Recovering Patristic Biblical Exegesis in Historical and Religious Research

****Note this post will always be under review as I keep up with other sources (print and electronic resources) and continue to refine methodology. Please leave a note helping me add to this page.

Recently, I have been making my way through Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study (Studies in Theological Interpretation) by Markus Bockmuehl. Although he sees the NT discipline in state of decline (more on this in the coming month), he sees effective history and the spectrum of textual intention as way to move forward the disciplines. In other words, the history of interpretation and Wirkungsgeschichte are ways to move forward the conversations in the discipline.

Over the past year I have been trying to immerse myself in this. How can Patristic exegesis of New Testament texts aid our understanding of the Bible and other scholarly discussions.  So many variables exist when engaging early Christian texts, intertextual traditions, and overlapping traditions. Continue reading

Advertisements

Overview and Conclusion: Runge on Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb (part 6 of 6)

This is a conclusion/overview of a series we (Brian Renshaw and I) are writing on Steven Runge’s recent article, “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument,” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014): 154–73. (see here)

Before reading Runge’s article or our blog series, please read Runge’s post on “Porter’s Use of Contrastive Substitution” on his blog, NT Discourse. This serves as the informative background to Runge writing an article deconstructing Porter’s contrastive substitution argument.

Personal Anecdote

Continue reading

Porter’s Claims from Contrastive Substitution: Runge on Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb (part 5 of 6)

Brian Renshaw and I are blogging through a new journal article by Steven Runge. Here is his post (part 5 of 6).

*     *     *     *     *

This is a continuation of a series Shawn Wilhite and I are writing on Steven Runge’s recent article, “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument,” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014): 154–73. (see here)

In part I, we introduce the problem and define contrastive substitution.

In part II, I highlight the background and the reason Runge reexamines Stanley Porter’s analysis of constrastive substitution.

In part III, Shawn highlights how Stanley Porter misrepresents Curtius and Collinge, two of three sources Porter uses to confirm contrastive substitution.

In part IV, Shawn engages Porter and his final of three sources, Carl Bache.

In the following post I analyze Porter’s claims from contrastitive substitution. Porter claims on the basis of contrastive substitution that the Greek verb does not encode absolute tense. One issue is how Porter attempts to seperate tense from aspect. Porter then takes his statement one step further and argues that the Greek indicative verb does not encode any tense.
Continue reading

Review of Captain of Our Salvation: A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of Hebrews

Mohr Siebeck

Over the past month I have been critically engaging Rowan Greer’s Captain of Our Salvation: A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of Hebrews. It is an excellent book highlighting how Hebrews was used in the early Christological debates.

Regrettably, as I was reading this book, I found out Greer recently passed away. Here is a recent note by my supervisor, Michael Haykin, about his passing (see here).

Below is a review.
Continue reading

Bache’s Linguistic Framework and Selected Contrastive Examples: Runge on Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb (Part 4 of 6)

Early this week, Brian Renshaw and I began a six-part series on Steven Runge’s recent article, “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument,” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014): 154–73. (see here)

In part I, we introduce the problem and define contrastive substitution.

In part II, Brian highlights the background and the reason Runge reexamines Stanley Porter’s analysis of contrastive substitution.

In part III, I highlight how Stanley Porter misrepresents Curtius and Collinge, two of three sources Porter uses to confirm contrastive substitution.

In the following post, I engage Stanley Porter and his final of three sources (Carl Bache). Prior to fully engaging Porter and Runge, I help clarify Bache’s four-fold linguistic framework for verbal semantics. As Steven Runge demonstrates, Porter fails to use Bache’s linguistic framework. When Porter provides his examples for atemporal semantics and contrastive substitution, Porter (1) conflates Bache’s final two categories and (2) is selective with his evidence to favor of his view. Continue reading

Contrastive Substitution and the Nature of Tense: Runge on Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb (part 3 of 6)

Early this week, Brian Renshaw and I began a six-part series on Steven Runge’s recent article, “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument,” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014): 154–73. (see here)

In part I, we introduce the problem and define contrastive substitution.

In part II, Brian highlights the background and the reason Runge reexamines Porter’s analysis of contrastive substitution.

In the following post, I engage Porter and two of his three sources (Curtius[1] and Collinge[2]). As Runge demonstrates, and I elaborate, Porter misuses and misrepresents Curtius and Collinge when describing contrastive substitution.

Contrastive Substitution and the Nature of Tense[3]

Continue reading

Methodology and Background: Runge on Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb (part 2 of 6)

Brian Renshaw and I are blogging through a new journal article by Steven Runge. Here is his post (part 2 of 6).

*     *     *     *     *

In this second post examining Steven Runge’s article, “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument”, I will examine the background, leading him to reexamination of Porter’s analysis of contrastive substitution.

Methodology

The purpose of Runge’s article is not necessarily to disprove Porter’s use of contrastive substitution but rather to “demonstrate his failure to develop a linguistically sound methodological framework.”[1] Runge argues that Porter misunderstands his sources, which leads to incorrect conclusions regarding contrastive substitution. In Porter’s writings it appears that he is in agreement with the linguists he cites but as Runge points out, the evidence is to the contrary.
Continue reading