Christoph Heilig
University of Zurich, Switzerland, Theology, Faculty Member
- Epistemology, Hermeneutics, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Research Methodology, Theology, Philosophy, and 15 moreNew Testament, Roman Empire and Pauline Literature, New Testament and Christian Origins, Early Christianity, Historical Jesus, Old Testament Textual Criticism, Septuagint, Second Temple Judaism, Biblical Studies, Textual Criticism, Dead Sea Scrolls (Religion), Philosophy of Science, Philosophy Of Religion, Philosophy Of Language, and Research Methods and Methodologyedit
Table of contents of my dissertation, which was supervised by Prof. Jörg Frey and submitted in February 2018. It was accepted with the grade "summa cum laude" in September 2018 by the theological faculty of the University of Zurich.... more
Table of contents of my dissertation, which was supervised by Prof. Jörg Frey and submitted in February 2018. It was accepted with the grade "summa cum laude" in September 2018 by the theological faculty of the University of Zurich.
This is the first monograph that scrutinises the so-called “narrative approach” to Paul, which goes back mainly to the seminal works of Richard B. Hays and N. T. Wright and which is unified by the assumption that the category of “story” or “narrative” is essential for understanding Pauline literature. Against the background of the current status of narratological research, the question is answered of whether it is appropriate to call Paul a “narrator.” Moreover, by means of a careful methodological and exegetical discussion a new solution for the heavily debated issue of alleged _implicit_ narratives (so-called “narrative substructures” and “worldview narratives”) is offered.
This is the first monograph that scrutinises the so-called “narrative approach” to Paul, which goes back mainly to the seminal works of Richard B. Hays and N. T. Wright and which is unified by the assumption that the category of “story” or “narrative” is essential for understanding Pauline literature. Against the background of the current status of narratological research, the question is answered of whether it is appropriate to call Paul a “narrator.” Moreover, by means of a careful methodological and exegetical discussion a new solution for the heavily debated issue of alleged _implicit_ narratives (so-called “narrative substructures” and “worldview narratives”) is offered.
Research Interests: Discourse Analysis, Greek Literature, Languages and Linguistics, Research Methodology, New Testament, and 10 moreNarrative, Early Christianity, Narratology, Koine Greek language, New Testament and Christian Origins, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Text Linguistics, Bible, Biblical Exegesis, and Letters
Paul’s metaphorical language in Second Corinthians 2:14 has troubled exegetes for a long time. Does the verb 'thriambeuein' indicate that Paul imagines himself as being led to execution in the Roman triumphal procession? Or is, by... more
Paul’s metaphorical language in Second Corinthians 2:14 has troubled exegetes for a long time. Does the verb 'thriambeuein' indicate that Paul imagines himself as being led to execution in the Roman triumphal procession? Or is, by contrast, the victory in view that the apostles receive themselves? Maybe the Roman ritual does not constitute the background of this metaphor at all? Clarity with regard to these questions is a pressing issue in Pauline studies, given the fact that this metaphor introduces a central passage in the Pauline corpus that is of crucial importance for reconstructing the apostle’s self-understanding. Heilig demonstrates that, if all the relevant data are taken into account, a coherent interpretation of Paul’s statement is possible indeed. Moreover, Heilig brings the resulting meaning of Paul’s statement into dialogue with the political discourse of the time, thus presenting a detailed argument for the complex critical interaction of Paul with the ideology of the Roman Empire.
Research Interests: Discourse Analysis, Christianity, History, Ancient History, Archaeology, and 28 moreGreek Literature, Roman History, Languages and Linguistics, Greek Language, Pragmatics, New Testament, Semantics, Early Christianity, Language and Ideology, Ideology, Bible Translation, Corpus Linguistics, Christology, Metaphor, Lexical Semantics, Linguistics, Koine Greek language, New Testament and Christian Origins, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Ancient Greek History, Bible, Figurative language, Emperor Claudius, Julius Caesar, Roman Triumph, Roman Emperors, 2 Corinthians, and Roman Archaeology
Paul has been regarded as being uncritical of the Roman Empire for a long time, not least because of his apparent call to obey the state in Rom 13:1-7. However, recent scholarship has questioned this assumption by pointing to "hidden... more
Paul has been regarded as being uncritical of the Roman Empire for a long time, not least because of his apparent call to obey the state in Rom 13:1-7. However, recent scholarship has questioned this assumption by pointing to "hidden criticism" in the letters of the apostle. But how can we decide, in a methodologically sound way, whether such a counter-imperial message lies beneath the surface of the text? On the basis of insights from the philosophy of science, Christoph Heilig suggests several analytical steps for examining this paradigm. He concludes that the hypothesis that we can identify critical "echoes" of the Roman Empire in Paul's letters needs to be modified for it to be maintained. In particular, concern over the danger of overt criticism and subsequent persecution do not sufficiently justify this interpretative hypothesis. Nevertheless, Heilig concludes that the search for a counter-imperial subtext in Paul could turn out to be heuristically fruitful so long as the limitations of the approach are heeded. Hence, a re-evaluation of Pauline passages in light of Paul's engagement with ideas from his Roman environment is encouraged.
