Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Theodor Zahn's "Introduction to the NT, Vol. 2:" Pastoral Epistles

Zahn, Theodor.  Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. II (3^rd Ed.).  Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock, 1977.  

There are three volumes.  This may be one of the finest New Testament Introductions.  It is a must-read. 

Volume 2 is available at:  http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-Volume-2/dp/1313662909/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1376878710&sr=8-2&keywords=theodor+zahn

Chapter 7:  The Last Epistles of Paul

§ 33.  Presupposed Facts in 2 Timothy. 1-27

·        2 Timothy is treated before 1 Tim. and Titus because there are more tangible facts and personal notices

·        Paul was in chains for some time in Rome (1.17) as 2 Tim. is penned (1.8, 16; 2.9)

·        He has fulfilled his call and duty (1.12)

·        Comes after penning of Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon.  The content and tone is different from this Prison Epistles.  First, Paul is unable to preach and lacks freedom.  He is bound in chains “like a criminal.”

·        Onesiphorus had difficulty finding the imprisoned Paul, but with great devotion and diligence, found him. He visited Paul repeatedly.  Whether he was commissioned by an Asian church is unknown and is conjectural

·        Luke had been constantly with Paul.  Paul was able to send Tychiucs to Ephesus (4.12).  Paul was able to convey greetings from Roman Christians and to receive Timothy and Mark, should they come to Rome (2).

·        One contrast emerges.  For example, Demas had been a companion and assistant with Luke and Paul during his first imprisonment.  Demas is so noted at Col.4.14/Phil 24.  Paul was released.  Varied journeys occur.  He’s back in Rome and imprisoned.  But, a contrast arises.  Demas has forsaken and “deserted the apostle and gone to Thessalonica” (4.10).  Did Demas fear suffering and imprisonment himself?

·        It would appear that Timothy “may have been” dispirited in some ways.  Paul urgently exhorts Timothy to not be afraid (1.7- 8, 12; 2.12-13; 3.10-12; 4.3).  Did Timothy fear imprisonment and suffering?

·        There are differences between content and tone in Philippians (1^st Roman imprisonment) v. 2 Timothy (2^nd Roman imprisonment).  As an aside, we note that Paul had already suffered other imprisonments and jail time: Philippi, Jerusalem, and Caesarea; cf. 2 Cor. 11.  Paul expects release in Philippians and good success before the Imperial court.  Philippians expresses energy. But, 2 Timothy notes abandonment by friends and imminence of death.  In Phil.2.20, Paul praises Timothy but 2 Timothy presents more of a last will and testament with exhortations to duty. Martyrdom is at hand. Whereas, Philippians shows that Paul expected new labors (Phil.2.17).  Whereas, in 2 Tim, “I am ready to be poured out like a drink offering” (4.6) and is prepared to receive “the victor’s crown” (4.8). Death is at hand (4.18).  The operative assumption for Mr. Zahn is that Paul was released from this 1^st Roman imprisonment, resumed his missionary labors, and—hence—the Pastorals.

·        If Timothy comes to Rome, he will likely find Paul alive (4.8-12)

·        Timothy—remember your calling (2.17; 3.1-9; 4.3). It sounds like he is cheering his young protégé.

·        Paul takes Timothy back over some history: (1) the faith of his Jewish mother and grandmother, (2) Timothy’s instruction, (3) Timothy’s conversion (1 Tim.1.2; 2 Tim.1.2; 2.1; 3.14), confession and ordination, and (4) Paul’s persecutions at Lystra, Timothy’s home town (3.11; Acts 13.50; 14.5-19; 16.1).

·        Mr. Zahn notes something interesting. Timothy was probably no neophyte when 2 Timothy was written.  He had been instructed in the Scriptures since youth, circumcised, taught, approved by a congregation and ordained (Acts 16.12). 

·        An interesting question arises regarding Paul’s missionary strategy.  Did he work major cities?  Did he press inland?  He never visited Colosse, approximately 100 miles to the east of Ephesus, yet he believed he had episcopal and apostolic governance over Asian churches.

·        In 2 Tim. 4.10, Titus has gone to Dalmatia and Crescens to Galatia/Gaul (Asia Minor or to European Celts?).  The Γαλατίαν was a term with varied meanings and geographies.  Sometimes in the classical literature it referred to European Κελται, Κελτοι, Κελιτή.  Or, it was also used of those εν Άσία Γαλάται (footnote 8, 25).  As such, western, northwestern and northeastern directions for ministry.  Of note, Paul does not refer to Alexandria or northern Africa.

