News

Read more...

Read more...

Read more...

Research Articles
Gonzalo Rojas-Flores,
New Testament Studies, Volume 56 Issue 01 , pp 22-43

Abstract
Against the consensus that John 2.19 alludes to the destruction of the temple and is dependent on Synoptic traditions, it is argued here that: (a) there is some interdependence between the Johannine and Synoptic sayings on temple destruction, but not so as to posit Johannine use of Synoptic material; (b) Jesus' saying in John 2.19 does not refer to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, but to his death and resurrection (proof of his temple-cleansing authority), formulated in distinctively and exclusively Johannine terms; (c) Mark takes Jesus to have predicted the destruction of the temple, but the notion that he also predicted its rebuilding (Mark 15.29) can be explained only as a distorted version of John 2.19, known to Mark via a source hostile to Jesus.
Read more...

Read more...

Vetus Testamentum, Volume 58, Number 4-5, 2008. Loaded on 2008-10-26
Read more...

The author of Hebrews directly shames his audience in 5.11-12: ‘you have become oi in hearing ... you need someone to teach you ... You need milk not solid food’. Taking into account occurrences in other literature, oi in Heb. 5.11 and 6.12 is best translated as ‘unambitious’, connoting a shameful failure to recognize and act on advantages. Mapping the use of emotion in Hebrews with Aristotle’s definitions reveals that this direct shaming is unique and critical to the argument of the epistle. The hearers may dismiss warnings of God’s wrath as relevant to others but not themselves. Shame in 5.11—6.12 makes this fear personal.

Read more...

Since the earliest commentators, Mark's account of the rich man has almost universally been read as evidently suggesting the character's ultimate rejection of Jesus' call. However, if this man is typical of Mark's portrayal of minor characters, then he may be regarded as a positive foil to the disciples; and his sadness in departure is nonetheless consistent with considered reflection on the severe cost of discipleship. Such a reading is also consistent with Mk 8—10, which challenges that true discipleship is indeed costly, and not to be entered upon lightly. Jesus subsequently gives a critical rejoinder to the precipitate self-congratulation of the disciples—`many who are first will be last, and the last will be first'. Mark's silence about whether or not the rich man did, after due reflection, accept Jesus' invitation encourages the reader to focus rather on the cost of following Jesus, than speculating about what has been left unstated.

Read more...

Read more...

Read more...

Read more...

Research Articles
Hans-Georg Gradl,
New Testament Studies, Volume 56 Issue 01 , pp 116-138

Abstract
In face of the religious and cultic claims of the Roman emperors, Philo (Legatio ad Gaium) and Revelation develop contrasting perspectives in positioning their respective religious communities within the cultural majority of their day. The Alexandrian Jew Philo opts for critical integration and social cohabitation a solution conventionally ascribed to Jewish self-definition in the Tannaitic period. The article illustrates this remarkable exchange of religious and social self-conceptualisations in both authors. Social rather than religious boundaries determine the framework in which the Roman Empire and its ruler are conceptualised, literary reactions are developed, and strategic alternatives are formed.
Read more...

Major exegetical interest in the literary device of irony started only with the rise of new literary critical approaches. On this topic, Edwin M. Good (Irony in the Old Testament, Philadelphia, PA, 1965) seems to have been a precursor. The publication of Carolyn J. Sharp’s study (Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible, Bloomington, IN, 2009) gives us the occasion to return to this multi-meaning concept, to show its relevance for interpreting the Old Testament, and to examine the hermeneutical challenges within a larger postmodern perspective.
Read more...

Review Articles
Juan Marin,
Harvard Theological Review, Volume 103 Issue 01 , pp 89-109

Abstract
Read more...

Research Articles
F. Gerald Downing,
New Testament Studies, Volume 56 Issue 01 , pp 139-162

Abstract
While allowing for polysemy, scholars seem mostly averse to ambiguity, as in the naming and so of evoking an otherwise unspecified mental impression, predominates. Meaning is taken to lie in the mind, not in the word or words that are hoped to evoke it, as is also shown in ancient discussions of metaphor, allegory, and paraphrase. Connotations of individual words are rarely distinguished, rarely if ever purged. We are not justified in expecting verbal precision where our ancient authors will neither have attempted it nor will their hearers have expected it; nor, indeed, do modern psycholinguists appear to find space for it.
Read more...