Jesper Tang Nielsen – författare

A combination of two classic discussions in New Testament scholarship, the contributions in this volume shed light on the still unsolved synoptic problem by using the well-coined concept of rewriting to describe the relationship between the synoptic gospels. The contributions work with the hypothesis that the synoptic tradition can be conceived of as a process of rewriting: Matthew rewrote Mark and Luke rewrote Mark and Matthew. This approach to the synoptic problem dismantles the grounds for the otherwise widely accepted two-source theory. If it can be shown that Luke knew Matthew’s Gospel the Q-hypothesis is superfluous. One group of articles focuses on the general question of Luke’s literary relation to the other gospels. In these essays, the concept of rewriting describes Luke’s use of his sources. The second part of the collection examines a number of texts in order to shown how Luke rewrites specific passages. In the final section the contributions concern Luke’s relation to Roman authorities. It is shown that Luke’s literary creativity is not limited to his predecessors in the gospel tradition. Rewriting is his literary strategy.

A combination of two classic discussions in New Testament scholarship, the contributions in this volume shed light on the still unsolved synoptic problem by using the well-coined concept of rewriting to describe the relationship between the synoptic gospels. The contributions work with the hypothesis that the synoptic tradition can be conceived of as a process of rewriting: Matthew rewrote Mark and Luke rewrote Mark and Matthew. This approach to the synoptic problem dismantles the grounds for the otherwise widely accepted two-source theory. If it can be shown that Luke knew Matthew''s Gospel the Q-hypothesis is superfluous. One group of articles focuses on the general question of Luke''s literary relation to the other gospels. In these essays, the concept of rewriting describes Luke''s use of his sources. The second part of the collection examines a number of texts in order to shown how Luke rewrites specific passages. In the final section the contributions concern Luke''s relation to Roman authorities. It is shown that Luke''s literary creativity is not limited to his predecessors in the gospel tradition. Rewriting is his literary strategy.

A combination of two classic discussions in New Testament scholarship, the contributions in this volume shed light on the still unsolved synoptic problem by using the well-coined concept of rewriting to describe the relationship between the synoptic gospels. The contributions work with the hypothesis that the synoptic tradition can be conceived of as a process of rewriting: Matthew rewrote Mark and Luke rewrote Mark and Matthew. This approach to the synoptic problem dismantles the grounds for the otherwise widely accepted two-source theory. If it can be shown that Luke knew Matthew’s Gospel the Q-hypothesis is superfluous. One group of articles focuses on the general question of Luke’s literary relation to the other gospels. In these essays, the concept of rewriting describes Luke’s use of his sources. The second part of the collection examines a number of texts in order to shown how Luke rewrites specific passages. In the final section the contributions concern Luke’s relation to Roman authorities. It is shown that Luke’s literary creativity is not limited to his predecessors in the gospel tradition. Rewriting is his literary strategy.

Die Beiträge dieses Bandes setzen sich kritisch mit der Arbeit Mogen Müllers zu antikem Judentum, der Septuaginta, den Evangelien des Neuen Testaments und der Rezeptiongeschichte der Bibel auseinander und decken dabei ein breites Themenfeld innerhalb der biblischen Redaktion und Rezeption ab. Neuschreibung und Rezeption sind Teil eines fortlaufenden Prozesses, der innerhalb der biblischen Literatur begann, und der sich in der Geschichte der interpretierenden Gemeinden fortsetzt, die die Bibel bis heute auf zahlreiche Arten rezipieren und wertschätzen. Der vorliegende Band möchte die wissenschaftliche Debatte über solch wichtige Themen innerhalb der Bibelforschung voranbringen. Er zeigt, dass man sich mit dem Begriff der Rezeption aus sehr verschiedenen Blickwinkeln und unterschiedlichen hermeneutischen und methodologischen Perspektiven befassen kann, welche alle neue Einblicke in die antiken Texte und deren Nachleben bieten.