Paul’s particular way of arguing in 2 Cor 10–13 is visible in the Fool’s Speech (11,22–12,10) as well as in its context. The speech is interrupted more than once and there are shifts regarding the object of boasting. The introduction to the speech (11,1-21) is not straightforward and two brief retrospections (12,11a and 19a) should not go unnoticed. The major topic in this study, however, consists in the indication of three rings within the context of the Fool’s Speech: (1) 10,1 and 13,11 (moral exhortation); (2) 10,2-18 and 13,1-10 (Paul’s defense of his authority); (3) 11,5-12 and 12,11b-18 (Paul denies inferiority). Yet from the presence of these enveloping rings a strict concentric structure of 2 Cor 11–13 cannot be deduced. Special attention must also be given to 10,8.12-18 and 11,3-4.12-15.18-20. In these passages Paul, by comparing and attacking, seems to prepare his boasting as a fool in a more direct way.
The antagonism of two powers set against each other and ideas of predestination characterize 2 Cor 4,4, in a way similar to what we find in 1QS iii–iv. In this confrontation, Christ plays the role which in 1 QS iii–iv is assigned to the ‘Prince of Light’. Christ’s title, ei)kw_n tou= qeou= is meant to characterize the glorified Christ’s unique relation to God and to stress that henceforth Christ’s rightful place is at the throne of God; ei)kw_n tou= qeou= further shows that Christ from now on acts as representative of the kingdom of God, against the satanic counter-power. 2 Cor 4,6, gives reasons for this Christology by explaining the Damascus-vision of Paul as a vision of the exalted Christ raised to the throne of God, bearer of the divine glory.
Israelite taxonomic thought drew a contrast between a land animal taxon referred to by the words Cr#$ or #&mr that contained animals such as rats and snakes (Land Animals I), and a land animal taxon referred to by the words hmhb or hyx that contained animals such as hares and goats (Land Animals II). This essay shows that the Land Animals I taxon was characterized by locomotory movement in the horizontal plane and the Land Animals II taxon was characterized by locomotory movement in the vertical plane. Thus, the contrast was between land animals that were perceived to move along the ground (Land Animals I) and land animals that were perceived to move over the ground (Land Animals II).
This study sets out to review the different factors of impurity recognized as such by P. In the final analysis, these come down to two: death (with which ‘leprosy’ is connected) and sexuality. Whatever the original reason for considering these two factors as a source of impurity, P. has given them a theological reinterpretation by which he relates them to the story of the Fall; death and sexuality are characteristics of the human condition that are a result of the Fall, whereas the impurity which they bring about calls to mind the dissolution of the original connection between man and God.
Jer. 35,14a is interpreted in different ways. According to one interpretation (in the present study this will be labeled Interpretation A) Yahweh first indicates that the Rechabites have obeyed the commandments of their forefather, in order to point out further that they have also followed his precept not to drink wine ‘up to this day’. According to the other interpretation (Interpretation B) Yahweh merely indicates that the Rechabites have observed the command of their forefather not to drink wine. If Interpretation B is followed, an inconsistency can be observed that makes it probable that v. 14a needs to be understood according to Interpretation A. There are three further interpretations (C, D and E) that are the further developments of Interpretation B — evidently for the purpose of eliminating the inconsistency.
Luke 13,10-17 is often considered to be a parallel to Luke 14,1-6; further, Luke 13,10-17 is often separated, in the structuring of Luke’s Gospel, from Luke 13,1-9. In this essay, there is noted the crucial difference between the key words dei= (13,14.16) and e!cestin(14,3) for the interpretations (and differences) between these two Sabbath cures. Also this essay notes the inherent unity of the cure of the bent woman with the call to repentance that precedes it.
Confusion exists over both the gentilicium and the wives of Felix. As for the name, possibly both Antonius and Claudius are correct. In any case, the attempt to assign only the name Claudius to Felix rests on rather shaky ground. As for his wives, possibly none was a descendant of Kleopatra VII. But if she were, she would be a great-granddaughter rather than a granddaughter of the famous queen. An inscription adduced to fix Felix’ name and career is beset with many problems. Finally, we should take his reputation as ‘notorious’ with a grain of salt. But whether notorious or not, his rise was remarkable, deserving of awe if not admiration.