Research Interests: Philology, Religion, Christianity, History, Ancient History, and 88 moreSociology, Political Sociology, Sociology of Religion, Probability Theory, Classical Archaeology, Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Classics, Philosophy of Science, Greek Literature, Greek History, Roman History, Philosophy Of Religion, Humanities, Jewish Studies, Social Research Methods and Methodology, Social Sciences, Theology, Political Theory, History of Religion, Greek Language, Research Methodology, New Testament, Literature, History of Christianity, Postcolonial Studies, Religion and Politics, Romance philology, Historiography, Literary Criticism, Political Science, Early Christianity, Roman Religion, Liberation Theology, Ideology, Biblical Studies, Colonialism, Jewish History, Greek Epigraphy, Pauline Literature, Literary Theory, Post-Colonialism, Intertextuality, Theology and Culture, Biblical Theology, Jewish - Christian Relations, Philo of Alexandria, Doctrine of God, Elites (Political Science), Postcolonial Theory, Political Theology, Postcolonial Literature, Jewish Thought, Classical philology, Ancient Philosophy, Greek Archaeology, Ancient Greek Religion, New Testament and Christian Origins, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Allegory, Roman Army, Political Ideology, Social and Political Philosophy, Ancient Greek History, Jewish historiography, Roman Empire, Literary study of the Bible, Ancient Greek Philosophy, Bible, Ancient Roman Numismatics, Empire, Tacitus, Pauline Theology, Power and domination, Religious Studies, New Testament Theology, Ancient Rome, Emperor Claudius, New testament exegesis, Elites, Apostle Paul, Roman Art, New Testament Studies, The Use of the Old Testament in the New, Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Roman Archaeology, Ideology in the Bible, and Graeco-Roman Religion
Ist unsere Welt geplant? Viele Menschen glauben das. Tatsächlich sieht manches in der Natur auch äußerst durchdacht aus. Doch verstecken sich dahinter Spuren eines Schöpfers, die mit wissenschaftlicher Methodik identifiziert werden... more
Ist unsere Welt geplant? Viele Menschen glauben das. Tatsächlich sieht manches in der Natur auch äußerst durchdacht aus. Doch verstecken sich dahinter Spuren eines Schöpfers, die mit wissenschaftlicher Methodik identifiziert werden können? Dies behaupten beispielsweise Vertreter des »Intelligent Design«. Der vorliegende Sammelband schließt eine Lücke im deutschssprachigen Raum: Er lässt Vertreter der verschiedenen Positionen zu Wort kommen, liefert eine Klärung wissenschaftstheoretischer Grundlagen der Diskussion und bietet eine detaillierte Analyse der in ihr vorgebrachten Argumente.
Research Interests:
N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God is the culmination of his long, influential, and often controversial career – a landmark study of the history and thought of the Apostle Paul, which attempts to make fresh suggestions in a... more
N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God is the culmination of his long, influential, and often controversial career – a landmark study of the history and thought of the Apostle Paul, which attempts to make fresh suggestions in a variety of sub-fields of New Testament studies. This volume brings together a group of international scholars to critically weigh and assess an array of issues in Wright’s work, including methodology, first-century contextual factors, exegetical findings, and theological implications. In so doing, the volume’s contributors bring these facets of Paul and the Faithfulness of God into dialogue with the current state of scholarship in both Anglophone and German contexts. It thus offers both a critical evaluation of Wright’s accomplishment as well as an excellent overview of and introduction to issues that are hotly debated within contemporary Pauline studies.
Research Interests: Religion, Christianity, Philosophy Of Religion, Theology, New Testament, and 10 moreSystematic Theology, Philosophical Theology, Early Christianity, Biblical Theology, New Testament and Christian Origins, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, New Testament Theology, New testament exegesis, New Testament Studies, and N. T. Wright
From The Gospel According to Luke: Volume I (Luke 1–9:50) by Michael Wolter. Copyright © 2016 by Baylor University Press. Reprinted by arrangement with Baylor University Press. All rights reserved.
Research Interests: Religion, Christianity, New Testament, Historiography, Early Christianity, and 13 moreSynoptic Gospels, Origins of Christianity, Ancient Historiography, Luke-Acts, New Testament Theology, Gospel of Luke, New testament exegesis, New Testament Studies, Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts, Biblical Exegesis Gospels of John and Luke, Kingdom of God Accordinig to Luke, Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, and Major Themes In the Gospel of Luke
From The Gospel According to Luke: Volume II (Luke 9:51–24) by Michael Wolter. Copyright © 2017 by Baylor University Press. Reprinted by arrangement with Baylor University Press. All rights reserved.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Theology, New Testament, Historiography, Early Christianity, Religious Conversion, and 14 moreSecond Temple Judaism, New Testament and Christian Origins, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Luke-Acts, Judaism, Bayesian statistics & modelling, Bayesian Inference, James D.G. Dunn, New Perspective on Paul, Justification, Galatians, Conversion, Acts of the Apostles, and N. T. Wright
Research Interests: Religion, History, Sociology of Religion, Philosophy, Epistemology, and 24 morePhilosophy of Science, Philosophy Of Religion, Logic, Theology, Research Methodology, Systematic Theology, Qualitative methodology, Historiography, Biblical Studies, Ancient Religion, Biblical Theology, Charles S. Peirce, Inference, Biblical Interpretation, Bible, Biblical Exegesis, Abduction, Historia, Bayesian Inference, Confirmation bias, Inference to the Best Explanation, N. T. Wright, History of Philosophy, and Bayesian Confirmation Theory
In this chapter I have critically examined the hypothesis of Wright, Elliott, and others that there is a counter-imperial subtext in the Pauline letters. The results are ambivalent with regard to the proposed methodology on the one hand... more
In this chapter I have critically examined the hypothesis of Wright, Elliott, and others that there is a counter-imperial subtext in the Pauline letters. The results are ambivalent with regard to the proposed methodology on the one hand and with regard to the conclusions of these scholars on the other hand.
