Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Introduction to the New Testament (Revised English Edition) Hardcover – 1975
"Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress"
Is the world really falling apart? Is the ideal of progress obsolete? Cognitive scientist and public intellectual Steven Pinker urges us to step back from the gory headlines and prophecies of doom, and instead, follow the data: In seventy-five jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise. Learn more
Customers who bought this item also bought
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Text: English, German (translation)
About the Author
Werner Georg Kummel was Professor of New Testament, Philipps-Universitat, Marburg, Germany. Author of Promise anf Fulfillment. The Eschatological Message of Jesus (Studies in Biblical Theology, 23); Man in the New Testament; The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of It's Problems and The Theology of the New Testament According to it's Major Witnesses. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
He states in the first chapter about the “Synoptic Problem”: “How can one explain the remarkable, complicated interrelationship of agreement and difference between Mk, Mt, and Lk? The situation is all the more striking in that Jn does not share in it… The sayings of Jesus in the Synoptics are very similar, too, as distinct from Jn: there are no long discussions, but only short, sharply etched sayings, short speeches, and fragments of speeches, in addition to numerous parables… In many sections which are found in all three of the Gospels, two Gospels are in broad agreement while the third is divergent… the convincing conclusion seems to be that the Synoptics are in some way literarily dependent on one another. The situation is complicated, however, by the fact that the Gospels differ sharply in both form and content. The infancy stories in Mt and Lk contradict each other in essential features… Nor do the resurrection stories represent a unified tradition: Lk knows only the appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem; Mt reports them in Jerusalem and Galilee; Mk has no resurrection account at all… The special material of Mt and Lk is, however, closely tied in with material that they share in common…” (Pg. 42-44)
He notes that “Decisive… for the recognition of the priority of Mk over Mt and Lk is the comparison of language and content. The strict agreement between the synoptists in the text that they share with Mk… proves in the first instance only that a literary relationship exits. But when the word usage of Mt and Lk is compared with Mk, it is apparent either that Mt and Lk have in large measure changed the colloquial or Semitic text of Mk into better Greek… More decisive are the indications of substantive changes… In Mt 9:2, the reason for the remark ‘Jesus saw their faith’ cannot be discerned; Mk 2:4, however, reports the most unusual undertaking of bringing the sick man to Jesus by digging a hole in the roof, a detail which Mt has obviously omitted… instead of the ambiguity of the subject in Mk 2:15, ‘As he sat at table in his house,’ Lk 5:29 has the clarification ‘Levi arranged a great feast in his house.’ In Lk 23:18 it is incomprehensible why the crowd suddenly asks for Barabbas to be freed, especially since he is not even identified until the following verse, but Lk has omitted the information given in Mk 15:6 about Pilate’s custom of releasing a prisoner. On the basis of all these facts it may be inferred from a comparison of the material common to all three Synoptics that Mk has been used by Mt and Lk as a common source.” (Pg. 60-61)
He argues, “Luke is eager to prove the political innocence of Jesus in the eyes of the Romans, especially of Pilate (Lk 23:4, 14, 20, 22; 23:47, ‘This man was innocent’), while the Jews appear as those who sanction the disturbance and seek unjustly to condemn Jesus as a political insurrectionist (20:26, 26; 23:2, 5, 18f, 23, 25)… here we face a political apologetic, which exonerates the Romans from guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus … and thus is prepared the defense of the Christians against political suspicion in Acts.” (Pg. 140) He observes, “in Acts… the aim of defending the Christians against the charge of enmity toward the state is unmistakable… Thus Luke shows again and again that the Roman officials must attest to the complete lack of guilt of the Christians and, above all, of Paul… and that they do not hinder Paul from preaching the gospel while he is being detained in Rome (28:30 f). The apologetic aim of this and related texts is as unmistakable here as the same feature is in Lk.” (Pg. 162-163)
