This article addresses the provenance of the Elohistic Abraham section (Genesis 20–22) in order to clarify the divergence between the source and tradition-historical models in pentateuchal criticism. Examining arguments for E’s northern provenance demonstrates that none of them applies directly to E’s Abraham section. The lack of Abraham tradition in early biblical literature further undermines the source model’s assumption of Israel and Judah’s common memory of the past. The southern provenance of Genesis 20–22 is more likely, and the current combination of Abraham and Jacob traditions is probably a result of the Judeans’ revision of Israelite tradition.
With the beginning of the historical-critical study of the Old Testament, the biblical picture of the origin and development of Passover and Mazzot was not taken for granted anymore. Since there are a lot of texts concerning this topic, however, the options to explain the history of Passover and Mazzot are legion. Starting with George and Wellhausen, this article attempts to outline the history of research on Passover and Mazzot up to now. Some thoughts on the current state of research complete the paper.
Recent research has generated different hypotheses concerning the social location of Q. This discussion commences with an examination of scholarship on the phenomenon of 'Jewish Christianity' and theories concerning the social location of Q. Next, meta-level questions are addressed, concerning how social location is determined from a text. The discussion then considers four areas mentioned in Q that might be of potential significance for determining social location. These are references to synagogues, the law, Gentiles, and unbelieving Israel. In conclusion, the inclusive perspectives may suggest that the document had a more positive attitude toward Gentiles than is often stated.
After having shown that Gal 5,13-25 forms a rhetorical and semantic unit, the article examines Gal 5,17, a crux interpretum, and proves that the most plausible reading is this one: 'For the flesh desires against the Spirit — but the Spirit desires against the flesh, for those [powers] fight each other — to prevent you from doing those things you would', and draws its soteriological consequences.
In 1 John 2,2 the phrases (2b) peri ton amartion emon, (2c) ou peri ton emeteron de monon, (2d) alla kai peri olou tou kosmou, demand careful interpretation. The construction ou monon alla kai, explains the sequence of 2b and 2c, following the peri-clause in 2a. However, this does not explain theologically to what peri olou tou kosmou in 2d refers. This essay seeks, in some measure, to remedy this syntactical conundrum by proposing a contextual reading of 2a as parallel with 2d.
This article proposes the following translation of Ps 139,18b MT: 'I wake up, and am still with you'. In the author’s opinion 'to wake up' has a metaphorical sense here, referring to the resurrection from the dead. The sentence is to be understood not in relation to v. 18a, but to v. 16a ('Your eyes beheld me still unformed'), with which it is in structural correspondence. The two expressions form a polarity, the first referring to man’s existence in the mind of God before birth, the second to his existence after death when the psalmist will be 'still with him'.