In light of Bayes’s theorem, it does not seem advisable to base the search for criticism of the Roman Empire in Paul on Hays’s criteria since they are prone to subjective influences. Accordingly, I have argued that a more systematic approach, which follows nested necessary conditions, offers an advantage of objectivity. This argumentative structure will also make it easier to locate and discuss potential objections to the steps suggested in this article (e.g., by adding new necessary conditions or by arguing against the fulfillment of one of the proposed conditions).
With regard to the subtext-hypothesis itself, I hope that I was able to show – in an admittedly brief discussion of these steps – that the background plausibility of the assumption of imperial echoes in the letters of Paul is not as low as sometimes stated, e.g., by Barclay. Nevertheless, this investigation has also shown that in light of the concrete nature of the public transcript in the early Principate and taking into account Paul’s personality this is only true if we allow for the modification or specification of (a) the object of criticism, (b) the kind/degree of criticism, and (c) the motivation for choosing the subtext as the level of communication of this criticism. This preliminary result should encourage scholars to re-examine carefully specific Pauline texts with regard to their likelihood in the framework of a creative and subversive use of phrases evoking and challenging claims of Roman ideology.
In light of Bayes’s theorem, it does not seem advisable to base the search for criticism of the Roman Empire in Paul on Hays’s criteria since they are prone to subjective influences. Accordingly, I have argued that a more systematic approach, which follows nested necessary conditions, offers an advantage of objectivity. This argumentative structure will also make it easier to locate and discuss potential objections to the steps suggested in this article (e.g., by adding new necessary conditions or by arguing against the fulfillment of one of the proposed conditions).
With regard to the subtext-hypothesis itself, I hope that I was able to show – in an admittedly brief discussion of these steps – that the background plausibility of the assumption of imperial echoes in the letters of Paul is not as low as sometimes stated, e.g., by Barclay. Nevertheless, this investigation has also shown that in light of the concrete nature of the public transcript in the early Principate and taking into account Paul’s personality this is only true if we allow for the modification or specification of (a) the object of criticism, (b) the kind/degree of criticism, and (c) the motivation for choosing the subtext as the level of communication of this criticism. This preliminary result should encourage scholars to re-examine carefully specific Pauline texts with regard to their likelihood in the framework of a creative and subversive use of phrases evoking and challenging claims of Roman ideology.
Research Interests: Religion, Christianity, History, Ancient History, Sociology, and 64 morePolitical Sociology, Sociology of Religion, Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Roman History, Philosophy Of Religion, Humanities, Theology, Political Theory, History of Religion, Research Methodology, New Testament, Literature, History of Christianity, Philosophy Of Mathematics, Postcolonial Studies, Religion and Politics, Literary Criticism, Roman Law, Early Judaism (2nd Temple, Greco-Roman), Political Science, Early Christianity, Roman Religion, Liberation Theology, Politics, Colonialism, Pauline Literature, Literary Theory, Political History, Post-Colonialism, Second Temple Judaism, History of Religions, Ancient Religion, Intertextuality, Biblical Theology, Jewish - Christian Relations, Postcolonial Theory, Political Theology, Postcolonial Literature, Ancient Philosophy, Ancient Greek Religion, New Testament and Christian Origins, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Inference, Interpretation, Roman Army, Epistolography, Roman Empire, Biblical Interpretation, Empire, Pauline Theology, Religious Studies, Bayesian Inference, New Testament Theology, Ancient Rome, New testament exegesis, Early Judaism, Greco-Roman World, New Testament Studies, The Use of the Old Testament in the New, Christian Studies, Graeco-Roman Religion, and Postcolonialism
Die Ursprungsfrage übt seit jeher eine Faszination auf den Menschen aus. Wer denkt, der fragt: Wo komme ich her? Wo kommt die Welt her, in der ich lebe? Wozu ist sie – wozu bin ich – da? Die Fragen nach dem Sinn des Lebens, nach dem Leben... more
Die Ursprungsfrage übt seit jeher eine Faszination auf den Menschen aus. Wer denkt, der fragt: Wo komme ich her? Wo kommt die Welt her, in der ich lebe? Wozu ist sie – wozu bin ich – da? Die Fragen nach dem Sinn des Lebens, nach dem Leben nach dem Tod und nicht zuletzt nach ganz konkreten Entscheidungen in unserem Alltagsleben hängen mit dieser Frage nach den »Ursprüngen« zusammen.
Bei meiner eigenen Beschäftigung mit der Thematik verzweifelte ich nicht selten an der schlechten Diskussionskultur zwischen den verschiedenen Parteien (was meine »Gegner« vermutlich auch im Hinblick auf mich bestätigen könnten). Emotionalität und mangelndes Verständnis füreinander sind aber lediglich die Früchte des Gewächses »Diskussion um die Ursprungsfrage«, dessen Wurzeln in viel tiefere Schichten weltanschaulicher Voreingenommenheit reichen und sich vom Fehlen klarer Leitlinien und allgemeiner Prinzipien nähren. Der vorliegende Aufsatz versucht in dieses Chaos ordnende Strukturen einzuführen, welche diese Debatte in ruhigeres Fahrwasser geleiten sollen. Ich folge dabei der Einschätzung von Ratzsch (2001, 3), der im Vorwort seines Buches Nature, Design and Science über den Stand der Diskussion schreibt:
»As I became involved in the growing design debate, it became clear to me that almost none of the foundational philosophical work essential for such a debate to make real progress had been or was being done.«
Ohne diese grundlegenden Strukturen sollte es uns nicht wundern, dass die gegenwärtige Diskussion vor allem von Polemik und lose im Raum hängenden Ansätzen, die nicht in grundlegendere Konzepte eingebunden sind, geprägt ist. Wo ein Begriff nicht mehr einheitlich verwendet und mit zum Teil gegensätzlichen Bedeutungen belegt wird, sind Missverständnisse keine Gefahr – sondern programmiertes Desaster. Gewürzt mit ein wenig ideologischer Schärfe ergibt sich dann das, was wir gemeinhin »Diskussionskultur« nennen.
