Matthew Thiessen offers a nuanced and wide-ranging study of the nature of Jewish thought on Jewishness, circumcision, and conversion. Examining texts from the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Judaism, and early Christianity, he gives a compelling account of the various forms of Judaism from which the early Christian movement arose. Beginning with…[Read more]

Matthew Thiessen offers a nuanced and wide-ranging study of the nature of Jewish thought on Jewishness, circumcision, and conversion. Examining texts from the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Judaism, and early Christianity, he gives a compelling account of the various forms of Judaism from which the early Christian movement arose. Beginning with…[Read more]

Matthew Thiessen offers a nuanced and wide-ranging study of the nature of Jewish thought on Jewishness, circumcision, and conversion. Examining texts from the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Judaism, and early Christianity, he gives a compelling account of the various forms of Judaism from which the early Christian movement arose. Beginning with…[Read more]

Decades ago, Werner G. Kummel described the historical problem of Romans as its “double character”: concerned with issues of Torah and the destiny of Israel, the letter is explicitly addressed not to Jews but to Gentiles. At stake in the numerous answers given to that question is nothing less than the purpose of Paul’s most important letter. In Th…[Read more]

Decades ago, Werner G. Kummel described the historical problem of Romans as its “double character”: concerned with issues of Torah and the destiny of Israel, the letter is explicitly addressed not to Jews but to Gentiles. At stake in the numerous answers given to that question is nothing less than the purpose of Paul’s most important letter. In Th…[Read more]

In this paper I examine Bernard Lonergan’s interpretation of ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans 5:5 as a subjective genitive construct.

In this paper I examine Bernard Lonergan’s interpretation of ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans 5:5 as a subjective genitive construct.

In the so-called Protevangelium Jacobi, Mary spins thread for the temple veil while receiving news of her impending pregnancy. Some have argued that her work is apologetic, countering the unflattering claim (of Celsus) that she spun in order to make ends meet, others that it is indicative of her virtue, intended to portray her as laudable. Without…[Read more]

In the so-called Protevangelium Jacobi, Mary spins thread for the temple veil while receiving news of her impending pregnancy. Some have argued that her work is apologetic, countering the unflattering claim (of Celsus) that she spun in order to make ends meet, others that it is indicative of her virtue, intended to portray her as laudable. Without…[Read more]

The majority of interpreters conclude that in Rom 2:17-29 Paul addresses an ethnic Jew. In contrast, Runar M. Thorsteinsson has argued recently that Paul addresses a gentile, specifically a gentile who has judaized and now thinks of himself as a Jew. This article provides further support for Thorsteinsson’s argument, arguing that Paul, contrary t…[Read more]

The majority of interpreters conclude that in Rom 2:17-29 Paul addresses an ethnic Jew. In contrast, Runar M. Thorsteinsson has argued recently that Paul addresses a gentile, specifically a gentile who has judaized and now thinks of himself as a Jew. This article provides further support for Thorsteinsson’s argument, arguing that Paul, contrary t…[Read more]

The majority of interpreters conclude that in Rom 2:17-29 Paul addresses an ethnic Jew. In contrast, Runar M. Thorsteinsson has argued recently that Paul addresses a gentile, specifically a gentile who has judaized and now thinks of himself as a Jew. This article provides further support for Thorsteinsson’s argument, arguing that Paul, contrary t…[Read more]

Though the “many for one” political ideology was widespread in the first century CE, Mark 10:45 rejects this ideology. Instead, this type of rule is contrasted with Jesus’s own rule as a servant king, sacrificing himself (the one) for his followers (the many).

Though the “many for one” political ideology was widespread in the first century CE, Mark 10:45 rejects this ideology. Instead, this type of rule is contrasted with Jesus’s own rule as a servant king, sacrificing himself (the one) for his followers (the many).

Though the “many for one” political ideology was widespread in the first century CE, Mark 10:45 rejects this ideology. Instead, this type of rule is contrasted with Jesus’s own rule as a servant king, sacrificing himself (the one) for his followers (the many).