Although Abraham's prayer in Her. 24–29 has several distinctive features, the similarities with the Hodayot suggest that it is an Alexandrian example of the same kind of prayer. Flaccus's prayer in Flac. 170–75, and the whole treatise Against Flaccus, belong to the writings which present the view that those who attack God or God and His people suffer punishments. Such writings are the book of Esther and parts of the books of Daniel and 2 Maccabees. A parallel is also found in Rev 18. Flaccus's prayer in itself has the form of a prayer at departure before death. Abraham's prayer illustrates how a cited text in Philo's Allegorical Commentary is interpreted by means of expository paraphrases and elaborations in which various biblical texts are woven together. At the same time critical circumstances in Philo's time are reflected. In the treatise Against Flaccus (as also in the Embassy to Gaius) the interpretation of the Laws of Moses in the practice and crisis of communal life is the issue. Thus there were in Alexandria conflicting views of, and actions relative to, the Laws of Moses. Flaccus's exile and death were an indubitable proof that, in spite of the pogrom suffered by the Jews, God's help was not withdrawn from their nation. Flaccus was a person who was justly punished. In Abraham's prayer, his and the people's exile and banishment are understood paradoxically. What Abraham was lacking as an outcast, he nevertheless possessed in his Lord. Abraham, and then implicitly the Jewish people, lived a life ‘in spite of’.

Dans le contexte romantique où a pris naissance l’exégèse scientifique au dix-neuvième siècle, l’interprétation psychologique proposée par Schleiermacher et les postulats positivistes qui ont marqué la théorie de la compréhension de Dilthey, ont influencé la conception du sens littéral de la Bible, conçlu comme ‘sens voulu par l’auteur’. Mais l’herméneutique a pris un tournant décisif sous l’influence de la phénoménologie de la connaissance. Le rapport intrinsèque et circulaire entre l’objet connu et le sujet connaissant, approfondi par Heidegger, a été repris et développé par Bultmann (précompréhension), Gadamer (appartenance, fusion des horizons) et Ricoeur (distanciation, cercle explication-compréhension). Les méthodes littéraires récentes proposent des procédures d’analyse des textes pour bien faire advenir du sens. La quête est mise sur l’intention de l’oeuvre plutôt que de l’auteur et sur l’apport du sujet-lecteur, ce qui conduit à reconnaître la lecture plurielle et la tradition des effets de sens. La réflexion sur le sens biblique se doit, toutefois, de tenir compte des caractères spécifiques des textes bibliques, notamment la réalité historique à leur source et ce que recouvre la notion de sens spirituel.

The Jerusalem church called itself oι πτωχoι (Gal 2.10), probably from Isa 61.1, and held a prophetic Christology (Acts 3, 7). The Ebionites in Irenaeus and Epiphanius traced their name to Acts 2–5, and held Jesus to have been a prophetic figure, conceived naturally and possessed by the Spirit/‘Christ’ from baptism till before the passion. The same prophetic/possessionist Christology seems to be taught by Jewish Christians opposed by Justin and Ignatius: the ‘docetists’ believed that Christ (not Jesus) seemed to have suffered. It is also opposed by Polycarp, by John (especially in 1 John 4–5), by Paul (dramatically in 1 Cor 12.1–3), and in the pre-Marcan traditions.

Readings of Mark 1.12–13 which focus on Jesus as the second Adam or Israel's antitype are problematic. Mark 1.13's semantic field links up with passages in the Jewish Bible referring to episodes of Israel's period in the wilderness after the exodus. In Mark 1.13 the testing motif seems not to be applied to the people, but to Jesus, who may be understood as the leader of the people. Similar adaptations of the testing motif focusing upon the people's leader can be observed already in passages of the Hebrew Bible and post-biblical Jewish literature.

Der Vergleich der beiden Seereisen in Apg 18.18–22a und 20–21 ergibt, daß der Verfasser der Apg in Apg 20–21 eine Quelle verwertet, und zwar den ersten Teil eines Rechenschaftsberichts, den ein Mitglied der in 20.4 genannten Kollektendelegation nach der Rückkehr aus Jerusalem angefertigt hat. Diese Quelle war von vornherein im ‘Wir’-Stil verfaßt. Dagegen gehen die Reiseroute und das ‘Wir’ von Apg 16.10–17; 17.1 (Übergang nach Europa; Beginn der Mission in Philippi) auf Lukas selbst zurück, der so einen gemeinsamen Rahmen für die selbständige Mission des Paulus (Apg 16–19) bildet. Lukas betont dabei besonders die Lenkung des Geschehens durch den Geist.

This article argues two major theses: (1) Paul was trying to teach the Corinthian church to think eschatologically; (2) Paul was trying to teach the Corinthian church to reshape its identity in light of Israel's Scripture. These theses entail two important corollaries: (1) the Corinthians did not have an ‘overrealized eschatology’; (2) scholars who contend that Paul engaged in OT interpretation only when his hand was forced by Judaizing opponents cannot explain Paul's rich and varied use of Scripture in 1 Cor. These theses are explained and defended with reference to 1 Cor 10.1–22; 1.18–31 and 5.1–13.

Phil 2.6b should not be understood in the manner of an idiom but in a clearly negative way (‘booty’). The central key to Phil 2.6b is offered by biblical, Jewish and Hellenistic traditions about a usurpation of equality with God by kings and rulers (cf. Isa 14.12–15; hubris of god-like kings like Alexander, who ‘robbed’ their position). The self-humiliating Christ (who did not claim equality with God) is conceived as an antitype to the self-elevating rulers of the world; his Lordship is not based on usurpation. Phil 2.6–11 is keenly aware of the Jewish notion of the One and Only God (cf. John 5.18); the mantle of God's Oneness also embraces Christ as the Lord.

In Acts 4.13 Peter and John are designated as αγραμματoι... και ιδιωται. Is that phrase meant as a harsh disparagement of the two apostles by the members of the Sanhedrin? On the basis of lexical, contextual, and social-historical evidence this study argues against an evaluation of the double qualification through the eyes of modern people with their usual disregard for illiterates (and non-specialists). The documentary papyri especially present a different, unbiased picture without any social or negative impact of illiteracy and non-specialism. They help to clarify Acts 4.13 and make the terms ‘illiterate people’ and ‘laymen’ acceptable.