NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion - Volume 42, Issue 1, 1988

In contrast to the opinion expressed in Volume III.1 of (he revised Schürer (Edinburgh 1986. p. 493) it is argued on the basis of recent publications that Symmachus was not an Ebionite Christian, but a Jewish translator, even ‘the translator of the Jews’ (Origen), who wrote his translation about the year 200 A.D. (part 1 of the article). Further, two recent major studies on the style of the translation of Symmachus are introduced, written by Spanish scholars, by J.R. Busto SaIZ (1978) and by J. González Luis (1981) respectively (part II.1), and examples of cxegetical renderings in the translation are given (part II.2). In part III other aspects of Symmachus-research are mentioned, but only the question of the locale of the translation is discussed in some detail. Galilee turns out to be the most probable place of origin. In the end it is stated that the revised Schürer needs some revision: Symmachus. ‘the translator of the Jews’, should not be left out, but deserves a place beside Aquila and Thcodotion.

This article takes into consideration the dilemma that Isas arisen in modem debate concerning the scientific status of theology. Sofar, it has been argued that theology can either be defined in a classical sense, as a science of God (dogmatics), or, in a modern sense, as a cultural science of ‘God’ and religion. However, both conceptions seem not to be able to account for the legitimation of the existence of centers of independent theological research (§1). In order to escape this impasse, the present article tries to spell out a third path for theology. After giving an historical overview of the interplay of theology and philosophy (§2), the question is raised what it would mean to ascribe to theology the predicate ‘unscientific rationality’ and to give her a hermeneutical task as the representative of the lost totality In modern culture and as an interpreter of specific scientific results in everyday life. To sustain this thesis the theory of rationality of Habermas is taken into consideration (§3). But this does not exclude some critical questions, which have been inspired by the sceptical and deconstructive philosophy (§4).

The problem of the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of Hieronymus Bosch has been intensively discussed in the literature about this great painter without having led to a consensus. The author does not claim to offer new material for solving this dilemma, but has investigated the arguments given using the methods of science of religion, his own discipline. Doing this he shows up all main arguments used pro and contra as invalid. This goes as well for the arguments for his having been a true son of the mother church, as for those for his having belonged to the sect of the Free Spirit (Fraengcr) or even the Rosicrucians (Wertheim Aymès). The available material is insufficient for a clear decision. Only his radical pessimism in the face of evil justifies us to place the painter in any case in the far margin of the church of his days.