• Instructions for Contributors
  • Subscribe to Biblica or Send books for review
  • Index by Authors
  • Index by Biblical Books
  • FAQ
  • Vol 97 (2016)
  • Vol 96 (2015)
  • Vol 95 (2014)
  • Vol 94 (2013)
  • Vol 93 (2012)
  • Vol 92 (2011)
  • Vol 91 (2010)
  • Vol 90 (2009)
  • Vol 89 (2008)
  • Vol 88 (2007)
  • Vol 87 (2006)
  • Vol 86 (2005)
  • Vol 85 (2004)
  • Vol 84 (2003)
  • Vol 83 (2002)
  • Vol 82 (2001)
  • Vol 81 (2000)
  • Vol 80 (1999)
  • Vol 79 (1998)
  • Vol 93 (2012)

    Baden Joel S., «The Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative from Genesis to Exodus» Vol.93 (2012) 161-186

    The question of the continuity of the non-priestly narrative from the patriarchs to the exodus has been the center of much debate in recent pentateuchal scholarship. This paper presents as fully as possible, in the space allowed, one side of the argument, namely, that the non-priestly narrative is indeed continuous from Genesis through Exodus. Both methodological and textual arguments are brought in support of this claim, as well as some critiques of the alternative theory.

    1 related articles
    Schmid Konrad, «Genesis and Exodus as Two Formerly Independent Traditions of Origins for Ancient Israel» Vol.93 (2012) 187-208

    This paper is a response to Joel Baden’s article, which claims that the material in Genesis and Exodus was already literarily connected within the independent J and E documents. I suggest an alternative approach that has gained increased acceptance, especially in European scholarship. The ancestral stories of Genesis on the one hand and the Moses story in Exodus and the following books on the other hand were originally autonomous literary units, and it was only through P that they were connected conceptually and literarily.

    Gardner A.E., «The «Little Horn» of Dan 7,8: Malevolent or Benign?» Vol.93 (2012) 209-226

    It has been claimed that Dan 7,8 is an addition to the vision in Dan 7,2- 14 and its «little horn» indicates a wicked character, usually Antiochus Epiphanes. By paying close attention to the description of the «little horn» and its context, it is demonstrated that allusions to earlier biblical passages, including Daniel 4, are present. These indicate that the «little horn» is a benign character who should be differentiated from the «other» horn(s?) of 7,20-21.24-25 and the «little horn» of Dan 8,9-11. As the latter represents Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn of Dan 7,8 must be pre-Maccabean.

    See more by the same author
    Kim Hak Chol, «The Worship of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew» Vol.93 (2012) 227-241

    The Gospel of Matthew can be characterized by its special emphasis on the worship of Jesus. In the scenes where Jesus is worshiped, Jesus was depicted as the king of the Jews, Christ/Messiah, the «I am» (e0gw/ ei0mi), and the Divine Being holding authority both in heaven and on earth, thus being worthy of worship. Matthew employed both Jewish and Gentile traditions in abundance so that both Jews and Gentiles of the Greco-Roman world might understand the religious and socio-political implications of the worship of Jesus. The worship of Jesus, practiced by the Matthean community, led to the community’s isolation from formative Judaism centered in the synagogues and facilitated the community’s position in relation to Roman imperial propaganda.

    Assaël Jacqueline, «La valeur théologique du 'oui' (2 Co 1,17)» Vol.93 (2012) 242-260

    The translation of 2 Cor 1,17 is not very logical if we understand that Paul simply denies contradicting himself in his earlier communications with the Corinthians concerning a possible future visit. In fact, for him, the evangelical attitude is not to prove oneself reliable in the eyes of others by maintaning prior decisions at all costs, so that one’s «yes» must remain a «yes» and one’s «no» a «no». Rather, the behavior Paul describes as really in line with the message of Christ must eliminate the «no» so as to accord with the benevolent positivity of God, which is only «yes».

    See more by the same author
    Fox Michael V., «Behemoth and Leviathan» Vol.93 (2012) 261-267

    Scholarly consensus with regard to Behemoth and Leviathan in Job 40,15-24 and 40,25-41,26 emphasizes the evil and danger inherent in both. Behemoth is usually identified as the hippopotamus and Leviathan as the crocodile or a mythological dragon. The present article accepts the former identification but argues that Leviathan in the Theophany (as in Psalm 104,26) is based on the whale. The Theophany marginalizes the evil and dangers of the beasts. The author has left their hostility and violence in the background and has made them less aggressive and menacing, though still powerful, indomitable, and awesome.

    See more by the same author