In Offb 11.4 werden die beiden ‘apokalyptischen Zeugen' mit den zwei Ölbäumen gleichgesetzt, die laut Sach 4.11–14 rechts und links vor dem ‘Herrn der Erde’ stehen. In auffallender Parallelität fordern die Söhne Zebedäi die Plätze zur Rechten und zur Linken des Erhöhten (Mk 10.37, cf. Mt 20.21). Die Vollmacht der Zeugen, Feinde mit Feuer zu strafen (Offb 11.5) erinnert an den entsprechenden Wunsch der Zebedaiden in Lk 9.54. Und die Anspielungen auf Mose und Elia (Offb 11.6) beruhen offenbar auf der Verklärungsgeschichte (Mt 17.1–9 parr.), in der Johannes und Jakobus den beiden alttestamentlichen Gestalten gegenber–stehen. Daher scheint Offb 11.3–13 jene frühchristlichen Nachrichten zu bestätigen, denen zufolge der Apostel Johannes ebenso wie sein Bruder den Märtyrertod erlitten hat.

It is now over twenty years since Alejandro Dez Macho announced his discovery of a complete text of the Palestinian Targum contained in the Codex Neofiti I of the Vatican Library. Even before the first volume of the editio princeps was published, the importance of Neofiti 1(N) and its marginal and interlinear glosses (Ngl) was apparent not only to specialists in the Aramaic language, Old Testament studies, and Jewish Literature of the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic times, but also to New Testament scholars. A particular feature of N which was bound to attract attention sooner or later is its frequent use of the formula Memra (utterance, word) of ahweh in the first chapter of Genesis in place of the Ἐlohim of the Massoretic Text, a feature encountered otherwise only in the Fragmentary Targum (FT). As we shall see presently, the exact significance of the term Memra was once a matter for keen scholarly debate, some asserting that it represented an entity separate from God, an intermediary between God and the created order, others roundly denying that it was any such thing, and regarding it only as a reverent means of avoiding pronunciation of the Holy and Ineffable Name. For reasons shortly to be described it was the latter opinion which finally prevailed and which is now generally accepted as established fact; but in the days before the scholarly debate on Memra was concluded it had been quite common for New Testament scholars to argue that, as an hypostasis and intermediary between God and the world, Memra had formed either the single antecedent, or one of the antecedents, to the Logos of the prologue of St John's Gospel. The presence of Memra in the text of N to Gen. i, and its frequent appearance in the Ngl, has led to renewed scholarly interest in the relationship of Memra to St John's Logos, so much so that A. Dez Macho, McNamara, and Domingo Muoz are all prepared to consider Memra a key concept in any discussion of St John's prologue. With the results of previous scholarship in mind, and in the light of new evidence, it would appear that the time is now right for a critical evaluation of these recent claims.

Picking up on the revived interest in the Song of Songs in biblical scholarship, the article focuses on the significance of the Song in the tradition of Jesus’ teachings. After a survey of rabbinic midrash on the Song, five examples show that Jesus as remembered in the gospel tradition expresses an unusual interest in the Song with a discreet mystical emphasis. The nuptial Christology that subsequently surfaces in Revelation and in Hippolytus and Origen suggests a continuous development as from the Jesus tradition. This continuity may explain the remarkable parallels between the interest of the Church Fathers in the Song and that of the Rabbis.

Ce mot, quoique trs utilis en linguistique, n'a pas encore reu dans ce domaine les conditions d'une dfinition precise. Dcrire suppose en effet deux donnes prliminaires: d'une part, la reconnaissance de l'objet dcrire comme une unit; d'autre part, a l'intrieur de cette unit, l'existence d'une autre unit, beaucoup plus petite, mais qui, associe un certain nombre de fois a elle-meme, compose la grande unit. La premiere unit, c'est Ia macrostructure; la seconde unit, c'est la microstructure. Dcrire, c'est toujours dcrire une macrostructure; la description d'une macrostructure consiste a partir de la microstructure pour retrouver la macrostructure.

