Henry Chadwick proposed in the 1960s that Philo’s Questions and Answers in Genesis 4.69 is import... more Henry Chadwick proposed in the 1960s that Philo’s Questions and Answers in Genesis 4.69 is important for understanding Paul’s mission strategy in 2 Cor 9. In 2011 David J. Rudolph revisited that ‘missionary-apologetic’ reading of QG 4.69 in a discussion of Paul’s observance of the Torah but refrained from drawing firm conclusions. This article subjects the missionary-apologetic hypothesis to closer scrutiny, especially regarding its plausibility as a reading of Philo. It argues that Chadwick’s hypothesis lacks both evidence and explanatory power. QG 4.69, therefore, contributes little to our understanding of 1 Cor 9 and of Paul’s missionary strategy and Torah observance.
The Letter of Aristeas recounts the translation of the Jewish Law into Greek by seventy-two Jewis... more The Letter of Aristeas recounts the translation of the Jewish Law into Greek by seventy-two Jewish elders. That number of elders (seventy-two) has been the subject of considerable discussion, and several competing explanations for the origin of the number have been proposed. Some scholars claim the number is derived from Hellenistic (specifically grammatical or arithmological) traditions, whereas others see precedent for the number seventy-two in the details of Exod 24 or Num 11. This paper evaluates several such hypotheses (most of them relatively recent), showing most to be speculative and lacking explanatory power. Rejecting such hypotheses, this paper argues that the number seventy-two emerges from a compromise between two of Pseudo-Aristeas’s interests—a hypothesis rendered all the more plausible by its appearance in Epiphanius. All this justifies an appeal for scholars to exercise both diligence and restraint regarding Jewish and Christian engagement with exodus traditions.
The defence of resurrection in Mk 12.18-27 has been understood in various ways, based on differen... more The defence of resurrection in Mk 12.18-27 has been understood in various ways, based on different reconstructions of the logic of Jesus’ citation of Exod. 3.6. These various approaches may be generally grouped under two broad categories: ‘present relationship’ hypotheses and ‘covenant/context’ hypotheses. This study evaluates those approaches, seeking to critique the existing covenant/context proposals of F. Dreyfus (1959) and Bradley R. Trick (2007) and extend their insights in new directions. In doing so, it focuses on citation context and similar reasoning in other early Jewish and Christian texts, including an overlooked analogue in Heb. 11. It will be argued that this context and these analogues lend support to a revised version of the covenant/context hypothesis that understands Mk 12 as predicating resurrection on divine faithfulness to the covenant between God and the patriarchs.
Henry Chadwick proposed in the 1960s that Philo’s Questions and Answers in Genesis 4.69 is import... more Henry Chadwick proposed in the 1960s that Philo’s Questions and Answers in Genesis 4.69 is important for understanding Paul’s mission strategy in 2 Cor 9. In 2011 David J. Rudolph revisited that ‘missionary-apologetic’ reading of QG 4.69 in a discussion of Paul’s observance of the Torah but refrained from drawing firm conclusions. This article subjects the missionary-apologetic hypothesis to closer scrutiny, especially regarding its plausibility as a reading of Philo. It argues that Chadwick’s hypothesis lacks both evidence and explanatory power. QG 4.69, therefore, contributes little to our understanding of 1 Cor 9 and of Paul’s missionary strategy and Torah observance.
The Letter of Aristeas recounts the translation of the Jewish Law into Greek by seventy-two Jewis... more The Letter of Aristeas recounts the translation of the Jewish Law into Greek by seventy-two Jewish elders. That number of elders (seventy-two) has been the subject of considerable discussion, and several competing explanations for the origin of the number have been proposed. Some scholars claim the number is derived from Hellenistic (specifically grammatical or arithmological) traditions, whereas others see precedent for the number seventy-two in the details of Exod 24 or Num 11. This paper evaluates several such hypotheses (most of them relatively recent), showing most to be speculative and lacking explanatory power. Rejecting such hypotheses, this paper argues that the number seventy-two emerges from a compromise between two of Pseudo-Aristeas’s interests—a hypothesis rendered all the more plausible by its appearance in Epiphanius. All this justifies an appeal for scholars to exercise both diligence and restraint regarding Jewish and Christian engagement with exodus traditions.
The defence of resurrection in Mk 12.18-27 has been understood in various ways, based on differen... more The defence of resurrection in Mk 12.18-27 has been understood in various ways, based on different reconstructions of the logic of Jesus’ citation of Exod. 3.6. These various approaches may be generally grouped under two broad categories: ‘present relationship’ hypotheses and ‘covenant/context’ hypotheses. This study evaluates those approaches, seeking to critique the existing covenant/context proposals of F. Dreyfus (1959) and Bradley R. Trick (2007) and extend their insights in new directions. In doing so, it focuses on citation context and similar reasoning in other early Jewish and Christian texts, including an overlooked analogue in Heb. 11. It will be argued that this context and these analogues lend support to a revised version of the covenant/context hypothesis that understands Mk 12 as predicating resurrection on divine faithfulness to the covenant between God and the patriarchs.
Uploads
Papers by Alex Macdonald