Bible in Alexandria. According to their ideas, the Scripture was not to be understood literally. The speech of God implies only an influence on the soul of man. Some are based on the Moses’ writings which had an appearance to the Greek philosophers. Farrar affirms that Philo considered the Mosaic Law to be holy and everlasting, and he found Greek philosophy to be inspiring, noble, and irresistible. The extreme allegorical interpretation of Philo has caused Christians to recoil from using allegory and deny that Paul employed a different and moderate form of allegory. The scripture can be interpreted either literally or allegorically.
The Antioch hermeneutics were influenced by the Origen. They emphasized a literal interpretation of the scripture. Allegory was unwanted the Antioch interpretation of the Bible. The interpreter of Alexandria demanded to Paul’s used of the word allegory in Galatians 4. And Antioch claimed that even though he used the word he did not really interpret allegorically. Also Paul believed in the historical reality of the event and used it as an example. The Alexandria deprived the Bible of historical reality. The Antiochene insisted on the historical reality of the biblical revelation. They saw a deeper meaning to Scripture than the literal and historical meaning, but they based the deeper meaning on the literal and historical. They rejected hidden meanings which only Gnostics could comprehend. Antiochene interpreters believed that the prophet himself foresaw both the immediate event which was to come in the history of ancient Israel and the future coming of Christ.
According to their interpretation, I agree more on the Alexandria interpretation of the Bible. We cannot interpret scripture literally. Because the Word of God is so deep and high for human thinking.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
BI SQ # 4 (chapter 8)
What are the benefits in knowing the history of the translation of the English Bible?
There are many benefits in knowing the history of the translation of the English Bible. If there is no evidence, no history, and no remnants of the Bible the Scripture would be inadequate, useless, and hopeless. And we don’t need to a Christian. We don’t need to have a Bible. The history bearded out the benefits of the Bible. It truly needs to distinguish the history of the English Bible. Through the history of the Bible it was many difficulties, arguments, troubles and other problems. One of the best-kept secrets in English Bible History is that of William Tyndale’s Bible. Many people have heard something of Tyndale, but very few have ever read his work or about him. Yet no other Englishman, not even Shakespeare, has reached so many by his life’s work.
The history of Tyndale translated the New Testament twice, and made three revisions before his death. In 1534 the Tyndale New Testament was finished. And it was his greatest work that would bring many souls to Jesus Christ, as their personal Savior.
Those scholars who prepared the Authorized 1611 King James Bible spoke with one voice. Of course they did, that voice which could never be acknowledged by them was that of William Tyndale. Much of the New Testament in the 1611 Authorized King James Bible came directly from the Tyndale New Testament.
In 1611, there were six million English speaking people; today the figure is approaching a billion. The Bible, or parts of it, is now published in over one thousand other languages. The dozen or so modern English versions in common use today should be greatly studied for their differences.
There are many benefits in knowing the history of the translation of the English Bible. If there is no evidence, no history, and no remnants of the Bible the Scripture would be inadequate, useless, and hopeless. And we don’t need to a Christian. We don’t need to have a Bible. The history bearded out the benefits of the Bible. It truly needs to distinguish the history of the English Bible. Through the history of the Bible it was many difficulties, arguments, troubles and other problems. One of the best-kept secrets in English Bible History is that of William Tyndale’s Bible. Many people have heard something of Tyndale, but very few have ever read his work or about him. Yet no other Englishman, not even Shakespeare, has reached so many by his life’s work.
The history of Tyndale translated the New Testament twice, and made three revisions before his death. In 1534 the Tyndale New Testament was finished. And it was his greatest work that would bring many souls to Jesus Christ, as their personal Savior.
Those scholars who prepared the Authorized 1611 King James Bible spoke with one voice. Of course they did, that voice which could never be acknowledged by them was that of William Tyndale. Much of the New Testament in the 1611 Authorized King James Bible came directly from the Tyndale New Testament.
In 1611, there were six million English speaking people; today the figure is approaching a billion. The Bible, or parts of it, is now published in over one thousand other languages. The dozen or so modern English versions in common use today should be greatly studied for their differences.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
BI Book Review # 4
Book Title: The Origins of the BIBLE
By Theodore Gerald Soares
About the Author: He was writing several book. He was a professor of the ethic in California Institute of technology Minister, the Neighborhood Church, Passadena.
The Contents
(1) The beginning of the Bible
(2) Early evidence
(3) Old Testament Law
(4) The stories of the past
(5) Introduction to the Old Testament
(6) Introduction to the New testament
The Book all about
This book presented us time, place, proper and more information about how the Bible came and begin to the people. The author have a consideration that a number of would be similar to interpret a single constant appearance of what may be described as a modern view of the process by which the Bible came to be. Actually, it is hard to say where did the Bible is beginning. Because the Bible is the oldest books. With some such stories of the past the folk-lore of the nomads of the desert the Bible had its beginning.
