Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T11:19:08.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘To Be Or Not To Be’: The Possible Futures of New Testament Scholarship Markus Bockmueh

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Markus Bockmuehl
Markus Bockmuehl
Affiliation:
Fitzwilliam CollegeCambridge CB3 0DG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One Tuesday afternoon in June of 1936, the newly installed Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity at Cambridge set out to deliver his inaugural lecture (Dodd 1936). As he stepped up to the podium, his subject stretched out before him in a wide open vista, clear and uncluttered, inviting him to enter into the inheritance of a century or more of successful scientific investigation. The man was C.H. Dodd; his title, ‘The Present Task in New Testament Studies’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , August 1998 , pp. 271 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aichele, . George, . 1995. The Postmodern Bible. New Haven: Yale University.Google Scholar
Baudrillard, Jean. 1987. Forget Foucault. Trans. Lotringer, S.. New York: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
Berger, Klaus. 1988. Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments. Gütersloh: Mohn.Google Scholar
Berger, Klaus. 1995. Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums: Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edn. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Bleich, David. 1988. The Double Perspective: Language, Literacy, and Social Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bockmuehl, Markus. 1995. ‘A Commentator's Approach to the ‘Effective History’ of Philippians.’ JSNT 60: 57–88.Google Scholar
Boghossian, Paul. 1996. ‘The Sokal Hoax’, TLS 13.12.1996, 14.Google Scholar
Brett, Mark. G. 1991. Biblical Criticism in Crisis? Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueggemann, Walter. 1993. The Bible and Postmodern Imagination: Texts under Negotiation. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Childs, Brevard S. 1984. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Childs, Brevard S. 1992. Biblical Theology of the Old andNew Testaments. London: SCMGoogle Scholar
Childs, Brevard S. 1995. ‘On Reclaiming the Bible for Christian Theology.’ In Reclaiming the Bible for the Church, 1–17. Ed. Braaten, C. E. & Jenson, R. W.. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Childs, Brevard S. 1997. ‘Toward Recovering Theological Exegesis.’ Pro Ecclesia 6:16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clines, David J. A. 1993. ‘Possibilities and Priorities of Biblical Interpretation in an International Perspective.’ Biblical Interpretation 1: 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coggins, Richard. 1993. ‘A Future for the Commentary?’ In The Open Text: New Directions for Biblical Studies?, 163–175. Ed. Watson, F.. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Davies, Philip R. 1995. Whose Bible is it Anyway? Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Dodd, C.H. 1936. The Present Task in New Testament Studies: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered in the Divinity School on Tuesday 2 June 1936. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1981. The Role of the Reader. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Farmer, William R. 1994. The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley E. 1980. Is there a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1995. The Biblical Commission's Document ‘The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church’: Text and Commentary. Subsidia Biblica 18. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.Google Scholar
Goulder, Michael D. 1996. ‘Is Q a Juggernaut?’ JBL 115: 667–681.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin & Schwemer, Anna Maria. 1997. Paul Between Damascus and Antioch. Trans. Bowden, J.. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1994. ‘Aufgaben der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft.’ NTS 40:321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1996. The Charismatic Leader and his Followers. Trans. Greig, J.C.G.. Ed. Riches, J.. 2nd edn.Edinburgh: T&T Clark.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin & Schwemer, Anna Maria. 1997. Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years. Trans. Bowden, J.. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Iser, Wolfgang. 1974. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeanrond, Werner G. 1996. ‘Criteria for New Biblical Theologies.’ Journal of Religion 76: 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Leander E. 1981. ‘Is the New Testament a Field of Study? Or From Outler to Overbeck and Back.‘ Second Century 1:19–35.Google Scholar
Körtner, Ulrich H.J. 1994. Derinspirierte Leser: Zentrale Aspekte biblischer Hermeneutik. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Lash, Nicholas. 1986. ‘What Might Martyrdom Mean?’ In idem, Theology on the Road to Emmaus, 75–92. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Lubac, Henride. 1961–1964. Exégèse Méediévale: les quatre sens del'Écriture. 4 vols. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
Luz, Ulrich. 1985–. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 3 vols. EKK 1. Zurich: Benziger.Google Scholar
Luz, Ulrich. 1994. Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.Google Scholar
Marsh, Clive. 1996. ‘Letting the World Be the World’ (Review of F. Watson, Text, Church and World). Reviews in Religion and Theology 1996/2:76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKnight, Edgar V. 1988. Postmodern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism. Nashville: Abingdon.Google Scholar
Moore, Stephen D. 1989. Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge. New Haven: Yale University.Google Scholar
