The aim of this article is to investigate Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns against the Levant in 734-732 B.C. The campaigns can be divided into three phases. In the first phase, the Assyrians conquered Tyre and the coast. In the second phase, they defeated Syrian troops in battle, conquered Transjordan and made a surprise attack on the Arabian tribes. In the last phase, they conquered Damascus, Galilee and Gezer. In the second part of this article, the author investigates the logistics of these campaigns and at the end the author evaluated the consequences of the Assyrian invasion in terms of human and material losses and the administrative reorganization of the region.
The weakness of the proposals concerning the macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel made by Bacon and Kingsbury is that they depart from rigid caesuras, whilst a typical characteristic of the composition of this Gospel is the relatively smooth flow of the story. On the basis of the discovery that the various topographical data are clustered together by means of three refrains we can distinguish three patterns in the travels undertaken by Jesus. This rather coarse structure is further refined with the use of Matera’s and Carter’s distinction between kernels and satellites. Kernels are better labelled as “hinge texts”. The following pericopes belong to this category: 4,12-17; 11,2-30; 16,13-28; 21,1-17; 26,1-16. Each of them marks a turning point in the plot and has a double function: a hinge text is not only fleshed out in the subsequent pericopes but also refers to the preceding block. It is especially these “hinge texts” that underline the continuity of Matthew’s narrative and should prevent us from focussing too much on alleged caesuras.
The middle/passive verb diakri/nomai occurs twice in Jude’s letter. It is usually rendered with the classical/Hellenistic meaning “dispute” in v. 9, and the special NT meaning “doubt” in v. 22. Beginning with a brief discussion of the methodological problems inherent in the special NT meaning approach to diakri/nomai, this article offers an interpretation of vv. 9 and 22 based on the letter’s internal evidence. The content of Jude’s letter permits diakri/nomai to be consistently translated with its classical/Hellenistic meaning, “dispute” or “contest”.
A recently-published Latin inscription from Pisidian Antioch refers to four benefactions that a prominent citizen named Caristanius had provided to fulfill a vow on behalf of the emperor Claudius. Since this inscription refers to the year 45/46 CE, it refers to benefactions that may have been provided near the time when Paul arrived in the city. After surveying the contents of this inscription and reviewing scholarly opinion concerning the date when Paul arrived, this paper reflects on the ethnic diversity of first century Pisidian Antioch, the religious beliefs reflected in Caristanius’ vow, the likely impact of his benefactions on the residents of the city, and the possibility that he may have been one of “the leading men of the city” mentioned in Acts 13,50.
Is God, at the end of the book of Jonah, claiming that he will not destroy Nineveh? Or should the straight-forward reading of the Hebrew and Greek texts be taken at face value as claimed ten years ago by Alan Cooper? Although they do not challenge the common reading of the end of Jonah as a rhetorical question, the results of recent studies on Jonah support Cooper’s contention. Reading “You had pity over the plant… but I will not pity Nineveh…” makes more sense and places Jonah on a par with Job.
The Temple Scroll (11Q19) dedicates about two and a half columns to the Day of Atonement (25,10-27,10). The present study concentrates on the content of the transmitted text (25,10-16; 26-3-13, and 27,01-02.1-10), analyses its structure, and explains its development of thought. The focus of the text seems to be on the concept of the sin-offering. First, the sin-offering of a he-goat makes part of the common festival sacrifice. Second, the two rams belong as burnt-offering to the special sin-offering of the Feast. And third, a he-goat for YHWH is offered as a special sin-offering on the altar of burnt-offering, whereas, a second he-goat for Azazel bears all the sins of Israel and is sent out into the desert. Since the he-goat for Azazel does not get in touch with the altar of burnt-offering, it cannot be classified as a burnt-offering. Moreover, it shares only one major feature with the other sin-offerings, namely, to remove sins.
This short note suggests that the Greek translator of 1 Macc 7,16 read the Hebrew original as the third person singular perfect verb with the third person pronominal suffix (wObtfk) instead of the passive participle bw%tkf. The resulting Greek text read as if Alcimus the high-priest had written Ps 78, instead of Ps 78 being quoted.
The thesis developed in this short paper is clear-cut: in order to single out the dispositio of John 13, different and complementary approaches are required. If, in a first step, it is helpful to collect lexical parallelisms (chiastic and alternate), it is even more useful to determine the discursive function of the subunits (introduction, etc.) and the respective viewpoints of the narrator and of the main character (Jesus). In other words, a one-track approach must be at all costs avoided.