Scholars have noted the imprint of at least three distinctive sources in the gospel of Matthew: the gospel of Mark, the Q document, and material known (or created) only by ‘Matthew’ and commonly designated as M. There is, in addition, evidence suggesting that numerous phrases and sentences have been interpolated into various passages of the original text by different editors of the gospel.

Après son séjour à Sychar de Samarie (Jean iv. 5), Jésus ‘partit de là pour la Galilée’ (iv. 43), nous dit l'évangéliste, qui explique alors: ‘car (γάρ) Jésus avait déclaré lui-même qu'un prophéte ne jouit d'aucun égard dans sa propre patrie (πατρí;ς)’ (iv. 44). Puis il enchaî;ne: ‘A son arrivée en Galilée, les Galiléens lui firent bon accueil: ils avaient vu tout ce qu'il avait fait à Jérusalem lors de la fête; car eux aussi étaient allés à la fête’ (iv. 45).

In an earlier article, ‘The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos’, I proposed that the prevailing explanations of the background and origin of the celebrated Logos concept/title of the Gospel of John are misguided in their attempts to trace the title to some extraneous source. I argued, rather, that the development of the christological title Logos had a beginning, middle, and end, and that this may be demonstrated from the Gospel and First Epistle themselves. Crucial to my argument was the chronological ordering of the three documents: the Gospel of John ‘proper’ (John 1.19–20.31), the First Epistle, and then the substance of the Prologue (John 1.1–18). The thesis itself, more specifically, was that (1) λóγoς and ρημα were employed in the Gospel ‘proper’ with a demonstrably ‘christological transparency’, (2) λóγoς was employed with a quasi-titular force in the first verses of 1 John, and (3) λóγoς reflects a full-fledged christological title in the Prologue material, which was composed still later. At the end of that article I suggested that a similar development could be traced in the case of the Johannine term αρχη´ – immediately related to λóγoς in the very first line of the Gospel – and that, if so, this would surely enhance my argument concerning λóγoς. Here I attempt to make the argument for a similar christological development of the Johannine αρχη´. Even aside from its relevance for my thesis about λóγoς, the prominent and recurring αρχη´ justifies the attention. And it does confront us, after all, with the majestic phrase with which the Gospel opens: ‘In the beginning’.

This article identifies a structural and conceptual chiasm within the description of Jesus' death and resurrection in Acts 2.23b-24, which helps to account for the distinctive elements of the passage.

The prima facie sense of the assertion of Hebrews 9.23 that the heavenly things themselves needed to be cleansed is often rejected as fantastic or preposterous. Consequently, the verse is often read as describing the cleansing of conscience or the inauguration, not purification, of the heavenly tabernacle. Both interpretations are critiqued here. Positively, this essay argues that in Heb 9.23 Christ's sacrifice cleanses the tabernacle in heaven from antecedent defilement in order to inaugurate the new covenant cult. I argue that the structure of 9.23–8 and the manner in which Hebrews appropriates both cult inauguration and Yom Kippur support this conclusion.

Traditionally, Pauline exegesis has tended to reduce the Judaism which the apostle encounters in his argumentation to a legalist and particularistic religion; a religion from which Paul would have distanced himself, inventing a Christianity of universal grace in his critique of the Torah. If the New Perspective on Paul allowed us to correct this legalistic reduction of Second Temple Judaism, by highlighting the dimension of election with the foundation of the covenant of Israel, the instigators of this exegetical programme have, however, assented to the hypothesis of a supersession of Jewish particularism by Christian universalism. Hence the critique voiced on this issue by the adherents of what is now called the Radical New Perspective. We are especially indebted to Denise Kimber Buell and Caroline Johnson Hodge for this wave of protest, for both authors identify the use of an ‘ethnic reasoning’ in the Pauline reworking of the Gentiles’ identity. While this critique deserves to be heard, the thesis of a logic of ethnicity and kinship at work under the pen of the apostle cannot be ratified without discussion, since it is not consistent with a rigorous examination of the letter to the Galatians. In that context, indeed, the discourse of identity is not mainly ethnic but anthropological and cosmological, since the believers – Jews quite as much as Gentiles – through baptism have to become not a ‘new people’ but rather a ‘new creation’ (Gal 6.15).