2005
DOI: 10.4102/hts.v61i4.487
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The sparrow’s fall (Mt 10:29)

Abstract: According to Matthew 10:29, not one sparrow will fall to the ground "apart from the Father". The latter phrase is elliptical, and it is not clear what type of involvement from the Father is meant. This article examines how this verse is interpreted in the various Bible translations and by modern commentaries. Thereafter patristic writings are consulted in search of a solution. It shows that the interpretation of this verse is often rooted in theological doctrine.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 3 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hartin has also focused on questions about Q that are not related to the letter of James. Influenced by Kloppenborg's (1987a) proposed stratification of Q, Hartin argued in 1994 that the proclamation of Jesus was in the first place about a present reality called the kingdom of God, but that the Jesus 1.For example, Botha 1996;Deist 1993;Thirion 1997;Stander 2005;Viljoen 2008; 2.For example, Bazzana 2014;Foster 2015;Grundeken 2012;Peters 2016;Schmithals 2008;Schröter 1996;Sim 2000;Tripp 2013. 3.Engelbrecht (1996, for example, critically considered the contribution of two Markan commentaries that were written from the perspective of the Griesbach hypothesis, finding that these two commentaries fail to explain source-critical issues sufficiently.…”
Section: Patrick Hartinmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hartin has also focused on questions about Q that are not related to the letter of James. Influenced by Kloppenborg's (1987a) proposed stratification of Q, Hartin argued in 1994 that the proclamation of Jesus was in the first place about a present reality called the kingdom of God, but that the Jesus 1.For example, Botha 1996;Deist 1993;Thirion 1997;Stander 2005;Viljoen 2008; 2.For example, Bazzana 2014;Foster 2015;Grundeken 2012;Peters 2016;Schmithals 2008;Schröter 1996;Sim 2000;Tripp 2013. 3.Engelbrecht (1996, for example, critically considered the contribution of two Markan commentaries that were written from the perspective of the Griesbach hypothesis, finding that these two commentaries fail to explain source-critical issues sufficiently.…”
Section: Patrick Hartinmentioning
confidence: 99%