Richard B. Hays

Paulus ist vor allem als theologischer Denker bekannt. Nun behaupten gewichtige Stimmen aus dem englischsprachigen Raum, die Exegese seiner Briefe habe sich bisher viel zu sehr auf abstrakte Konzepte und Argumentationsfiguren konzentriert. Vielmehr sei die Erkenntnis von fundamentaler Bedeutung, dass die Texte durch und durch von Geschichten geprägt seien. Gemeint sind nicht explizite Erzählungen, sondern narrative Strukturen, die im Subtext oder in der Weltanschauung des Autors verortet werden. Heiligs Studie unterzieht diesen „narrative approach“ einer kritischen Prüfung: Kann im Fall von Briefen sinnvoll von Narrativen gesprochen werden? Ist die Priorisierung impliziter Erzählungen sinnvoll? Mit welchem methodischen Werkzeug könnte man die bisher angeblich übersehenen Erzählungen identifizieren? Heilig beantwortet diese und weitere grundsätzliche Fragen unter Bezugnahme auf die erzähltheoretische und textlinguistische Forschung und zeigt in der Analyse konkreter Texte auf, wie Paulus tatsächlich als „Erzähler“ auftritt. Dabei demonstriert er, wie eine initiale Konzentration auf explizite Erzählungen tatsächlich auf einen Weg zu einer neuen, narratologisch fundierten Betrachtungsweise der Schriften des Apostels führen kann.

Since the 1980s a major source of contention within New Testament scholarship has been the Πίστις Χριστοῦ debate. Paul teaches that our justification occurs ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ (Ro 3:22,26; Ga 2:16,20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Php 3:9) and so this debate concerns the interpretation of this Greek phrase. Does it refer, as traditionally understood, to faith in Christ, or, as has been more recently argued, to Christ’s own faithfulness unto death? This thesis demonstrates on semantic, grammatical, and exegetical grounds that the phrase should be understood in the traditional manner, as containing an objective genitive and denoting our faith in Christ.

In 1891 Johannes Haussleiter was the first biblical scholar to defend the subjective genitive translation of pistis christou and then it was almost half a century until only a few scholars addressed the issue again. Then in 1983 Richard B. Hays’s dissertation, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, was published, and I believe that it was this event that sparked the surge of scholars to finally take the pistis christou debate seriously. The mid-to-late 1980s saw an explosion of scholarship in this area that has carried on to the present. This paper seeks to understand the arguments for the objective (“faith in Christ”) and subjective (“faithfulness of Christ”) genitive and the underlying theological implications for each side, arguing for the subjective genitive.

This draft addresses intertextuality in relation to the term's origin in post-structuralism and adaptation by biblical interpreters who are not poststructuralists. It addresses intertextuality's development inside and outside of biblical studies.  This  excerpt comes from a longer article entitled, "Ancient Midrash in the Age of Intertextuality,” in New Studies in Textual Interplay, ed. Craig A. Evans, B. J. Oropeza, and Paul T. Sloan; Studiesin Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 20/Library of New Testament Studies 632 (London: T. & T. Clark,2020), 9-28. ISBN 978-0567-67897-3. The complete essay in this monograph is highly recommended.

An analysis of the Greek text of Galatians 2.15 - 21, with an eye towards its place in the doctrine of justification. Argument for a declarative view of justification; a subjective genitive Pistis Christou; and an objective genitive Erga Nomou qua Torah.

In this book, I analyze contemporary Pauline exegesis and its implications for Protestant theology. Over the last several decades, scholars have offered fresh interpretations of the apostle, including the New Perspective on and the apocalyptic reading of Paul. I juxtapose these proposals with traditional Protestant understandings of Paul and argues that the crucial difference between these two readings lies not in how one understands isolated Pauline notions but in different assumed narrative substructures of the apostle's writings. I explore how these new exegetical proposals deepen, broaden, enrich, and challenge traditional Protestant theological paradigms, as well as how they are situated alongside current contextual conversations on theological anthropology, social imagination, and the church's mission.

