Elton Hollon

The following article discusses the problem of univocity in theology. It considers the classical dilemma that univocal terms used of God and human beings compromise God’s mystery while terms used equivocally of each compromise knowledge of God. One solution is that all terms used of both are analogous. Critical arguments against univocity, equivocity, and analogy are considered. Modern analysis of analogy identifies significant problems with the theory, prompting reconsideration of arguments against univocity since equivocity holds no promise for theological knowledge. Our thesis is that these arguments have plausible responses and propose a way of conceiving univocity in theology.

Jeremias and others include the “three days” motif in their reconstruction of Jesus’s prophecy about the temple’s destruction in Mark 14:58. While the arguments in the literature in the presence of a plausible case for authenticity, it is more likely an inauthentic pre-Markan innovation. Even so, its placement and form in 14:58 is surely the result of the Markan redaction. In addition to arguments from re-daction, literary, and structural criticism, the hypothetical reconstruction of the motif ’s tradition history in early Christianity suggests that the addition follows a pattern of connecting Jesus’s prophecy with the resurrection and growth of the Christian movement. With this designation, Mark shows how the prophecy is literally false because it misrepresents Jesus’s actual teaching but is, ironically, symbolically true.

The following article proposes three plausible eschatological interpretations of Mark 14:62, namely, proleptic, interwoven, and failed futurism. In support of the analysis, it draws together information from source, literary, and redaction criticism. It is argued that both the Old Testament and Similitudes support Mark’s eschatological portrayal of the apocalyptic Son of Man because the saying takes several Old Testament intertexts and shares striking parallels with the Similitudes. The combination of Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1 at Mark 14:62 and 1 En. 62:5–6 is particularly relevant. After presenting evidence for the eschatological interpretations, preterist objections assigning the saying’s fulfilment to the first century CE are considered. Problems with the objections and historized interpretations are identified. In light of the parallels with the Similitudes, Mark 14:62 is judged more likely eschatological.

The following article discusses Paul's conception of change regarding the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15:42‐44a. Our thesis is that Paul uses a popular Hellenistic cosmology and account of change to explain how the transformation of the body is possible. He uses seed imagery to contrast the pre‐and‐post‐resurrection bodies … the mortal and immortal bodies. Using rhetorical accommodation techniques, he resolves the Corinthian confusion regarding physical resurrection using popular Hellenistic ideas. Whereas some interpreters think that the resurrection body is terrestrial, others find a rarefied extraction of matter like the Stoic material soul or a holistic transformation into a rarefied and/or celestial element fitted to a polarized heavenly environment. Our interpretation is characterized by material continuity and integrative rather than absolute polarity. Though Paul conceives of material continuity, he says nothing of rarefied bodies or their natural habitat. Jesus's resurrection and anticipated return suggest a transformation of the ‘flesh’ into a body capable of traversing both heavenly‐earthly spheres. Some think this view is incoherent, because it combines two incompatible conceptions of resurrection. Paul's solution seems to be that the resurrection body changes its properties as needed, depending on its environment. Hence, it never exemplifies incompatible properties at the same time.

Some scholars retain the neat “handmade–not handmade” adjectival parallel in their reconstructions of Jesus’s prophecy against the temple reported in Mark 14:58, suggesting the parallel refers to the eschatological temple common to Jewish apocalyptic literature. While the suggestion is plausible, the parallel is more likely the result of Markan redaction and symbolism. A reconstruction of the parallel’s tradition history in early Christianity shows that the addition follows a pattern of connecting Jesus’s prophecy with his resurrection and the growth of the Christian movement.

The following article discusses Paul's conception of change regarding the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15:42‐44a. Our thesis is that Paul uses a popular Hellenistic cosmology and account of change to explain how the transformation of the body is possible. He uses seed imagery to contrast the pre‐and‐post‐resurrection bodies … the mortal and immortal bodies. Using rhetorical accommodation techniques, he resolves the Corinthian confusion regarding physical resurrection using popular Hellenistic ideas. Whereas some interpreters think that the resurrection body is terrestrial, others find a rarefied extraction of matter like the Stoic material soul or a holistic transformation into a rarefied and/or celestial element fitted to a polarized heavenly environment. Our interpretation is characterized by material continuity and integrative rather than absolute polarity. Though Paul conceives of material continuity, he says nothing of rarefied bodies or their natural habitat. Jesus's resurrection and anticipated return suggest a transformation of the ‘flesh’ into a body capable of traversing both heavenly‐earthly spheres. Some think this view is incoherent, because it combines two incompatible conceptions of resurrection. Paul's solution seems to be that the resurrection body changes its properties as needed, depending on its environment. Hence, it never exemplifies incompatible properties at the same time.

While scholarly attention has focused on reconstructing the tradition history of Jesus's temple prophecy in Mark 14:58, comparable analyses of its traditional Aramaic structure are harder to locate. This article uses form, redaction, literary, and structural criticism to uncover the tradition history of the prophecy and reconstruct its original Aramaic formulation. Our analysis supports the historicity of the prophecy and identifies a four-two beat kīnā metre (poetic meter) typical of laments, warnings, and threats.