The greed motif is found in biblical and in ANE texts. The Baal Cycle characterizes Mot, the god of death and drought, as a destroyer of life. With in Ugarit’s polytheistic system, Mot is nonetheless essential for agricultural growth. Mot’s greed is, thus, a terrible, yet inevitable, factor. The analysis of (lb (to devour, swallow) in the Hebrew Bible reveals a significant alteration. In the Old Testament, “greed” is a negative human attitude in socio-economic conflicts. In opposing greed the God of Israel addresses those who practice it and those who suffer from it as human beings.
This article develops recent arguments that Psalms 15–24 constitute a relatively self-contained sub-collection that is chiastically arranged. It seeks to uncover the logic underlying the arrangement by attending to three points: 1) the manner in which the content of each psalm is 'expanded' and 'brought forward' in its chiastic parallel; 2) the nature of the relation between the framing psalms (15; 19; 24) and those that intervene; 3) the significance of David and Zion. In short, it argues that the editors were concerned to situate David within his true theological context.
I argue that the author/s of the Fourth Gospel knew Mark, based on the reversal of certain Markan themes found in John. No attempt is made here to suggest the kind of literary dependence which is the basis of the Synoptic problem. Rather, my thesis is that the author/s of John may have used Mark from memory, writing deliberately to reverse the apocalyptic tendencies found in the Second Gospel. Isolated incidents of this possible reversal demonstrate little, but this paper proposes that the cumulative force of many such reversals supports the thesis of John's possible knowledge of Mark.
Paul employs both in 1 Cor 11,33 and in Rm 2,10 the metaphor of 'depth' (bathos) associated with the theme of knowledge. In the two units (1 Corinthians 1–4; Romans 9–11), this metaphor is related to other terms: 'mystery', 'wisdom', 'mind of the Lord' (Is 40,13 in 1 Cor 2,16 and Rm 11,34). After outlining the semantic nuances of the metaphor, we study its inventio (why does Paul use it?), and then reflect on how the two passages combine the limitation of human knowledge, the greatness of divine revelation, and the promise of eschatological salvation.
Among the questions raised by Gen 22,1-19, this short study grapples with those concerning the figure of God, the peculiarities of the plot, and the date of the text. God puts Abraham to the test 'to know' how the latter will pass this test. The plot is therefore a plot of discovery that ends with an anagnorisis, a passage from ignorance to knowledge in 22,12. There is no explicit peripeteia in the narrative, however, and this means that the reader must imagine the change of situation. All these features point towards a later date.