The New Testament gospels as Biblical rewritings: On the question of referentiality

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelfagfællebedømt

Standard

The New Testament gospels as Biblical rewritings : On the question of referentiality. / Müller, Mogens.

I: Studia Theologica, Bind 68, Nr. 1, 03.04.2014, s. 21-40.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Müller, M 2014, 'The New Testament gospels as Biblical rewritings: On the question of referentiality', Studia Theologica, bind 68, nr. 1, s. 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0039338X.2014.905489

APA

Müller, M. (2014). The New Testament gospels as Biblical rewritings: On the question of referentiality. Studia Theologica, 68(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0039338X.2014.905489

Vancouver

Müller M. The New Testament gospels as Biblical rewritings: On the question of referentiality. Studia Theologica. 2014 apr. 3;68(1):21-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0039338X.2014.905489

Author

Müller, Mogens. / The New Testament gospels as Biblical rewritings : On the question of referentiality. I: Studia Theologica. 2014 ; Bind 68, Nr. 1. s. 21-40.

Bibtex

@article{2902ef4180bc4b1babc99e5bd22ad61c,
title = "The New Testament gospels as Biblical rewritings: On the question of referentiality",
abstract = "In 1993, in a discussion of fictionality and loyalty to tradition in the Gospel of Matthew, Ulrich Luz pointed out that the writer of Matthew had made substantial changes in the Jesus traditions as taken over from the Gospel of Mark and that in some cases he had even created traditions of his own. The author of Matthew thus consciously engaged in the fabrication of fiction. Nevertheless, according to Luz, throughout his narrative, he clearly expects his readers to accept the referentiality of what is related. This lack of awareness of the differences between fact and fiction places him outside the boundaries of ancient history writing. For parallels to this phenomenon, Luz points to the story of Moses in Deuteronomy and that of the patriarchs in Jubilees. These books, however, are examples of the “rewritten Bible.” This raises the question of whether, with regard to the question of referentiality, the New Testament gospels should be understood on the same presuppositions as the books normally categorized as “rewritten Bible,” and as different steps in a reception history through which the various traditions about Jesus were continually being rewritten and supplemented in accordance with changing theologies and churchly demands.",
author = "Mogens M{\"u}ller",
year = "2014",
month = apr,
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/0039338X.2014.905489",
language = "English",
volume = "68",
pages = "21--40",
journal = "Studia Theologica",
issn = "0039-338X",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The New Testament gospels as Biblical rewritings

T2 - On the question of referentiality

AU - Müller, Mogens

PY - 2014/4/3

Y1 - 2014/4/3

N2 - In 1993, in a discussion of fictionality and loyalty to tradition in the Gospel of Matthew, Ulrich Luz pointed out that the writer of Matthew had made substantial changes in the Jesus traditions as taken over from the Gospel of Mark and that in some cases he had even created traditions of his own. The author of Matthew thus consciously engaged in the fabrication of fiction. Nevertheless, according to Luz, throughout his narrative, he clearly expects his readers to accept the referentiality of what is related. This lack of awareness of the differences between fact and fiction places him outside the boundaries of ancient history writing. For parallels to this phenomenon, Luz points to the story of Moses in Deuteronomy and that of the patriarchs in Jubilees. These books, however, are examples of the “rewritten Bible.” This raises the question of whether, with regard to the question of referentiality, the New Testament gospels should be understood on the same presuppositions as the books normally categorized as “rewritten Bible,” and as different steps in a reception history through which the various traditions about Jesus were continually being rewritten and supplemented in accordance with changing theologies and churchly demands.

AB - In 1993, in a discussion of fictionality and loyalty to tradition in the Gospel of Matthew, Ulrich Luz pointed out that the writer of Matthew had made substantial changes in the Jesus traditions as taken over from the Gospel of Mark and that in some cases he had even created traditions of his own. The author of Matthew thus consciously engaged in the fabrication of fiction. Nevertheless, according to Luz, throughout his narrative, he clearly expects his readers to accept the referentiality of what is related. This lack of awareness of the differences between fact and fiction places him outside the boundaries of ancient history writing. For parallels to this phenomenon, Luz points to the story of Moses in Deuteronomy and that of the patriarchs in Jubilees. These books, however, are examples of the “rewritten Bible.” This raises the question of whether, with regard to the question of referentiality, the New Testament gospels should be understood on the same presuppositions as the books normally categorized as “rewritten Bible,” and as different steps in a reception history through which the various traditions about Jesus were continually being rewritten and supplemented in accordance with changing theologies and churchly demands.

U2 - 10.1080/0039338X.2014.905489

DO - 10.1080/0039338X.2014.905489

M3 - Journal article

VL - 68

SP - 21

EP - 40

JO - Studia Theologica

JF - Studia Theologica

SN - 0039-338X

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 105867999