In the history of research, Luke 22:31-34 has been on the whole judged to be a rather awkward composition consisting of traditional material and Lucan wording. This article intends to show the completely Lucan character of the passage as well as the theological meaning Luke attached to it. In these verses, Luke reveals his literary mastery as well as his theological overall project in Luke-Acts: the primacy of Peter is rooted in the prayer of Jesus Christ himself during His Passion.
Jesus’ messianic self-understanding has been put into question from Bultmann’s day to the present. If he did not think of himself as the Messiah, we would be left with the riddle of a Jesus who never actually said who he claimed to be. However, Jesus’ reply to the inquiry of John the Baptist in Mt 11,2-6 par is an important clue to his own understanding of his mission. A careful reconsideration of the criteria for authenticity leads to the conclusion that Jesus claimed to be not simply a prophet announcing the kingdom, but the Messiah who healed and brought good news to the poor, thus doing what in the OT God had promised to do at the end of time. 4Q521 confirms that ancient Judaism expected this kind of miracle to occur at the time of the Messiah.
The narrative in Isa 7 unfolds a particular scenario in which only the initial verse 7,1 refers to the historical situation of the so-called Syriac-Ephraimitic war. What follows exhibits a completely different situation involving a threat and very similar to Isa 36-37. Several elements in the narrative in Isa 7 (the way of the fuller’s field, Shear-Yashub, the almah, Immanuel) only make sense within the context of Isa 36-37 and other parts of the book of Isaiah. Isa 7 is a highly intertextual entity that uses older texts to advocate its message of trustfulness in the God of Israel.
The Greek version of Ruth is, generally speaking, a literal translation. Even the style of the Hebrew original has been replicated as the translation brings out various Semitic archaisms. The quality of style, poor from a Greek point of view, aims at reproducing a special Hebrew local colour. This special style is avoided, however, if intelligibility is at stake. In that case, the translator reverts to a communicative translation technique. Hence, the Greek version of Ruth integrates elements of a communicative translation into an otherwise literal translation. Considering the findings of functional translation theory, this apparent caprice should be seen as a focused and innovative translation technique which might be described as 'integrative'.
The word a)po/stoloj in Heb 3,1 is seen as a reference to the risen Jesus in Heb 2,12 who has been “sent” by God to reveal God’s name as Moses was “sent” to reveal God’s name. Since Heb 2,12 is an allusion to the Christian tôdâ known as the Eucharist, the parallel with the word a)rxiereu/j is appropriate. The risen Christ is the son who reveals his father to those who have faith-trust as Jesus had faithtrust in the face of death. This revelation of a piece with a central theological theme of the New Testament, and is an invitation to enter liturgically into the death of Jesus so as to enter into his relation of son with his father.
Many translations understand the father of the vineyard (parable in Luke 20, 9-19) to think that he will send his beloved son to the vineyard workers because they possibly might accept him; this seems faulty reasoning on the part of the father. It seems better to re-read i1swj (v. 13) in accord with its basic sense, which in turn allows the father a proper logic: “they will give my son a treatment that is equal to his dignity as my beloved son”.
The question of the identity of the young man who flees naked at the end of the Markan Passion narrative has elicited a great variety of responses from exegetes. Early commentators merely referring to existing hagiography, often identifying the man as 'James, the brother of the Lord' because of his supposed aestheticism. In the 19th century the idea that the young man was a type of signatory device by the evangelist came to the fore in critical biblical literature. Research into Coptic MSS now reveals the identification of the young man with the Evangelist in fact finds its root in 13th century Egyptian hagiography.