I will rely on insights from Halliday’s register theory to explain the Markan Jesus’ use of a functional variety of language I call procedural register. The identification of procedural register in the main section of the Olivet Discourse (vv. 5b-23) will be shown to reveal the rhetorical design of the discourse within a first temporal horizon, of direct relevance for the audience and addressing the disciples’ question (v. 4). The absence of procedural register in vv. 24-27 indicates the opening of a second horizon in the speech, lacking immediate impact for the audience and no longer addressing the disciples’ question.
The theme of fear is to be found in the gospel of Luke not only in connection with the central revelations of glory — in the account of the birth and transfiguration as well as in the chapter on the resurrection — but also in several miracle stories. In the light of Luke 9,43 Jesus’ mighty deeds, which give rise to fear in those present, appear as the visible aspect of his heavenly glory. This understanding of revelation echoes the revelation theology of the Book of Exodus which interprets the signs and wonders which Israel experiences in the context of the departure from Egypt as the soteriological aspect of God’s glory revealed on Sinai. Jesus as the Holy One of God, who, like the God of Exodus, arouses revelation fear, is to be understood against this background.
In the Letter of James the faithful are called upon to become “poets of the lovgou”, that is to say to pass from just hearing the divine word to putting it into action. But this expression does not insist upon the need to make the faith concretely real. It enters into relation with a vocabulary that evokes the energy which must inspire both the words and the actions or the contemplation of human beings and it above all alludes metaphorically, by reference to Greek literary art, to the aesthetic, in fact spiritual, dimension that Christian conduct must take on in order truly to realize itself as such.
Recent scholarship interprets Isaiah 24,14-16 in light of a “prophetic disputation pattern” genre, which sees the praise in vv. 14-15 as an assertion and the “I” statement in v. 16b as the counter-assertion, thus, correcting the assertion in vv. 14-15. This article seeks to challenge this interpretation and argue that the “I” statement in v. 16b does not need to function as a “counter-assertion” to the praise in vv. 14-15 but, rather, as introducing the proclamation of judgment for the unrighteous (v. 16c).
In the face of violence, Qoheleth’s answer: “There is no one to console them” (Qoh 4,1) seems to be a hostile allusion aimed at God (cf. Isa 40,1) who is considered responsible for that violence. Yet Qoheleth’s God is not an abstract and remote deity; Qoheleth’s criticism is directed rather at the God of retribution (cf. Qoh 9,1-3). By stressing divine transcendence, Qoheleth considers that God is beyond all human comprehension (cf. 8,16-17). In Qoheleth one cannot speak of divine violence, but there is the problem of human language about God. Man can only “fear God” and accept the joy that God grants him as a gift in his fleeting life.
In the ancient Mediterranean world, olive oil and wine had medicinal as well as culinary and (in the case of olive oil) cosmetic applications. Amos may be playing on the multiple uses of these items when he condemns banqueters for drinking wine and anointing themselves while ignoring the “wound of Joseph”.
II Maccabees is an unusual text, its composition and content are topics of extensive discussion. This paper identifies a literary construct that we attribute to the epitomiser. Its identification allows us to assign various parts of the text to the same hand giving us more insight into both the text’s composition and the epitomiser’s ability as an historian and writer. Furthermore, the identified literary topos suggests that recent attempts to minimise the extent to which II Maccabees represents any conflict between the Greeks and the Jews, Judaism and Hellenism may need to be reconsidered, some apparent instances of favourable relations between the Jews and other nations (in particular the Hellenes) are not what they seem.