FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W358042722> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W358042722 abstract "If ethics are defined as the theory of moral action, we must ask whether it makes sense to examine the New Testament narrative and epistle texts with regard to ethics, considering them as more than simply instructional texts for putting actions into practice. This article begins with the assumption that the New Testament contains ethics that, while not explicitly and systematically contemplated, are certainly indirectly assumed or represented when actions are explained, evaluated and required. Therefore, it is appropriate to speak of the “implicit ethics” of New Testament writings. In order to analyse this indirect structure of motivation, a methodology based on eight approaches is suggested: 1. Linguistic Form; 2. Norms and Values for Action; 3. History of Traditions of Individual Norms/Moral Instances; 4. Priorities of Values; 5. Ethical “Logic”/Structure of Motives; 6. The Moral Agent; 7. The Resulting Ethos as Lived; 8. Addressee/Field of application. The complexity of contemplating actions taken from historical, written sources makes such a multiple approach necessary. If it is possible to enlighten and reveal a more systematic ethics and order of values underlying the texts, the role of New Testament ethics in the current ethical discourse—within theology and the church as well as in the wider fields of science and society—can better be reflected. “Ethics” can be defined as the systematic-theoretical examination of the lived ethos. It was Aristotle who referred in this way to “ethical theory” 1 Prof. Ruben Zimmermann is a research associate of Prof. Jan van der Watt at the Department of New Testament Studies, University of Pretoria. 400 Neotestamentica 43.2 (2009) (ἠθικὴ θeωρία; An. post. 1.33 = 89b 9). For him, ethics questioned the foundation of the life of the πόλις composed in custom and habit (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1180b 3) and he left us two ethical writings, which consist of systematic reflections on the values and motives of a certain behaviour. In this tradition, “ethics” is concerned with a rational analysis of morals, the critical examination of ethos, and the questioning of the motives of morality. Ethics is a second-order activity, asking for the logic of moral discourse. According to Annemarie Pieper, ethics is the “science of moral action” that examines “human practice with regard to the conditions of its morality”. “Theological ethics” is then correspondingly the reflexivity on the moral judgements and actions of people in the scope of Christian belief. The question is, however, whether one can, according to this definition, speak of “ethics” or an “ethical theory” in the New Testament? Many scholars would answer this question in the negative. New Testament writings are—according to those exegetes—situation based writings that refer, as in the Pauline letters, to a concrete communication between an author and his addressee. To understand and analyse their ethical implications means to explore the situation and context in which they were written. Therefore, investigating the morality of the New Testament means looking at the ethos behind New Testament writings. 5 According to the definition of Michael Wolter, ethos is based on the customs and conventions of actions in a concrete community. 2 See Aristoteles (transl. by Dirlmeier 4 1984 and 2001); Broadie (1991); Hoffe (1995); Bostock (2000); Wolf (2002). 3 See Pieper (2000, 24-30). 4 See the definition in Hunold, Laubach and Greis (2000, here 3): “Theologische Ethik ist die wissenschaftliche Reflexion auf das moralisch-sittliche Urteilen und Handeln des Menschen im Horizont des christlichen Glaubens.” (Theological ethics is the scientific reflexion on the moral-ethical judgements and actions of people within the scope of Christian faith). 5 See for instance Meeks (1993). Meeks prefers to use the term “morality”, because it “names a dimension of life, a pervasive and, often, only partly conscious set of valueladen dispositions, inclinations, attitudes, and habits.” (ibd. 3f.). Based on the constitutive relatedness 6 According to Michael Wolter “the term ethos designates a canon of institutionalised practices, which a given group regards as liable.” See Wolter (2006, here 200). See also Wolter (2001; 1997, here 430f.). Jan van der Watt used a wider definition in his volume “Identity, Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament”. According to him, “ethos is understood not only as the specific, unique, and repetitive actions of a particular group or ZIMMERMANN The “Implicit Ethics” of New Testament Writings 401 of ethos to a social system, Thomas Schmeller uses the concordant definition “every ethos is actually a group ethos”. Analysing the ethos behind the New Testament writings is without doubt a worthwhile and necessary task. However, it is by far not the only approach to ethical questions in the New Testament. Even if no systematic synopsis of these meta-reflections on norms for actions are to be found in the New Testament writings, implicit and sometimes explicit reasons as well as the argumentative recourse to certain ethical maxims and norms underlie the individual paraenesis. And indeed, there is no one systematic exploration on ethics, like the Aristotelian theory, within the New Testament. Does this mean that there is no interest at all in reflecting on the motives of morals? Is there no interest in using rational arguments to convince the addressees of the right behaviour? Must the exegesis be limited, with regard to New Testament ethics, to the focus of ethos or should we even abandon the term “ethics” of the New Testament as inappropriate? 