My thesis is built upon the belief that the four quotations from Greek version of The-Book-of-the-Twelve-Prophets in Acts (Joel 3:1-5 [=2:28-32] in Acts 2:17-21; Amos 5:25-27 in Acts 7:42b-43; Habakkuk 1:5 in Acts 13:41; and Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-18a) are best understood as a single overall contribution to Acts.  Broadly speaking, through a literary and theological approach to intertextuality this study of reception undertakes to analyze the Lukan reading and appropriation of the LXX-Book-of-the-Twelve-Prophets in the book of Acts in light of an appropriate estimation of the influence of the normative source that Luke quotes. 

Overall, my thesis is informed by the awareness that in the Lukan milieu the Minor Prophets were at one time at the very least contained in one scroll, but at most, and quite plausibly according to a growing consensus, they were read as a single corpus with theological unity.  I contend that each quotation, from LXX-Joel 3:1-5 in Acts 2 to LXX-Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15 builds upon the previous quotation in order to demonstrate an overall argument Luke is making in Acts chapters 1-15.  In a particular theological construal I argue that Luke uses each quotation to establish the universal lordship of Jesus the Messiah at Pentecost and trace the redemptive-historical expansion and implications of such a claim to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 with a primarily soteriologically and ecclesiologically concern.

In sum, I hope to demonstrate that the contribution of the LXX-Twelve-Prophets is one of structuring the redemptive-historical trajectory of the narrative in Acts -- indeed marking generally agreed upon redemptive-historical turning points in Acts 1-15 -- in order that Luke might demonstrate with them in Acts 1-15 the progressive and ultimate fulfillment the original program set into motion by Acts 1:8 and Acts 2:39 -- that the lordship of Jesus would reach those in Jerusalem, and move to “those who are far off” and “to the end of the earth.”

This is one of my recent forays into connecting biblical theology with current issues. In this essay I am linking a serious engagement with Acts 10-15 to recent claims that current understandings of an "inclusive" church are funded by this narrative. I have also written it to respond to Nigel Biggar and others who have used the example of Cornelius in this narrative to indicate that Richard Hays and others are wrong to say that a commitment to nonviolence is not inherent in the identity of the earliest followers of Jesus.

Специализация Ричарда Хейза в широком смысле – это экзегетически-богословское изучение Нового Завета. Если же попытаться конкретизировать фокус его исследований, то нужно признать, что он преимущественно работает в таких областях, как интертекстуальная библейская герменевтика (иными словами, толкование Нового Завета в его связи с другими текстами – в первую очередь Ветхим Заветом) и изучение писем и учения апостола Павла. Именно о Хейзовом подходе к изучению Нового Завета в целом и Павлового корпуса в частности стоит поговорить более детально.
В первую очередь я сделаю краткий обзор его "Отголосков Писания", затем представлю его "Воображение воображения", дополню обе рецензии информацией и идеями, высказанными Хейзом в его киевских лекциях и, наконец, постараюсь, суммировать и оценить его герменевтический подход. Разумеется, тщательная проработка методов и идей Хейза потребовала бы значительных усилий и времени, однако, полагаю, даже на основании более точечного, но вмеру критического изучения его работ, доступных на русском языке, уже можно сделать некоторые выводы о его мысли. Именно такое краткое исследование и предварительную оценку герменевтики и экзегетики Хейза хотелось бы выполнить в рамках данной статьи.

«Если, не полагать, что Павел был безумным (или лживым) читателем, то нам придется признать, что он в силу эксцентричности ума, парадоксальным образом ставит в рассказе все с ног на голову»; «Павловы толкования либо евангелие, либо анафема». [Ричард Хейз]

Dutch translation of Reading Backwards. Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014). ISBN Hardback 9781481302326 ISBN Paperback 9781481302333. ISBN SPCK-edition 9780281074082.

