Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception
2018; Eisenbrauns; Volume: 28; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.5325/bullbiblrese.28.1.0156
ISSN2576-0998
Autores ResumoThe first 20% of this volume is devoted to studies on Jesus (cols. 1–99) or related topics (an eclectic range: “Jesus’ Brothers and Sisters,” “Jesus’ Marriage, Theories of,” “Jesus, Lost Years of,” “Jesus among the Teachers in the Temple,” “Jesus Army,” “Jesus People”; see cols. 100–137). Tom Holmén’s characterization of Jesus in the NT (cols. 1–7) reasonably anchors the section, adopting a conservative rather than skeptical interpretation of the evidence: “the picture the sources paint of Jesus stays broadly on target” (col. 1), that is, it is largely true to fact. Works by Dale Allison, Craig Evans, Scot McKnight, Stanley Porter, and N. T. Wright are prominent in Holmén’s bibliography. Holmén points out in closing that “where the scholarly view of Jesus most clearly parts from the traditional Christian faith is in the interpretation of the outcome of Jesus’ work” (col. 6). The “scholarly view” would doubt the resurrection, whereas “the followers of Jesus became convinced of” it. Jesus’ vindication by God and his continuing life “stretches his importance from the first century to our time and beyond” (col. 7). There is more material on Jesus in Judaism (cols. 10–18: rabbinic, medieval, and modern [by Donald Hagner]), however, than on Jesus in the NT.A block of pages nearly as lengthy as the volume’s Jesus section is devoted to topics related to “Jew, Jews,” including articles on “Jewish Christianity,” “Jewish Publication Society,” “Jewish Renewal,” “Jewish Revolt, First,” “Jewish Christian Relations,” “Jewish Muslim Relations,” and “Jews for Jesus” (see cols. 154–249, along with cols. 902–32 treating “Judaism, Bible in”). Marc Z. Brettler points out that “historical critical study of the Bible . . . has come much later to the broader Jewish community than it has to much of the Christian community” (col. 917); the effects of this are still unfolding but are unlikely to be negligible.OT scholars will find treatments of Job, Joel, Jonah, Joshua, and Judges, along with numerous studies of named OT figures, such as around a dozen persons named Joseph (cols. 667–71), a few of them from the NT. Special treatment is accorded Joseph of the patriarchal era (cols. 680–713) and Mary’s husband by that name (cols. 671–80). Also highlighted are Joseph of Arimathea and Titus Flavius Josephus (a learned series of treatments on both Josephus and the complex historiographies surrounding his works and name through the centuries; see cols. 734–53).Seventeen persons named Jonathan are listed (so are 15 persons named Joel), with the son of Saul receiving particular scrutiny in connection with the love he and David shared. Jan Rückl concludes that there is an “erotic dimension” to their friendship, but that “the erotic aspects . . . do not allow for designating their relationship as ‘homosexual’ in the modern sense of the word” (col. 616). Theirs was an intense but platonic love. On the subject of the OT Jubilee, Michael Harbin writes, “While both the release from slavery and cancellation of debt movements” in modern times “claim to draw from the OT institution of Jubilee, more recent studies suggest that neither reflect accurately the premises of that event” seen in their OT context (col. 859).The numerous men named John in biblical times or church history, including the Baptist and the apostle (though called “the disciple”), receive their due. The important work of Charles Hill on John and Johannine studies does not seem to have been noted. Samuel Powell does observe that “a portion of the scholarly community still maintains apostolic, eyewitness authorship” of the Fourth Gospel, while others deny it (col. 532). John’s Gospel figures significantly in Swami Yogananda’s 190,000-word treatment of the four Gospels that offers interpretations demonstrating that unity exists between “the true Scriptures of all true religions” (col. 535).The article “Journals, Biblical” lists dozens of publications, but no modern works of Evangelical conviction apart from a veiled reference to Bibliotheca Sacra. This journal is praised when in the mid-1800s it “broadened” and “became the principle voice of the more moderate Calvinism of the ‘New England Theology.’” It receives no mention, however, in its longstanding Dallas Theological Seminary association except to say that since 150 years ago it “has moved in a decidedly more conservative direction” (col. 813). “Junia” receives thorough treatment, for an encyclopedia; Sebastian Fuhrmann asserts that “the issue of Junia seems to have been more or less settled in current scholarship, mainly because most of the counter-arguments are less (but not always totally un-) convincing: she was female and an apostle” (col. 1071).“Justification” receives extensive attention (cols. 1131–50); Marie Nuar’s explanation of Islam’s lack of this doctrine is a valuable summary of the core of Islamic soteriology and theological anthropology (col. 1150). Other important topics in this volume are (to name just a few) “Just War,” “Justice,” “Joy,” and “Judge, Judging, Judgment.” Important church-historical figures include Justin Martyr, Julian of Norwich, and the enigmatic Joachim of Fiore. Significant modern interpreters include Hans Jonas, Benjamin Jowett, Adolf Jülicher, Paul Kahle, and Martin Kähler (1835–1917). Kähler viewed Schleiermacher’s influential theology “as a virtuous piece of doctrinal art, but without biblical foundation” (col. 1221). He aimed at constructing a “Bibeltheologie” that acknowledged “the salvific efficacy of biblical witness” existing “prior to exegetical investigation by means of approved academic methods” (ibid.). For Kähler, “the major task of academic theology is to ‘track down’ this efficacy in the course of history” (ibid.). Many who had a hand in the Barmen Declaration were students of Kähler, who recognized that “Christology . . . is fundamental to soteriology” and that “mission is the fundamental task of the church” (col. 1222).James E. Harding, in “Josiah (King of Judah),” notes, “The reception of Josiah during the time of the Reformation is a noteworthy illustration of the fact that some moments in the history of reception of a given biblical passage [such as Josiah’s rediscovery of the torah; 2 Kgs 22] are of singular significance for their particular historical effects” (col. 801). He continues: “As the biblical narratives of Josiah’s reform point to a decisive shift towards the centrality of the written word in the religion of Judaism, so 16th-century evangelicalism instantiated a comparable shift in the Christianity of western Europe” (ibid.).Students of Scripture, its reception, and that reception’s myriad effects continue to be well served by the volumes of this wide-ranging, often in-depth reference work.
Referência(s)