The article is an attempt to show that, thanks to the two citations of Gn 15,6 and Ps 31,1-2 in Rm 4,2.7-8, Paul gives his opinion indirectly but nevertheless clearly on the injunctions of Gen 17,10-14. Those citations form a gezerah shawah (= GS), which goes along with the standards of the technique fixed by the rabbis later on and allows Paul to interpret the role of the circumcision in Gn 17,10-14 originally and paradoxically.
The emphasis given the ‘signs’ in the final verses of the Gospel of John (20,30.31) has often, in the history of research, been deemed unsuitable. But such thinking overlooks the fact that the statement of the Gospel’s purpose in 20,31 is meant to call to mind especially the story of the healing of the blind man in Chapter 9 (a person comes to faith in Jesus Christ) and the story of the raising of Lazarus in Chapter 11 (a person gains [eternal] life). The particular meaning of these two miracle stories is, through their shaping and their positioning within the Gospel, underlined. Keeping this in mind, John 20,30.31 is a thoroughly suitable ending for the entire Gospel.
In any discussion of the Sadducees, there will always remain a certain amount of doubt due to the paucity of sources about them. Based on what data has survived, the older theory that the Sadducees rejected the extravagant beliefs about angels and spirits provides the most convincing solution to the problem of Acts 23,8. The Sadducees’ reasons for rejecting these views were twofold: 1) angels were integrated into the apocalyptic world view that they rejected; and 2) angels often served as God’s servants to administer predestination or providence. Thus, when Paul claimed that a heavenly being had appeared to him in a manner and with a message that appeared to be predestinarian in nature, the Sadducees were unwilling to entertain the idea that an angel or spirit had appeared to him. Certainly new theories will arise in an attempt to grapple with this issue, but to re-appropriate the words of Jesus in Luke 5,39, "the old is good enough".
The mention of "One Hundred Fifty-Three Large Fish" in John 21,11 is one of the biblical stories with an extremely broad and diverse history of interpretation. The article offers a reader-oriented analysis of John 21,1-14 and shows that the Johannine narrator here breaks the so-called ‘principle of narrative economy’. By breaking this rule the narrator forces the reader to reinterpret the story told. This narrative technique is to be found not only in chapter 21 of John’s Gospel but also in many other places throughout the text, e.g., 2,1; 3,2, 19,39..
The high and chief priests mentioned in both the genealogy of 1Chr 6,1-15 and the narrative of Chronicles (Zadok and Hilkiah) are compared with priests mentioned only in the narrative (the Azariah under Uzziah, the Azariah under Hezekiah, and Jehoiada); the Amariah under Jehoshaphat, possibly Amariah II in 1 Chr 6,11, is treated separately. This article concludes: Chronicles has not enhanced the Zadokite high priests; the three priests not mentioned in the genealogy are presented with increased cultic roles which delineate some of their duties; leading priests in Chronicles operate within the cultic sphere while their precise ceremonial role is unclear.
The only consensus about the meaning of Jesus' proverb in Q, Matthew or Luke is that it is enigmatic. But closer attention to the trope itself and its literary context may give clues to its meaning in Luke 17. The two principal preoccupations of exegetes are 1) whether aetoi means eagles or vultures, and 2) how to define the literary context in which the proverb is to be read: does it refer to the coming day of the Son of Man (17,22-34) or of the last judgment (17,34-35)? This paper argues that aetoi here must mean vultures and the appropriate context for the interpretation of the proverb is the whole speech, for which its serves as the conclusion. There is a curious interplay between the Pharisees' "When" (v. 20) and the "Where?" (v. 37a) of the disciples. Attending to the polysemic possibilities of the proverb provides a meaning which knits the whole speech together.
This note argues that the popular, scholarly opinion that Qoh 8,12b-13 is the citation by the author of a traditional saying that he then counters in v. 14 or relativizes is incorrect. Rather, this unit represents the author’s own sentiment and signifies that he does not absolutely reject the deed/consequence connection. This unit counsels against the common misconception by the wicked that delayed consequence means no consequence. Thus, vv. 12b-13 do not conflict with what precedes or follows and do not conflict with the author’s typical questioning of the validity of the deed/consequence connection.
This note suggests that the enigmatic tw$+%m tw$(b# refers to the Lord’s bow, which in the Hebrew Bible is associated with the rainbow. Habakkuk views symbolically the Lord’s bow as an unusually powerful composite bow of seven rods, as the rainbow consists of seven colors. Hab 3,9a K1t@#q rw$(t hyr( hls rm) tw$+%m tw$(b# is understood in the sense Naked bare Your bow, of seven strips! (say Selah), where say Selah is a later editorial instruction to the person who recites the Psalm to say the word hls at this point, and thereby indicate an interlude, or distinction from what follows.