USD $169.00
Search Results
Page:12
Author:
Many who argue that Jesus was a herald of Israel’s eschatological restoration have also suggested that he expected the ingathering of the exiles. Studies of John the Baptist have typically focused on his warnings of the coming judgment and his predictions of ‘the coming one’, thus leaving aside the possibility that John’s baptism and message also signaled the ingathering of the exiles. Further, scholars have largely ignored the import of Isa. 40 in the ministry of John, which was frequently read in the Second Temple period as a prophecy of the return of the exiles at the end of time. It is the contention of this article that Isa. 40 provides an interpretive framework for John’s activities, indicating that his baptism was not just a symbol of the coming judgment but also of Israel’s restoration.
Author:
Abstract
The author offers a grateful reply to his three respondents before clarifying a few matters and responding to queries. Nothing emerges that would require modifications to the main arguments of the book.
Author:
Abstract
This article defends the rarely encountered suggestion that Matthew’s insertion of “Jesus” in the titulus (27:37) recalls the word of the Angel to Joseph: “You will call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (1:21). The reading has precedent in the work of John Gill but is altogether absent from Matthew commentaries and mentioned only in passing in a select few exegetical studies. The structure of Matthew’s gospel, components of his form and style, the narrative shape of his crucifixion scene, and his attempt to associate the death of Jesus with the forgiveness of sins, all suggest that “Jesus” on the titulus is more significant than hitherto realized. Like the fulfillment of Scripture in the casting of lots and the words of mockery from the passersby, the inscription unwittingly witnesses to Jesus as the Savior of his people.
Author:
The attempt to identify the obscure “son of God” figure in 4Q246 often begins with discussion of the structure of the fragment and the background of the titles employed. This article suggests there are problems with both approaches and offers an alternative: an examination of biblical naming traditions and a rhetorical analysis of the way in which the figure “is called” the son of God in i 9 and ii 1. It concludes that the “son” is probably identified positively given the fragment’s similarity with positive naming traditions in the biblical text, as well as its dissimilarity with other examples of Jewish and Christian polemic. Further, it is probable that the divine naming of the figure participates in a widespread messianic topos.
Author:
Abstract
Study of Josephus’ interpretation of the Bible has focused on the paraphrase in Antiquities, but Josephus continued to engage Scripture in his post-biblical history. This article contends that Josephus, like the authors of the synoptic gospels and later Jewish exegetes, saw the events of 66-70 C.E. through the lens of Jeremiah’s temple sermon (7:1-34). The accounts of Jesus ben Ananias and Josephus’ speech before the city walls, among other examples, show recourse to Jeremiah 7.
Over the course of his career, Dale Allison has enriched our understanding of Jewish and Christian hopes about the end of history, advanced nuanced readings of ancient texts in light of their scriptural and cultural conversation partners, and deepened our knowledge of the history of biblical interpretation throughout the ages. In all of these ways, he has sought, in the words of T.S. Eliot, “to recover what has been lost.”
In “To Recover What Has Been Lost”: Essays on Eschatology, Intertextuality, and Reception History in Honor of Dale C. Allison Jr., leading biblical scholars and historians offer ground-breaking studies on Jewish and Christian eschatology, intertextuality, and reception history—three areas particularly evident in Allison’s scholarship. These essays reconstruct the past, advance fresh readings, and reclaim overlooked exegetical insights. In so doing, they too recover what has been lost.
In “To Recover What Has Been Lost”: Essays on Eschatology, Intertextuality, and Reception History in Honor of Dale C. Allison Jr., leading biblical scholars and historians offer ground-breaking studies on Jewish and Christian eschatology, intertextuality, and reception history—three areas particularly evident in Allison’s scholarship. These essays reconstruct the past, advance fresh readings, and reclaim overlooked exegetical insights. In so doing, they too recover what has been lost.
Over the course of his career, Dale Allison has enriched our understanding of Jewish and Christian hopes about the end of history, advanced nuanced readings of ancient texts in light of their scriptural and cultural conversation partners, and deepened our knowledge of the history of biblical interpretation throughout the ages. In all of these ways, he has sought, in the words of T.S. Eliot, “to recover what has been lost.”
In “To Recover What Has Been Lost”: Essays on Eschatology, Intertextuality, and Reception History in Honor of Dale C. Allison Jr., leading biblical scholars and historians offer ground-breaking studies on Jewish and Christian eschatology, intertextuality, and reception history—three areas particularly evident in Allison’s scholarship. These essays reconstruct the past, advance fresh readings, and reclaim overlooked exegetical insights. In so doing, they too recover what has been lost.
In “To Recover What Has Been Lost”: Essays on Eschatology, Intertextuality, and Reception History in Honor of Dale C. Allison Jr., leading biblical scholars and historians offer ground-breaking studies on Jewish and Christian eschatology, intertextuality, and reception history—three areas particularly evident in Allison’s scholarship. These essays reconstruct the past, advance fresh readings, and reclaim overlooked exegetical insights. In so doing, they too recover what has been lost.
Page:12