• FILOLOGíA NEOTESTAMENTARIA
  • Instructions for Contributors
  • Index by Authors
  • Index by Biblical Books
  • Font Instructions
  • Vol 26 (2013)
  • Vol 25 (2012)
  • Vol 24 (2011)
  • Vol 23 (2010)
  • Vol 22 (2009)
  • Vol 21 (2008)
  • Vol 20 (2007)
  • Vol 19 (2006)
  • Vol 18 (2005)
  • Vol 17 (2004)
  • Vol 16 (2003)
  • Vol 15 (2002)
  • Vol 14 (2001)
  • Vol 13 (2000)
  • Vol 12 (1999)
  • Vol 11 (1998)
  • Vol 10 (1997)
  • Vol 9 (1996)
  • Vol 8 (1995)
  • Vol 7 (1994)
  • Vol 20 (2007)

    Porter Stanley E. - O'Donnel Matthew Brook, «Conjunctions, Clines and Levels of Discourse.» Vol. 3-14

    Conjunctions have proved to be a recurring problem for Greek analysis. They are usually treated on the same level of analysis, as if they presented a single set of discrete choices. However, the use of conjunctions in Greek provides two horizontal clines of conjunctive meaning–continuity-discontinuity and logical-semantic significance–and are selected according to a vertical cline of discourse. This paper explores a basic framework for analysis of conjunctions in the light of these axes.

    See more by the same author
    Creve Sam - Janse Mark - Demoen Kristoffel, «The Pauline Key Words pneu=ma and sa/rc and their Translation.» Vol. 15-31

    This paper examines the meaning of the Pauline key words pneu=ma and sa/rc and the way they are rendered in recent Bible translations. The first part presents a new approach to lexical semantics called cognitive grammar by which the various meanings of pneu=ma and sa/rc are represented as networks connected by semantic relations such as metonymy and metaphor. The second part investigates the way in shich recent Bible translations navigate between concordant and interpretative translation: pneu=ma is generally translated concordantly as «S/spirit», whereas sa/rc is often rendered interpretatively to avoid the traditional concordant translation «flesh».

    Whiteley Iwan M., «An Explanation for the Anacoloutha in the Book of Revelation.» Vol. 33-50

    The book of Revelation is generally considered to contain a lot of grammatical mistakes. This article suggests that these grammatical inconsistencies are a feature of John’s own hermeneutical agenda. There is an explanation of how John directed his reader towards his evolutionary morphosyntax and a list of various kinds of anacolutha are provided.

    See more by the same author
    Danove Paul, «Distinguishing Goal and Locative Complements of New Testament Verbs of Transference.» Vol. 51-66

    This study develops a rigorous method for distinguishing the Goal or Locative function of dative case noun phrase and ei0j and pro/j prepositional phrase required complements of NT verbs that designate transference. The discussion examines the manner in which Greek verbs grammaticalize the event of transference and proposes a semantic feature, ±animate, which specifies whether the entity designated by the complement is or is not attributed with the characteristics of a living being. An investigation of all occurrences of the dative case, ei0j, and pro/j required verbal complements then permits a distinction in their function as either Goal or Locative based on their animacy. The study concludes with an investigation of the constraints that these verbs place on the interpretation of their required complements.

    See more by the same author
    Mardaga Hellen, «The Use and Meaning of e)kei=noj in Jn 19,35.» Vol. 67-80

    The demonstrative pronoun e)kei=noj occurs in the parenthesis of Jn 19,35, a verse which is important in discussions concerning the authorship of the fourth gospel. In general e)kei=noj is considered characteristic of John’s style, but there is no consensus among exegetes with regard to meaning of e)kei=noj in 19,35. Up to four different interpretations have been proposed for the pronoun in the present context. The author proposes a fifth possibility: e)kei=noj in Jn 19,35 resumes au)tou= in the preceding construction au)tou= e)stin h( marturi/a. The beloved disciple is ‘the one who sees’ and who subsequently bears witness to what he has seen.

    See more by the same author
    Spitaler Peter, «Doubting in Acts 10:27?» Vol. 81-93

    The verb diakri/nomai occurs twice in the Acts of the Apostles. Many contemporary interpreters assert it means «hesitate/doubt» in 10:20 –a meaning of the middle and passive voices that, according to opinio communis, first surfaces in NT texts– and «contest/dispute» in 11:2, its classical/Hellenistic meaning. In this article, I first discuss and critique the criteria that guide scholars to render diakri/nomai in Acts 10:20 with a meaning that diverges from extra-biblical Greek meaning categories. Next, I investigate the verse within its immediate (10:9-20) and larger literary contexts (10:1-11:18) to show that interpretations of the phrase mhde\n diakrino/menoj that rely on a «NT meaning» of diakri/nomai (i.e., «doubting nothing») have no support in the text. Rather, the placement of Acts 10:20 within its literary context supports a rendering of diakri/nomai in accordance with classical/Hellenistic Greek conventions.

    See more by the same author
    Flink Timo, «Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5,13,15 and 18.» Vol. 95-125

    The text of Jude has been reconstructed recently by two different works to replace the critical text found in the NA27. The Novum Testamentum Editio Critica Maior (ECM) and a monograph by T. Wasserman offer changes to the critical text. I evaluate these suggested changes and offer my own text-critical suggestions. I argue that in Jude 13, 15 and 18 the text should read a)pafri/zonta, pa/ntaj tou\j a)sebei=j, and o3ti e!legon u(mi=n o3ti e)p ) e)sxa/tou tou= xro/nou, respectively. These solutions differ from both the NA27 and the ECM and agree with Wasserman’s reconstruction. I suggest that the «original» reading in Jude 5 was a3pac pa/nta o3ti )Ihsou=j, which none of the above works have.

    See more by the same author
    Rius-Camps Josep, «The Variant Readings of the Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles (XIX) (Acts 13:13-43).» Vol. 127-146

    In Acts 13:13-43, Paul and Barnabas are seen continuing their missionary activity, notably in Antioch of Pisidia where Luke describes their visit to the synagogue. He recreates in some detail Paul’s first speech, which is noteworthy for the way in which he presents Jesus as the Messiah first and foremost for Israel, a perspective with which Luke is at odds in Codex Bezae. Paul’s overriding concern for his own people, the Jews, to accept his message is strongly in evidence. However, their negative reaction when he extends the message of Jesus to Gentiles causes him, together with Barnabas, to turn from the Jews to the Gentiles. In the Alexandrian text, their announcement of this fact refers to a change on a local scale within Antioch, but in the Bezan text they make a declaration that represents a radical decision and an event of momentous significance in the history of Israel: in view of the Jews’ hostility to the message of Jesus, they will no longer have privileged possession of the Word of God, the Torah that had originally been entrusted to Israel, since it is to be henceforth shared with the Gentiles. The idea of the sharing of the heritage of Israel with the Gentiles is one that will provoke opposition to Paul wherever he preaches to the Jews in future locations, and a theme that Luke will develop over the subsequent chapters.

    BIBLICAL TAGS
    See more by the same author