Myth is primitive philosophy, it is the simple picturesque method employed by early man to explain the mysterious world in which he lives. To many, the origin of the Bible can be summed-up as follows: "A simple translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition" - and therefore, a book with no credibility or connection to the original texts. Actually, the foregoing statement is a common misunderstanding of both Christians and non-christians similar. Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament), and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations.
Another challenge against the origin of the Bible is the reliability of the manuscripts from which today's Bibles are translated. Remarkably, there is widespread evidence for absolute reliability. There are more than 14,000 existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree dramatically with each other. In addition, these texts agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940's and 50's, also provide phenomenal evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) before the arrival of Jesus Christ. The Hebrew scribes who copied the Jewish Scriptures dedicated their lives to preserving the accuracy of the holy books. These scribes went to phenomenal lengths to insure manuscript reliability. They were highly trained and meticulously observed, counting every letter, word and paragraph against master scrolls. A single error would require the immediate destruction of the entire text.
By Theodore Gerald Soares
About the Author: He was writing several book. He was a professor of the ethic in California Institute of technology Minister, the Neighborhood Church, Passadena.
The Contents
(1) The beginning of the Bible
(2) Early evidence
(3) Old Testament Law
(4) The stories of the past
(5) Introduction to the Old Testament
(6) Introduction to the New testament
The Book all about
This book presented us time, place, proper and more information about how the Bible came and begin to the people. The author have a consideration that a number of would be similar to interpret a single constant appearance of what may be described as a modern view of the process by which the Bible came to be. Actually, it is hard to say where did the Bible is beginning. Because the Bible is the oldest books. With some such stories of the past the folk-lore of the nomads of the desert the Bible had its beginning.
Myth is primitive philosophy, it is the simple picturesque method employed by early man to explain the mysterious world in which he lives. To many, the origin of the Bible can be summed-up as follows: "A simple translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition" - and therefore, a book with no credibility or connection to the original texts. Actually, the foregoing statement is a common misunderstanding of both Christians and non-christians similar. Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament), and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations.
Another challenge against the origin of the Bible is the reliability of the manuscripts from which today's Bibles are translated. Remarkably, there is widespread evidence for absolute reliability. There are more than 14,000 existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree dramatically with each other. In addition, these texts agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940's and 50's, also provide phenomenal evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) before the arrival of Jesus Christ. The Hebrew scribes who copied the Jewish Scriptures dedicated their lives to preserving the accuracy of the holy books. These scribes went to phenomenal lengths to insure manuscript reliability. They were highly trained and meticulously observed, counting every letter, word and paragraph against master scrolls. A single error would require the immediate destruction of the entire text.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
BI SQ # 3 (Chapter 7)
Since the Canon is composed only of inspired writings, are all the books of equal value? What was Luther’s view?
In my opinion, the Bible is the Word of God. God inspired all of these 66 books in the Bible. God reveals everything about heavens and earth. Every chapter, every verse, every word, is spoken by God through the people. God used the people and the prophets for writing his speech in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Jesus came to the earth for teaching, speaking, sharing, miracles through his disciples in synoptic Gospels. Some apostle was used by Holy Spirit as Luke, Paul etc. So, All of the books are equal value. According to the text book mentions that the word canon is a “standard’ or “rule.” It signifies the record of sacred books accepted by the Church as authoritative in matters of faith and life. It is not difficult to understand why the Gospels came to be recognized as authoritative since they contain accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. The church fathers accepted all of the books in the Bible.
As Luther is the reformer from Roman Catholic. He fought the views, the doctrines, the Bible of the Roman Catholic. As the text book in Luther’s view state that Scripture only without traditional, was the single and complete source of doctrine. He also said that only the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament and acknowledged books of the New Testament ought to be admitted as authoritative. The Catholic Church was divided in its condemnation of Luther’s statement. Luther concluded that some books of the New Testament were superior to others. He listed the superior books as John’s Gospel, Paul’s epistles especially to the Romans, and 1 Peter. He stated that the Epistle of St. James is a “right strawy epistle” when compare to with them, for it has no character of the Gospel in it. He concluded that James contradicted Paul by teaching righteousness by works.
In my opinion, the Bible is the Word of God. God inspired all of these 66 books in the Bible. God reveals everything about heavens and earth. Every chapter, every verse, every word, is spoken by God through the people. God used the people and the prophets for writing his speech in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Jesus came to the earth for teaching, speaking, sharing, miracles through his disciples in synoptic Gospels. Some apostle was used by Holy Spirit as Luke, Paul etc. So, All of the books are equal value. According to the text book mentions that the word canon is a “standard’ or “rule.” It signifies the record of sacred books accepted by the Church as authoritative in matters of faith and life. It is not difficult to understand why the Gospels came to be recognized as authoritative since they contain accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. The church fathers accepted all of the books in the Bible.
