Abstract Der historiographische Anspruch von Lukas und seine affirmative Berichterstattung von Wundern wird von führenden ExegetInnen als markanter Unterschied zur Wunderdarstellung zeitgenössischer Historiographie eingestuft. Denn dort werden Wunder in aller Regel distanziert wiedergegeben. Betrachtet man die Befreiung des Apostels Petrus in Apg 12, insbesondere das Lexem ἄγγελος , im Licht des sich in der Lukasexegese zunehmend etablierenden Konzepts der Doppelkodierung, lässt sich diese Diskrepanz zwischen lukanischer und historiographischer Wunderdarstellung einebnen. Über die schillernde Semantik des Lexems ἄγγελος bietet Lukas letztlich zwei mögliche Versionen des Befreiungsvorgangs: Es ist entweder ein Engel oder ein menschlicher Bote, der Petrus befreit. Das wiederum entspricht der historiographischen Konvention, Wunder distanziert wiederzugeben: Neben einer mirakulösen wird den RezipientInnen auch eine rationalisierte Version des Geschehens angeboten.
Abstract The link between wisdom literature and apocalyptic tradition has been worked on for several decades, in particular by the “Wisdom and Apocalypticism” group of the SBL. Confirmed by the relationships that are established between Ez 1 and Wisdom, in the texts from the 3rd century BC, this article shows how the theme of Wisdom is already implicitly found in Ez 1. The vision of Ez 1 is an “enigma”. Ezekiel, who benefits from it, is a real wise man unlike the king of Tyre.
Abstract This article is an investigation of the relationship between the concepts of εὑσέβεια and λογισμός within the Fourth Book of Maccabees. It becomes apparent that within the Fourth Maccabees, the ideologically neutral λογισμός is understood as an instrumentum pietatis , described as a tool available to εὐσέβεια – and therefore one that must be unconditionally used by it. With the help of this instrumentum pietatis , the addressees of Fourth Maccabees are able to defend their traditional Jewish piety against – at least in the eyes of the author of Fourth Maccabees – an excessive integration into the pagan majority society that would result in a loss of religious identity, the state-imperial narrative propagated in that society, and the religiously based system of meaning and values that shaped it. The ideologically neutral λογισμός functions as the “sword and shield” of Jewish εὑσέβεια .
Abstract Since the influential 1972 monograph of Wolfgang Trilling, one widespread stylometric objection to the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians has been that the letter lacks a number of typical Pauline stylistic features. This aspect of the stylometric argumentation on 2 Thessalonians cannot stand up to statistical scrutiny. Neither the lack of diatribal passages nor the small number of rhetorical questions nor the number of concise paraenetic imperatives nor the sentence length nor the number of parentheses nor the use of prepositions distinguishes the style of 2 Thessalonians from the style of the Pauline homologoumena. The criticism of the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians, which rests on several pillars, cannot be based on the sub-argument that the letter lacks several Pauline stylistic features.
Although the Apocalypse plays a significant role in scholarly studies of New Testament Christology, scholars have largely overlooked Jesus’ words, “ τοῦ θεοῦ µου ” (Rev 3,2.12), which appear five times in the Apocalypse – out of a total of eight occurrences in the New Testament. This study argues that the phrase encapsulates a Christological paradox. On one hand, it points to Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father, suggesting divine equality through the thematic interplay of “God” and “Father”. On the other hand, the surrounding soteriological context indicates functional subordination, as Jesus identifies with humanity in his mediatorial role. Rather than resolving this tension by favoring one interpretive path, the article proposes a paradoxical integration: Jesus is both fully divine and the representative of redeemed humanity. This dual role coheres with Revelation’s high Christology, where the Father and the Son act in unity for human salvation and are together the recipients of worship.
The contribution presents the two conglomerates of questions in the Book of Jonah und discusses how these and other questions in the Hebrew Bible mark important passages in Scripture, speed up or slow down the story, increase the attention of the audience, and offer rooms for discussions and thinking in the minds of the intended readers. It concludes that the last sentence in the Book of Jonah should neither be marked as a question nor as an acclamation, maybe not even with a period ending the sentence. Its purpose is not to end the book but to allow for continuation of discussion.
The essay works out how Paul’s “theology of creation” is determined by the question of the connection between God’s reality and the reality in which man perceives himself. As a Pharisaically educated Jew, Paul is of course familiar with the creation theology of the Jewish tradition, but he re-reads it through the eyes of faith in Christ. At the centre is the idea of the new creation of man, but from here the extra-human creation also emerges as an inescapable horizon, namely as the place where God completes his creation. Paul is not talking about a “fall” of man from an “original state”, but rather about a factual “disharmony” of creation, the healing of which encompasses both man and nature.