·        While writing Philippians, Paul expected to go east (Phil. 1.25ff; 2.24).  Further, Titus presupposes other travels after the 1^st Roman imprisonment, e.g. Crete.

·        A sojourn at Troas is presupposed by 2 Tim. 4.13. He urges Timothy to bring the cloak, books (probably some with notes) and parchments. Further, he left Trophimus as sick at Miletus (as an aside, what say the Costalists here who postulate and claim miracles at will?)

·        The golden question remains: where was Timothy when 2 Timothy was written?

§ 34.  Facts Attested by 1 Timothy, 27-54

·        There are less or fewer personal notices in 1 Timothy compared to 2 Timothy

·        Paul at liberty when 1 Timothy and Titus were written.  There had been a journey to Macedonia, hopes to come to Ephesus where Timothy was (1 Tim. 3.14; 4.16).  He asked Timothy to remain in Ephesus (29).

·        Timothy is reminded of his episcopal and apostolic duties (5.21; 6.3-16).

·        Timothy is warned against laxity (1.19; 4.16; 6.12), riches (6.5-11), fruitless discussions and false teachers (6.7ff).

·        Timothy is given instructions for church governance and leaders (3.1-13), ordination pre-exams, and the warning to lay hands on no one suddenly (5.22).  Timothy is a “judge over the presbyters” (33), care of the widow, and his authority extended to the governance of the churches. 2.1-15—this was put into operation in a number of churches. Timothy was an assist to Paul “in his apostolic capacity at Ephesus.”

·        In an interesting footnote, #6, 41, Timothy was, by Eusebius’s time, recognized as the Bishop of Ephesus (Ecclesiastical History, 3.4.6). Also, allegedly, Constantine the Great reinterred Timothy to Constantinople from Ephesus.  Also, Ephesus was recognized as the city of John the Apostle and Timothy (“Acts of the Robber Synod, 449).

The relation of 1 Timothy and Titus are closer.  Timothy became Paul’s helper in 52 A.D. and may have been 35-40 years old in 64 A.D. Hence, he may have experienced some difficulties with older men, either in an official or unofficial capacity.  

Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Theodor Zahn's "Intro to the NT, Vol.3:" Luke-Acts

Zahn, Theodor.  Introduction to the New Testament, Vol III  (3^rd ed.).  Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock, 1977.   There are three volumes.  This may be one of the finest New Testament Introductions.  It is a must-read. 

Volume3 is available at:  http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-Volume-3/dp/1313662917/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1376947272&sr=8-4&keywords=theodor+zahn

Chapter 9  (Continued from Vol. 2):  Luke’s Gospel

§ 58.  Tradition Regarding Luke and his Work. 

·        The early church unanimously attributed Luke-Acts to Luke. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus (century before Eusebius), Eusebius, Jerome and others, including the Muratorian Canon, held to Lucan authorship.  Opponents of Marcion all accepted Lucan authorship.  Canon Muratorian, line 34: acta autem omnium apostolarum sub uno libro scripta sunt.