Vorliegender Aufsatz wird daher all diejenigen enttäuschen, die bereits in diesem ersten Beitrag des Sammelbands »Argumente« für einen spezifischen Antwortversuch auf die Ursprungsfrage erwarten. Gerade in »Intelligent Design«-Kreisen wurde in der Vergangenheit der Fehler gemacht, dass bereits munter auf naturwissenschaftlich fassbare Spuren eines Designers hingewiesen wurde (sogar in Gerichtsräumen und Schulbüchern), während die zugrundeliegenden Konzepte noch nicht ausgearbeitet waren. Bevor daran gedacht werden kann Position zu beziehen, muss diese erst einmal formuliert, im Raum der Möglichkeiten verortet und zu anderen Antwortversuchen in Beziehung gesetzt werden. Der Artikel fasst meine eigenen Versuche, die Debatte für mich selbst zu verstehen und zu gliedern zusammen. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn diese Skizze auch anderen Menschen zu einer Hilfe werden würde und zu größerer Klarheit in der darauf aufbauenden Diskussion über Sinn und Unsinn von Ideen wie »Intelligent Design« führen könnte.
Bei meiner eigenen Beschäftigung mit der Thematik verzweifelte ich nicht selten an der schlechten Diskussionskultur zwischen den verschiedenen Parteien (was meine »Gegner« vermutlich auch im Hinblick auf mich bestätigen könnten). Emotionalität und mangelndes Verständnis füreinander sind aber lediglich die Früchte des Gewächses »Diskussion um die Ursprungsfrage«, dessen Wurzeln in viel tiefere Schichten weltanschaulicher Voreingenommenheit reichen und sich vom Fehlen klarer Leitlinien und allgemeiner Prinzipien nähren. Der vorliegende Aufsatz versucht in dieses Chaos ordnende Strukturen einzuführen, welche diese Debatte in ruhigeres Fahrwasser geleiten sollen. Ich folge dabei der Einschätzung von Ratzsch (2001, 3), der im Vorwort seines Buches Nature, Design and Science über den Stand der Diskussion schreibt:
»As I became involved in the growing design debate, it became clear to me that almost none of the foundational philosophical work essential for such a debate to make real progress had been or was being done.«
Ohne diese grundlegenden Strukturen sollte es uns nicht wundern, dass die gegenwärtige Diskussion vor allem von Polemik und lose im Raum hängenden Ansätzen, die nicht in grundlegendere Konzepte eingebunden sind, geprägt ist. Wo ein Begriff nicht mehr einheitlich verwendet und mit zum Teil gegensätzlichen Bedeutungen belegt wird, sind Missverständnisse keine Gefahr – sondern programmiertes Desaster. Gewürzt mit ein wenig ideologischer Schärfe ergibt sich dann das, was wir gemeinhin »Diskussionskultur« nennen.
Vorliegender Aufsatz wird daher all diejenigen enttäuschen, die bereits in diesem ersten Beitrag des Sammelbands »Argumente« für einen spezifischen Antwortversuch auf die Ursprungsfrage erwarten. Gerade in »Intelligent Design«-Kreisen wurde in der Vergangenheit der Fehler gemacht, dass bereits munter auf naturwissenschaftlich fassbare Spuren eines Designers hingewiesen wurde (sogar in Gerichtsräumen und Schulbüchern), während die zugrundeliegenden Konzepte noch nicht ausgearbeitet waren. Bevor daran gedacht werden kann Position zu beziehen, muss diese erst einmal formuliert, im Raum der Möglichkeiten verortet und zu anderen Antwortversuchen in Beziehung gesetzt werden. Der Artikel fasst meine eigenen Versuche, die Debatte für mich selbst zu verstehen und zu gliedern zusammen. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn diese Skizze auch anderen Menschen zu einer Hilfe werden würde und zu größerer Klarheit in der darauf aufbauenden Diskussion über Sinn und Unsinn von Ideen wie »Intelligent Design« führen könnte.
