Vol 84 (2003)

These observations address the construction of women and their roles in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9. References to women in these chapters construed them as fulfilling a variety of roles in society, and characterized and identified them in various ways. To be sure, the genealogies reflected and reinforced the main construction of family and family roles in a traditional ancient near eastern society. But, numerous references in these genealogies indicated to the early (and predominantly male) readers of the book that ideologically construed gender expectations may and have been transgressed in the past and with good results. By implication, these references suggested to the readers that gender (and ethnic) boundaries can and even should be transgressed on occasion, with divine blessing, and resulting in divine blessing.

The ancient principle of presentation, syncrisis, repeatedly used in research for the interpretation of Luke 1–2, is applied here. In this article the author first presents the most important aspects of syncrisis and then moves to the question whether or not one can present a valid study, with the use of syncrisis, for the interpretation of the ‘John the Baptist texts’ in John’s Gospel (1,6-8.15; 1,19-34; 1,35-42; 3,22-36; 4,1-3; 5,33-35; 10,40-42) and for the relationship of John and Jesus. We arrive at a positive result; the repeated signals ‘towards’, ‘under’, etc. are recognizably indicators of ordered relationships. The comparison that comes to light serves together with the visible differences in the profiling of each of them — precisely in their opposition to each other. Thus, syncrisis is revealed as a rich literary means to show continuity and discontinuity. Evaluation and relativisation, integration and subordination to the figure of Jesus determine the presentation of the Baptist in John’s Gospel. The appropriate ordering of his person to Jesus is shown also in the area of metaphorical speech, when John is presented as "the friend of the bridegroom" (John 3,29).

By means of a literary-rhetorical analysis, it can be stated that Rom 7,7-25 forms a literary unit, depending upon the propositio of Rom 7,7a. In fact, the question on the possible equalization between Mosaic Law and sin raises a new discussion, carried out precisely in Rom 7,7-25. The climax of the pericope appears to be the powerless character of the Law with respect to sin, depicted through two different examples. In the first one, in vv. 7-13, it is not stated that through the Law sin become known by the "I", but that through the Law sin gains force and becomes ineluctably effective. In the second one, in vv. 14-25, sin is an active subject quite apart from Law, that remains nevertheless ineffective in counteracting it. In any case, these two different depictions point both to the ineffectiveness of the Law. The affirmations on the positive nature of the Law are incorporated in this pericope in order to be diminished –even if not denied. This rhetorical strategy can be called concessio. In Rom 8,1-17 the believer’s life is depicted in different terms from the life of the "I" of Rom 7,7-25. This comparison leads to the recognition of the new basis on which our relation with God becomes possible. In the meantime, it clarifies that the Law cannot promote this new identity in believers. For this reason, emphasis on the incapacity of the Law must not be considered as an act of contempt for it. Instead, it clarifies the objective reasons why the Law cannot be regarded as a soteriological principle.

The purpose of this essay is two-fold. First, it argues that the inclusion of the Gentiles is referred to as a previously unrevealed mystery because it is based upon the abrogation of the Mosaic law and entails a degree of nearness to the Lord that exceeds the expectations of the old covenant. Second, it addresses the question of authorship. Assuming Pauline authorship as a working hypothesis, it shows that the use of the concept of mystery in Eph 3 is intimately linked with Paul’s terminology and thought world attested in the undisputed letters. It is unwarranted, therefore, to find proof of a post-Pauline development in the use of the term "mystery" in Ephesians.

Given that Luke has wide freedom to arrange his stories as he thinks best, one looks to the material surrounding the story of Mary and Martha to better understand why that story is in its present place. It seems best to think of this story as an affirmation of the teaching of the ‘one thing necessary’, the teaching within the story of the Good Samaritan. Indeed, the Mary-Martha story underlines the Lucan emphasis on the primacy of all Jesus’ teaching.

See more by the same author

«Acts 28,28 — Why%3F» 2009 176-187
«Luke 20,13 and i1swj» 2008 263-264
«Luke wrote to Rome – a Suggestion» 2007 251-255
«What Does It Mean to Say That There Are Additions in Luke 7,36-50%3F» 2005 529-535
«Hostility to Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13,45) — Why%3F» 2003 1-15
«‘With many other words’ (Acts 2,40): Theological Assumptions in Peter’s Pentecost Speech» 2002 71-87
«The Obligation to Heal (Luke 13,10-17)» 2001 402-409
«`The Apostles Whom He Chose because of the Holy Spirit' A Suggestion Regarding Acts 1,2» 2000 414-417
«The Strivings of the Flesh…(Galatians 5,17)» 1999 113-114
«Jesus’ First Trial: Messiah and Son of God (Luke 22,66-71)» 1999 401-414
«The Importance of the Redactor in Luke 18,9-14» 1998 69-75

This article deals with the contradiction between 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 52 regarding the date on which the First Temple was destroyed. Comparing the descriptions of the destruction in Kings and in Jeremiah shows that the two descriptions were borrowed from a common third source. In our view, this common third source is better preserved in Jeremiah 52 than in 2 Kings 25. We therefore deduce that Jeremiah 52 preserves the more exact date of the Temple’s destruction: the tenth of Ab. This claim is based on the fact that the description of the destruction in Kings is in any case truncated, and is therefore likely that it contains the textual corruptions as opposed to Jeremiah.