According to the Synoptic Jesus tradition, Jesus brings about the eschatological sanctification of Israel promised in Ez 36,22-32 and 37,28. He ushers in the time of the Holy Spirit, and gathers God’s eschatological people, which includes sinners as well as Gentiles. Moreover, he sanctifies people by healing and cleansing them, and teaches them to live a holy life. According to Jesus, the holiness of God’s holy people is no longer jeopardized by ritual impurity. This is not because ritual purity is irrelevant per se, but because in Jesus, the "Holy One of God", God’s holiness has come into the world. Jesus sanctifies people and time so completely that the intention of the ritual Torah is fulfilled. Holiness is now to be lived out through mercy and love, even for one’s enemy.
The author of the article intends to show, that not just the episode of the "miracle at Cana" (John 2,1-11), but the gospel of John as a whole disputes in an implicit way the worship of Dionysos, which was wide-spread in Syria and Palestine. Jesus is presented as the true son of god, who surpasses the god Dionysos in every way. John represents the old Jewish tradition of disputing the worship of Dionysos. This dispute implies the rejection as well as the surpassing adoption of Dionysian elements. The author of the gospel strengthens the identity of his communities, which are confronted by the Hellenistic world, by arguing as a scripture-rooted Jew within the symbolic world of the Hellenistic mainstream.
Generally, treatments of Paul’s speech note biblical parallels to Paul’s wording but find no further significance to these biblical allusions. This study argues that Luke intends far more through this use of the Scriptures of Israel beyond merely providing sources for Paul’s language. I contend that, through the narrative technique of "framing in discourse", Luke uses the Scriptures of Israel to lead his audience to interpret Paul’s speech as standing in continuity with anti-idol polemic of Israel’s prophets in the past. As such, read as historiography, Luke’s narrative uses this continuity to legitimate Paul’s message and by implication, the faith of Luke’s audience. Luke’s use of the Scriptures here is ecclesiological.
If prayers are defined as communication in which prayers receive a response from God, this implies that they have a function as regards the plot of a story. As a test case, the impact of praying on the plot as well as the characterisation in the book of Judith (containing 21 references to praying) is analysed. The specific characterisation of God through prayer affects the plot. Apart from their importance for characterisation and plot, the prayers in Judith contribute in their own way to the development of its main theme: who is truly God, Nebuchadnezzar or YHWH?
The common translation of the tannin of Exodus 7 as a mere snake misses the powerful mythological overtones of the whole passage. The editors of Pg are drawing on imagery from Ezekiel to mythologize Moses’ morning encounter with Pharaoh on the river bank. Ben Sira was well aware of these connotations and turned them into a joke against Pharaoh.
The expression Kyt#dq yk yb-#gt-l) Kyl) brq (Isa 65,5), is best understood as uttered by one of the priests in Jerusalem. Both the ancient translations as well as contemporary insight in Hebrew grammar support the translation of Kyt#dq as "I am holier than you". This indicates that the speaker in v. 5 regards himself as holier than his immediate surroundings. As such, it indicates a priestly identity. The interpretation of the two expressions "yb-#gt-l)" and "Kyl) brq" support this conclusion: their content express the speaker’s disdain for his opponents and his own sense of self-righteousness. Further, their priestly vocabulary suggests a clerical speaker. Such an understanding complements the claim made by several scholars (e.g., P. Hanson, A. Rofé) that the author of Isa 66,3 held a critical disposition towards the priesthood.
The article re-examines the death formulae of the kings of Judah, in particular those of the kings from Hezekiah onward. It is suggested the kings of Judah in the tenth-eighth centuries BCE were buried in the palace, and that Hezekiah transferred the burial place of the kings of Judah to a new site (the garden of Uzza) outside the walls of Jerusalem. Hezekiah’s decision to transfer the burial place might have been influenced by the admonitions and possible pressure of the temple priests, who felt that the burial in the palace defiled the adjacent temple (see Ezek 43,7-9). The change in the closing formulae of the late kings of Judah should be explained on the basis of the reality of the late monarchical period and the objectives of the authors of the Book of Kings, and in no way indicates an early edition of the Book of Kings as some scholars suggest.
This article investigates the function of number seven as a narrative device and as the main structural pattern in the macronarrative of the Book of Revelation. Considering the final instauration of the Holy Throne in heaven and on earth as the plot of the story, the structuring of the book in septenaries leads the reader through a gradual fulfillment of the New Creation and to the ultimate destruction of evil.
The view taken by G.D. Fee and others that oral tradition played a major role in the development of the minor agreements is supported by analogies from oral poetry (M. Parry – A.B. Lord) and cognitive psychology (E. Hunt – T. Love).