·        Muratorian Canon, c 175 A.D.  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/muratorian-wace.html Here’s Dean Wace’s introductory comments on the Muratorian Canon which includes Luke. It’s a bit long, but worth the read. Also, take note of Montanism too [think Costals] and Marcions [think liberals]. “Muratorian Fragment, a very ancient list of the books of N.T. first pub. in 1740 by Muratori (Ant. Ital. Med. Aev. iii. 851) and found in a 7th or 8th cent. MS. in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. The MS. had come from the Irish monastery of Bobbio, and the fragment seems to have been a copy of a loose leaf or two of a lost volume. It is defective in the beginning, and breaks off in the middle of a sentence, and the mutilation must have taken place in the archetype of our present copy. This copy was made by an illiterate and careless scribe, and is full of blunders; but is of the greatest value as the earliest-known list of N.T. books recognized by the church. A reference to the episcopate of Pius at Rome ("nuperrime temporibus nostris") is usually taken to prove that the document cannot be later than c. 180, some 20 years after Pius's death (see infra). This precludes Muratori's own conjecture as to authorship, viz. that it was by Caius the presbyter, c. 196; and Bunsen's conjecture that Hegesippus wrote it has nothing to recommend it. It is generally agreed that it was written in Rome. Though in Latin, it bears marks of translation from the Greek, though Hesse (Das. Mur. Frag., Giessen, 1873) and others maintain the originality of the Latin. The first line of the fragment evidently concludes its notice of St. Mark's Gospel; for it proceeds to speak of St. Luke's as in the 3rd place, St. John's in the 4th. A notice of St. Matthew's and St. Mark's must have come before, but we have no means of knowing whether the O.T. books preceded that notice. The document appears to have dealt with the choice of topics in the Gospels and the point where each began (cf. Iren. iii. 11). It is stated that St. Luke (and apparently St. Mark also) had not seen our Lord in the flesh. For its story as to the composition of St. John's Gospel see LEUCIUS. The document goes on to say that by one and the same sovereign Spirit the same fundamental doctrines are fully taught in all concerning our Lord's birth, life, passion, resurrection, and future coming. At the date of this document, therefore, belief was fully established in the pre-eminence of the four Gospels, and in their divine inspiration. Next comes the Acts, St. Luke being credited with purposing to record only what fell under his own notice, thus omitting the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul's journey to Spain. Thirteen epistles of St. Paul are then mentioned. (a) epistles to churches, in the order: I. and II. Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal., I. and II. Thess., Rom. It is observed that St. Paul addressed (like St. John) only seven churches by name, ¹ shewing that he addressed the universal church. (b) Epistles to individuals: Philemon, Titus, and two to Timothy, written from personal affection, but hallowed by the Catholic church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline. Next follow words which we quote from Westcott's trans.: "Moreover there is in circulation an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, bearing on [al. 'favouring'] the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic church, for gall ought not to be mingled with honey. The epistle of Jude, however, and two epistles bearing the name of John, are received in the Catholic [church] (or, are reckoned among the Catholic [epistles]). And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour [is acknowledged]. We receive, moreover, the Apocalypses of St. John and St. Peter only, which latter some of our body will not have read in the church." Marcion entitled his version of Eph. "to the Laodiceans," and there is a well-known pseudo-Pauline epistle with the same title. It has been generally conjectured that by the epistle "to the Alexandrians," Hebrews is meant; but it is nowhere else so described, has no Marcionite tendency, and is not "under the name of Paul." The fragment may refer to some current writing which has not survived, or the Ep. of Barnabas might possibly be intended. Though only two Epp. of John are mentioned, the opening sentence of I. John had been quoted in the paragraph treating of the Gospel, and our writer may have read that epistle as a kind of appendix to the Gospel, and be here speaking of the other two. The mention of Wisdom in a list of N.T. books is perplexing. Perhaps we should read "ut" for "et"; and the Proverbs of Solomon and not the apocryphal book of Wisdom may be intended. There may be an inaccurate reference to Prov. xxv. 1 (LXX). The fragment next says that the Shepherd was written "very lately, in our own time" in the city of Rome, his brother-bishop Pius then occupying the chair of the Roman church; that, therefore, it ought to be read, but not in the public reading of the church. The text of the last sentence of the document is very corrupt, but evidently names writings which are rejected altogether, including those of Arsinous, Valentinus, and Militiades, mention being also made of the Cataphrygians of Asia. 

"Westcott has shewn that no argument can be built upon the omissions (Ep. of James, both Epp. of Peter, and Hebrews) of our fragment, since it shews so many blunders of transcription, and some breaks in the sense. Certainly I. Peter held, at the earliest date claimed for the fragment, such a position in the Roman church that entire silence in respect to it seems incredible. Of disquisitions on our fragment we may name Credner, N. T. Kanon, Volkmar's ed. 141 seq. 341 seq.; Routh, Rell. Sac. i. 394; Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus; Hesse, op. cit.; Westcott, N. T. Canon, 208 seq. 514 seq.; and esp. Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Kanons, ii. 1 (1890), pp. 1-143; also Lietzman's Das Mur Frag. (Bonn, 1908), besides countless arts. in journals, e.g. Harnack, in Text und Unters. (1900); Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons (1880); Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift (1881), p. 129. Hilgenfeld (Kanon, p. 44), and Bötticher (De Lagarde) in Bunsen's Hippolytus i. 2nd ed. Christianity and Mankind, attempted its re-translation into Greek; an ed., with notes and facsimile by S. P. Tregelles, is pub, by the Clar. Press. The present writer expressed in 1874 (Hermathena i.) an opinion which he now holds with more confidence that the fragment was written in the episcopate of Zephyrinus. The words "temporibus nostris" must not be too severely pressed. We have no evidence that the writer was as careful and accurate as Eusebius, who yet speaks (iii. 28, cf. v. 27) of a period 50 or 60 years before he was writing as his own time. There are also indications from the history of the varying position held by the Shepherd that the publication of our fragment may have been between Tertullian's two tracts de Oratione and de Pudicitia (see D. C. B. 4-vol. ed. s.v.); and if it be true that MONTANISM only became active in the Roman church in the episcopate of Zephyrinus, the date of the Muratorian document is settled, for it is clearly anti-Montanist. If we regard it as written in the episcopate of Zephyrinus, Muratori's conjecture that Caius wrote it becomes possible; and we know from Eusebius that the disputation of Caius with Proclus, written at that period, contained, in opposition to Montanist revelations, a list of the books reverenced by the Catholic church.”

