Academic literature on the topic 'Evangelie van Petrus (apocrief)'

AbstractIn 1522 the Amsterdam printer Doen Pieterszoon published the first edition of the gospel according to St. Matthew in the vernacular. The text by Johan Pelt was a translation of Erasmus's Novum testamentum of 1516. The titlepage shows a woodcut of the evangelist of a type recurrent in several dutch bibles. Furthermore, the gospel contains six woodcuts of a rather emblematical character. Five of these depict an angel (the symbol for Matthew) holding in his hands, and surrounded by it, several objects, figures, and little scenes. Each of these are accompanied by a number, and are thus related to a corresponding chapter of the gospel. For example, a gnome-like devil carrying boulders at the angel's feet, refers to the temptation of Christ in the desert (Mt. 4:3). Pieterszoon's illustrations were copied after Petrus von Rosenheim's Rationarium evangelistarum, or Ars memorandi (editio princeps Pforzheim 1502), in which all the gospels were covered, and the symbols of the other evangelists (lion, ox and eagle) also featured as presenters. In their turn these cuts were copied after the Ars memorandi quator evangelia, a blockbook printed in Germany ca. 1470. As their titles suggest, these were works of a mnemotechnical nature, and the woodcuts served as images to aid the memory. However, the Ars memorandi does not belong to the tradition of the artificial memory as described by Frances Yates. Yet, the elements of the classical mnemotechnical Ad Flerennium tractate, loci and images, are present in the illustrations. Thus the Ars memorandi woodcuts are memory images, through which the contents of the gospels can be more easily memorised. They did not, however, prove succesful as biblical illustrations. Pieterszoon did not use them again in any of his later bible editions, and in fact no other printer did. Biblical illustrations were intended to depict biblical stories and to eludicate the text, and as such the Ars memorandi images obviously did not work.

’n Verskeidenheid navorsing is al oor die teologiese verband tussen Matteus en Paulus gedoen. Hierdie navorsing het uiteenlopende gevolgtrekkings opgelewer wat in drie groepe verdeel kan word. Sommige navorsers is van oordeel dat die Matteus-evangelie ’n anti-Pauliniese ondertoon bevat wat veral in die Bergrede waargeneem kan word. Hierdie polemiek word betrek by uitsprake oor die siening of interpretasie van die Tora. ’n Vergelyking tussen Matteus 5:17 en Paulus se siening oor die wet soos in die Romeine-brief (3:19; 6:14; 7:6; 8:2; 10:4; ens.), kan tot so ’n gevolgtrekking kom. Daarmee saam word die prominensie van Petrus in die Matteus-evangelie as bewysgrond gebruik dat Matteus teen Paulus reageer. Die oortuiging kan dus bestaan dat Matteus doelbewus met die skryf van hierdie Evangelie teen Paulus reageer, veral wanneer die insident in Antiogië in gedagte gehou word. ’n Tweede groep meen dat Matteus en Paulus teologies naby aan mekaar is, terwyl daar ook ’n derde groep is wat oordeel dat Matteus en Paulus wel van mekaar verskil, maar mekaar ook komplementeer. Met hierdie artikel word daar gepoog om meer duidelikheid oor die teologiese verhouding tussen Matteus en Paulus te verkry. The Sermon on the Mount as possible reaction against Paul. Much research has been done about the theological relationship between Matthew and Paul. This research has numerous conclusions and can be divided into three groups. Some researchers say that the Gospel of Matthew contains an anti-Pauline text or that an anti-Pauline polemic is recognisable in the Sermon on the Mount. The polemic involves the interpretation of the Torah. A comparison between Matthew 5:17 and Paul’s stance on the law in Romans (3:19; 6:14; 7:6; 8:2; 10:4; etc.) may lead to such a conclusion. Together with this, the prominence of Peter in the Matthean Gospel is used to prove that Matthew reacted against Paul. All of this and with the incident at Antioch in mind, the idea may arise that Matthew deliberately wrote the Gospel to react against Paul. A second group concludes that Matthew and Paul were theologically close and lastly there is a group that says Matthew and Paul differ but also complement each other. This article attempts to give more clarity on the theological relationship between Matthew and Paul.