Vol 79 (1998)

This article presents a compelling discussion of the texts which S. Schroer and T. Staubli claim to show a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan. Through the study of vocabulary and narrative the author points out weaknesses in their argumentation and shows that theirs is not the only, or the most plausible, interpretation.

Psalm 131 displays a subtle play on words. The psalmist has silenced and calmed down his soul/breast (he has put an end to its loud complaints). The two verbs used express or suggest the idea of assimilation (I have transformed it into something silent and something calm), which leads up to the material image which follows. In 2b gamul means a child that has been weaned or is happy (and has stopped crying loudly); instead of kaggamul one should read tiggmol, you have been nice to me. Although the psalm has an unusual form, it has the same structure as Psalm 130. It probably constitutes a literary unit. It may by royal psalm.

See more by the same author

In dialogue with the remarkable publication I settenari nella struttura dell’Apocalisse. Analisi, storia della ricerca, interpretazione by Giancarlo Biguzzi (1996), the "story-line" of Rev 6,1 – 8,6 is investigated here. The seals in chapter six are more than verbal prophecy; as the actual beginning of punishment they announce still greater catastrophes. The two scenes of chapter seven do not belong to the sixth seal; they interrupt the narrative and are "intercalations". The data described in 8,2-6 most probably occur during the silence mentioned in 8,1b. It would seem that the seventh seal (8,1) "encompasses" the subsequent seven trumpets.

See more by the same author

This article points up evidence by which the language of the Roman imperial cult might help make clearer what a reader of Mark's Gospel might understand when the centurion (Mark 15,39) refers to Jesus as ui(o\j qeou=. Knowing how an audience familiar with this cult language would react, Mark intentionally speaks of Jesus as ui(o\j qeou= at 1,1, as well as at 15,39.

The Rechabites who were obliged to follow the nomadic way of life fled to Jerusalem according to Jer 35 in the face of the Babylonian-Aramean army that was moving towards Judah (597 B.C.). Although their ancestor Jonadab had among other things commanded his descendants always to dwell in tents, the Rechabites in Jerusalem lived in houses. This interpretation of the literature is of course disputed. According to many exegetes the Rechabites preserved the nomadic way of life. Nevertheless, a syntactic-semantic analysis of the verbal forms of vv. 8-11 and an analysis of the connections between the sentences in vv. 8-11 show that the Rechabites during their stay in Jerusalem observed the prohibitions of their ancestor – to drink no wine, to build no houses and not to plant or to possess a vineyard –, but not his command to live in tents.

See more by the same author