Wie het getuigenis in de Evangeliën van het Nieuwe Testament goed wil lezen en interpreteren, kan dat niet doen zonder het Oude Testament. Dat is de boodschap die Richard B. Hays in dit boek wil brengen en uitwerken.
Op overtuigende wijze laat Hays zien dat de evangelisten bij het beschrijven van het Jezus' leven zich lieten inspireren door het Oude Testament. Daarvoor biedt hij een overzicht van de manier waarop de canonieke Evangeliën over Jezus vertellen, waarbij lijnen vanuit het Oude Testament helder maakt. Hij leest dus het Nieuwe Testament vanuit het Oude Testament, een stuk intertekstuele close reading.
Tegelijkertijd richt Hays zich op de wijze waarop het Oude Testament voorafschaduwingen geeft van de Mensenzoon. Hij wil de Schriften Christologisch interpreteren, het Oude Testament lezen vanuit het Nieuwe.
Deze benadering levert niet alleen nieuwe perspectieven op voor allerlei historische vragen over de Evangeliën, maar geeft ook nieuw zicht op het gesprek tussen joden en christenen.

Richard B. Hays is Hoogleraar Nieuwe Testament aan Duke Divinity School in North Carolina. Hij verwierf internationale bekendheid met zijn boeken over de brieven van Paulus.

This article resolves the Πίστις Χριστοῦ debate in favor of the “faith in Christ” interpretation, first by drawing from Rom 4:5 the necessary evidence to link πιστεύω with Paul’s use of πίστις in the πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases and second by demonstrating that πίστις is polysemous with respect to its meanings “faith” and “faithfulness.”

In the last 20 years, the interpretation of Paul’s letters as somehow critical of the Roman Empire has gained growing support among NT scholars. Since on the surface of the text such a critical attitude is not apparent, the search for critical allusions on the level of a subtext has become increasingly important. As a methodological help, N. T. Wright and Neil Elliott suggested the use of Hays’ criteria for identifying “echoes” of the Hebrew Bible in the NT. This approach has recently been criticized strongly by John M.G. Barclay, who makes some valid points. In order to evaluate valid criteria for the identification of imperial echoes, the application of Bayes’ theorem – which is far too often neglected in historical research in the field of NT studies – has to play a major role. In light of this, it becomes clear that Barclay’s criticism does not get to the heart of the matter. However, the assumption that Paul’s motivation for using the subtext for his counter-imperial remarks was an attempt to avoid persecution faces another serious problem: Too obvious criticism against the Empire in Paul (namely 1 Cor 2, 6-8) makes it unlikely that Paul would have felt the need to restrict his criticism subtext. Nevertheless, it can be shown that a modified version of the “echo-hypothesis” – which is not built on the assumptions of 1) imperial suppression and 2) fear as Paul’s motivation for using the level of the subtext – can be maintained and offers a heuristically fruitful framework for Pauline exegesis. Ironically, such a reformulated echo-hypothesis is much closer to the literary category of an “echo” as employed by Hays.

Since Thomas Aquinas, many commentators on the Pastoral Epistles (hereafter PE) have noted some sort of echo or allusion to Jer 29:7 (36:7 LXX) in the paraenesis of 1 Tim 2:1–2 (Cf. NA28). But before Aquinas, Augustine brought the literary, theological, and exilic context of Jer 36 LXX to bear on his discussion of 1 Tim 2:1–2 (Catech. 21.37; cf. Faust. 12.36). Exploring such features, as Augustine did, is only the natural result of noting a reference or an allusion to one verse in a specific context. However, Augustine’s example of broad engagement has been severely neglected. Combating this trend, I will investigate the allusion to Jer 36:7 LXX in 1 Tim 2:1–2 in order to understand the broader interplay between the texts, so that students, scholars, and clergy would grasp how Jer 36 LXX might serve and illumine 1 Timothy’s discourse.

«Если, не полагать, что Павел был безумным (или лживым) читателем, то нам придется признать, что он в силу эксцентричности ума, парадоксальным образом ставит в рассказе все с ног на голову»; «Павловы толкования либо евангелие, либо анафема». [1] [Ричард Хейз]

An essay published as the ZADOK paper for Summer 2015/2016. It explores the question of how Gentile inclusion can be paradigmatic for re-reading scripture in the light of the presence within the church of gay disciples. A very brief outline of the argument is available at this post on my blog: http://xenizonta.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/homosexuality-gentile-inclusion-and.html