8 For example, Paul was not only a situational ethicist, interested in the clarification of concrete cases. Above and beyond this, he formulated rules of behaviour and value standards that could claim, in the middle of all the diversity, more than individual or perhaps even universal validity and could explicitly call on reason, as is shown clearly in Rom 12:1f. The New Testament undoubtedly contains texts that reflect actions and thus make value judgements. After telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asks which of the three acted “correctly”—according to the Torah commandments that had been previously discussed: “Which of these Furthermore, one basic form of reflexivity on ethos takes place within the perspective of value judgements and is thus concerned with the question of whether and why an action is “right” or “good” or, in the scope of a value hierarchy, if it is “better” or “worse” than another. community, (...) but it is also used as a broader description of the behaviour as it is presented in the different books of the New Testament”, see Van der Watt (2006, here vii). 7 See Schmeller (2001, here 120): “Eigentlich ist jedes Ethos Gruppenethos.”; see the earlier Keck (1974). 8 See Horn (1999, 2:1608f.): “Although it may be based on a situation (...), this framework demonstrates a context of justification of ethics that goes beyond the situation”; Meeks 2002. 9 See on reason in ethics Stowers (1990; Scott 2006, here 53): “Paul’s ethical teaching is often supported by reasoned argument.” Also Betz (1994a, here: 199). 402 Neotestamentica 43.2 (2009) three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” (Luke 10:36). After the parable of the two sons and the father, Jesus asks: “Which of the two did the will of his father?” (Matt 21:31)—or in other words—which one acted “correctly” according to his father’s wishes? Matthew also puts “justice” as a main ethical norm in a comparative context by speaking of a “better justice” (see Matt 5:20: ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλeῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων). In the Pauline letters, ethics are also carried out in the scope of evaluations of “good” and “evil” (see Rom 7:13-21: τὸ καλόν—τὸ κακόν). Actions should undergo an evaluation of values and legal interests in order to choose the good: πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζeτe, τὸ καλὸν κατέχeτe (“Test all things; hold fast what is good”; 1 Thess 5:21). Many more examples could be given. In the end, focussing attention only on the ethos of the New Testament means not analysing the texts themselves, but looking behind the texts. The exploration of ethos is based on the historical question of what happened in a certain situation and community. Here the New Testament writings are to be read only as historic sources for Early Christianity. However, it is not merely the situation, but rather primarily the text itself that had an impact on Christian ethics and has had an ongoing influence on morals and norms until the present day. New Testament hermeneutics must therefore deal with at least three perspectives in interpreting a text—the historical context, the text itself and the point of view of the reader who is trying to understand the meaning of the text. To overstate the situation, according to that approach the main issue is not understanding the New Testament text but understanding the historical situation behind the text." @default.
• W358042722 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W358042722 creator A5058575315 @default.
• W358042722 date "2009-01-01" @default.
• W358042722 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W358042722 title "The implicit ethics of New Testament writings : a draft on a new methodology for analysing New Testament ethics" @default.
• W358042722 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W358042722 type Work @default.
• W358042722 sameAs 358042722 @default.
• W358042722 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W358042722 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W358042722 hasAuthorship W358042722A5058575315 @default.
• W358042722 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W358042722 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W358042722 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W358042722 hasConcept C150608813 @default.
• W358042722 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W358042722 hasConceptScore W358042722C111472728 @default.
• W358042722 hasConceptScore W358042722C138885662 @default.
• W358042722 hasConceptScore W358042722C144024400 @default.
• W358042722 hasConceptScore W358042722C150608813 @default.
• W358042722 hasConceptScore W358042722C27206212 @default.
• W358042722 hasLocation W3580427221 @default.
• W358042722 hasOpenAccess W358042722 @default.
• W358042722 hasPrimaryLocation W3580427221 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W115741727 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W1595266429 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W1606482783 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W1607005480 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W2024349767 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W2055972986 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W2065219566 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W2263765866 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W2272956070 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W2279735881 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W2292840571 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W2424389377 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W576562189 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W587053253 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W600287425 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W621112957 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W623302894 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W631857709 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W825995927 @default.
• W358042722 hasRelatedWork W997066523 @default.
• W358042722 isParatext "false" @default.
• W358042722 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W358042722 magId "358042722" @default.
• W358042722 workType "article" @default.