The article addresses the controversial issue of the formation of "biblical Israel" in biblical historiography. It begins by presenting the political-cultural struggle between Assyria and Babylonia in the second and first millennia BCE, in part over the question of ownership of the cultural patrimony of ancient Mesopotamia. It goes on to examine relations between Judah and Israel and compares them to those between Assyria and Babylonia. It then suggests that the adoption of the Israelite identity by Judah, which took place during the reign of Josiah as part in his cultic reform, was motivated by the desire to take possession of the highly prestigious heritage of Israel, which had remained vacant since that kingdom’s annexation by Assyria in 720 BCE.
Scholars agree that in Gal 1,13–2,21 Paul substantiates his gospel but disagree as to his method. The three common views: that Paul defends his apostolate, that he denies accusations, and that he functions as a paradigm conflict with the text. Instead, Paul sets up two categories in 1,10 — that of seeking to please people and that of seeking to please God — and defends his gospel by means of his Damascus experience together with his subsequent life motivation.
Prenant le relais d’une étude récente du premier mot de la Bible l’auteur développe son argumentation en faveur d’une signification concrète du mot ré’shît au sens de premier produit. L’examen du vocabulaire dans la Bible le conduit à voir dans l’usage cultuel et concret de ce terme le vivier où a puisé l’auteur de Genèse 1,1 pour formuler sa confession de foi en exergue du récit de la création et en programme de Torah — Loi et Histoire — pour les humains et pour Israël.
Several considerations suggest that the sailors’ lot casting in Jonah 1 is unusual and meant to be both surprising and literarily delightful. The most important of these is the correspondence between the sailors and the Ninevites within the book’s rhetorical structure. This correspondence suggests that the sailors’ lot casting is a particularly Israelite practice with the sailors themselves appearing as adepts in Israelite ritual activity. That depiction corresponds to the Ninevites’ ability to know precisely how to repent in chapter 3. In both cases, the foreigners are portrayed in particularly pious ways in contrast to the reluctant prophet.
The final oracle of Haggai is often viewed as royalist in orientation, with the prophet promoting Zerubbabel as a royal (or even messianic) figure. This study seeks to dispute the majority view. Neither the election terms used nor the metaphor of the “seal” assign a royal identity to him. The focus is on the dual leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua. Nowhere in the prophecy is Zerubbabel identified unequivocally as a Davidide. The temple orientation and the highlighting of divine action show that the establishment of God’s kingdom is in view, not the promotion of Zerubbabel as God’s vice-regent.
This study of the enigmatic phrase K1d:@b;(a tla@pit@-l)e (amo#$li tw$xw%tup; K1yney('w: “and your eyes open to listen to the prayer of your servant” (Neh 1,6) utilizes an interdisciplinary approach involving insights from linguistic pragmatics and ritual theory. We will begin with a brief review of the history of interpretation of this phrase. Particular attention will then be given to elements of ritual theory, such as trigger point, ritual language, time, place, sequence, etc. Finally, we will examine the pragmatic context, discourse, and conversational strategies involved with this phrase.
The note suggests that Heb 2,9 means that Jesus died physically so that he could die in the gaze of those who believe in him and thus be freed from the fear of death (2,15). It also suggests that Heb 2,8b-9 is a subsection about Jesus as the heavenly sacrificial victim and corresponds to Heb 2,14-16 which is about Jesus the earthly sacrificial victim. Heb 2,10-12 in turn is a subsection about Jesus as heavenly high priest and corresponds to Heb 2,17-18 which is about Jesus as earthly high priest.