Research Interests: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Language, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Biology, Philosophy Of Religion, and 13 moreTheology, Theology, Research Methods and Methodology, Research Methodology, Systematic Theology, Methodology, Origins of Life, Biology, Natural Theology, Creationism, Teleology, Intelligent design, and Theistic Evolution
Der Schluss auf Design erfolgt, indem a posteriori überprüft wird, ob die in einem abduktiven Schluss auf die beste Erklärung (»inference to the best explanation« = IBE) ermittelte beste Antwort auf eine Ursprungsfrage teleologische... more
Der Schluss auf Design erfolgt, indem a posteriori überprüft wird, ob die in einem abduktiven Schluss auf die beste Erklärung (»inference to the best explanation« = IBE) ermittelte beste Antwort auf eine Ursprungsfrage teleologische Elemente enthält oder nicht. Um in einer Sache X »Design« erkennen zu können, ist es daher unerlässlich, dass mehr oder weniger ausformulierte Design-Hypothesen vorliegen, Modelle spezifischen Designs (SD-Modelle) bzw. Designer-Theorien, deren Rahmenbedingungen durch die Identitäten der Urheber vorgegeben werden. Diese Schlussfolgerungen stehen im Widerspruch zum »Intelligent Design«-Ansatz, wie er meistens verstanden wird: Als Versuch Planung designerunabhängig zu erkennen. Man könnte daher auch von »anonymem Design« (AD) im Kontrast zu spezifischem Design (SD) sprechen. AD-Argumente müssen per Definition immer eine negative Struktur haben. Es wird gezeigt, dass solche Argumente jedoch nicht zielführend sein können. Der Fehler in angeblich positiven AD-Argumenten wird aufgezeigt. Ebenso wird belegt, dass nicht nur Designerkennung, sondern generell fruchtbare Forschung, lediglich im Rahmen der SD-Methodik möglich ist, während sich aus AD keinerlei positive Erwartungen ableiten lassen, das Konzept also heuristisch steril ist. Teleologisten, die an der naturwissenschaftlichen Relevanz ihrer Ansichten festhalten wollen, sind daher aufgefordert, das AD-Paradigma zu verlassen und den zwar mühsamen aber einzig möglichen Weg – den der Modellbildung – zu gehen, um teleologischen Antworten in der Ursprungsfragen-Forschung wieder mehr Gewicht zu verleihen. Nach diesen theoretischen Überlegungen wird abgeschlossen mit der Frage, ob dieses Unternehmen in der Praxis überhaupt erfolgversprechend ist. Gerade aus der Perspektive christlicher Apologetik erscheint eine Neuorientierung dringend notwendig.
Research Interests: Evolutionary Biology, Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy Of Religion, Research Methodology, and 10 moreEvolution, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Inference, Christian Apologetics, Creationism, Causal Inference, Bayesian Inference, Intelligent design, and Argument from Design
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Religion, Christianity, History, Roman History, New Testament, and 14 moreEarly Christianity, Politics, Mediterranean Studies, New Testament and Christian Origins, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Roman Empire, Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Empire, Emperor Nero, Imperialism, Ancient Rome, Roman imperial cult, Roman Emperors, and Roman Archaeology
There is no doubt that the export of German exegetical tools and the refinement they experienced in the process of the translation and revision has proven immensely helpful in the past. To give just one example from the area of lexical... more
There is no doubt that the export of German exegetical tools and the refinement they experienced in the process of the translation and revision has proven immensely helpful in the past. To give just one example from the area of lexical semantics: BDAG has certainly replaced the German Bauer-Aland with regard to its linguistic quality. So, can similar things be said about the NIDNTTE?
Research Interests: Philology, Religion, Greek Literature, Greek History, Languages and Linguistics, and 38 moreLexicology, Theology, History of Religion, Greek Language, New Testament, Practical theology, Systematic Theology, Preaching, Biblical Studies, Bible Translation, Greek Epigraphy, Ancient Religion, Biblical Theology, Lexical Semantics, Lexicography, Classical philology, Pastoral Theology, Greek Archaeology, Ancient Greek Religion, New Testament and Christian Origins, Lexicography and Corpus Studies, Ancient Greek History, Biblical Interpretation, Ancient Greek Philosophy, Bible, Biblical Exegesis, Religious Studies, Lexicon, New Testament Theology, Ancient Greek Language, Biblical Greek, Greek Philology, New testament exegesis, Greek Lexicography, New Testament Studies, Linguistics. Word-formation. Morphology. Lexicology. Semantics., Expository Preaching, and New Testament Greek Grammar
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Der Schöpfungsglaube ist immer wieder Thema in der akademischen wie auch in der alltäglichen Diskussion. Stichworte wie „Kreationismus” und „Intelligent Design” beherrschen in regelmäßigen Abständen auch die Medien. Es... more
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Der Schöpfungsglaube ist immer wieder Thema in der akademischen wie auch in der alltäglichen Diskussion. Stichworte wie „Kreationismus” und
„Intelligent Design” beherrschen in regelmäßigen Abständen auch die Medien. Es gilt, falschen Harmonisierungsversuchen von Naturwissenschaft und Glaube deutlich entgegenzutreten. Dies darf auf der anderen Seite aber auch nicht zur Diskussionsverweigerung mit Vertretern einer teleologischen Perspektive führen. Ansonsten droht nicht nur der unnötige Abbruch des Diskurses mit anderen, ähnlich gesinnten, Teilnehmern, sondern auch das Übergehen des theologisch durchaus angezeigten Grundanliegens der Frage nach der Zugänglichkeit von Gottes Schöpferhandeln in der Welt.
ABSTRACT
Creation is a frequent topic for discussion both in academia and everyday
life. Words like “creationism” and “intelligent design” regularly garner media attention. It is of vital importance to counter false attempts at harmonising science and faith. On the other hand, this must not result in a refusal to dialogue with proponents of a teleological perspective. Otherwise, we are in danger of not only needlessly shutting down discussion with other like‐minded participants, but also of overlooking the fundamental concern rightly posed by theology, namely, how God’s creative agency in the world is accessible to human cognition.
