Theses
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14194/2579
Browse
Search Results
Item Using The Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4–5 As a Heuristic Lens to Understand Paul’s Christology in Romans(South African Theological Seminary Johannesburg) Peltier, Robert V.; Lioy, Dan T.The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the Shema (Deut 6:4–5) may serve as a heuristic lens to clarify and deepen our understanding of Paul’s Christology in Romans. The study commences with a two-part literature review. First, the scholarly literature is examined to determine the epistemology of intertextuality as a literary-critical theory. Orthodox intertextuality is assessed as an unacceptable hermeneutical tool as it abandons the essential historical, literary principle of authorial intent and replaces textual meaning with a nebulous construct of countless reader-determined meanings. Further, authorial intent is abrogated, meaning no standard or referent exists for determining absolute truth. These characteristics of orthodox intertextuality make its use in biblical studies problematic. Second, the literature is surveyed to identify scholars who have normalized intertextuality into a biblically sound hermeneutical tool. The literature review shows that biblical intertextuality studies offer the opportunity for revealing new interpretive meaning from a text while studiously avoiding the undesirable portions of orthodox intertextuality. There are no universally accepted guidelines, definitions, or methodology for identifying intertextual allusion and echoes of the OT in the NT. Thus, a proposed heuristic is developed to evaluate biblical intertexts, including a taxonomy of biblical intertext types and definitions to guide this study, particularly for the identification of intertextual citations, allusions, and echoes. This study presents a proposed methodology for identifying and evaluating candidate allusions and echoes in inter-, intra-, and extra-biblical texts. Chapter 3reviews the presence of the Shema in Deuteronomy, the remainder of the OT, and the Second Temple literature. The review begins with an exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:4–5 conducted based on the MT, LXX, and NA28 versions of the passage. Based on an analysis of the available OT and NT texts, the Nash Papyrus, and recent archaeological finds, the proper interpretation of Deut 6:4 is determined to be “Hear Israel! The Lord our God is One Lord.” The Shema is the definitive statement of Jewish monotheism expressed by Moses and the Oneness of God by Paul. The remainder of chapter 3 presents an exploration of the context of the Shema found in Second Temple literature. Chapter 4 shifts the focus of the study to an examination of the Sitz im Leben of the Roman church. Paul writes to the church to address the social/religious friction between Gentile and Jewish believers during the reintegration of returning Jewish Christians following their eviction from Rome. Paul writes of his concern for the church’s unity and his desire to reshape their understanding of the faith experience, particularly concerning the Mosaic Law’s role in salvation. Paul’s understanding of the Oneness of God is a significant theme developed in conjunction with his midrashic interpretive hermeneutic. The chapter concludes with a discussion of Paul’s understanding of the Oneness of God in light of Jewish monotheism. Chapter 5 integrates the prior work to characterize the intertextual appearance of the Shema as found in many Christological passages in Romans using the methodology developed in chapter 2. A final list of ten intertexts (eight allusions and two echoes) are identified where Paul either alludes to or echoes the Shema when expressing an important feature of his Christology. A further 13 passages marginally failed the analysis methodology are documented for future researchers. Finally, in chapter 6, the exegetical value of the ten qualified intertexts is examined, particularly how these passages are all strategically located within discourse units in which Paul is addressing a specific Christological teaching. The passages identified as allusions to the Shema are Romans 1:7b; 2:13–15a; 3:29–31; 7:12, 22; 9:4; and 10:6–8, 17. The passages identified as echoes of the Shema are Romans 5:5 and 6:16–18. Paul often uses allusions or echoes to amplify and sharpen his arguments when he presents or explains a particular aspect of his Christology. Paul’s arguments are often multi-layered, adding substance and depth to his instructions to the Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul’s allusions and echoes of the Shema may be likened to an added layer of context or emphasis. The presence of the intertexts strengthen Paul’s argument rather than carrying the entire weight of his argument, particularly when addressing Christological topics such as the Oneness of God, justification, and righteousness. The identified allusions and echoes are more appropriately considered as a “force multiplier” in his arguments rather than the “tip of the spear.” In sum, Paul has reinterpreted the Shema in a midrashic sense to declare that the One God of the Jews is also the One God for all people. Paul has extended the interpreted meaning of the Shema beyond the exclusive province of the Jews to a more universal understanding of the Shema within Paul’s Christology in Romans so that all people may declare that “The Lord our God is One Lord.”Item Λόγος Christology in the Prologue of John’s Gospel: A Rejection of Philo of Alexandria’s Logos Philosophy?