Read more...

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...

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

Vetus Testamentum, Volume 58, Number 3, 2008. Loaded on 2008-06-12
Read more...

Read more...

Read more...

Vetus Testamentum, Volume 58, Number 2, 2008. Loaded on 2008-03-31
Read more...

Read more...

Research Articles
Eyal Regev,
New Testament Studies, Volume 56 Issue 01 , pp 64-89

Abstract
This article demonstrates that according to the Acts of the Apostles, the major charges brought against Peter, Stephen, and Paul are violations of the Temple's sacredness, both by means of statements about and actions within it. On the narrative level, in their portrayal of the conflicts and trials of these early Christian leaders, the ancient Christian sources argued that because the early Christian community in Jerusalem sought to partake in the Temple worship in its own way, Jesus' followers were falsely accused of violating the Temple's sacredness. On the historical level, it may be concluded that these events were authentic, and that they were affected by two factors: (a) The assumption, on the part of the Jewish community, that Jesus represented an anti-Temple stance. This assumption was based on Jesus' action at the Temple, and the saying attributed to him regarding the destruction of the Temple and the erection of a new one . As such, Jesus' followers were viewed as posing a threat to the Temple as well. (b) The meticulous approach to Temple rituals held by the Sadducean high priests in charge of the prosecutions. According to their approach, any deviance from the proscribed procedure desecrated the sacrificial cult and was to be avoided at any cost.
Read more...

Review Articles
Allyson Everingham Sheckler, Mary Joan Winn Leith,
Harvard Theological Review, Volume 103 Issue 01 , pp 67-88

Abstract
Read more...

The tradition delivered by the missionaries at the foundation of the Thessalonian church had been received as authoritative but had, at the same time, caused the new converts to grieve hopelessly over fellow believers who had died. In response to this situation Paul could not simply abrogate the founding tradition in favour of some new and more palatable ‘word of the Lord’. However, he could perhaps guide the Thessalonians towards an alternative interpretation of the authority they had already embraced. This observation enables the isolation of two distinctive properties of the founding tradition: it caused the Thessalonians’ grief, while also being open to Paul’s alternative reinterpretation. These two features, in combination with other indicators in 1 Thessalonians, provide a means of rigorously testing Didache 16 as a potential candidate for the role of the eschatological tradition behind 1 Thessalonians.

Read more...

Interpretations of Rom. 4 have often been subordinated to a single theme from Rom. 3.21-31, such as justification by faith, the inclusion of the Gentiles, or Paul’s demonstration that his gospel is in continuity with the Torah. While there is undeniable merit in these contentions, this article argues that Paul invokes Abraham for multiple purposes in order to answer his interlocutor’s charges against his gospel (Rom. 3.27—4.1). Paul’s argument is multifaceted and cannot be reduced to a single overarching theme. The second half of the article provides an exegesis of the oft-neglected 4.16-25 and argues that Paul crafts a reading of the Abraham story, a reading which is indebted to his prior Christological commitments, which answers the interlocutor’s question from 4.1 as to how Abraham can be the forefather of both Jews and Gentiles.

Read more...

Paul is absent from Thessalonica; Christ is (in some sense) absent until his parousia; God is distant, invisible; the missionary visit lies in the past. But in the letter they receive from Paul, the Thessalonians find these manifold presences conjured under Paul’s pen and again made vivid. The following article studies this in the context of ancient discussion of enargeia. Although enargeia was never well systematized in antiquity, the term was frequent in diverse contexts for a range of interrelated phenomena connected with effects of vivid presence. Previously, scholarly discussion of ‘absent-presences’ in Paul has focused on Paul’s practice of making his own personal presence vivid to addressees, and this has been debated chiefly in the light of ancient epistolary theory. The introduction of enargeia opens the way for investigation of a wider range of ‘absent-presences’ and relationships between them, and places the discussion in a broader cultural setting. The aim is a theologically and historically richer exegesis of the epistle.

Read more...

Read more...