Der Schöpfungsglaube ist immer wieder Thema in der akademischen wie auch in der alltäglichen Diskussion. Stichworte wie „Kreationismus” und
„Intelligent Design” beherrschen in regelmäßigen Abständen auch die Medien. Es gilt, falschen Harmonisierungsversuchen von Naturwissenschaft und Glaube deutlich entgegenzutreten. Dies darf auf der anderen Seite aber auch nicht zur Diskussionsverweigerung mit Vertretern einer teleologischen Perspektive führen. Ansonsten droht nicht nur der unnötige Abbruch des Diskurses mit anderen, ähnlich gesinnten, Teilnehmern, sondern auch das Übergehen des theologisch durchaus angezeigten Grundanliegens der Frage nach der Zugänglichkeit von Gottes Schöpferhandeln in der Welt.
ABSTRACT
Creation is a frequent topic for discussion both in academia and everyday
life. Words like “creationism” and “intelligent design” regularly garner media attention. It is of vital importance to counter false attempts at harmonising science and faith. On the other hand, this must not result in a refusal to dialogue with proponents of a teleological perspective. Otherwise, we are in danger of not only needlessly shutting down discussion with other like‐minded participants, but also of overlooking the fundamental concern rightly posed by theology, namely, how God’s creative agency in the world is accessible to human cognition.
Research Interests:
What exactly is “resurrection”? And how does it or should it influence Christian behaviour? In his monograph The Resurrection of the Son of God—already “a twenty-first-century classic in scholarship on the Resurrection”—Professor N. T.... more
What exactly is “resurrection”? And how does it or should it influence Christian behaviour? In his monograph The Resurrection of the Son of God—already “a twenty-first-century classic in scholarship on the Resurrection”—Professor N. T. Wright argues that in the New Testament, talk about “resurrection” refers (a) to a bodily resurrection and
(b) metaphorically (analogous to the Jewish use of such language for the restoration of Israel) to Christian baptism and behaviour. Both forms of talk about “resurrection” have ethical implications and are therefore relevant for any discussion of the foundation of Christian behaviour. The latter is in itself a description of the present life of the believer as, for example, in Rom 6; the former, future resurrection, functions as a goal,
the pursuit of which has implications for ethics. This is most obvious in 1 Cor 6:14–20, where Paul argues against sinning with our bodies on the basis that God is going to resurrect them.
(b) metaphorically (analogous to the Jewish use of such language for the restoration of Israel) to Christian baptism and behaviour. Both forms of talk about “resurrection” have ethical implications and are therefore relevant for any discussion of the foundation of Christian behaviour. The latter is in itself a description of the present life of the believer as, for example, in Rom 6; the former, future resurrection, functions as a goal,
the pursuit of which has implications for ethics. This is most obvious in 1 Cor 6:14–20, where Paul argues against sinning with our bodies on the basis that God is going to resurrect them.
Research Interests: Christianity, Ethics, History of Christianity, Early Christianity, Eschatology and Apocalypticism, and 13 moreRomans, Church History, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Origen, Plato and Platonism, Eschatology, Graeco-Roman Alexandria, Pauline Theology, Early Church Fathers, Resurrection, Acts of the Apostles, N. T. Wright, and Church Fathers
Alles in Allem ist dieser Band von Religion • Staat • Gesellschaft sehr erfreulich und sollte im Bücherregal eines jeden zu finden sein, der sich mit der Ursprungsfrage eingehender beschäftigt. Trotz der unterschiedlichen Qualität der... more
Alles in Allem ist dieser Band von Religion • Staat • Gesellschaft sehr erfreulich und sollte im Bücherregal eines jeden zu finden sein, der sich mit der Ursprungsfrage eingehender beschäftigt. Trotz der unterschiedlichen Qualität der einzelnen Beiträge ist die Ausgabe ein gelungener Schritt in die richtige Richtung, hin zu einer fachlichen Diskussion und weg von polemischen Diffamierungen. All das macht Mut zu ähnlich gestalteten Folgeprojekten, für welche wir hier ein solides Vorbild vorliegen haben, das aber qualitativ auch noch „Platz nach oben“ lässt.
Research Interests:
The meaning of transitive thriambeuein has puzzled interpreters of the New Testament for a long time. Although, surprisingly, there has not been any detailed work on the lexical semantics of this verb, there are many suggestions in the... more
The meaning of transitive thriambeuein has puzzled interpreters of the New Testament for a long time. Although, surprisingly, there has not been any detailed work on the lexical semantics of this verb, there are many suggestions in the literature including some that do not see any connection to the rite of the Roman triumphus. These proposals include the neutral meaning ‘to make sb./sth. known’ (Field/Egan), the broad ‘to lead sb. in a religious procession’ (Findley/Duff), and the more negative ‘to expose sb. to shame’ (Marshall/Gruber). However, these proposals cannot offer the necessary lexical support. A clear connection to the Roman triumph is maintained by Hafemann, who thinks the meaning is ‘to lead sb. to death’, namely captives to their execution. However, Hafemann does not offer an analysis of the usage of the verb either but only analyses the concept of the triumphus. Breytenbach was the first to take into account the actual usage of transitive thriambeuein to a significant extent. He concludes that the meaning is: ‘to celebrate a triumph over sb.’ - without including the actual presentation of that person in the procession. However, there are occurrences of the word documented in the TLG that Breytenbach has not taken into account. More importantly, Breytenbach did not pay any attention to paradigmatic relations of transitive thriambeuein. Hence, his analysis of the components of the semantic range of this verb remains deficient. This strange situation of a multitude of suggested “meanings” and the clear lack of detailed lexical analyses is reflected in all the dictionaries of Ancient Greek. In this paper, I will present the results of an in-depth analysis of a) the usage of thriambeuein up until the 3rd century CE as well as b) an analysis of its semantic components in light of semantically related paradigmatic options in the same corpus. As a result, for the first time a definition of transitive thriambeuein can be offered that is actually rooted in an appropriate lexical analysis. I will close with an outlook on its discourse meaning in 2 Cor 2:14 and Col 2:15.