·        Mr. Zahn believes he “must have been a member of the Antiochian Church at the latest by the year 40” (2).  Further, that Paul did not arrive in Antioch until 43 A.D.  According to Julius Africanus and Eusebius, Luke was a native of Antioch and Theophilus, the recipient (Lk. 1.3; Acts 1.1) was a rich Antiocian. However, Mr. Zahn notes that tradition does not record a time or place for the Lk-Acts documents (hereafter called LA).         

·        Luke is mentioned by Paul during the 1^st and 2^nd Roman imprisonments

·        A “beloved physician” (Col.4.10-14)—

·        Perhaps he rendered medical assistance or input regarding Paul’s unhealed malady, the “thorn in the flesh”—2 Cor. 12.

·        One of the helpers (Phil 24)—

·        Connected with the work in Rome.  Perhaps, as a physician, he worked in homes as well as speaking of his Gospel-work

·        Demas fled Paul in Rome for “sordid motives” while Luke remained faithful (2 Tim. 4.10ff.)

·        Luke was a Gentile and, inferably, was uncircumcised, a comment of significance made by Paul in Col.4.10-14.

§ 59.  Two-fold Rescension of the Text of Acts—lengthy and important discussion that will be entertained elsewhere

§ 60.  Preface, Plan and Purpose of Luke’s Historical Work

(Luke 1.1-4; Acts 1.1ff.) Κρατιστε Θεοφιλε—most Excellent Theolophilus

·        A high position of a Gentile interested in Christianity

·        According to Mr. Zahn, not a member of the Christian church.  We would add that this is somewhat gratuitous on its face.

·        Theophilus had more than a “mere curiosity”

There were “many” who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word who had undertaken similar endeavors. 

·        In short, there were others who had notes and records, unsurprisingly.  There were ministers απ’ άρχης—from the beginning and after the resurrection (Acts 1.22; 13.37; Jn.15.27)

·        “Ministers of the Word”—διακονία του λογου—Acts 6.4; 13.5; 20.24; 26.16; 1 Cor. 3.5; 4.1; Col.1.7, 25; 1 Tim.1.12; 5.7; 2 Tim.2.15; 4.2, 5. 

·        The Apostles were “Ministers of the Word,” as were Philip (Acts 8.4), the brothers of Jesus, as well as αρχαιοι μαθηταί (Acts 21.16)

Παρέδοσαν `ημιν—“they gave to us”—may refer to one or more Gospels

·        According to Mr. Zahn, Luke did not know of a written Gospel by one of the Apostles or disciples (49).  This appears, prima facie, to be gratuitous, although we hesitate to differ with the great German

·        He does believe that he knew of Mark

·        If one accepts that Matthew’s Gospel was originally in Aramaic, did Luke have access to a Greek version?  Or, as a native Antiochean, would he have known Aramaic himself?

·        It has long been noted that Luke 1-2 has an Aramaic/Hebrew subtext tightly translated (and reflecting the Aramaic) compared to the more classical Greek of Luke 3-24 and Acts.  If so, where did he get such?  What were his researches while at Caesarea with Paul?

Historic notices and proper names

1.      Historic notices

·        Augustus Tiberius (Lk.2.1)

·        Claudius (Acts 11.28; 18.2)

·        Tiberius (Lk.3.1)

·        Quirinius, Governor of Syria (Lk.2.2)

·        Gallio, Governor of Achaia (Acts 18.12)

·        Sergius Paulus (Acts 13.7)

·        Publius, a leading citizen of Malta (Acts 27)

2.      A penchant for proper names, showing attention to detail and research.  We would add quickly a reference to Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) I. Howard Marshall’s Luke the Historian and Theologian in which he ably develops these matters (we would also throw in a freebee that Mr. Marshall, a Welseyan, freely claims that Luke was predestinarian in theology).