Moore, Stephen D. & Anderson, Janice Capel, eds. 1992. Mark cf Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Morgan, Robert. 1996a. Romans, 128–151. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Morgan, Robert. 1996b. ‘Can the Critical Study of Scripture Provide a Doctrinal Norm?’ Journal of Religion 76:206–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Toole, Finlan. 1996. ‘What Are Critics For?’ The Economist, 12.10.1996, 129–130.Google Scholar
Ozick, Cynthia. 1996. Portrait of the Artist as a Bad Character: and Other Essays on Writing. London: Pimlico, 1996.Google Scholar
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. 1996. ‘Zur Begründung der Lehre von der Schriftinspiration.’ In In der Wahrheitbleiben: Dogma-Schriftauslegung –Kirche. Festschrift für Reinhard Slenczkazum 65. Geburtstag, 156–159. Ed. Seitz, M. & Lehmkühler, K.. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Penchansky, David. 1995. The Politics of Biblical Theology: A Postmodern Reading. Studies in American Biblical Hermeneutics 10. Macon: Mercer University Press.Google Scholar
Porter, Stanley. 1990. ‘Why Hasn’ t Reader-Response Criticism Caught On in New Testament Studies?’ Literature and Theology 4:278–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potterie, Ignace de la. 1986. ‘Reading Holy Scripture “in the Spirit”: Is a Patristic Way of Reading the Bible still Possible Today?’ International Catholic Review/Communio 13:308–356.Google Scholar
Räisänen, Heikki. 1990. Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and a Programme. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Räisänen, Heikki. 1992. ‘The Effective “History” of the Bible: A Challenge to Biblical Scholarship?” SjT 45: 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riches, John. 1993. A Century of New Testament Study. Cambridge: Lutterworth.Google Scholar
Rowland, Christopher. 1995. ‘An Open Letter to Francis Watson on Text, Church and World.’ SjT 48: 507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saward, J. 1996. ‘Regaining Paradise: Paul Claudel and the Renewal of Exegesis.’ Downside Review 114: 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlatter, Adolf. 1969. ‘Atheistische Methoden in der Theologie.’ In Zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments und zur Dogmatik: Kleine Schriften, 134–150. Ed. Luck, U.. Theologische Bücherei 41. Munich: Kaiser. [Originally published in 1905.]Google Scholar
Schmithals, Walter. 1996. ‘Zu Karl Barths Schriftauslegung: Die Problematik des Vernal tnisses von “dogmatischer” und historischer Exegese.’ In Karl Barths Schriftauslegung, 23–52. Ed. Trowitzsch, Michael. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Schrage, Wolfgang. 1991–. Dererste Brief an die Korinther. EKKNT 7. Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. [Two volumes published to date.]Google Scholar
Schürmann, Heinz. 1989. ‘Bibelwissenschaftunter dem Wort Gottes: Eine selbstkritische Besinnung.’ In Christus bezeugen: Für Wolfgang Trilling, 11–42. Ed. Kertelge, K. et al. Leipzig: St. Benno.Google Scholar
Smalley, Beryl. 1983. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. 3rd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, Klyne R. 1990. ‘The Gospel of Thomas: A Secondary Gospel.’ The Second Century 7: 19–38.Google Scholar
Sokal, Alan D. 1996. ‘Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.’ Social Text 14: 217–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alan D., Sokal 1997. ‘A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies.’ MS published on the internet as http://www.physics.nyu.edu/ faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html (February 1997).Google Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 1985. ‘Interpreting the New Testament Today.’ Ex Auditu 1: 63–73. [Revised from Inaugural lecture at King’s College London, 14.11.1978.]Google Scholar
Stendahl, Krister. 1962. ‘Biblical Theology, Contemporary.’ IDB 1: 418–432.Google Scholar
Strack, Hermann L. & Billerbeck, Paul. 1922–1961. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Strecker, Georg & Schnelle, Udo, eds. 1996–. Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Qriechentum und Hellenismus. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. [Published to date: vols. 2.1–2: Texte zur Briefliteratur und zur johannesapokalypse.]Google Scholar
Stuhlmacher, Peter. 1979. Vom Vetstehmdes Neuen Testaments:EineHermeneutik. NTD Suppl. 6. 2nd edn.Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Stuhlmacher, Peter. 1992. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulusx. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Stuhlmacher, Peter. 1995a. Wie treibt man biblische Theologie? Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.Google Scholar
Stuhlmacher, Peter. 1995b. “‘Aus Glauben zum Glauben” – zur geistlichen Schriftauslegung.’ ZTK Beiheft 9:133–150.Google Scholar
Theissen, Gerd & Merz, Annette. 1996a. Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,.Google Scholar
Theissen, Gerd. 1996b. ‘Historical Scepticism and the Criteria of Jesus Research or My Attempt to Leap Across Lessing's Yawning Gulf.’ SJT 49: 147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiselton, Anthony C. 1992. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: Theory Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. London: Marshall Pickering.Google Scholar
Thiselton, Anthony C. 1995. Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self: On Meaning, Manipulation and Promise. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.Google Scholar
Watson, Francis. 1994. Text, Church and World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.Google Scholar
Watson, Francis. 1996a. ‘Bible, Theology and the University: A Response to Philip Davies.’ JSOT 71: 3–16.Google Scholar
Watson, Francis. 1996b. ‘Literary Approaches to the Gospels: A Theological Assessment’ Theology 99: 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weder, Hans. 1996. ‘Kritik am Verdacht: Eine neutestamentliche Erprobung der neueren Hermeneutik des Verdachts.’ ZTK 93: 59–83.Google Scholar
Wright, N. T. 1992. The New Testament and the People of God London: SPCK.Google Scholar
Yeago, David S. 1994. ‘The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis.’ Pro Ecclesia 3:152–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar