No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2024
Not infrequently one meets scholars and laity who envisage Paul, the apostle, as a revolutionary and Jesus as a non-violent, non-aggressive person (except perhaps for his cleansing of the Temple). Is this view correct ? It will be the plan of this paper to suggest—but by no means to come to a firm conclusion-—that the opposite is true. When I speak of ‘Paul’ I shall be speaking of the Pauline school, not necessarily of the individual apostle, and when I speak of Jesus I shall not always distinguish between the ipsissima vox, the very voice of Jesus, and ipsissima verba, the very words of Jesus, as redacted by the evangelists. Further in examining Pauline theology we must remind ourselves continually that in all likelihood the apostle never saw one of our written canonical gospels.
1 Jeremias, J., Jesus' Promise to the Nations, Studies in Biblical Theology, S.C.M. Press, 1958Google Scholar.
2 Paul gives us no information about his position on niddah (impurity of women).
3 Rehkopf, F., Die Lukanische Sonderquelle. Ihr Umfang und Sprachgebrauch, Mohr‐Siebeck, Tübingen, 1959, 2 volumesGoogle Scholar.
4 Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of St Peter, New York, 1964, p. 430Google Scholar.
5 Crouch, James E., The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1972, pp. 16ffGoogle Scholar.
6 Kahler, Else, Die Frau in den Paulischer Briefen, Zurich, 1960. Pp. 17‐21Google Scholar give important tables to show that the statements about men and women are corresponding not different from one another.
7 Barth, Marcus, Anchor Bible Commentary on Ephesians 4‐6, volume 2, Double‐day, New York, 1974, p. 657Google Scholar.
8 Ibid., pp. 657‐658.
9 Ibid., p. 659.
10 Ibid., p. 661.
11 Ibid., p. 661, note 219.
12 Cullmann, Oscar, The State in the New Testament, Charles Scribner, New York, 1956, pp. 50‐70Google Scholar but see also Kasemann, E., ‘The Interpretation of Romans 13’, pp. 196‐216 in New Testament Questions of Today, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1967Google Scholar. Cullmann thinks that it is ‘dangerous to set up an eschatological horizon behind these verses’: this happens only in Revelation.
13 Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism, volume 1, E.T. Fortress Press, 1974, pp. 15‐17Google Scholar speaks of Jewish mercenaries in the Greek armies and their influence in the Diaspora.
14 This pericope may not be genuine Pauline material, see Gnilka, J:, ‘2 Cor. 6:14‐7:1 in the light of the Qumran texts and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs’ in Paul and Qumran, edited by Murphy‐O'Connor, J., Priory Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1968Google Scholar and Gärtner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament, Cambridge University Press, 1965, pp. 49‐56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Spicq, C., Saint Paul, Les Epitres Pastorales, Tome I, Paris, 1969, pp. 563‐564Google Scholar gives a reference to Sirach 27:1‐3; Test. Jud. 19:1 and profane writers. He remarks that the love of money is one of the most exploited themes of the diatribe.
16 Daube, David, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, University of London, Athlone Press, 1956, pp. 336‐351Google Scholar.
17 For the date of Hebrews see Montefiore, H. W., The Epistle to the Hebrews, Adam and Charles Black, London, 1964, pp. 28‐29Google Scholar who gives the date 52‐54 A.D.
18 Jeremias, J.. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, S.C.M. Press, E.T. London, 1969Google Scholar.
19 Flusser, David, Jesus, Herder and Herder, E.T. 1969, p. 18Google Scholar. ‘Viewing Jesus’ sayings against the background of contemporary Jewish learning, however, it is easy to observe that Jesus was far from uneducated. He was perfectly at home both in holy scripture, and in oral tradition, and knew how to apply this scholarly heritage. Jesus ‘ Jewish education was incomparably superior to that of St Paul’.
20 Buchanan, George Wesley, To the Hebrews, The Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York, 1972, pp. 208‐9Google Scholar.
21 Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John, E.T. Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1971, pp. 475‐476Google Scholar.
22 Käsemann, E., The Testament of Jesus, S.C.M. London, 1968, p. 30‐31Google Scholar.
23 Baron, S. W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Columbia University Press, New York. 1958, p. 254Google Scholar.
24 Wuellner, Wilhelm, The Meaning of ‘Fishers of Men’, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1967, pp. 26‐63Google Scholar.
25 O. Cullmann, op. cit., pp. 15‐17, who lists Simon, Judas, Peter, James and John.
26 Duncan, J. Derrett, M., Law in the New Testament, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970, pp. 48‐77Google Scholar.
27 Ibid., pp. 32‐47.
28 Trocmé, André, Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution, E.T. Herald Press, Scotsdale, 1973Google Scholar.
29 Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus, Eerdmanns Grand Rapids, 1972Google Scholar.
30 North, R. SJ, Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee, Rome, 1954Google Scholar.
31 Hengel, Martin, Property and Riches in the Early Church, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1974Google Scholar.
32 Finkel, Asher, The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth, Leiden, 1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 Finkelstein, Louis, Akiba Scholar, Saint and Martyr, Meridian Books, Philadelphia, 1962Google Scholar and Glatzer, Nahum N., Hillel the Elder, the Emergence of Classical Judaism, Schocken Books, New York, 1966Google Scholar.
34 Gerhardsson, B., Memory and Manuscript, Lund, 1963, p. 100Google Scholar.
35 Cf Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke, E. T. Harper & Row, New York, 1960Google Scholar.
36 Derrett, op. cit., pp. 266‐278.
37 ‘… they will never touch a coin on the ground that one should neither carry, nor look upon, nor make an image….’ Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Haer. ix. 26 quoted by Brandon, S. G. F.. Jesus and the Zealots, Manchester University Press, 1967Google Scholar.
38 The author realises that she has not used a redactional critical methodology but is preparing this at more length in a book probably to be entitled The Evolution of Social Consciousness in the Judaeo‐Christian Tradition.
You have
Access