• Instructions for Contributors
  • Subscribe to Biblica or Send books for review
  • Index by Authors
  • Index by Biblical Books
  • FAQ
  • Vol 97 (2016)
  • Vol 96 (2015)
  • Vol 95 (2014)
  • 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)
  • Vol 82 (2001)

    Lambrecht Jan, «The Fool’s Speech and Its Context: Paul’s Particular Way of Arguing in 2 Cor 10–13» Vol.82 (2001) 305-324

    Paul’s particular way of arguing in 2 Cor 10–13 is visible in the Fool’s Speech (11,22–12,10) as well as in its context. The speech is interrupted more than once and there are shifts regarding the object of boasting. The introduction to the speech (11,1-21) is not straightforward and two brief retrospections (12,11a and 19a) should not go unnoticed. The major topic in this study, however, consists in the indication of three rings within the context of the Fool’s Speech: (1) 10,1 and 13,11 (moral exhortation); (2) 10,2-18 and 13,1-10 (Paul’s defense of his authority); (3) 11,5-12 and 12,11b-18 (Paul denies inferiority). Yet from the presence of these enveloping rings a strict concentric structure of 2 Cor 11–13 cannot be deduced. Special attention must also be given to 10,8.12-18 and 11,3-4.12-15.18-20. In these passages Paul, by comparing and attacking, seems to prepare his boasting as a fool in a more direct way.

    See more by the same author
    Dautzenberg Gerhard, «Überlegungen zur Exegese und Theologie von 2 Kor 4,1-6» Vol.82 (2001) 325-344

    The antagonism of two powers set against each other and ideas of predestination characterize 2 Cor 4,4, in a way similar to what we find in 1QS iii–iv. In this confrontation, Christ plays the role which in 1 QS iii–iv is assigned to the ‘Prince of Light’. Christ’s title, ei)kw_n tou= qeou= is meant to characterize the glorified Christ’s unique relation to God and to stress that henceforth Christ’s rightful place is at the throne of God; ei)kw_n tou= qeou= further shows that Christ from now on acts as representative of the kingdom of God, against the satanic counter-power. 2 Cor 4,6, gives reasons for this Christology by explaining the Damascus-vision of Paul as a vision of the exalted Christ raised to the throne of God, bearer of the divine glory.

    Whitekettle Richard, «Rats are Like Snakes, and Hares are Like Goats: A Study in Israelite Land Animal Taxonomy» Vol.82 (2001) 345-362

    Israelite taxonomic thought drew a contrast between a land animal taxon referred to by the words Cr#$ or #&mr that contained animals such as rats and snakes (Land Animals I), and a land animal taxon referred to by the words hmhb or hyx that contained animals such as hares and goats (Land Animals II). This essay shows that the Land Animals I taxon was characterized by locomotory movement in the horizontal plane and the Land Animals II taxon was characterized by locomotory movement in the vertical plane. Thus, the contrast was between land animals that were perceived to move along the ground (Land Animals I) and land animals that were perceived to move over the ground (Land Animals II).

    See more by the same author
    Marx Alfred, «L’impureté selon P. Une lecture théologique» Vol.82 (2001) 363-384

    This study sets out to review the different factors of impurity recognized as such by P. In the final analysis, these come down to two: death (with which ‘leprosy’ is connected) and sexuality. Whatever the original reason for considering these two factors as a source of impurity, P. has given them a theological reinterpretation by which he relates them to the story of the Fall; death and sexuality are characteristics of the human condition that are a result of the Fall, whereas the impurity which they bring about calls to mind the dissolution of the original connection between man and God.

    Migsch Herbert, «'Eingehalten worden sind die Worte Jehonadabs'. Zur Interpretation von Jer 35,14» Vol.82 (2001) 385-401

    Jer. 35,14a is interpreted in different ways. According to one interpretation (in the present study this will be labeled Interpretation A) Yahweh first indicates that the Rechabites have obeyed the commandments of their forefather, in order to point out further that they have also followed his precept not to drink wine ‘up to this day’. According to the other interpretation (Interpretation B) Yahweh merely indicates that the Rechabites have observed the command of their forefather not to drink wine. If Interpretation B is followed, an inconsistency can be observed that makes it probable that v. 14a needs to be understood according to Interpretation A. There are three further interpretations (C, D and E) that are the further developments of Interpretation B — evidently for the purpose of eliminating the inconsistency.

    See more by the same author
    Brenk Frederick E. - Canali De Rossi S.J Filippo, «The ‘Notorious’ Felix, Procurator of Judaea, and His Many Wives (Acts 23–24)» Vol.82 (2001) 410-417

    Confusion exists over both the gentilicium and the wives of Felix. As for the name, possibly both Antonius and Claudius are correct. In any case, the attempt to assign only the name Claudius to Felix rests on rather shaky ground. As for his wives, possibly none was a descendant of Kleopatra VII. But if she were, she would be a great-granddaughter rather than a granddaughter of the famous queen. An inscription adduced to fix Felix’ name and career is beset with many problems. Finally, we should take his reputation as ‘notorious’ with a grain of salt. But whether notorious or not, his rise was remarkable, deserving of awe if not admiration.