·        Zacharias and Elizabeth (Lk 1.5ff.)

·        Simeon and Anna (Lk.2.25, 26)

·        Tiberius and Lysanius (Lk.3.1)

·        Annas (Lk.3.2; Acts 4.6)

·        Simon the Pharisee (Lk.7.40)

·        Joanna and Chuza (Lk.8.3)

·        Susanna (Lk. 8.3?)

·        Mary and Martha (Lk.10.39)

·        Zaccaeus (Lk.19)

·        Cleopas (Lk. 24)

Some themes:

·        The universal significance of Jesus: “salvation is for all flesh” (Lk. 3.4-6)

·        Divine providence

·        Angels

·        Divine inspiration, e.g. Simeon

·        Fulfilled prophecy, e.g. Isaiah’s passage re: John the Baptist (Lk.3.4-6), inter alia

·        The descent of the Son of David and the Son of God back to Abraham and Adam

·        Focus also on Gentiles, e.g. a Gentile whose “faith was great” (Lk.7.2ff), grateful Samaritans (Lk.10.33; 17.16), and the Gospel to all peoples (Lk.24.47; Acts 1.8, inter alia)

·        Jesus the Friend and Savior to sinners “sunk in sin” who come by “penitent humility” (Lk.5.8, 29-32; 7.29, 34, 37-50; 15.1-33).

·        Poverty and wealth: (1) the rich young man, (2) the widow with her mites, and (3) several saying about wealth and benevolence

·        Non-hostility to the state with obligations to pay taxes

Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Theodor Zahn's "Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. 1:" Aramaic and Greek

Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament, Vol 1 (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock, 1977. There are three volumes.

This may be one of the finest New Testament Introductions. It is a must-read. I was able to locate Vols. 2 and 3, but not Vol. 1 on the market. I hold all three apart from modern republications. This is the work of one of Germany's finest scholars from the 19th century. The comments are gold; the footnotes are double-gold. This is high-end scholarship. Here are some notes on Aramaic and Greek.

Volume 3 is available at: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Testament-Zahn-Theodor-1838-1933/dp/1313662917/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1383424624&sr=1-3

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS CONCERNING THE LANGUAGE AND ITS HISTORY

§ 1. The Original Language of the Gospel, 1-33

• The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached by Jesus was "in Aramaic"

• The Apostles preached the Gospel to Palestinian Jews "in Aramaic"

• The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John preserve some short sayings of Jesus in Aramaic, convinced they were reproducing the original sayings

• Shortly after the establishment of the Jerusalem Church, the Gospel is spoken to Greeks in Antioch

• Jesus prayed in Aramaic. Cf. Mk. 1426; 15.34; Mt. 27.46

Mark 14.26: “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

Mark 15.34: And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Matthew 27.46: “Eli, Eli,] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

• Jesus used Aramaic to heal and raise the dead. Mk. 5.41; 7.45

Mark 5.41: He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”).

Mark 7.45: He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, “Ephphatha!” (which means “Be opened!”). 35 At this, the man’s ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly

• Aramaic was also known as Syrian or Syriac

• Aramaic had preceded Christ’s appearance by at least 500 years; it was the dominant language of western Asia; there were dialects of it: West Syriac (Aramaic), Nabataean, Palymyrene. Mr. Zahn likens it to High Germanic dialects: Alemanic, Swabian, Bavarian, and Franconian

• Alexander the Greek and his successors spread Greek, but there were no linguistic rivals to either until the triumph of Islam in the 7th century A.D.

• Syrian, or Aramaic, was considered in the 6th century A.D. to be the “queen of the languages.” As such, one can speak of Aramaic has having at least 1000 years of dominance and use in those areas.

• By 700 B.C. , the Assyrian Commander, at the gates of Jerusalem spoke Hebrew in the mocking tones (indicating polyglot skills too), but the Jerusalem defenders begged for the Assyrians to speak in Aramaic, or Assyrian, or Syrian, so as to not demoralized the Jerusalemites. Aramaic was the language of commerce and discourse.

2 Kings 18.26: Then Eliakim son of Hilkiah, and Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall.”

Isaiah 36.11: 11 Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall.”

