• Instructions for Contributors
  • Subscribe to Biblica or Send books for review
  • Index by Authors
  • Index by Biblical Books
  • FAQ
  • Vol 97 (2016)
  • Vol 96 (2015)
  • Vol 95 (2014)
  • Vol 94 (2013)
  • Vol 93 (2012)
  • Vol 92 (2011)
  • Vol 91 (2010)
  • Vol 90 (2009)
  • Vol 89 (2008)
  • Vol 88 (2007)
  • Vol 87 (2006)
  • Vol 86 (2005)
  • Vol 85 (2004)
  • Vol 84 (2003)
  • Vol 83 (2002)
  • Vol 82 (2001)
  • Vol 81 (2000)
  • Vol 80 (1999)
  • Vol 79 (1998)
  • Vol 80 (1999)

    Luzarraga Jesús, «El Benedictus (Lc 1,68-79) a través del arameo» Vol.80 (1999) 305-359

    This is the first translation of the Benedictus into Palestinian Aramaic of the time and it casts some light on certain features of the hymn which seems steeped in the biblical culture that surrounds it, not surpassing it but differing from the MT and the LXX in the details of its modes of expression, nor showing signs of dependence on any particular Greek literary trend. There may be an Aramaic background to this hymn for it is capable of faithfully rendering the sometimes irregular Greek and fits in well with the contents and forms of the prayers of its time and with the requirements of poetry. All its lines together make up one ode to God into which good wishes called down upon a child are inserted.

    Goldberg Jeremy, «Two Assyrian Campaigns against Hezehiah and Later Eight Century Biblical Chronology» Vol.80 (1999) 360-390

    The massive Assyrian invasion of Judah in 701 (reflected in 2 Kgs 18,13b; 18,17–19,37) has apparently been confused with an earlier, limited invasion in Hezekiah’s 14th year (reflected in 2 Kgs 18,13a.14-16; 2 Kgs 20; 2 Chr 32; Isa 22). Historically, this earlier campaign can best be dated to 712, when Sargon II apparently led the Assyrian royal guard on a Palestinian campaign. Chronologically, this dating fits perfectly with e.g. recent dating of the definitive fall of Samaria (2 Kgs 18,9: in Hezekiah’s 6th year) to 720. 2 Kgs 18,9’s parallel dating to Hoshea’s 9th year agrees with his apparent accession in 731 or 729. Dating Menahem’s death to 743 (as required, following biblical data, to avoid a triple overlap among Uzziah, Jotham and Ahaz) agrees with Eponym Chronicle evidence for this dating of 2 Kgs 15,19-20’s presumably already desperate fiasco, and is consistent with a plausibly composite 738 tribute-list naming Menahem. Combining these datings produces a workable later 8th century biblical chronology.

    Hurowitz Victor Avigdor, «Nursling, Advisor, Architect? Nwm) and the Role of Wisdom in Proverbs 8,22-31» Vol.80 (1999) 391-400

    Scholars explain Nwm) in Prov 8,30 as nursling, advisor, or architect. Analysis of Prov 8,22-31 shows that Wisdom’s autobiography contains exclusively "life cycle" terms relating to gestation, birth, and maturation. Accordingly, the only contextually valid meaning of Nwm) is "nursling". Difficulties perceived in this interpretation are contrived and of no substance. The interpretation defended here is proven decisively by the previously unnoticed existence of "transitive association" indicating a bonded conceptual pairing between Nwm) and My(#(#. Although "nursling" is the only valid primary meaning of Nwm) in this context, it is slightly possible that other interpretations are legitimate secondary meanings, on the level of intentional wordplays and double entendres.

    Mrozek Andrzej - Votto Silvano, «The Motif of the Sleeping Divinity» Vol.80 (1999) 415-419

    This note discusses biblical and Mesopotamian texts that contain the motif of a sleeping divinity. Their comparison shows that the presence of the same theme, sleep, is not sufficient of itself to make the texts parallel. The other common element, the need to awaken the sleeping divinity, must be present in the texts for parallelism. The note shows that the biblical texts have their Mesopotamian parallel not in the texts where a deity wishes to sleep and cannot, but rather where he is sleeping and must be awakened.

    Kilgallen John, «Jesus’ First Trial: Messiah and Son of God (Luke 22,66-71)» Vol.80 (1999) 401-414

    Luke, according to the Two-Source Theory, read Mark. At the first trial of Jesus, that before the Sanhedrin, Mark has together, "Messiah, Son of God". Luke has intentionally separated the two titles. The present essay finds the explanation for separating Son of God from Messiah in the Annunciation scene of the Gospel. It is Luke’s intention that the reader understand Son of God in a way that admittedly the Sanhedrin did not. The laws of narratology indicate that Luke 1,35, a part of the Lucan introduction, be used by the reader to interpret Son of God at Luke 22,70.

    See more by the same author