Research Interests: Christianity, Greek Literature, Latin Literature, Roman History, Languages and Linguistics, and 20 moreLexicology, New Testament, History of Christianity, Early Christianity, Biblical Studies, Pauline Literature, Biblical Theology, Lexical Semantics, Linguistics, Lexicography, Greek Archaeology, Ancient Greek Religion, New Testament and Christian Origins, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Ancient Greek History, Ancient Greek Philosophy, Pauline Theology, Roman Triumph, New Testament Studies, and Roman Archaeology
It has long been noticed that 2 Cor 2:14 is crucial for understanding Paul’s apologia. This importance stands in stark contrast to the lack of detailed analysis of the historical setting of Paul’s use of the verb thriambeuein. There have... more
It has long been noticed that 2 Cor 2:14 is crucial for understanding Paul’s apologia. This importance stands in stark contrast to the lack of detailed analysis of the historical setting of Paul’s use of the verb thriambeuein. There have been influential studies on this issue, but they focused on the conceptual level of the rite of the triumphus (Hafemann) or did not take into account the lexical material sufficiently (Breytenbach). Building on methodological considerations of Chapters 3 and 7 in Hidden Criticism? The Methodology and Plausibility of the Search for a Counter-Imperial Subtext in Paul (WUNT II, 392; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), I will offer a lexical analysis that for the first time takes into account a) the usage of thriambeuein in Greek literature up to the 3rd century CE as well as b) its semantic components in light of semantically close paradigmatic options in the same corpus. This will allow us to place our interpretation of the metaphor in 2 Cor 2:14 on a much firmer foundation than was possible before. These considerations will be supplemented by taking into account indications from the immediate literary context. Taken together with the results of the lexical analyses, they point in a direction for the function of the metaphor that is generally not recognised by commentators. Though not new data in itself, the evidence from the literary context is re-assembled differently in light of the semantic result. Making a new contribution to this issue, I will then refer to the concrete historical context of Paul in order to shed light on Paul’s usage of thriambeuein. It will become apparent that the exegesis of this passage has not taken into account the historical reference of Paul’s metaphor. This is all the more surprising since an analysis of archaeological remains, numismatic and epigraphical evidence, and historiographical reports shed much light on how the metaphor must have functioned in the discourse between Paul and the original readers of his letter.
Research Interests: Religion, Christianity, History, Ancient History, Greek Literature, and 17 moreRoman History, History of Religion, New Testament, History of Christianity, Religion and Politics, Early Christianity, New Testament and Christian Origins, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Roman Army, Ancient Greek History, New Testament Theology, Ancient Rome, Roman Triumph, New Testament Studies, 2 Corinthians, Roman Archaeology, and Triumph
Research Interests: History, Ancient History, Greek Literature, Roman History, Research Methods and Methodology, and 17 moreResearch Methodology, New Testament, Historiography, Early Christianity, Roman Religion, Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Lexical Semantics, Lexicography, Greek Archaeology, New Testament and Christian Origins, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Ancient Greek History, Bayesian Inference, Roman Triumph, 2 Corinthians, and Roman Archaeology
Research Interests:
Is it prudent to use Hays criteria for establishing intertextuality between Old and New Testament? Probability theory offers a meta-criterion for evaluating this approach. In this workshop, we will examine together how necessary... more
Is it prudent to use Hays criteria for establishing intertextuality between Old and New Testament? Probability theory offers a meta-criterion for evaluating this approach. In this workshop, we will examine together how necessary conditions can help estimating the plausibility of suggested scriptural "echoes" in a methodological sound way.
Research Interests:
In the last 20 years, the interpretation of Paul’s letters as somehow critical of the Roman Empire has gained growing support among NT scholars. Since on the surface of the text such a critical attitude is not apparent, the search for... more
In the last 20 years, the interpretation of Paul’s letters as somehow critical of the Roman Empire has gained growing support among NT scholars. Since on the surface of the text such a critical attitude is not apparent, the search for critical allusions on the level of a subtext has become increasingly important. As a methodological help, N. T. Wright and Neil Elliott suggested the use of Hays’ criteria for identifying “echoes” of the Hebrew Bible in the NT. This approach has recently been criticized strongly by John M.G. Barclay, who makes some valid points. In order to evaluate valid criteria for the identification of imperial echoes, the application of Bayes’ theorem – which is far too often neglected in historical research in the field of NT studies – has to play a major role. In light of this, it becomes clear that Barclay’s criticism does not get to the heart of the matter. However, the assumption that Paul’s motivation for using the subtext for his counter-imperial remarks was an attempt to avoid persecution faces another serious problem: Too obvious criticism against the Empire in Paul (namely 1 Cor 2, 6-8) makes it unlikely that Paul would have felt the need to restrict his criticism subtext. Nevertheless, it can be shown that a modified version of the “echo-hypothesis” – which is not built on the assumptions of 1) imperial suppression and 2) fear as Paul’s motivation for using the level of the subtext – can be maintained and offers a heuristically fruitful framework for Pauline exegesis. Ironically, such a reformulated echo-hypothesis is much closer to the literary category of an “echo” as employed by Hays.