Personal names within the biblical "United Monarchy" narratives offer insight into their origin and chronological relationships. This study presents an analysis of personal names from the prose sections and from lists within the "United Monarchy" narratives in the books of Samuel and Kings, focusing on the structure of these names and the theophoric elements they contain. The analysis reveals that, despite the difference in genre, personal names in both groups stem from a shared onomastic reality which is distinct and earlier than the "United Monarchy" names that are unique to Chronicles. Additionally, the results of this study support the scholarly claim that, despite the seeming lateness and secondary status of the "Appendix to the Book of Samuel," the names in the lists it contains (2 Samuel 21,15-22 and 23,8-39) are pre-exilic and relatively early.
The question introducing the parable of the Good Samaritan, "Who is my neighbour?" can be interpreted as a question about recognition. This serves as the starting point for exploring whether Luke 10:25-37 can be read in light of the theory of recognition as formulated by philosopher Axel Honneth. This approach has already been applied to the Hebrew Bible by Bernd Janowski and to the New Testament by other scholars. Our exploration suggests that numerous interpretative challenges in the Good Samaritan pericope can be understood as issues of recognition. The recognition paradigm allows us to view the story as a coherent text that expresses motifs and themes which have only in modern times been systematized in philosophical theory. Furthermore, the parable may contribute to the theory of recognition by supporting the proposal made by some scholars that recognition should be unconditional.
This article shows how the bird metaphors in Ps 102 create an alternative space for the troubled praying person. In V. 7-8, the praying person is compared to birds: to owls who are inhabitants of desert places and a small bird or sparrow who is described as lonely. V. 8 may suggest the situation of a sleepless night. On the one hand, these situations are by no means comforting and peaceful; on the other hand, the metaphors describe a place far away from the threatening enemies (V. g). The bird metaphors are therefore ambiguous in this psalm. They create a spatial distance that separates the praying person from their social environment. This leads to loneliness and, at the same time, to safety from distress. As the praying self leaves their social place, which is no longer safe for them, a free space opens up.
Scholarship on the song of Baruch (4,5-5,9) has focused largely on the author's interactions with texts culled from scripture (especially Second and Third Isaiah) and how its modes of intertextuality differ from those discerned in other parts of the book. This study expands upon such work by examining the song as a drama, attending to issues such as plot, setting, dialogue, and spectatorship, the lead actor being personified Jerusalem, who assumes the roles of mother, mourner, supplicant, consoler, and-not least of all-prophet. This approach invites comparison with similar dramatic performances, including the Sumerian city-laments, which (like the book of Baruch) appear to have been created for liturgical use.
Although the Apocalypse plays a significant role in scholarly studies of New Testament Christology, scholars have largely overlooked Jesus' words, "Tou Asou mu ou" (Rev 3,2.12), which appear five times in the Apocalypse - out of a total of eight occurrences in the New Testament. This study argues that the phrase encapsulates a Christological paradox. On one hand, it points to Jesus' unique relationship with the Father, suggesting divine equality through the thematic interplay of "God" and "Father". On the other hand, the surrounding soteriological context indicates functional subordination, as Jesus identifies with humanity in his mediatorial role. Rather than resolving this tension by favoring one interpretive path, the article proposes a paradoxical integration: Jesus is both fully divine and the representative of redeemed humanity. This dual role coheres with Revelation's high Christology, where the Father and the Son act in unity for human salvation and are together the recipients of worship.
The contribution presents the two conglomerates of questions in the Book of Jonah und discusses how these and other questions in the Hebrew Bible mark important passages in Scripture, speed up or slow down the story, increase the attention of the audience, and offer rooms for discussions and thinking in the minds of the intended readers. It concludes that the last sentence in the Book of Jonah should neither be marked as a question nor as an acclamation, maybe not even with a period ending the sentence. Its purpose is not to end the book but to allow for continuation of discussion.
The essay works out how Paul's "theology of creation" is determined by the question of the connection between God's reality and the reality in which man perceives himself. As a Pharisaically educated Jew, Paul is of course familiar with the creation theology of the Jewish tradition, but he re-reads it through the eyes of faith in Christ. At the centre is the idea of the new creation of man, but from here the extra-human creation also emerges as an inescapable horizon, namely as the place where God completes his creation. Paul is not talking about a "fall" of man from an "original state, but rather about a factual "disharmony" of creation, the healing of which encompasses both man and nature.