• The Persian Empire: Aramaic became the official language of the royal government at satrapies of western provinces and the polyglot subordinates.

• Numerous inscriptions bear out this language-dominance, but as we'll note below, parallel to the dominance of Greek as well

• Jewish children, Jesus included, learned Aramaic before studying classical Hebrew

• Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman and other Samaritans without, inferably, translators. Jn. 4.7-43; Lk. 17.16

• Jesus spoke to a Syro-Phonecian woman

• Hillel’s sayings were transmitted in Aramaic; Aramaic was “widely employed even in rabbinic circles” (11)

• Aramaic terms survive, for example, maranatha, amen, and hosanna in Greek services, e.g. Didache. Paul uses it in 1 Cor. 16.22, preserved in the KJV, but airbrushed out in the NIV.

§ 2. The Greek Language among the Jews, 34-72

• Greek was the cosmopolitan language with the New Testament books written in Greek

• This was a testimony to the success of Alexander the Great and his successors; God willing, this will be the subject of a subsequent inquiry.

• The Romans nourished literacy in Greek

• Political changes work slowly however; the Celtic vernacular in Gaul did not yield to Latin’s ascendancy until the Frankish kings

• The Seleucids and Ptolemaic influences worked slowly

• The common folk in Palestine retained Aramaic, or Syriac, until the Islamists’ triumph in the 7th century A.D.

• The port cities and highways of commerce evinced more knowledge of Greek

• Within Israel, Greek islands and language-cultural centers existed. Alexander the Great settled Greek colonists in Perea, Dion, Hippus, Gadara, and Sycthopolis

• Caesarea was called πολις ελληις

• Ambassadors of Judas Maccabeus travelled to Rome in 161 B.C. and conversed in the Roman Senate in, most likely, Greek

• Herod the Great fashioned himself as “more Greek than Jew” according to Josephus (Antiquities, 19.7.3). He had his sons educated in Rome. He brought Greek and Roman influences to Israel with theaters, amphitheaters and hippodromes.

• The Greek Septuagint, LXX, a translation of the OT in Greek, was common in foreign lands. It was spoken by “prominent rabbis.”

• A 1-day journey from Jerusalem and one could encounter Greek cities, e.g. the Decapolis

• Mr. Zahn believes that Jesus used Greek loan words taken over into Aramaic: Συνεδριον, διαθηκη, παρακλητος , κυριε (as a form of address), δηναριον, αςςαριον, κοδραντης, πανδοκευς, πανδοκειον, λεγεων

• Pilate and Jesus, on Mr. Zahn’s view, probably conversed in Greek

• This raises questions: Peter’s sermons in early Acts? In Aramaic? Greek? We learn that other "foreign languages" (real languages) were used in Acts 2, not this non-sensible gibberish defended by the Costalists.

• James, who presided over the Jewish-Palestinian churches in/around Jerusalem was inferably and probably bi-lingual, e.g. Hellenists and Jerusalem Christians

• Peter speaking in Caesarea?

• Peter and John later presided over multi-lingual churches in Asia Minor

• Greek was the lingua franca of daily talk and religious services of Asia Minor, European provinces of Rome, and even Rome itself; Jewish tombs in Rome have Greek inscriptions

• Paul: brought to Jerusalem at an early age (Acts 22.3), educated by Rabbi Gamaliel (knowledgeable in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic), of a Hellenistic household of Tarsus, and reflected tremendous versatility in the use of Greek. He epistles show, at times, delicacy of expression, sharp tones of sarcasm, instances of eloquence, ability to show tedious details (e.g. collection of monies), and an ability to teach, argue and refute. . “His letters are weighty and strong” said his opponents (2 Cor. 10). He can write a brief and delicate letter like Philemon or a doctrinal treatise like Romans. He evinces grammatical variety ably. He cites Greek authors: Epimenedes (Tit. 1.12), Menander (1 Cor. 15.33) and Aratus (Acts 17.28). During his first visit to Jerusalem, he encountered Hellenists (Acts 9.29). According to Mr. Zahn, Paul spent at least 5 years in Tarsus before going to Antioch to assist in Church ministry; Mr. Zahn dates this as 38—43 A.D.

• In the wider context, there was a 10 to 1 ratio of non-Greeks speaking Greek compared to national Greeks speaking Greek.

• Allegedly, Rabbi Gamaliel and his family for generations after 70 A.D. “cultivated Greek studies” for reasons of concourse but also because of “social standing.”