Research Interests: Research Methodology, New Testament, Postcolonial Studies, Methodology, Early Christianity, and 14 moreBiblical Studies, Colonialism, Post-Colonialism, Intertextuality, Imperial Rome, Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Caesar (Classics), Roman Empire, Empire, Biblical Exegesis, Richard B. Hays, Imperialism, New Testament Studies, and N. T. Wright
In his monograph The Resurrection of the Son of God N. T. Wright argues that in the New Testament, talk about “resurrection” refers to a) a bodily resurrection and b) metaphorically – as an expansion of the Jewish use of such language for... more
In his monograph The Resurrection of the Son of God N. T. Wright argues that in the New Testament, talk about “resurrection” refers to a) a bodily resurrection and b) metaphorically – as an expansion of the Jewish use of such language for the restoration of Israel – to Christian baptism and behaviour. Wright also traces the understanding of this notion through non-canonical early Christian writings. With regard to Origen, he thinks that he firmly affirms a) but does not see b) in his thought: “What Origen does not have, any more than the other writers we have surveyed, is any metaphorical use of ‘resurrection’ to denote (as sometimes in the New Testament) the new life which believers have in the present in baptism and holiness.” (p. 527) In my paper I want to demonstrate that a close reading of Origen’s commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans indeed exhibits the kind of resurrection language associated with ethical behaviour. But this does not place Origen more firmly into the pattern Wright sees in the New Testament (by now holding a and b) since for Origen the present “resurrection” of the believer is not just a metaphorical description of his moral lifestyle, but of a more substantial nature. It leads to good deeds (and is thus functionally quite similar to what Wright finds in Paul), but describes a more ontological change of the believer. Re-reading Paul in light of this raises questions about what his “metaphorical” use of resurrection language in his letters really denotes and what this implies for the foundation of Christian ethics.
Research Interests:
Intelligent Design (ID) has become an important aspect of Christian apologetics. Instead of evaluating the concrete biological phenomena (like the bacterial flagellum and other “irreducible complex” structures) from an evolutionary point... more
Intelligent Design (ID) has become an important aspect of Christian apologetics. Instead of evaluating the concrete biological phenomena (like the bacterial flagellum and other “irreducible complex” structures) from an evolutionary point of view I will discuss some of the very basic criticisms that have been raised from the perspective of the philosophy of science. Although they have been almost completely ignored by ID-theorists I think the arguments are devastating. I will show that the structure of an “inference to the best explanation (IBE)” (which is the appropriate mode of inference considering the historical character of questions of origin) demands two aspects:
1) One has to evaluate how well the observation of a given phenomenon (e.g. an IC-structure) fits the expectations of the model (“Design”) that tries to explain its origin. This isn't possible if we don't assume anything about the identity of the designer (I call this “anonymous design”). This point has been stressed recently by Reinhard Junker (2009) who claims that we need to assume a “human-like” designer, because only this assumption allows for the search of things that are similar to human artifacts.
2) But the second aspect of the IBE is at least as important as the first. In fact, no IBE can work without taking both elements into account. According to the second aspect one has to evaluate the plausibility of the basic assumptions that follow from the competing models. We can't infer “design per se”. The IBE depends on the plausbility of the creationist model itself (at least if we are creationists). On that ground it seems reasonable to conclude that we are not able to infer design in biology on a scientific (trans-subjective) level.
I will demonstrate these two points by presenting and analysing some examples of real IBEs that lead to the conclusion of design. Finally I will try to answer the theological question of how we should understand passages like Romans 1 in the light of such a pessimistic assessment of ID.
Recommended reading for preparation:
Junker R (2009) Spuren Gottes in der Schöpfung? Eine kritische Analyse von Design-Argumenten in der Biologie. Holzgerlingen.
Meyer, SC (2006) A Scientific History And Philosophical Defense Of The Theory Of Intelligent Design. Religion Staat Gesellschaft (Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews) 7, 203-247.
Sober E (2003) The design argument. In: Manson NA (Hg.) God and Design. The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge, 27-54.
Ratzsch D (2003) Perceiving design. In: Manson NA (Hg.) God and Design. The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge, 127-144.
1) One has to evaluate how well the observation of a given phenomenon (e.g. an IC-structure) fits the expectations of the model (“Design”) that tries to explain its origin. This isn't possible if we don't assume anything about the identity of the designer (I call this “anonymous design”). This point has been stressed recently by Reinhard Junker (2009) who claims that we need to assume a “human-like” designer, because only this assumption allows for the search of things that are similar to human artifacts.
2) But the second aspect of the IBE is at least as important as the first. In fact, no IBE can work without taking both elements into account. According to the second aspect one has to evaluate the plausibility of the basic assumptions that follow from the competing models. We can't infer “design per se”. The IBE depends on the plausbility of the creationist model itself (at least if we are creationists). On that ground it seems reasonable to conclude that we are not able to infer design in biology on a scientific (trans-subjective) level.
I will demonstrate these two points by presenting and analysing some examples of real IBEs that lead to the conclusion of design. Finally I will try to answer the theological question of how we should understand passages like Romans 1 in the light of such a pessimistic assessment of ID.
Recommended reading for preparation:
Junker R (2009) Spuren Gottes in der Schöpfung? Eine kritische Analyse von Design-Argumenten in der Biologie. Holzgerlingen.
Meyer, SC (2006) A Scientific History And Philosophical Defense Of The Theory Of Intelligent Design. Religion Staat Gesellschaft (Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews) 7, 203-247.
Sober E (2003) The design argument. In: Manson NA (Hg.) God and Design. The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge, 27-54.
Ratzsch D (2003) Perceiving design. In: Manson NA (Hg.) God and Design. The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge, 127-144.