As Luther is the reformer from Roman Catholic. He fought the views, the doctrines, the Bible of the Roman Catholic. As the text book in Luther’s view state that Scripture only without traditional, was the single and complete source of doctrine. He also said that only the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament and acknowledged books of the New Testament ought to be admitted as authoritative. The Catholic Church was divided in its condemnation of Luther’s statement. Luther concluded that some books of the New Testament were superior to others. He listed the superior books as John’s Gospel, Paul’s epistles especially to the Romans, and 1 Peter. He stated that the Epistle of St. James is a “right strawy epistle” when compare to with them, for it has no character of the Gospel in it. He concluded that James contradicted Paul by teaching righteousness by works.
Friday, July 3, 2009
BI – 151 (SQ # 6)
What historical circumstances contributed to the origin of the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles?
I think there was some historical view for the Gospel and Pauling Epistle. Jesus himself gave the evidences from his teachings, healing. His instruction emphasized the new thought that success in the Kingdom comes through the pain and death of the King. He gave the requirements for kingdom citizens and the kind of service His disciples were to provide. On the basis of this message and previous teachings of Jesus, the disciple did not expect a prolonged period before His return. There are six data in the earliest from of the Gospel according to the text book. (1) Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, (2) with His coming, the Messianic prophecies have been fulfilled and the new age has dawned, (3) He is the promised descendant od David, and God’s approval of Him is manifest through His mighty works and wonders; (4) He was crucified, raised from the dead, and exalted to the right hand of God; (5) He will return to judge mankind and to consummate His Kingdom; and (6) salvation is by faith in His name.
An independently-written narrative of Paul's life and ministry, found in the Acts of the Apostles, is used to determine the date, and possible authorship, of Pauline letters by locating their origin within the context of his life. For example, Paul mentions that he is a prisoner in his Epistle to Philemon 1:7; based on this statement, J. A. T. Robinson argued that this captivity was Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea, while W. M. Ramsay identified this as Paul’s captivity in Rome, while others have placed the captivity in Ephesus. One difficulty with this position is the limited data available on Paul's historical setting, and this is especially true with the conclusion of the narrative of Acts prior to Paul's death. It also assumes that the book of Acts was written by an actual traveling companion of Paul's. However, as A.N. Sherwin-White has noted, in travel romance literature of this period, it was a normal literary convention to use the first-person plural while characters were on a shipboard voyage, and "we" passages in Acts coincide with such voyages.
I think there was some historical view for the Gospel and Pauling Epistle. Jesus himself gave the evidences from his teachings, healing. His instruction emphasized the new thought that success in the Kingdom comes through the pain and death of the King. He gave the requirements for kingdom citizens and the kind of service His disciples were to provide. On the basis of this message and previous teachings of Jesus, the disciple did not expect a prolonged period before His return. There are six data in the earliest from of the Gospel according to the text book. (1) Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, (2) with His coming, the Messianic prophecies have been fulfilled and the new age has dawned, (3) He is the promised descendant od David, and God’s approval of Him is manifest through His mighty works and wonders; (4) He was crucified, raised from the dead, and exalted to the right hand of God; (5) He will return to judge mankind and to consummate His Kingdom; and (6) salvation is by faith in His name.
An independently-written narrative of Paul's life and ministry, found in the Acts of the Apostles, is used to determine the date, and possible authorship, of Pauline letters by locating their origin within the context of his life. For example, Paul mentions that he is a prisoner in his Epistle to Philemon 1:7; based on this statement, J. A. T. Robinson argued that this captivity was Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea, while W. M. Ramsay identified this as Paul’s captivity in Rome, while others have placed the captivity in Ephesus. One difficulty with this position is the limited data available on Paul's historical setting, and this is especially true with the conclusion of the narrative of Acts prior to Paul's death. It also assumes that the book of Acts was written by an actual traveling companion of Paul's. However, as A.N. Sherwin-White has noted, in travel romance literature of this period, it was a normal literary convention to use the first-person plural while characters were on a shipboard voyage, and "we" passages in Acts coincide with such voyages.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
BI Book Review # 3
Book Title
Where Our Bible Came From (How the Old Testament Canon and the New Testament Canon Came Into Being)
By J. Carter Saim
The contents of the book
(1) The Law
(2) The Prophets
(3) The Writings
(4) The Gospels
(5) The Letters of Paul
(6) The Others Books
(7) The Church’s Canon-and Yours
About the Author
The Rev. J. Carter Swaim, a former theology professor in Pittsburgh, an executive with the National Council of Churches in New York and former pastor of the Church of the Covenant on Manhattan's East Side, died on Aug. 7 at the Presbyterian Medical Center in Washington, Pa., where he lived. He was 93. He was a professor emeritus of New Testament literature and exegesis at Western Theological and served in pastorates at Presbyterian churches in Staten Island and St. Louis. He was born in Selma, Ala., and he received degrees from Washington and Jefferson College and Western Theological Seminary (now Pittsburgh Theological), and a doctorate from the University of Edinburgh.
