Mogens Müller – författare

The First Bible of the Church describes of the shape of the Jewish Bible at the time of the New Testament, with a special focus on the significance of the Greek translation, the Septuagint. The Jewish defence of the Septuagint version and its reception into the early Church makes it a representative of the Jewish Bible tradition fully on a par with the Hebrew Bible. This fact is especially important because the Septuagint is extensively used in the New Testament writings, whereby it-and not the Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic text)-is the most obvious candidate for the title of the first Bible of the Church.

In this book a new concept is systematically explored: that of the New Testament as a "reception" of various antecedents. Three chapters cover its reception of the Old Testament, of Second Temple Judaism and of Graeco-Roman culture. Three further chapters explore the reception of Jesus, using as examples the Synoptic parables, Matthew''s Messianic Teacher, and the Christology of the Book of Revelation. Paul is considered in a chapter on his reception in Acts, and three final chapters survey broader themes: feminist reception, reception history within the New Testament (using the Annunciation as an example), and translation.

The First Bible of the Church describes of the shape of the Jewish Bible at the time of the New Testament, with a special focus on the significance of the Greek translation, the Septuagint. The Jewish defence of the Septuagint version and its reception into the early Church makes it a representative of the Jewish Bible tradition fully on a par with the Hebrew Bible. This fact is especially important because the Septuagint is extensively used in the New Testament writings, whereby it-and not the Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic text)-is the most obvious candidate for the title of the first Bible of the Church.

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.

The Q-Hypothesis has functioned as a mainstay of study of the synoptic gospels for many years. Increasingly it comes under fire. In this volume leading proponents of Q, as well as of the case against Q, offer the latest arguments based on the latest research into this literary conundrum. The contributors to the volume include John Kloppenborg, Christopher Tuckett, Clare Rothschild, Mark Goodacre, and Francis Watson. The Q-Hypothesis is examined in depth and the discussion moves back and forth over Q's strengths and weaknesses. As such the volume sheds light on how the gospels were composed, and how we can view them in their final literary forms.

The Q-Hypothesis has functioned as a mainstay of study of the synoptic gospels for many years. Increasingly it comes under fire. In this volume leading proponents of Q, as well as of the case against Q, offer the latest arguments based on the latest research into this literary conundrum. The contributors to the volume include John Kloppenborg, Christopher Tuckett, Clare Rothschild, Mark Goodacre, and Francis Watson. The Q-Hypothesis is examined in depth and the discussion moves back and forth over Q''s strengths and weaknesses. As such the volume sheds light on how the gospels were composed, and how we can view them in their final literary forms.

The Q-Hypothesis has functioned as a mainstay of study of the synoptic gospels for many years. Increasingly it comes under fire. In this volume leading proponents of Q, as well as of the case against Q, offer the latest arguments based on the latest research into this literary conundrum. The contributors to the volume include John Kloppenborg, Christopher Tuckett, Clare Rothschild, Mark Goodacre, and Francis Watson. The Q-Hypothesis is examined in depth and the discussion moves back and forth over Q''s strengths and weaknesses. As such the volume sheds light on how the gospels were composed, and how we can view them in their final literary forms.

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.

The Q-Hypothesis has functioned as a mainstay of study of the synoptic gospels for many years. Increasingly it comes under fire. In this volume leading proponents of Q, as well as of the case against Q, offer the latest arguments based on the latest research into this literary conundrum. The contributors to the volume include John Kloppenborg, Christopher Tuckett, Clare Rothschild, Mark Goodacre, and Francis Watson. The Q-Hypothesis is examined in depth and the discussion moves back and forth over Q's strengths and weaknesses. As such the volume sheds light on how the gospels were composed, and how we can view them in their final literary forms.

''Son of Man'' is practically the only self-designation employed by Jesus himself in the gospels, but is used in such a way that no hint is left of any particular theological significance. Still, during the first many centuries of the church, the expression as it was reused was given content, first literally as signifying Christ''s human nature. Later ''Son of Man'' was thought to be a christological title in its own right. Today, many scholars are inclined to think that, in an original Aramaic of an historical Jesus, it was little more than a rhetorical circumlocution, referring to the one speaking. Mogens Müller''s ''The Expression ''Son of Man'' and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation'' is the first study of the ''Son of Man'' trope, which traces the history of interpretation from the Apostolic Fathers to the present, concluding that the various interpretations of this phrase reflect little more than the various doctrinal assumptions held by its interpreters over centuries.

''Son of Man'' is practically the only self-designation employed by Jesus himself in the gospels, but is used in such a way that no hint is left of any particular theological significance. Still, during the first many centuries of the church, the expression as it was reused was given content, first literally as signifying Christ''s human nature. Later ''Son of Man'' was thought to be a christological title in its own right. Today, many scholars are inclined to think that, in an original Aramaic of an historical Jesus, it was little more than a rhetorical circumlocution, referring to the one speaking. Mogens Müller''s ''The Expression ''Son of Man'' and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation'' is the first study of the ''Son of Man'' trope, which traces the history of interpretation from the Apostolic Fathers to the present, concluding that the various interpretations of this phrase reflect little more than the various doctrinal assumptions held by its interpreters over centuries.

In this book a new concept is systematically explored: that of the New Testament as a reception of various antecedents. Three chapters cover its reception of the Old Testament, of Second Temple Judaism and of Graeco-Roman culture. Three further chapters explore the reception of Jesus, using as examples the Synoptic parables, Matthew's Messianic Teacher, and the Christology of the Book of Revelation. Paul is considered in a chapter on his reception in Acts, and three final chapters survey broader themes: feminist reception, reception history within the New Testament (using the Annunciation as an example), and translation.

'Son of Man' is practically the only self-designation employed by Jesus himself in the gospels, but is used in such a way that no hint is left of any particular theological significance. Still, during the first many centuries of the church, the expression as it was reused was given content, first literally as signifying Christ's human nature. Later 'Son of Man' was thought to be a christological title in its own right. Today, many scholars are inclined to think that, in an original Aramaic of an historical Jesus, it was little more than a rhetorical circumlocution, referring to the one speaking. Mogens Müller's 'The Expression 'Son of Man' and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation' is the first study of the 'Son of Man' trope, which traces the history of interpretation from the Apostolic Fathers to the present, concluding that the various interpretations of this phrase reflect little more than the various doctrinal assumptions held by its interpreters over centuries.

'Son of Man' is practically the only self-designation employed by Jesus himself in the gospels, but is used in such a way that no hint is left of any particular theological significance. Still, during the first many centuries of the church, the expression as it was reused was given content, first literally as signifying Christ's human nature. Later 'Son of Man' was thought to be a christological title in its own right. Today, many scholars are inclined to think that, in an original Aramaic of an historical Jesus, it was little more than a rhetorical circumlocution, referring to the one speaking. Mogens Müller's 'The Expression 'Son of Man' and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation' is the first study of the 'Son of Man' trope, which traces the history of interpretation from the Apostolic Fathers to the present, concluding that the various interpretations of this phrase reflect little more than the various doctrinal assumptions held by its interpreters over centuries.