Faculty of Theology
Department of New Testament Studies
Selected Highlights from Research Findings
The fact of Pentateuchal influence on the writers of the NT, and particularly their use of Deuteronomy, is widely accepted in scholarly circles today. Substantial evidence for this is found in the explicit quotations, references, allusions and broader motifs.
The presence of quotations from Deuteronomy reflects the attitude of the NT writers towards the Jewish law and customs, at a time when early Christianity was still positioning itself – sometimes alongside, other times in opposition to it. The role of the Shema and the Decalogue is obvious in this regard and it occurs in almost all of the NT books that quote from Deuteronomy.
Along with Romans, Mark, Matthew, and Luke-Acts, Hebrews is identified as one of the NT books that quoted the most from Deuteronomy. It also contains the quotations closest to the beginning and to the end of Deuteronomy.
But all of the (suggested) Deuteronomy quotations in Hebrews are short and fragmentary when compared to the same author’s quotations from the Psalms and the Prophets.
This raises some questions: Did he quote from memory rather than from a written text? Did he know these phrases from the early Jewish or early Christian traditions? What role did the liturgical traditions play here? Should these brief Deuteronomic phrases be seen as conscious references or allusions, rather than explicit quotations, especially in the light of the absence of clear introductory formulae and in most cases, differences in wording?
Two features are also worth noting at the outset. Firstly, unlike the Psalm quotations (and Jeremiah), the texts are not quoted with reference to divine authority. In itself this conveys the attitude that the author of Hebrews had with regard to the Torah, and especially with regard to Deuteronomy.
Another interesting phenomenon is the fact that, except for Heb. 1:6 (and it is questionable whether it really belongs to the Deuteronomy quotations – see below), all of the quotations are to be found in the latter part of Hebrews, between Heb. 10:28 and Heb. 13:5.
A closer look at these nine identified “quotations” from Deuteronomy shows, however, that there are strictly speaking only four explicit quotations: Deut. 32:43 LXX (Ode 2) in Heb. 1:6; Deut. 32:35-36 in Heb. 10:30-31; Deut. 9:19 in Heb. 12:21, and Deut. 31:6 in Heb. 13:5.
At least four of the instances usually identified as quotations should rather be counted as allusions (all of them in Hebrews 12) and the remaining one as an intended reference. Furthermore, a number of these nine cases occur as quotations in early Christian literature, or, as in the case of the very last quotation listed above, by the Jewish writer, Philo (Conf. 166).
Of particular interest are those that occur in Romans, for the unknown author of Hebrews quotes from the context immediately preceding a quotation (Deut. 9:3 in Hebrews and Deut. 9:4 in Romans) and also alludes to the following context of a quotation that occurred in Romans (Deut. 29:17 in Hebrews and Deut. 29:3 in Romans).
There is little doubt that the author of Hebrews is in dialogue with Jewish-Hellenistic Christians. He reinterprets some key aspects of their Jewish religious background and heritage in the light of Jesus as the exalted Son of God
Contact person: Prof GJ Steyn.
In its beginning African theology was mostly reactive and apologetic, and consisted mainly of comparative studies. In the latter half of the twentieth century this religious studies framework was replaced by a theological framework: African theologians concentrated on liberation theology, and the first efforts to produce an inculturated African theology can be traced.
At the end of the twentieth century African theology became more assertive and proactive. During this period African theologians concentrated on the African context as subject for the interpretation of the Bible.
Three suggestions are made with regard to the future of African theology: Firstly, the argument that African theology should be different from and abandon anything that is Western needs some rethinking.
African theology does not need to be different, it needs to be contextual. The question should not be “what is different”, but rather “is it contextual?” By contextual is meant a contextual critical reading of Scripture and the critical appropriation thereof, or, diversely, a theology that arises from the African context, in that context for that context.
African theology should be, like any other theology, purpose and context driven. Only then will it speak on behalf of the people for the people, and will it make a difference in society and church.
Secondly, African theology, if it wants to be Christian, should be Biblical. In the Bible the life (words and deeds) of Jesus Christ, as the Word, speaks of God as the Creator of new life. He is our Saviour from sin and from ourselves.
Finally African theology, it if it wants to make a difference for Africans in Africa, should be a theology of protest. It should protest, on a Biblical basis, against everything in its context and social life that is not Biblical: Corruption, poverty, crime, not caring for the sick (especially those with HIV/Aids), nepotism, misuse of (political) power and the abuse of women, to name but a few
Contact person: Prof E Van Eck.
|