All about the Book
This book is a good introduction to understanding where our Bible came from. It breaks the Bible down into Old and New Testaments then describes how each group of books found their line of attack into the canon. The book tries to explain how the various books were written and at what point in time. Many Old Testament books were in point of fact written down during or after the exile after having been part of an oral tradition for generations. Then the book explains how the various writings and wisdom literature went through challenges as to whether it should be included in the canon or not.
Things did not change much when the New Testament emerged. In fact, the conservative traditionalists did much to leave out Paul's writings or include certain unfamiliar books depending on who was making the decisions. The book ends with a discussion of the early church leaders who debated over the centuries on which books were canonical and which were not. Some reformation figures like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli sought to cut rate Revelation as being too nothing like the other books of the New Testament. The Counter Reformation Council of Trent sought to reinforce Jerome's 4th Century Latin Vulgate Bible.
How we got the Bible? It is the development of the canon of the Scripture. The root meaning comes from Greek (kanwn) meaning rod, and theologically ruler, standard, norm-nominative writing for measure.
The Bible came from God through the people. God used the men, prophets, apostles or an association of an apostle. (Heb. 1:1;2, Peter 1:20-21). The writers were confirmed b an act of God. (18:22; Gal. 1:8).
It has the power of God (Heb. 4:12). It was accepted by the people of God. There are two main reasons we may affirm the Old Testament Canon of 39 books. It was the Canon of Jesus (Luke 24:27, 44). It was the Canon of the first century Jewish community. God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the father by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds Hebrews 1:1-2. Former Days God through the prophets. Last days God spoke through His son.
Posted by Sein Thein
Where Our Bible Came From (How the Old Testament Canon and the New Testament Canon Came Into Being)
By J. Carter Saim
The contents of the book
(1) The Law
(2) The Prophets
(3) The Writings
(4) The Gospels
(5) The Letters of Paul
(6) The Others Books
(7) The Church’s Canon-and Yours
About the Author
The Rev. J. Carter Swaim, a former theology professor in Pittsburgh, an executive with the National Council of Churches in New York and former pastor of the Church of the Covenant on Manhattan's East Side, died on Aug. 7 at the Presbyterian Medical Center in Washington, Pa., where he lived. He was 93. He was a professor emeritus of New Testament literature and exegesis at Western Theological and served in pastorates at Presbyterian churches in Staten Island and St. Louis. He was born in Selma, Ala., and he received degrees from Washington and Jefferson College and Western Theological Seminary (now Pittsburgh Theological), and a doctorate from the University of Edinburgh.
All about the Book
This book is a good introduction to understanding where our Bible came from. It breaks the Bible down into Old and New Testaments then describes how each group of books found their line of attack into the canon. The book tries to explain how the various books were written and at what point in time. Many Old Testament books were in point of fact written down during or after the exile after having been part of an oral tradition for generations. Then the book explains how the various writings and wisdom literature went through challenges as to whether it should be included in the canon or not.
Things did not change much when the New Testament emerged. In fact, the conservative traditionalists did much to leave out Paul's writings or include certain unfamiliar books depending on who was making the decisions. The book ends with a discussion of the early church leaders who debated over the centuries on which books were canonical and which were not. Some reformation figures like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli sought to cut rate Revelation as being too nothing like the other books of the New Testament. The Counter Reformation Council of Trent sought to reinforce Jerome's 4th Century Latin Vulgate Bible.
How we got the Bible? It is the development of the canon of the Scripture. The root meaning comes from Greek (kanwn) meaning rod, and theologically ruler, standard, norm-nominative writing for measure.
The Bible came from God through the people. God used the men, prophets, apostles or an association of an apostle. (Heb. 1:1;2, Peter 1:20-21). The writers were confirmed b an act of God. (18:22; Gal. 1:8).
It has the power of God (Heb. 4:12). It was accepted by the people of God. There are two main reasons we may affirm the Old Testament Canon of 39 books. It was the Canon of Jesus (Luke 24:27, 44). It was the Canon of the first century Jewish community. God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the father by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds Hebrews 1:1-2. Former Days God through the prophets. Last days God spoke through His son.
Posted by Sein Thein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
