Jan H Nylund

This paper investigates the concept of 'teacher' in the New Testament, particularly focusing on Jesus as the exclusive teacher in relation to his disciples. By analyzing scriptural references and the historical context of rabbinic teachings, it underscores Jesus' authority and the significance of the teacher-disciple relationship. The study also explores the role of teachers in the early church and compares it to contemporary understandings, emphasizing the continuity of teaching authority from Jesus to his followers.

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834) is often referred to as the father of modern theology and thus not only the originator of new theol- ogy, but of a new era. Mariña ranks him with calvin, Aquinas, and Augustine. The claim that he is the father of modern liberalism is certainly justified, but too simplistic. Unlike luther, Schleiermacher consciously endeavored to revolutionize the area of theology. He had a total reconstruction of christian theology in mind. Schleiermacher’s importance within the field of new testament research is, however, often overlooked. This topic will be the main focus in our treatment of Schleiermacher, accounting for and discussing his Introduction to the New Testament, The Life of Jesus, and his Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke, Schleiermacher’s primary exegetical work on that Gospel. Below, an initial overview of Schleiermacher’s life is given; a short section introduces some principal characteristics of his theological outlook; then, as mentioned, the bulk of the article focuses on Schleiermacher’s new testament research. In my concluding remarks an evaluation of friedrich Schleier- macher’s contributions is attempted.

The period from 1910 to 1930 was a time when a number of theoretical systems saw the light of the day in Central Europe: psychoanalysis, neopositivism, phenomenology, the Warsaw School of logic, Gestalt-psychology and the structuralism of the Prague School of Linguistics. The Prague School arose in the liberal-minded Prague of the 1920s and came to have an enormous influence on multiple fields within world linguistics as well as other academic fields. The Prague School of linguistics, or the École de Prague, was established by Vilém Mathesius in the mid-1920s. The school had its most active time in the 1920s and 1930s, or more precisely, from 1926 to the outbreak of World War II. The instrumental role that the Prague School linguistics played for the development of structuralism and for integrating theoretical linguistics cannot be overrated. This article addresses the relevance of the development of structuralism and functionalism within Prague School linguistics in relation to its adoption within New Testament Greek language studies. It is the thesis of this article that a great deal of the research that has been done within the discipline of New Testament language studies in the last decades, and especially the last 20 years, draws on ideas and concepts of the Prague School of Linguistics.

This enquiry discusses the potential of a large number of linguistic theories, approaches, concepts etc. from Plato and Aristotle to usage-based linguistics for the understanding of the tense system in Ancient Greek, and particularly in the Greek of the New Testament. It is argued that many significant insights within linguistics in the period from the earliest beginning of linguistic thought up to Saussure have not been noted or included in the discussion of the tenses in New Testament Greek. Many of these insights find corroboration in later linguistic theories in the 20 th and 21 st centuries. In this volume it is demonstrated that ideas from structuralism and generative linguistics that so far have dominated the debate on the New Testament Greek tense system, such as in the works of Stanley E. Porter, Buist M. Fanning and Constantine R. Campbell, need to be revised or discarded. It is noted that insights from Systemic Functional Linguistics, though favoured by many contributors to the New Testament verbal aspect debate, have been underused. Throughout this volume it is argued that certain theories, both ones preceding and following structuralism and generative linguistics, such as genuine functionalism, grammaticalisation theory, cognitive linguistics and usage-based linguistics, have considerable explanatory power in regard to the understanding and analysis of the New Testament Greek tense system.

This book argues that Aristotle’s aporia on time in the Physics figures both as an aporia in the subjective sense of a mental state of perplexity and in the objective, textual sense of a contrast between opposing views. First the book seeks to precisely identify what constitutes Aristotle’s aporiai (or aporetic contrasts) on time and then to assess them from the viewpoint of Aristotle’s five chapters on time as well as the book of Physics as a whole. By such a procedure the claims in the aporiai can, on the one hand, be assessed to find out to what extent they should be accepted, rejected or somehow modified and, on the other, how the aporiai function as a means to provoke new thought and insight in regard to the precise nature of Aristotle’s understanding of time. From the blurb: “In this compact and wonderfully argued book, Jan Nylund achieves precisely what his subject aims to do: “The goal of the aporetic enquiry is to gain new insights.” Nylund draws on a wealth of existing scholarship and offers novel philosophical and linguistic analyses to develop that simple observation into a compelling interpretation of the puzzles about time Aristotle presents in Physics IV.10. This is an excellent piece of scholarship that will cause readers to reconsider their previous understanding of the subject. It certainly has done so for me.” — Tony Roark, Professor and Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, Boise State University, and author of Aristotle on Time: A Study of the Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011).