(South African Theological Seminary Johannesburg South Africa) Peltier, Robert V.; Lioy, Dan T.A leading theory about the inspiration or origin of John’s use of Λόγος as a metaphor for Jesus Christ in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel issued-Hellenistic philosophical thought, principally the works of Philo of Alexandria and his use of a mystical logos as a pseudo-divine intermediary between transcendent God and humanity. Other scholars have postulated that John’s Christological Λόγος is merely an evolutionary step from Philo’s mystical logos or perhaps was derived from incipient-Gnostic thought. These view Sar troubling for an evangelical Christian with a conservative view of the inspiration of Scripture and a suitable response is required. The work begins with a discussion of the use of a prologue in Greek literature and an evaluation of the evidence for John selecting this particular literary motif to introduce his gospel. The prologue literary motif was developed by prominent Greek writers as a means to establish the “back story” or to provide an overview, summary, or reveal the theme of a written work. John used the Prologue in the Fourth Gospel as a literary device to draw Greek-speaking diaspora Jews, converts to Judaism (proselytes), and Gentile ‘God-fearers” steeped in Hellenistic culture closer in order to hear the gospel message. Further, John’s Λόγος Christology is evaluated in light of the Greek philosophical beliefs of the first century and an evaluation of the Prologue in a cosmological, metaphysical, epistemological, and soteriological sensei’s presented. This portion of the work concludes with a review of the many Christological themes found in the Prologue to demonstrate John’s use of a prologue was consistent with the literary standards of this time. Also, the strong evidence for John’s authorship, the date of writing (late first century, likely between 85–95C.E.), and the provenance of the gospel (Ephesus) are established, which establishes that Philo’s were surely available to John. The most straightforward means to prove that John’s Christological Λόγος was not merely the next step or “bridge” in the logical development of Philo’s mythological logos but was rather was a rejection of the Philonic logos was to perform a detailed comparison of the two writings. Philo’s writings pertaining to his description of the nature, purpose, and work of his philosophical logos are closely examined. In general, Philo’s logos is a philosophical construct built upon historical Greek logos that was believed to be the rational intelligence that unifies all creation and the sole face of God to humanity. Philo’s ambition was to develop a unified system of thought regarding the Hebraic Old Testament concept of God with the Hellenistic metaphysical logos. Success in syncretizing the two belief systems would demonstrate that the logos found in the Jewish Old Testament preceded the Greek logos and thus the origin of the Greek logos. A detailed exegetical analysis of the Prologue produced ten essential statements about the origins, person, and work of John’s Christological Λόγος that is next compared to Philo’s description of his mythological logos using a set of ten criterion. The work concludes that there are no intersections of thought between John’s description of the Christological Λόγος and Philo’s logos philosophy. Therefore, John’s Prologue is an explicit “rejection” of Philo’s logos philosophy, whether or not the apostle John was aware of the writings of Philo of Alexandria. John’s Prologue is also an implicit apologetic, or better, a polemic against Philo’s logos philosophy in so far as John’s knowledge of Philo’s writings can only be determined through circumstantial evidence, although motives are impossible to determine without direct knowledge of John’s state of mind at the time of writing the Prologue. These conclusions have many implications. For example, the scholarly view that Philo’s mystical philosophy was an evolutionary step into what was to become John’s Christological view of the Λόγος or that John’s Λόγος is Philo’s logos in abbreviated form may be suspect because neither conclusion is supported by the evidence presented. If there are no similarities of thought then there can be no evolution of thought. John’s Prologue to the Fourth Gospel was written for multiple purposes. John wrote a very persuasive evangelical writing with the purpose of attracting Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles with the purpose of persuading readers to accept John’s apologetic description of the incarnate Λόγος as God in flesh. In doing so, John explicitly rejects the Philonic logos as the detailed comparison of John’s Christological Λόγος and Philo’s philosophical logos demonstrate. John chose the word “logos” because it is a term recognizable to Gentiles and Jews, living within a Hellenistic culture, as a literary device to attract the largest possible audience as a means to present his polemic against the Philonic logos. It was John’s stated desire that all his readers “...may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31).