He adds, “The expectation of the nearness of the End was shunted from its dominant position… In place of the promise ‘Some of you who are standing here will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God having come in power’ (Mk 9:1), we find (Lk 9:27) ‘Some who stand here will not taste death until they have seen the kingdom of God.’ … Indeed, the question ‘When is the kingdom of God coming?’ is rejected… because ‘the kingdom of God is among you.’” (Pg. 142-143) He rejects a pre-70 date for Luke, because “in Lk 21:20, 24 there appears an apocalyptic prediction which has been reworked from the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Mk 13:14 ff) into a prediction of doom on Jerusalem that has been formulated ex eventu: presupposed are the events of the year 70, including the siege and destruction of the city by the Romans, the slaughter of innumerable Jews, and the carrying off of the survivors into Gentile prisons. The same is true of the portrayal in 19:43 f: the wall which the enemies throw up around the city, the siege and blockade, the delivery of the conquered city and its inhabitants to the victors, the complete destruction of the city---all correspond exactly to the descriptions which contemporary accounts offer of the action of Titus against Jerusalem. Accordingly Lk was in any case written after 70.” (Pg. 150)
He observes that “Acts is wrong in saying that Paul had been in Jerusalem twice before the Apostolic Council (Acts 15=Gal 2). Yet Paul attaches great importance in Gal 2:1 to the fact that the visit to the Apostolic Council was the second he had made to Jerusalem… Paul says nothing of this so-called ‘Apostolic Decree’ [Acts 15] in Gal 2… The Apostolic Decree in the form reported in Acts cannot have been decided upon with Paul as participant… There can be no doubt that, on the three essential points that have been mentioned concerning the information about Paul’s activity, the author of Acts is so misinformed that he can scarcely have been a companion of Paul on his missionary journeys.” (Pg. 180-181) He adds, “the author of Acts does not know of Paul’s emphatic claim to the title of apostle… there is a sufficient base for inferring that the author of Acts was not a missionary companion of Paul, so that the ‘we’ in Acts 16 ff cannot be expressing his participation in the missionary journeys of Paul.” (Pg. 182-183) Later, he further adds, “The trial of Paul in Phil 1-2 cannot be the same as that described in Acts 23… in some way Paul’s preaching of the gospel had become the occasion for his legal prosecution, but according to Acts 21:28; 25:7 ff; 28:17 ff the issue was that of alleged offenses of Paul against the Jewish law in connection with the desecration of the temple.” (Pg. 330)
He states, “The conclusion of Acts 28:30 does not clearly indicate what happened to Paul after his two-year imprisonment and his unhindered preaching in Rome… the apologetic goal of Acts was obviously reached by 28:30 and we cannot postulate what the author had to write or omit. In addition, Acts 20:25, 38 indicate clearly that in the understanding of the author of Acts Paul was no longer able to return to his churches in the East. Thus the conclusion of Acts leaves open the possibilities that, after two years of Roman imprisonment, Paul was either released or executed, but excludes the possibility of another journey to the East.” (Pg. 376-377)
Of 2 Peter, he says, “this letter cannot have been written by Peter… The literary dependence on Jude rules this out… This material shows, therefore, that it is II Pet which is the dependent factor. It is further to be observed that the quotation from a noncanonical writing (Jude 14 f = The Apocalypse of Enoch 1:9, 60:8) is lacking in II Pet … From this it may be concluded that II Pet is already reluctant to use this literature whereas Jude has a naïve attitude toward it… Consequently it is almost universally recognized today that II Pet is dependent on Jude and not the reverse.” (Pg. 430-431) He adds, “Also indicative of the second century is the appeal to a collective of Pauline letters from which ‘statements that are hard to understand’ have been misinterpreted by the false teachers, and to further normative writings which include not only the OT bus also the developing NT (3:16)… Accordingly we find ourselves without doubt far beyond the time of Peter and into the epoch of ‘early Catholicism.’” (Pg.. 432-433) He also points out, “In spite of its heavy stress on Petrine authorship, II Pet is nowhere mentioned in the second century… Even down to the fourth century II Pet was largely unknown or not recognized as canonical.” (Pg. 433-434)
This is an excellent, detailed, well-argued summary of “mainline” scholarship about the New Testament, and will be of great value to students of the New Testament (whether or not they agree with every statement herein).