- Instructions for Contributors
- Subscribe to Biblica or Send books for review
- Index by Authors
- Index by Biblical Books
- Font Instructions
- Vol 94 (2013)
- Vol 93 (2012)
- Vol 92 (2011)
- Vol 91 (2010)
- Vol 90 (2009)
- Vol 89 (2008)
- Vol 88 (2007)
- Vol 87 (2006)
- Vol 86 (2005)
- Vol 85 (2004)
- Vol 84 (2003)
- Vol 83 (2002)
- Vol 82 (2001)
- Vol 81 (2000)
- Vol 80 (1999)
- Vol 79 (1998)
Home > Biblica > Vol 87 (2006) >
Vol 87 (2006)
Stavrakopoulou Francesca, «Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship» Vol.87 (2006) 1-21
The Garden of Uzza (2 Kgs 21,18.26) is commonly regarded as a pleasure garden in or near Jerusalem which came to be used as a royal burial ground once the tombs in the City of David had become full. However, in this article it is argued that the religious and cultic significance of royal garden burials has been widely overlooked. In drawing upon comparative evidence from the ancient Near East, it is proposed that mortuary gardens played an ideological role within perceptions of Judahite kingship. Biblical texts such as Isa 65,3-4; 66,17 and perhaps 1,29-30 refer not to goddess worship, but to practices and sacred sites devoted to the royal dead.
Vincent Jean Marcel, «L’apport de la recherche historique et ses limites pour la compréhension des visions nocturnes de Zacharie» Vol.87 (2006) 22-41
The aim of this article is to point out danger to which “historicizing” interpretations of the nocturnal visions of Zechariah (Zech 1,7–6,8*) are exposed. Research into the historical context has been thoroughly renewed by studies by Th. Pola (2003) and M.J. Boda (2004, 2005) but is it really certain that the nocturnal visions concern the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and that it is necessary to liken, as tradition does, the message of the cycle of visions to that of the oracles of the prophet Haggai?
Stettler Christian, «The 'Command of the Lord' in 1 Cor 14,37 – a Saying of Jesus?» Vol.87 (2006) 42-51
In 1 Cor 14,37 Paul mentions a “command of the Lord”. The language Paul uses indicates that he is not referring to his own apostolic authority but to a saying of Jesus. The context in 1 Corinthians 12–14 makes clear that the principle he has in mind is mutual love. Therefore he must be referring to the summary of the law given by Jesus in the love commandment which Paul primarily interprets in the sense of mutual love among Christians. Like John 13,34 he calls this commandment a command of Jesus. Moreover, Paul knows a tradition similar to Matt 7,21-23.
Slater Thomas B., «Translating a#gioj in Col 1,2 and Eph 1,1» Vol.87 (2006) 52-54
The preceding study has demonstrated that from grammatical, linguistic, theological and literary perspectives, the best translation of a#gioj in Col 1,2 and Eph 1,1 is as an adjective.
See more by the same author
Geoghegan Jeffrey C., «Israelite Sheepshearing and David’s Rise to Power» Vol.87 (2006) 55-63
An analysis of the relevant texts (Genesis 31; 38; 1 Samuel 25; 2 Samuel 13) reveals that sheepshearing in ancient Israel was a significant celebration characterized by feasting, heavy dirinking, and the settling of old scores. As a result of these associations, sheepshearing became an ideal backdrop for events in Israel’s past involving the repayment of debts or the righting of wrongs. Because both David and Absalom took advantage of sheepshearing for this purpose — and in the process aided their own ascents to the throne — sheepshearing became intimately associated with the emergence of the royal clan (Genesis 38) and the establishment of the Davidic dynasty.
Tiemeyer Lena-Sofia, «The Question of Indirect Touch: Lam 4,14; Ezek 44,19 and Hag 2,12-13» Vol.87 (2006) 64-74
This article compares Lam 4,14; Ezek 44,19 and Hag 2,12-13 with regard to the transference of impurity and holiness via indirect touch. Lam 4,14 forms an apt parallel to Hag 2,13 in that both texts claim that impurity can be transmitted via indirect touch. In contrast, Ezek 44,19 contradicts Hag 2,12 concerning the transmission of holiness. The discussion focuses mainly on the translation of Lam 4,14, with specific attention to the interpretation of the verb l)g, the uses of the root #dq in Hag 2,12 and Ezek 44,19, and finally considers whether or not Ezek 44,19 refers to indirect touch.
See more by the same author
Barré Michael L., «Yahweh Gears Up for Battle: Habakkuk 3,9a» Vol.87 (2006) 75-84
Hab 3,9a has proven to be a troublesome text, most of the difficulties stemming from the second colon, especially the last word, rm). The proposal argued here is that this reading results from a well attested scribal error. The original reading was rmeT;rm't@f, the Hiphil 2nd masculine singular yiqtol form of the verb rrm, 'to be bitter'. In this context it means 'to make bitter', specifically 'to poison (weapons) with serpent’s gall'. The connection of this root with '(serpent’s) poison' is well documented in a number of Semitic languages, and poisoning projectiles to make them especially deadly is well known in the ancient world. The Akkadian cognate appears in the Mari texts with reference to poisoning weapons. Hab 3,9a portrays YHWH as withdrawing his bow and poisoning his arrows as part of his preparation for battle with the powers of chaos.
See more by the same author
Van Der Merwe Christo H.J. , «Lexical Meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Cognitive Semantics: a Case Study» Vol.87 (2006) 85-95
This paper examines the contribution that a cognitive linguistic model of meaning can make towards the semantic analysis and description of Biblical Hebrew. It commences with a brief description of some of the basic insights provided by cognitive semantics. The notion 'semantic potential' is used to capture the activation potential for all the information (linguistic and encyclopaedic) connected with each of a set of semantically related lexical items in the Hebrew Bible, viz. Cm)/Cym), rbg/hrwbg, qzx/hqzx, lyx, xk, zc/zzc. Commencing with the 'basic level items' of the set, describing the distribution, the prototypical use and accompanying contextual frames of each term, the prototypical reading of and relationship between these terms are then identified.
Sabottka Liudger, «Ps 2,12: 'Küsst den Sohn!'?» Vol.87 (2006) 96-97
The long-standing difficulty in Ps 2,12 rba-w%q#$%;na is tentatively resolved by deriving w%q#$%;na from q#$n II – 'to be armed', and interpreting the verbal form according to Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, § 52h, as 'privative Piel': 'to be/get disarmed', whereas rba@ takes its normal meaning 'pure, sincere'.