This article re-examines the historical role of the Jebusites in the early monarchical period. The Jebusites, whose name is derived from the verb YBŚ («to be dry»), were a West Semitic pastoral clan that split into two segments, one settling in western Gilead and the other around Jerusalem. The two segments kept their tribal solidarity, as indicated by Saul’s campaign to rescue Jabesh-gilead. The Jebusite stronghold was one of Saul’s power bases, and David took it over. The biased description of David’s conquest influenced the way the Jebusites were presented in the late (Deuteronomistic) biblical historiography and in Israelite cultural memory.
The Chronicler constantly adapts the story of Israel’s kingship from the narrative in Samuel-Kings to show his great interest in the temple. With regard to the division of the united kingdom, recent scholarship has correctly shown how he has removed all the blame from Solomon due to his successful construction of the temple, but it has not come to any firm conclusion on whom the Chronicler does find guilty. This article contends that the Chronicler blames Rehoboam for ignoring the plea of «all Israel», an essential facet of the nation’s temple worship.
The prophetic narrative Am 7,10-17 is understood as a text written for its present context, viz. the visions of Amos. Its intention is to explain the enigmatic Kn) in the third vision. Having been the subject of interpretation already in Am 7,9 and 9,1aa.4b, this time the Kn) is identified with the person of the prophet himself. Amos, the Kn), personifies the divine word. Therefore the text proves to be a Midrash which illustrates that innerbiblical exegesis and theology are closely related to each other in this particular case.
Mk 3,27 offers various functions within the context of the Second Gospel narrative. First, pertaining to the successful exorcisms of Jesus, it refuses allegations of Jesus being an ally of Satan (Mk 3,22). Mk 3,27 depicts Satan as the incapacitated strong man, no one Jesus might be in league with. Second, by assigning the role of the nameless criminal to Jesus the verse ridicules perceptions which portray him as a religious and social misfit (Mk 3,21-22.30). By acting «feloniously» against Satan and later dying as a convicted felon in Jerusalem Jesus solely executes God’s final soteriological will.
This paper revisits the role of John 2,23-25 in its literary and manuscript context. Contrary to many Johannine commentators who take it as an introduction to the Nicodemus pericope, 2,23-25 should be linked more to the preceding context, not the following. This view is supported by evidence from the sense-unit delimitations observed in the Greek papyri and codices dated within ca. 300 years from the New Testament era. Viewed from a narrative perspective, 2,23-25 should be seen as an anticlimactic concluding remark connected to 1,35 – 2,22.
The ambiguity regarding the agent of hesed in Naomi’s blessing in Ru 2,20 has been the focus of interest for commentators, linguists, and translators. For a better resolution of the ambiguity, this article examines the syntactic structure of the sentence, seeks a proper understanding of the significance of «hesed to the dead», and sets the blessing in the context of the whole narrative. The findings of our analysis support the argument that it is Boaz who, in Naomi’s words, performed hesed to the living and dead members of her family.