دانلود کتاب Proclaiming the Kerygma in Athens: The Argument of Acts 17:16-34 in Light of the Epicurean and Stoic Debates about Piety and Divine Images in Early Post-Hellenistic Times

فهرست مطالب :

Cover\nTitle\nPreface\nTable of Contents\nAbbreviations\nChapter 1: Introduction\n 1.1 The Areopagus Speech in Acts and Scholarship\n 1.2 Some Maine Lines in Past Scholarship\n 1.2.1 Jewish-Christian Grundmotiv and Stoic Begleitmotiv (Norden)\n 1.2.2 A Philosophical Sermon on the Knowledge of God (Dibelius, Pohlenz, Balch)\n 1.2.3 A Thoroughly Jewish Speech: Downplaying the Importance of Greek Material (Gärtner)\n 1.2.4 The Mixed Nature of the Speech and Hellenistic Jewish Preaching (Nauck)\n 1.2.5 A Christian Speech: Reinterpreting Greek Philosophy Within a Christian Framework (Conzelmann)\n 1.2.6 Anknüpfung und Widerspruch: Philosophy as Criticism of Graeco-Roman Religion\n 1.2.7 The Search For ‘Common Ground’ and ‘Points of Contact’in the Service of Apologetic\n 1.2.8 Christianity and Greek Philosophy as Rival Traditions (Rowe)\n 1.2.9 Conclusion: Making Sense of the Hellenization of the Speech and Its ‘Christian’ Conclusion\n 1.3 A New Approach to the Areopagus Speech\n 1.3.1 Recent Research on Hellenistic Judaism and Hellenization\n 1.3.2 Narrative and Verisimilitude in Acts\n 1.3.3 A Re-Examination of the Teachings of Stoicism and Epicureanism\n 1.4 Outline and Structure of the Argument\nChapter 2: Setting Up the Debate – The Immediate Context and Beginning of the Speech (Acts 17:16–23)\n 2.1 The Occasion of the Speech: Collision and Newness in Athens\n 2.1.1 Paul’s Reaction to Athenian Worship (vv. 16–17)\n 2.1.2 The Athenians’ Perception of Paul and His Message (v.18)\n 2.1.3 The Setting of the Speech (vv.19–21)\n 2.2 The Philosophical Context: Debating with Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers\n 2.2.1 Debating With Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers\n 2.2.2 The Socratic Allusions\n 2.2.3 The Deisidaimonia of the Athenians and Their Ignorant Worship\n 2.3 Conclusion\nChapter 3: Neither ‘Piety,’ nor ‘Superstition’ – Redefining Deisidaimonia in the Context of Graeco-Roman Religious Grammar (c. 100 BCE–120 CE)\n 3.1 Methodological Concerns in the Study of Deisidaimonia\n 3.1.1 The Lack of Semantic Study of the Terminology of Deisidaimonia\n 3.1.2 The Assumption of Anachronistic Conceptual Frameworks in the Study of Ancient Religion and Philosophy\n 3.1.3 Ancient Definitions of Deisidaimonia\n 3.1.4 Methodology of this Chapter\n 3.2 The Use of Deisidaimonia in Historians and Geographers\n 3.2.1 Diodorus Siculus (90–30 BCE)\n 3.2.2 Strabo (c. 64 BCE–c. 24 CE)\n 3.2.3 Josephus (37–100 CE)\n 3.3 The Use of Deisidaimonia in Plutarch of Chaeronea (c. 45 CE – Before 125)\n 3.3.1 Plutarch’s De Superstitione and His Religious Thought\n 3.3.2 Plutarch’s Use of Deisidaimonia, Eusebeia and Eulabeia\n 3.3.3 Plutarch’s Use of Deisidaimonia in De superstitione and His Religious Thought\n 3.4 Conclusion\n 3.4.1 The Use of Deisidaimonia Between the 1st c. BCE and the Early 2nd c. CE\n 3.4.2 Deisidaimonia and the Grammar of Graeco-Roman Religion\n 3.4.3 Deisidaimonia in Acts 17\nChapter 4: Deisidaimonia, Piety and the Gods in Debate – Polemics Between Epicurean and Stoic Philosophers Around the First Century CE\n 4.1 Epicureans on Deisidaimonia, the Gods, and Piety\n 4.1.1 Deisidaimonia and Piety in Epicurean Philosophy\n 4.1.2 Epicurean Theology in Debate: The ‘Harms’ of Gods Who Are Not Wrathful nor Favourable\n 4.1.3 Summary: The Epicureans on Deisidaimonia and Proper Piety\n 4.2 The Stoics on Deisidaimonia, the Gods, and Piety\n 4.2.1 Deisidaimonia and Piety in Stoic Philosophy\n 4.2.2 Stoic Theology in Debate: The Problems of Stoic Providence\n 4.2.3 Summary: The Stoics on Deisidaimonia and Proper Piety\n 4.3 Conclusions\n 4.3.1 The Philosophical Criticism of Deisidaimonia in Early Post-Hellenistic Times\n 4.3.2 Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers on Traditional Religion and Piety\nChapter 5: Something New in Athens – Godlikeness and Divine Justice in Light of the Resurrection (Acts 17:22–31)\n 5.1 Introducing the Subject: Deisidaimonia and the Unknown God (17:22–23)\n 5.1.1 The Altar to the Unknown God and the Concern About Hostile Gods\n 5.1.2 The Unknown God and the Subject of the Speech\n 5.1.3 Summary vv. 23–22\n 5.2 The Creator God’s Relationship to Humanity (17:24–28)\n 5.2.1 The Impossibility to Serve the Creator God Along Traditional Means (vv.24–25)\n 5.2.2 God’s Arrangement of Humanity’s Conditions to Seek Him (vv. 26–27)\n 5.2.3 The Witness of Human Life (v. 28)\n 5.2.4 Summary vv. 24–28\n 5.3 False Divine Representations (17:29)\n 5.3.1. Preliminary Remarks on the Logic of Verse 29\n 5.3.2 The Divine and Man-Made Images\n 5.4 Divine Justice and Divine Representation (17:30–31)\n 5.4.1 The Universal Call to Repentance\n 5.4.2 Divine Judgment in Righteousness and the Risen Man\n 5.4.3 The Resurrection and the Proclamation of True Divine Representation\n 5.5 Conclusion\nChapter 6: Conclusions – A New Interpretation of the Argument in Athens and Its Relation to Greek Philosophy\n 6.1 A New Reading and Coherence for the Speech: Proclaiming the True Image of God\n 6.1.1 The Argument of the Speech\n 6.1.2 The Immediate Narrative Context\n 6.1.3 The Philosophical Teaching in Early Post-Hellenistic Times\n 6.2 The Speech and the Greeks: A Rapprochement with Greek Philosophers?\n 6.2.1 No ‘Significant’ Rapprochement From a Philosophical Point of View\n 6.2.2 A Speech ‘at Home’ in – and Engaged With – the Debates About Deisidaimonia, Piety and Peace With the Gods Among Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers\n 6.2.3 A New Teaching in Athens: The Challenge of the Speech to Greek Philosophies\n 6.3 Christology and the Proclamation of the Kerygma to the Gentiles in Acts\n 6.4 The Christian Movement, Graeco-Roman Culture and the Purpose of Acts\nBibliography\nIndex of References\nIndex of Authors\nSubject Index