Jeffrey W Aernie
Biographic Data
| ID | 9533199 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Jeffrey W Aernie |
| GIVEN NAMES | Jeffrey W |
| FAMILY NAME | Aernie |
| SIGNATURE | AERNIE J W |
| AFFILIATIONS | Alphacrucis University College Head of School, School of Ministry and Theology 30 Cowper Street Parramatta Australia |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-6869-8383 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 2 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 0 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 2 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2022 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2023 |
| H-INDEX | 0 |
“She of Uriah” (Matthew 1,6)
This article examines an aspect of Matthew’s unique reference to Bathsheba that is often neglected in discussions of the women in the genealogy, namely the position of this genealogical annotation within the three-part generational structure of Matthew’s genealogy (Matt 1,17). It will be argued that consideration of the structural position of this annotation points to its intentional multivalence. Matthew refers to Bathsheba as “she of Uriah” to …
Abraham’s Paternity and God’s Promise
The complexity of Paul’s engagement with the Abrahamic narrative in Rom. 4 arises immediately in Rom. 4.1. The challenging syntax of Rom. 4.1 has resulted in distinct views on the apostle’s engagement with the patriarch and the purpose of his argument in Rom. 4. My intention is to reconsider Rom. 4.1 based on a wider structural analysis of Rom. 3.27–4.22. Building especially on the work of Douglas Campbell and Joshua Jipp, I argue that Rom. 4.1 s…
No prominent works on this page.
Abraham’s Paternity and God’s Promise
The complexity of Paul’s engagement with the Abrahamic narrative in Rom. 4 arises immediately in Rom. 4.1. The challenging syntax of Rom. 4.1 has resulted in distinct views on the apostle’s engagement with the patriarch and the purpose of his argument in Rom. 4. My intention is to reconsider Rom. 4.1 based on a wider structural analysis of Rom. 3.27–4.22. Building especially on the work of Douglas Campbell and Joshua Jipp, I argue that Rom. 4.1 s…
“She of Uriah” (Matthew 1,6)
This article examines an aspect of Matthew’s unique reference to Bathsheba that is often neglected in discussions of the women in the genealogy, namely the position of this genealogical annotation within the three-part generational structure of Matthew’s genealogy (Matt 1,17). It will be argued that consideration of the structural position of this annotation points to its intentional multivalence. Matthew refers to Bathsheba as “she of Uriah” to …
Biblical Studies and Interpretation (2 works) · History (2 works) · Linguistics (2 works) · Narrative (2 works) · Philosophy (2 works) · Action (physics) (1 work) · Annotation (1 work) · Apostle (1 work) · Argument (complex analysis) (1 work) · Art (1 work)