• Josephus brags about his Greek skills. He was born in Jerusalem in 37 A.D. of a priestly family. He began his Greek studies at age 14. Quite inferably, we may say he knew Aramaic, the language of the land. Also, in his rabbinic studies, he learned classical Hebrew. He brags that at age 26 (Vita, 2; Antiquities 20.12), he was able to converse in high circles at Rome including the wife of Nero; however, he notes that he could not overcome his accent, but that he was clearly understood.

10 Oct 1838: Birth of Famed Lutheran Scholar: Theodor Zahn (Also Reformed Episcopal Church)

10 October 1838.   Theodor Zahn, the German Biblical scholar, was born on 10 October 1838 in Moers, Germany.

Digression one: Moers is a German city on the western bank of the Rhine. Moers belongs to the district of Wesel. It is the biggest city in Germany (and at present time the only one with more than 100,000 inhabitants) that is neither an urban district nor takes over district responsibilities.

Digression two: as a former Reformed Episcopalian, one of our early leaders studied under Mr. (Dr. Prof.) Zahn.  Robert Livingston Rudolph (December 29, 1865—September 16, 1930) was a bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church in the early twentieth century.  As an aside, the Reformed Episcopal Church has spiraled downwards towards Tractarianism, syncretism, and charismania.  But, it once had sober Churchmen like Mr. Rudolph. But back to Mr. Zahn.

          Zahn, Theodor.  Introduction to the New Testament, Vol II  (3^rd ed.).  Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock, 1977.   There are three volumes.  This may be one of the finest New Testament Introductions.  It is a must-read.  Volume 2 is available at:  http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-Volume-2/dp/1313662909/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1376878710&sr=8-2&keywords=theodor+zahn

 

Theodor Zahn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Theodor Zahn or Theodor von Zahn (Moers, 10 October 1838 - Erlangen, 5 March 1933) was a German biblical scholar.

 

Career

Zahn was born in Rhineland, Prussia (now Germany). After studying at Basel, Erlangen and Berlin, he became professor of theology in the University of Göttingen in 1871. He filled a similar chair at Kiel in 1877, at Erlangen in 1878, at Leipzig in 1888 and in 1892 returned to Erlangen.^[1][2] He was distinguished for his eminent scholarship, especially in connection with the New Testament canon. He stood at the head of the conservative New Testament scholarship of his time. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1902, 1904 and 1908.^[3] Theologically, Zahn was conservative and approached New Testament theology from the perspective of a theological emphasis called Heilsgeschichte (usually translated into English as "Salvation History").

Works

Some of his more important writings are:

• Marcellus of Ancyra (1867)
• Der Hirt des Hermas untersucht (“The Shepherd of Hermas examined,” 1868)
• Ignatius von Antiochien (1873)
• Patrum Apostolicorum Opera (1875–78; fifth edition, 1905)
• The Acts of Saint John (1880)
• Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Litteratur (eight volumes, 1881–1908)
• Cyprian of Antioch and the German Story of Faust (1882)
• Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (“Researches into the history of the New Testament canon,” two volumes, 1889–92)
• Das apostolische Symbolum (1892; English translation, The Apostles' Creed, 1899)
• The Gospel of Peter (1893)
• Einleitung in das neue Testament (two volumes, 1897–1900; third edition, 1906–07; English translation, Introduction to the New Testament, three volumes, 1909)
• Brot und Salz aus Gottes Wort, 20 sermons, (1901; English translation, Bread and Salt from the Word of God, 1905)
• Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (“Outline of the history of the New Testament canon,” 1901; second edition, 1904)
• Das Evangelium des Lucas (1912)

References

•  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Wood, James, ed. (1907). "Zahn, Theodor". The Nuttall Encyclopædia. London and New York: Frederick Warne.

Notes

1.      ^  Rines, George Edwin, ed. (1920). "Zahn, Theodor". Encyclopedia Americana.

2.      ^ Bandstra, Andrew J. (2007). "Zahn, Theodor". In Donald K. McKim. Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic. pp. 1072–1076. ISBN 9780830829279.

3.      ^ "Theodor Zahn". The Nomination Database for the Nobel Prize in Literature, 1901-1950. Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2010-02-04. ^{[dead link]}

External links

·        Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Zahn's New Testament Commentary series in Dr. B. A. Zuiddam's Tasmanian study.

• "Theodor Zahn". Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL) (in German).