youssra
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER 2: LITERARY PROBLEM
INTRODUCTION
An attempt to establish, define and describe the literary problem with regard to the explicit ριος and ς citations require a literary backdrop broader than just the Pauline literature and even broader than the New Testament corpus itself. It would be imperative for this study to discuss these citations against a much broader literary Jewish-Hellenistic backdrop than what is offered by both the Old and New Testament text.1 Pre-conceived parameters would however be necessary to ensure specialised focus on the issue at hand. This chapter therefore confines itself to the following restrictions to ensure that the literary problem is determined, evaluated and discussed effectively. Attention will thus be given to the following:
a.) Biblical manuscripts (both Hebrew and Greek) dated between the 3rd century BCE and 2nd century CE;2
b.) testifying to either the terms אדני יהוה אלהים and ριος, ς and δ πο ής;
c.) while cross-checking against a critical text edition, where available, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 5th edition (Biblia Hebraica Quinta where obtainable), Vetus Testamentum Graecum – Göttingensis editum and Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum
Graece Editio XXVII (Editio Critica Maior, where available);
The reason for these parameters is based upon the generally accepted and undisputed assumption that Hebrew and Greek manuscripts attesting to biblical content found in and around the Judean desert dating back to the third centurion BCE, is the oldest available to date.3
Secondly, the manuscripts found in and around Upper Egypt attest to some of the oldest known Greek manuscripts testifying to biblical content. Thirdly, translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, were most probably initiated from the middle of the third century BCE onwards, 4 offering a wealth of information regarding the initiation and development of theological concepts and ideas. Finally, the text critical editions would prove to be of immense importance not just for cross-checking purposes, but also to point out possible scribal and text traditional tendencies and practises. Some remarks should be in order regarding the inclusion of the works of Philo and Josephus. The importance of these authors’ work should not be underestimated, even though the ‘critical’ editions of their work date back to at least the eighth century CE.5 The concepts and ideas formed as Hellenistic Jews, who wrote and communicated in Greek, would at least assist one to construct a reasonable first century conceptual frame of reference with regard to the terms ριος and ς,6 as well as with related terms. The works of both Philo and Josephus would prove to be a fairly balanced view regarding theological Jewish concepts within Hellenistic thought. Such a balanced view is dependant on the acceptance of the presupposition that Philo represents Hellenized Jewish thoughts and concepts from a philosophical perspective, while Josephus as historian would be representative of Jewish thoughts with a Hellenistic colour. The inclusion of both the works of Philo and Josephus should thus not be regarded as an indication to deviate from a historical-critical, and in particular a text-critical approach of the New Testament documents per se, towards a more conceptual-philosophical methodology – although the latter cannot be completely dismissed. These and other literary significant voices would prove to be invaluable in addressing the multi-dimensional character of this proposed literary problem. In the first instance, one is confronted with the problem relating to the prohibition in pronouncing the Tetragram, which in turn had implications for the transmission of the Hebrew text, especially from the third century BCE onwards.8 Secondly, due to the intricacy in ‘naming’ the Hebrew deity,this had an impact on the translation process; the issue surrounding the oral reproduction of the Tetragram spilled over into the process of finding a theological suitable Greek equivalent for the Tetragram (a ‘name’ for the personal Hebrew deity) in particular and for the monotheistic Hebrew deity in general. It would be plausible to assume that the Greek translators of the Hebrew text were familiar with the dilemma surrounding the pronunciation and literary reproduction of the Tetragram.9 Thirdly, due to the multitude of Hebrew text readings and the complexity surrounding such readings, one could expect the potential for various Greek text traditions. Finally, the array of issues inevitably would have an impact on the Vorlage(n) available to the New Testament authors, including Paul.
Opsomming/Summary
Dedication and Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Preface
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 FIELD OF RESEARCH
1.2.1 Identified Citations
1.2.2 Target and Source Contexts
1.3 PROBLEM FORMULATION
1.4 A HISTORY OF RESEARCH
1.4.1 Old Testament Citations in the Pauline Literature
1.4.2 Research Done on the Origin of ΚΥΡΙΟΣ
1.5 THE THEORY
1.6 METHOD OF RESEARCH
1.7 OBJECTIVES
Chapter 2: Literary Problem
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 Examples
2.1.2 The General “Rule of Thumb” – A Problem of Rendition
2.2 VORGESCHICHTE AND LITERARY CONTEXT
2.2.1 The Transmission Problem: Hebrew Text Tradition
2.2.2 The Translation Problem: Greek Text Tradition (OG)
2.2.3 Theological Explicit Renditions of the Hebrew Esther
2.2.4 Preliminary Conclusions
2.3 THE TRANSMISSION PROBLEM – NT TEXT TRADITIONS
2.3.1 Introduction
2.3.2 The Terms ριος and ς – Reflecting upon the Text Critical Variations
2.3.2.1 Synoptic Gospels
2.3.2.2 Acts of the Apostles
2.3.2.3 Johannine Gospel
2.3.2.4 Pastoral Letters
2.3.2.4.1 1 and 2 Timothy
2.3.2.5 General Letters
2.3.2.5.1 James
2.3.2.5.2 1 and 2 Peter
2.3.2.5.3 Jude
2.3.2.5.4 Johannine Epistles
2.3.2.5.5 Hebrews
2.3.2.5.6 Revelation
2.3.3 The Terms ριος and ς – Reflecting on the Text Critical
Variations and Concepts (Deutero-Pauline)
2.3.3.1 Colossians
2.3.3.2 Ephesians
2.3.3.3 2 Thessalonians
2.4 THE TERMS ΚΥΡΙΟΣ AND ΘΕΟΣ IN THE PAULINE LETTERS (NON-CITATIONS)
2.4.1 1 Thessalonians
2.4.2 Galatians
2.4.3 Philippians and Philemon
2.5 THE WORKS OF PHILO
2.5.1 Introduction
2.5.2 Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit
2.5.3 Legum Allegoria
2.5.4 De Sobrietate
2.5.5 De Mutatione Nominum
2.5.6 Summary
2.6 THE WORKS OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
2.6.1 Introduction
2.6.2 Antiquitates Judaicae
2.6.3 De Belle Judaico
2.6.4 Contra Apionem
2.6.5 Summary
Chapter 3: Explicit ΚΥΡΙΟΣ and ΘΕΟΣ Citations in the Literary Conceptual Context of Romans
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 ESTABLISHING THE EXPLICIT CITATIONS
3.3 EXPLICIT CITATIONS WITHOUT INTRODUCTORY FORMULAE
3.4 ESTABLISHING THE ΚΥΡΙΟΣ AND ΘΕΟΣ TEXT IN ROMANS
3.5 SUMMARY
Chapter 4: Explicit ΚΥΡΙΟΣ and ΘΕΟΣ Citations in the Literary Conceptual Context of First and Second Corinthians
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 ESTABLISHING THE ΚΥΡΙΟΣ AND ΘΕΟΣ TEXT
IN 1 AND 2 CORINTHIANS
4.3 SUMMARY
Chapter 5: Conclusion – Observations on Paul’s Concept of a Hebrew Deity
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 EVALUATING THE JEWISH-HELLENISTIC BACKDROP
5.3 PAUL’S ΚΥΡΙΟΣ AND ΘΕΟΣ CONCEPTS
5.4 PAUL’S CONCEPT OF A HEBREW DEITY
5.5 PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
ADDENDUM A
ADDENDUM B
ADDENDUM C
BIBLIOGRAPHY
