The historical reconstruction of biblical events represents a difficult and often speculative task, which is well demonstrated by the various scholarly attempts to understand the reform of Hezekiah and to establish defensible conclusions concerning its historicity. A wide range of scholarly opinion has grown out of fundamental disagreements concerning the accuracy and intent of the two biblical sources which describe Hezekiah's reform. The Deuteronomistic book of 2 Kings and the priestly-oriented later work of 2 Chronicles diverge mightily in their handling of Hezekiah's whole reign and especially the reform. In the early years of critical inquiry, the historicity of pre-Exilic events exclusively reported by the Chronicler was entirely dismissed in most circles. The description of Hezekiah's reform in the Book of Kings was dubbed “a mixture of the general and specific that does not inspire much confidence.” Consequently, it became fashionable to dismiss Hezekiah's religious changes as anachronisms inserted by later writers to parallel the reform of Josiah.

Process theology is generally defended in one or more of three ways: In some cases it is proposed as the only coherent and consistent way to satisfy the requirements of a constructive, systematic metaphysics. In other cases it is presented as the only way to avoid the fatal paradoxes inherent in the classical notion of an unchanging God. In still other cases it is urged as the only view compatible with the God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures and the Christian religious experience.

The first two considerations quite naturally exercise whatever appeal they have on minds of a certain philosophical bent and background. The third consideration is attractive to a far wider audience. For it seems to rest on a reading of the Scriptures and a lived religious experience shared by large numbers of people with limited philosophical interest or expertise.

Amongst the many incidental issues raised by J. T. Milik in his edition of the Aramaic fragments of Enoch from Qumran1 that of the date of the Parables of Enoch is perhaps one of the most important. Although there has never been anything approaching a consensus as to the exact date of this work, I would think it fair to say that many scholars in this century, if not the majority, have taken the view that the Parables are Jewish in origin; many have also argued that they date from before A.D. 70.2 Milik's view that the Parables are Christian and date from around A.D. 270 has such enormous implications for our understanding of the development of intertestamental Judaism and of the use of the term ‘Son of Man’ in the gospels that it demands very careful consideration. It also suggests that the evidence on which the Jewish origin and pre-A.D. 70 dating has been based needs to be re-examined.

The claim that all the virtues are somehow one is advanced in different ways by Socrates and Plato, by Plotinus and Augustine, and by Aquinas. The doctrine of the unity and the interconnection of the virtues is thus common to a number of major thinkers in both ancient and medieval philosophy. But it has hardly been a fashionable view in recent philosophy, and it is apt to seem paradoxical. The purpose of this essay is to indicate the structure of the doctrine as Augustine expounds it and to indicate its relevance to clarifying and making plausible certain other ethical doctrines in Augustine's thought.

The nadir of the Tridentine papacy occupied those years which spanned the dissolution of the Jesuit order in 1773 and the imprisonment of Pius VII by Napoleon from 1809 to 1814. The suspension of the Church's most distinguished organ of Ultramontane sentiment alleviated the further spread of Febronian or Josephist principles throughout the Netherlands and the German and even Italian sections of the Empire. Yet, Pius VI's concern with the Punctuation of Ems or the Synod of Pistoia paled in comparison with the challenge to spiritual and temporal papal authority contained in the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and other doctrines and consequences of the French Revolution.

II Cor. ii. 9, 12 betont Paulus den Korinthern gegenüber, daß er von ihnen bisher keine finanzielle Unterstützung angenommen habe und dieses Verhalten beizubehalten gedenke. Dies ist eine merkwürdige Absicht, zumal er doch sonst durchaus bereit war, Unterstützung anzunehmen, ja sic geradezu erwartete (vgl. Phil. 4. 10 if.). Der Frage nach dem Verhalten des Paulus bezüglich der Annahme bzw. Ablehnung von Unterstützung durch seine Gemeinden soil im folgenden nachgegangen werden.

Les recherches ont été nombreuses, depuis le début de ce siècle, sur l'arrière-plan sémitique du Pater. La plupart des critiques se sont orientés vers un original araméen, dont ils ont cherché à retrouver la littéralité derrière les deux recensions de la ‘Prière du Seigneur’ qu'ont transmises Matthieu (Mt. 6. 9–13) et Luc (Lc. ii. 2–4). On peut citer en ce sens les chefs de file du mouvement: G. Dalman, C. F. Burney, M. Black, J. Jeremias.1 Mais ils ont eu des contradicteurs, surtout depuis que les textes de Qumrân ont introduit un fait nouveau dans l'enquête sur les langues parlées en Palestine au temps de Jésus. L'hypothèse d'un original hébraïque a notamment été soutenue par J. Carmignac, dont les Recherches sur le ‘Notre Père’ sont une somme rarement égalée.2 Les deux exposés de G. Dalman et de J. Carmignac sont comparables, en quelque sorte, pour l'érudition qu'ils déploient en faveur de leurs thèses respectives: celle d'un original araméen chez Dalman, celle d'un original hébraïque chez Carmignac. Naturellement, des deux cotés, les arguments d'ordre général sur la langue de Jésus et la langue de la prière dans le Judéo-christianisme primitif occupent une large place pour fonder la thèse choisie. Je les laisserai ici de côté, car leur examen m'entraînerait trop loin. J'admets provisoirement comme possible l'existence d'une annonce de l'Évangile et d'une prière chrétienne en araméen et en hébreu. Pour opérer un choix entre les deux possibilités dans le cas du Pater, il faut en effet combiner l'étude critique des sémitismes qui s'y rencontrent et celle du cadre culturel dans lequel la prédication évangélique fut effectuée. Je m'en tiens pour l'instant au premier point seul.

Although it is widely agreed that the phylacteries mentioned in Matt 23:5 are tĕfîllîn, this equation has not gone entirely unquestioned. L. Blau stated that only the words těfîllâ (singular) and tĕfîllîn (plural) are used in Talmudic literature, and that conclusions based on the word phylacteries are without foundation, “since this name was not used in truly Jewish circles.” G. G. Fox argued that since Greek phylaktēria refers to charms or amulets, and since for the Pharisee the tĕfîllîn were truly spiritual symbols rather than magical amulets, Matthew's use of the term must be a misrepresentation, probably intentional, expressing his contempt for tĕfîllîn.